Thoughts on Responsible Gun Ownership...
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 58,579
Likes: 0
From: Lll
Originally Posted by brtecson
I think that all gun manufacturers should include something like this when they sell guns. Or at least with semiauto pistols... It was included with mine
.
i have one with my pistol. but i never use it. i have it in a lifevest.
h:
__________________
.
.
Professor
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
From: ...in your gf's pants
Originally Posted by benjamin
You can defend gun ownership as a priviledge, but it is not a right. Read the second amendment and try to understand the context in which it was drafted.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Hmm the right of the people. Now wouldn't these be the same people protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the 4th amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There was no police force nor a national or state military. The amendment begins "A well regulated militia." Does that not bring to mind uniforms and drills and a military code of conduct?
Arguing that there should be a priviledge extended to citizens who want to bear regulated arms is perfectly legitimate and reasonable, but building that argument on the second amendment doesn't make any sense. It is an untenable position.
http://www.archives.gov/national_arc...ranscript.html
http://www.archives.gov/national_arc...ranscript.html
The only untenable argument here is that the right to keep and bear arms is some kind of privilige. You, my friend, are a victim of the liberal brainwashing process.
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by CiviChik97
good to know, but i really don't think i was asking you.
this is a web forum. it doen't matter who you ask. you're going to get responses from multiple people. get over it.
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by v8guy
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Hmm the right of the people. Now wouldn't these be the same people protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the 4th amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
During that time period the "militia" consisted of every man capable of bearing arms, in other words every male between the ages of 14 and 45. These men could and did join up to form fighting forces. Basically like a volunteer fire department. This was a volunteer army of sorts, not one that could be used offensively, but one that could defend the country from tyranny. This included foreign invasions as well as internal threats to the liberty of the people. In other words, if the government got out of control (kind like it is now), the militia could rise up and revolt.
The only untenable argument here is that the right to keep and bear arms is some kind of privilige. You, my friend, are a victim of the liberal brainwashing process.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Hmm the right of the people. Now wouldn't these be the same people protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the 4th amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
During that time period the "militia" consisted of every man capable of bearing arms, in other words every male between the ages of 14 and 45. These men could and did join up to form fighting forces. Basically like a volunteer fire department. This was a volunteer army of sorts, not one that could be used offensively, but one that could defend the country from tyranny. This included foreign invasions as well as internal threats to the liberty of the people. In other words, if the government got out of control (kind like it is now), the militia could rise up and revolt.
The only untenable argument here is that the right to keep and bear arms is some kind of privilige. You, my friend, are a victim of the liberal brainwashing process.
Wannabe yuppie
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
So again, here is the full text of the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Let's look at this gramatically. While it's technically one sentence, the first portion says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The second half of the amendment says that in order to ensure the existence of a well regulated militia, the people should be allowed to bear arms.
Similar to my views on the applicability of religious texts to assorted issues (i.e. I'm a religious guy but it doesn't bug me so much that evolution and creationism don't jive), I feel that the Constitution was written to make sense at a specific point in time and needs to be interpreted such that it can remain applicable to the current situation.
The amendment says that a requirement for the security of a free state is a well regulated militia. In the year 2004 we have a well regulated militia, and it's called the National Guard. The population of our country is large enough such that not every single able-bodied man needs to be armed to the teeth to make sure the British (or if you're a Republican, that evil too-big federal government) don't try anything sneaky. So in my mind, really there is no constitutional need for regular civilians that are not in the National Guard to have any sort of armaments.
People can bring up stuff like home defense, personal security, whatever, but none of that is in the second amendment so none of it is a protected right. The security of a free state will not crumble if people get robbed due to lack of a home arsenal, because we have a magical concept called insurance whereby if you suffer loss or damage to your property you are able to obtain fiscal compensation.
And no, despite a bunch of antiquated conspiracy theories, the federal government is not going to roll into your town, city, county or state, take it over, and remove all remnants of sovereignty of that particular jurisdiction. So that justification doesn't hold water either.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Let's look at this gramatically. While it's technically one sentence, the first portion says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The second half of the amendment says that in order to ensure the existence of a well regulated militia, the people should be allowed to bear arms.
