|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 25, 2013 13:10:13 GMT -5
@badnews: the guns originate somewhere. many blackmarket guns are acquired through people stealing, i'd imagine the majority. Still illegally obtained though. That's my point, man. Let's say guns are banned. They're no longer available in stores. Now to me, that's the difference between two hoods robbing a gun shop on the corner in the inner city, and a team of criminals, willing to kill, robbing a factory where weapons are made for other usage. i don't see how you made that jump. and yes, blackmarket weapons are an issue without question, i'm not sure where you're going with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Jan 25, 2013 13:13:07 GMT -5
Still illegally obtained though. That's my point, man. Let's say guns are banned. They're no longer available in stores. Now to me, that's the difference between two hoods robbing a gun shop on the corner in the inner city, and a team of criminals, willing to kill, robbing a factory where weapons are made for other usage. i don't see how you made that jump. and yes, blackmarket weapons are an issue without question, i'm not sure where you're going with that. My point with that was that they are a bigger issue than the so called "gun control" that our country is attempting to impose up it's people. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 25, 2013 13:13:51 GMT -5
If someone is willing to kill for food then they won't need a gun. They will use a knife or their bare hands. yes, but a gun obviously makes murder much more of a possibility and extremely heightens how dangerous one is. 20 hungry people without guns would be a lot  ing crazier if it was 20 hungry people WITH guns. avoidance of this fact confuses me. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 25, 2013 13:14:56 GMT -5
i don't see how you made that jump. and yes, blackmarket weapons are an issue without question, i'm not sure where you're going with that. My point with that was that they are a bigger issue than the so called "gun control" that our country is attempting to impose up it's people. fair enough, but i throw them both under the same bus, a result of the same issues. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 25, 2013 13:21:34 GMT -5
car accidents are an unfortunate result to a great service that cars provide. when people are in car accidents, it’s a sad result of an accident. cars functions are not to crash. guns functions are to shoot, and furthermore, kill. every day life would not suffer from guns being removed from the equation, cars would detrimentally affect us. i feel this point is driven into the ground (no pun intended), cars and guns are simply not the same argument at all and is a bad attempt at justifying a huge issue. that's exactly my point. you have proven yourselves incapable as a whole of properly defending yourself with guns, the rest of the world can see it but of course, just as there was with health care, there's some old americana 'screw with me i'll kick your ass' balogna mentality that withhold most from realizing this. americans feel so justified, they don't expect but demand these rights, and don't truly care if it's a detriment to their own people and nation. they just think 'i don't misuse it, so i'm exempted.' america is a gun loving nation, plain and simple, and it suffers for it. and it and it's people's arrogance will never allow itself to understand another possible perspective, cuz it's america and they got their rights. it's pathetic, really. here in canada we don't have that mentality of being afraid of people around you, we don't feel paranoid about people breaking into our homes, a lot of us don't even lock our doors...ever. it's a better way to live undoubtedly, but of course we're the ones who somehow have it wrong, right? exactly my point: justification of a paranoid nation through 'the right to defend.' Why are we focusing on the object and not the person that does the killing? We shouldn't be discussing ways to regulate or get rid of ways that people kill (cars, guns, knives, etc), we should be working on making sure people don't have that frame of mind to cause intentional harm on someone. Every day life would be impacted by banning all guns. How is someone to protect themselves from others that burst into their house with guns? How are they going to protect their country from abuse of powers or invasion by a foreign power? Why should someone's rights be taken away if they don't, in your words, misuse them? What's your solution? "Screw with me and well I'm not going to defend myself so continue screwing with me" We've had the right to bear arms since the beginning. For over 200 years, so of course people are going to demand they be able to exercise their right. Yes, we are a gun loving nation. Yeah, rights are pathetic. Who needs rights? I'm not saying you are wrong for feeling safe without guns. I'm saying your wrong for telling us we can't have guns. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 25, 2013 13:23:51 GMT -5
If someone is willing to kill for food then they won't need a gun. They will use a knife or their bare hands. yes, but a gun obviously makes murder much more of a possibility and extremely heightens how dangerous one is. 20 hungry people without guns would be a lot ing crazier if it was 20 hungry people WITH guns. avoidance of this fact confuses me. 1 crazy person with a car to run down 19 other hungry people to get food. But we are talking about a scenario that will not happen in our lifetime so what's the use in discussing it? We aren't going to turn into some wild free for all where everybody is pitted against everybody else and the only way to survive is to eliminate those around you. Not going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Jan 25, 2013 13:28:58 GMT -5
Well sort of. The first part of the 2nd amendment is often ignored. There's 3 important words in there "regulated, militia and state". Pretty sure we are not utilizing the 2nd amendment correctly. State is not your own house, belongings or personal well being but that's the common incentive for people to want guns. Militia is not a band of hunters or personal hobby. I do agree that in that roll guns are essential, but still that crap was written at a time where they just won their freedom by having militias due to the fact they didn't have much of an army, they needed people to step up and help fight for freedom. Not only that but there was so much unexplored territory they viewed it as important to keep enemy at bay. A lot has changed since then, if crap goes down I have a hard time believing people are going to band together for a common good to fight tyranny. No, people are going to kill other people for survival. Were gonna kill on another for food and rations and there isn't a gun big enough to deter a starving person from wanting to kill another man for food. The amendment isn't saying only militias can have guns. It's saying the people have the right to bear arms and should need be, band together into well regulated militias (the militias are regulated not the people's right to bear arms) to fight off tyrannical forces that would infringe on our ability to remain a free country. If someone is willing to kill for food then they won't need a gun. They will use a knife or their bare hands. What? It doesn't say "should need be" There's a precursor to "peoples rights to bear arms". "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." This is saying that militias are necessary to the security of a free state which is only attainable by allowing the populous to bear arms. It says nothing about any other reason why the people can have guns and it says nothing about what kind, who can, ect. There's no specifics other than militias being important to the security of a free state which again has nothing to do with personal use of guns. The last line about people not needing guns for food I don't get. It almost contradicts every reason you ever gave about why need guns but that's neither no there. They're going to do what's in their power eat. A lot of people have guns, killings are going to be prevalent and necessary to acquire what one needs and there's no quicker and easier way to do than with a gun. Isn't that why gun advocates want guns to being with? Because it's easier? |
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Jan 25, 2013 13:34:53 GMT -5
No. They want guns because they like them.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 25, 2013 13:45:28 GMT -5
The amendment isn't saying only militias can have guns. It's saying the people have the right to bear arms and should need be, band together into well regulated militias (the militias are regulated not the people's right to bear arms) to fight off tyrannical forces that would infringe on our ability to remain a free country. If someone is willing to kill for food then they won't need a gun. They will use a knife or their bare hands. What? It doesn't say "should need be" There's a precursor to "peoples rights to bear arms". "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." This is saying that militias are necessary to the security of a free state which is only attainable by allowing the populous to bear arms. It says nothing about any other reason why the people can have guns and it says nothing about what kind, who can, ect. There's no specifics other than militias being important to the security of a free state which again has nothing to do with personal use of guns. The last line about people not needing guns for food I don't get. It almost contradicts every reason you ever gave about why need guns but that's neither no there. They're going to do what's in their power eat. A lot of people have guns, killings are going to be prevalent and necessary to acquire what one needs and there's no quicker and easier way to do than with a gun. Isn't that why gun advocates want guns to being with? Because it's easier? There is no comma after militia or one after arms. I think that is where people get confused. It's "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." It's just saying something the people who bear arms can do. I don't think they needed to add provisions in to say "you can use your arms to do X, Y and Z including shooting people to get food." One of the duties of the people who bear arms is to form a militia should the freedom of the state come under attack. The first amendment doesn't specify free speech on television or the internet. I guess the government can censor it all they want. No need to fight SOPA or ACTA since the government has the right to do so since the first amendment doesn't specify the internet. Why are anti-gun people so focused on "OMG a person is using a gun to defend themselves or to save their life" instead of finding out and treating the causes of why a person would be in that situation in the first place. Why would someone need to break into another person's house to steal something? Why would society decay to the point that people would need to kill each other to eat? They don't focus on those questions. They'd rather focus on why someone, who is law abiding, needs a gun. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 25, 2013 13:54:42 GMT -5
both should be focused on. an object made FOR KILLING.
both are important, but cars and knives have very specific every day use and are not as easily applicable to criminal behaviour as a gun, which i'm sure you'll disagree with but i believe to be true. a car cannot hold up a bank, a knife would be far less sufficient than a gun.
that's every day life? lol
protective measures could be taken for all you mentioned, rather as valid or not (that's opinion) as gun protection. still, not in the least every day life.
here is a sensational way of thinking: for the overall good of your nation. for less needless deaths. to break the focus of gun culture that so thickly exists.
how about 'call the cops'. you're not even getting my stance here, i'm not against guns, i'm against that pro violenece americana where you are basically desiring that scenario...you WANT to shoot these people because its your god-given right. it is this prevalent mindset that i believe is a inhibiter of progress in america.