Similar to my views on the applicability of religious texts to assorted issues (i.e. I'm a religious guy but it doesn't bug me so much that evolution and creationism don't jive), I feel that the Constitution was written to make sense at a specific point in time and needs to be interpreted such that it can remain applicable to the current situation.
The amendment says that a requirement for the security of a free state is a well regulated militia. In the year 2004 we have a well regulated militia, and it's called the National Guard. The population of our country is large enough such that not every single able-bodied man needs to be armed to the teeth to make sure the British (or if you're a Republican, that evil too-big federal government) don't try anything sneaky. So in my mind, really there is no constitutional need for regular civilians that are not in the National Guard to have any sort of armaments.
People can bring up stuff like home defense, personal security, whatever, but none of that is in the second amendment so none of it is a protected right. The security of a free state will not crumble if people get robbed due to lack of a home arsenal, because we have a magical concept called insurance whereby if you suffer loss or damage to your property you are able to obtain fiscal compensation.
And no, despite a bunch of antiquated conspiracy theories, the federal government is not going to roll into your town, city, county or state, take it over, and remove all remnants of sovereignty of that particular jurisdiction. So that justification doesn't hold water either.
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
So again, here is the full text of the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Let's look at this gramatically. While it's technically one sentence, the first portion says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The second half of the amendment says that in order to ensure the existence of a well regulated militia, the people should be allowed to bear arms.
Similar to my views on the applicability of religious texts to assorted issues (i.e. I'm a religious guy but it doesn't bug me so much that evolution and creationism don't jive), I feel that the Constitution was written to make sense at a specific point in time and needs to be interpreted such that it can remain applicable to the current situation.
The amendment says that a requirement for the security of a free state is a well regulated militia. In the year 2004 we have a well regulated militia, and it's called the National Guard. The population of our country is large enough such that not every single able-bodied man needs to be armed to the teeth to make sure the British (or if you're a Republican, that evil too-big federal government) don't try anything sneaky. So in my mind, really there is no constitutional need for regular civilians that are not in the National Guard to have any sort of armaments.
People can bring up stuff like home defense, personal security, whatever, but none of that is in the second amendment so none of it is a protected right. The security of a free state will not crumble if people get robbed due to lack of a home arsenal, because we have a magical concept called insurance whereby if you suffer loss or damage to your property you are able to obtain fiscal compensation.
And no, despite a bunch of antiquated conspiracy theories, the federal government is not going to roll into your town, city, county or state, take it over, and remove all remnants of sovereignty of that particular jurisdiction. So that justification doesn't hold water either.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Let's look at this gramatically. While it's technically one sentence, the first portion says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The second half of the amendment says that in order to ensure the existence of a well regulated militia, the people should be allowed to bear arms.
Similar to my views on the applicability of religious texts to assorted issues (i.e. I'm a religious guy but it doesn't bug me so much that evolution and creationism don't jive), I feel that the Constitution was written to make sense at a specific point in time and needs to be interpreted such that it can remain applicable to the current situation.
The amendment says that a requirement for the security of a free state is a well regulated militia. In the year 2004 we have a well regulated militia, and it's called the National Guard. The population of our country is large enough such that not every single able-bodied man needs to be armed to the teeth to make sure the British (or if you're a Republican, that evil too-big federal government) don't try anything sneaky. So in my mind, really there is no constitutional need for regular civilians that are not in the National Guard to have any sort of armaments.
People can bring up stuff like home defense, personal security, whatever, but none of that is in the second amendment so none of it is a protected right. The security of a free state will not crumble if people get robbed due to lack of a home arsenal, because we have a magical concept called insurance whereby if you suffer loss or damage to your property you are able to obtain fiscal compensation.
And no, despite a bunch of antiquated conspiracy theories, the federal government is not going to roll into your town, city, county or state, take it over, and remove all remnants of sovereignty of that particular jurisdiction. So that justification doesn't hold water either.
that's pretty self explanatory. you and MM should team up.. you both get your rhetoric the same way it seems