We've had the right to bear arms since the beginning. For over 200 years, so of course people are going to demand they be able to exercise their right.
yep.
a lot of your supposed 'rights' are pathetic and its also pathetic where there is a lack thereof. it goes back to what i said before, people put these outdated 'rights' for themselves infront of their concern for their fellow man.
and i could not disagree more. as you said, let's not focus on the object. it's the degraded gun culture that needs a bullet, and american's engrained sense of entitlement. you ruined it for each other.
i don't feel like going round n round, the roommates are havinga kegger tonight so i better tie all my posessions down. slappy, well defended as always, but we don't see the same side on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 25, 2013 14:22:01 GMT -5
both should be focused on. an object made FOR KILLING. both are important, but cars and knives have very specific every day use and are not as easily applicable to criminal behaviour as a gun, which i'm sure you'll disagree with but i believe to be true. a car cannot hold up a bank, a knife would be far less sufficient than a gun. that's every day life? lol protective measures could be taken for all you mentioned, rather as valid or not (that's opinion) as gun protection. still, not in the least every day life. here is a sensational way of thinking: for the overall good of your nation. for less needless deaths. to break the focus of gun culture that so thickly exists. how about 'call the cops'. you're not even getting my stance here, i'm not against guns, i'm against that pro violenece americana where you are basically desiring that scenario...you WANT to shoot these people because its your god-given right. it is this prevalent mindset that i believe is a inhibiter of progress in america. We've had the right to bear arms since the beginning. For over 200 years, so of course people are going to demand they be able to exercise their right. yep. a lot of your supposed 'rights' are pathetic and its also pathetic where there is a lack thereof. it goes back to what i said before, people put these outdated 'rights' for themselves infront of their concern for their fellow man. and i could not disagree more. as you said, let's not focus on the object. it's the degraded gun culture that needs a bullet, and american's engrained sense of entitlement. you ruined it for each other. i don't feel like going round n round, the roommates are havinga kegger tonight so i better tie all my posessions down. slappy, well defended as always, but we don't see the same side on this one. You say it's made for killing but that is not what law abiding gun owners use them for. Will they though if the terrible situation ever arises? Yes, but they won't go out of their way to kill. They will only shoot someone if they are being harmed. They would use it as defense not offense like you claim they would. More crime (murder is a crime, hit and runs are a crime, etc) is committed with cars than guns. I've already said that but for some reason you think guns are worse when it comes to the amount of illegal doings. You don't need a gun to hold up a bank. I don't know how often someone goes target shooting, I don't know how often someone's neighborhood sees a rash of break ins, I don't know how often someone goes hunting. But for some people, yes, they are every day occurrences. So you'd rather someone let a criminal (most likely with a gun themselves) roam inside their house, maybe even kill them than letting the home owner have a gun? The police can't help instantly. If a woman is about to be raped, two shots are all it takes to get him off. You'd rather let her get raped than let her carry a gun to protect herself all because you'd rather the police deal with it? Why should some authority figures have guns but not law abiding citizens? I mean authority figures would never intentionally harm those law abiding citizens. The law abiding citizens would never need to defend themselves from those authority figures. I don't think anyone wants to shoot someone. If you want to shoot someone, I think you have an imbalance somewhere. The law abiding citizen would only shoot to protect themselves. I highly doubt they would take pleasure in ending another person's life. But of course we are acting as if every time someone gets shot they die. That's not the case. So burglars don't have to die. They can be shot, wounded but still alive. People here like to help voluntarily. They don't like being forced to help, having their money taken from them against their will. The programs that they fund, involuntarily, are not always run right or efficiently. Why does a bad guy get to ruin it for the rest of us? Why not punish the criminal instead of the entire population? |
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Jan 25, 2013 14:23:34 GMT -5
What? It doesn't say "should need be" There's a precursor to "peoples rights to bear arms". "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." This is saying that militias are necessary to the security of a free state which is only attainable by allowing the populous to bear arms. It says nothing about any other reason why the people can have guns and it says nothing about what kind, who can, ect. There's no specifics other than militias being important to the security of a free state which again has nothing to do with personal use of guns. The last line about people not needing guns for food I don't get. It almost contradicts every reason you ever gave about why need guns but that's neither no there. They're going to do what's in their power eat. A lot of people have guns, killings are going to be prevalent and necessary to acquire what one needs and there's no quicker and easier way to do than with a gun. Isn't that why gun advocates want guns to being with? Because it's easier? There is no comma after militia or one after arms. I think that is where people get confused. It's "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." It's just saying something the people who bear arms can do. I don't think they needed to add provisions in to say "you can use your arms to do X, Y and Z including shooting people to get food." One of the duties of the people who bear arms is to form a militia should the freedom of the state come under attack. The first amendment doesn't specify free speech on television or the internet. I guess the government can censor it all they want. No need to fight SOPA or ACTA since the government has the right to do so since the first amendment doesn't specify the internet. Why are anti-gun people so focused on "OMG a person is using a gun to defend themselves or to save their life" instead of finding out and treating the causes of why a person would be in that situation in the first place. Why would someone need to break into another person's house to steal something? Why would society decay to the point that people would need to kill each other to eat? They don't focus on those questions. They'd rather focus on why someone, who is law abiding, needs a gun. There's no confusion other than people ignoring why we have the 2nd amendment. Listen, the 2nd amendment exists for the very reason stated in the amendment. It was put there for the reason and that reason isn't to use guns for any reason we see fit. It has everything to do with the precursor otherwise it wouldn't be an amendment. There would be no incentive or conclusion to make based on just being able to have guns otherwise wouldn't be an amendment. It was chosen #2 for the importance of keeping our nation secure, that's the purpose. That was the belief back then, and that belief existed because of how we attained our freedom. Militias were vital to our security back then. There are no other specifics to why we are allowed to have guns. That's the only one that exists and the only reason why it's there. That's not why Jo Blo buys a gun now. Jo Blo doesn't acquire a weapon because he feels someday we might be invaded and he'll need to band together and form a well regulated militia. He buys guns for hunting, for a hobby or to protect his own personal well being against other fellow citizens. People can spin it anyway they want to because it is rather vague other than the 1st line of the amendment. It doesn't say criminals shouldn't be allowed to have guns and yet nobody believes that should be true. It doesn't state anywhere that we can't ban certain guns either, in theory we could ban every gun but one and it would still be in tact. My theory is that the idea for using guns in that manner is long gone. I don't believe that we'll ever see the day where we are defending our nation as one again. It's my opinion that when hell breaks loose, we'll be killing each other for survival and yes there will be a lot of guns. If criminals use guns because they have reached the point of their lives where they feel it is necessary to kill and steal for survival, I don't know why that wouldn't apply if our country was ripped in half. If we agree that impoverished areas breed violence and those people are figuratively starving why wouldn't others who seek to survive not use guns? Are they going to use bats, hands, ect? Sure, but they'll also be the 1st ones dead. |
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Jan 25, 2013 14:36:20 GMT -5
I'm not saying you are wrong for feeling safe without guns. I'm saying your wrong for telling us we can't have guns. Do you even have a gun? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 25, 2013 14:56:08 GMT -5
There is no comma after militia or one after arms. I think that is where people get confused. It's "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." It's just saying something the people who bear arms can do. I don't think they needed to add provisions in to say "you can use your arms to do X, Y and Z including shooting people to get food." One of the duties of the people who bear arms is to form a militia should the freedom of the state come under attack. The first amendment doesn't specify free speech on television or the internet. I guess the government can censor it all they want. No need to fight SOPA or ACTA since the government has the right to do so since the first amendment doesn't specify the internet. Why are anti-gun people so focused on "OMG a person is using a gun to defend themselves or to save their life" instead of finding out and treating the causes of why a person would be in that situation in the first place. Why would someone need to break into another person's house to steal something? Why would society decay to the point that people would need to kill each other to eat? They don't focus on those questions. They'd rather focus on why someone, who is law abiding, needs a gun. There's no confusion other than people ignoring why we have the 2nd amendment. Listen, the 2nd amendment exists for the very reason stated in the amendment. It was put there for the reason and that reason isn't to use guns for any reason we see fit. It has everything to do with the precursor otherwise it wouldn't be an amendment. There would be no incentive or conclusion to make based on just being able to have guns otherwise wouldn't be an amendment. It was chosen #2 for the importance of keeping our nation secure, that's the purpose. That was the belief back then, and that belief existed because of how we attained our freedom. Militias were vital to our security back then. There are no other specifics to why we are allowed to have guns. That's the only one that exists and the only reason why it's there. That's not why Jo Blo buys a gun now. Jo Blo doesn't acquire a weapon because he feels someday we might be invaded and he'll need to band together and form a well regulated militia. He buys guns for hunting, for a hobby or to protect his own personal well being against other fellow citizens. People can spin it anyway they want to because it is rather vague other than the 1st line of the amendment. It doesn't say criminals shouldn't be allowed to have guns and yet nobody believes that should be true. It doesn't state anywhere that we can't ban certain guns either, in theory we could ban every gun but one and it would still be in tact. My theory is that the idea for using guns in that manner is long gone. I don't believe that we'll ever see the day where we are defending our nation as one again. It's my opinion that when hell breaks loose, we'll be killing each other for survival and yes there will be a lot of guns. If criminals use guns because they have reached the point of their lives where they feel it is necessary to kill and steal for survival, I don't know why that wouldn't apply if our country was ripped in half. If we agree that impoverished areas breed violence and those people are figuratively starving why wouldn't others who seek to survive not use guns? Are they going to use bats, hands, ect? Sure, but they'll also be the 1st ones dead. The Constitution also doesn't say the government can't ban dogs. But then you get to the 10th amendment and anything that is not in the Constitution is left up to the states. That means even if the second amendment meant only to use guns in a militia the federal government could not do anything about other gun uses. It doesn't say so that means each state is free to make up their own gun laws. However, the Supreme Court in DC v Heller confirmed the second amendment allows the right to bear arms for defense (such as getting rid of people that try and do you harm). The Supreme Court later ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the second amendment applies to the states as well under the 14th amendment. That means states cannot ban guns that are used for purposes of defense either. You don't think we'll need to raise up arms against our own government? Look up Ruby Ridge and Waco. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 25, 2013 14:56:44 GMT -5
I'm not saying you are wrong for feeling safe without guns. I'm saying your wrong for telling us we can't have guns. Do you even have a gun? By we I meant Americans. Sorry for the confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Jan 25, 2013 17:11:26 GMT -5
There's no confusion other than people ignoring why we have the 2nd amendment. Listen, the 2nd amendment exists for the very reason stated in the amendment. It was put there for the reason and that reason isn't to use guns for any reason we see fit. It has everything to do with the precursor otherwise it wouldn't be an amendment. There would be no incentive or conclusion to make based on just being able to have guns otherwise wouldn't be an amendment. It was chosen #2 for the importance of keeping our nation secure, that's the purpose. That was the belief back then, and that belief existed because of how we attained our freedom. Militias were vital to our security back then. There are no other specifics to why we are allowed to have guns. That's the only one that exists and the only reason why it's there. That's not why Jo Blo buys a gun now. Jo Blo doesn't acquire a weapon because he feels someday we might be invaded and he'll need to band together and form a well regulated militia. He buys guns for hunting, for a hobby or to protect his own personal well being against other fellow citizens. People can spin it anyway they want to because it is rather vague other than the 1st line of the amendment. It doesn't say criminals shouldn't be allowed to have guns and yet nobody believes that should be true. It doesn't state anywhere that we can't ban certain guns either, in theory we could ban every gun but one and it would still be in tact. My theory is that the idea for using guns in that manner is long gone. I don't believe that we'll ever see the day where we are defending our nation as one again. It's my opinion that when hell breaks loose, we'll be killing each other for survival and yes there will be a lot of guns. If criminals use guns because they have reached the point of their lives where they feel it is necessary to kill and steal for survival, I don't know why that wouldn't apply if our country was ripped in half. If we agree that impoverished areas breed violence and those people are figuratively starving why wouldn't others who seek to survive not use guns? Are they going to use bats, hands, ect? Sure, but they'll also be the 1st ones dead. The Constitution also doesn't say the government can't ban dogs. But then you get to the 10th amendment and anything that is not in the Constitution is left up to the states. That means even if the second amendment meant only to use guns in a militia the federal government could not do anything about other gun uses. It doesn't say so that means each state is free to make up their own gun laws. However, the Supreme Court in DC v Heller confirmed the second amendment allows the right to bear arms for defense (such as getting rid of people that try and do you harm). The Supreme Court later ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the second amendment applies to the states as well under the 14th amendment. That means states cannot ban guns that are used for purposes of defense either. You don't think we'll need to raise up arms against our own government? Look up Ruby Ridge and Waco. It's a modern interpretation of what our view of the 2nd amendment has ultimately evolved into. A different supreme court might view it differently because nowhere does the 2nd amendment state anything regarding self-defense. It can also be argued that the president has the right to ban certain guns. He is the acting head of the military and since it is within the constitutional amendment that "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" and the president under article 2 section 2. has this power "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States" he can regulate the militia as he sees fits. If that means he deems certain guns unnecessary to the role of a militia than he can order them not to use those weapons. State law need not apply. Miller vs the United states is indication that there are no specifics within the 2nd amendment and ruled that "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Part of the problem is the constitution. I'm not a guy who thinks we need to uphold every little thing that comes around. The constitution is left to too many interpretations and were left trying to figure out what a bunch of pantaloons wig wearing revolutionaries were thinking when they drafted it. It's as flawed as a piece of governing law that's ever existed because if it wasn't everything wouldn't be constantly shrouded in controversy. |
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jan 25, 2013 17:33:09 GMT -5
I do find the fact that the constitution hasn't been amended since 1992 to be outlandishly ridiculous. The world has changed so much in just the last 40 years, that even something written 40 years ago wouldn't be appropriate for today's environment. A lot of the principles are still valid, but I find the lack of progress in our constitution, government, and legal system to be so ridiculously awful it makes my brain want to explode.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 25, 2013 17:47:14 GMT -5
The Constitution also doesn't say the government can't ban dogs. But then you get to the 10th amendment and anything that is not in the Constitution is left up to the states. That means even if the second amendment meant only to use guns in a militia the federal government could not do anything about other gun uses. It doesn't say so that means each state is free to make up their own gun laws. However, the Supreme Court in DC v Heller confirmed the second amendment allows the right to bear arms for defense (such as getting rid of people that try and do you harm). The Supreme Court later ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the second amendment applies to the states as well under the 14th amendment. That means states cannot ban guns that are used for purposes of defense either. You don't think we'll need to raise up arms against our own government? Look up Ruby Ridge and Waco. It's a modern interpretation of what our view of the 2nd amendment has ultimately evolved into. A different supreme court might view it differently because nowhere does the 2nd amendment state anything regarding self-defense. It can also be argued that the president has the right to ban certain guns. He is the acting head of the military and since it is within the constitutional amendment that "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" and the president under article 2 section 2. has this power "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States" he can regulate the militia as he sees fits. If that means he deems certain guns unnecessary to the role of a militia than he can order them not to use those weapons. State law need not apply. Miller vs the United states is indication that there are no specifics within the 2nd amendment and ruled that "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Part of the problem is the constitution. I'm not a guy who thinks we need to uphold every little thing that comes around. The constitution is left to too many interpretations and were left trying to figure out what a bunch of pantaloons wig wearing revolutionaries were thinking when they drafted it. It's as flawed as a piece of governing law that's ever existed because if it wasn't everything wouldn't be constantly shrouded in controversy. Well the President can tell the military to stop using weapons any time he likes. But any militia that is going to stop government overreach isn't going to listen to his decree. He does not however have the right to ban guns for individual use. US v Miller is a strange case because Miller never had his side represented before the Supreme Court so the court just accepted the US's arguments. The court said there was no proof that shotguns were used in war so they could be banned. Of course, as I said, Miller's side wasn't there to dispute that when, in fact, during WW2 shotguns were used. The National Firearms Act was ruled to be constitutional only on the ground that the shotgun was sent to a different state and therefore could be regulated by interstate commerce. It didn't hear any challenge that the law itself violated the second amendment, they only heard the case that it was unconstitutional to ban the sale of a gun from one state to another without it being registered. Heller - "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment." |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 25, 2013 17:48:18 GMT -5
I do find the fact that the constitution hasn't been amended since 1992 to be outlandishly ridiculous. The world has changed so much in just the last 40 years, that even something written 40 years ago wouldn't be appropriate for today's environment. A lot of the principles are still valid, but I find the lack of progress in our constitution, government, and legal system to be so ridiculously awful it makes my brain want to explode. And that amendment only had to do with Congressional pay. |
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jan 25, 2013 17:56:35 GMT -5
I do find the fact that the constitution hasn't been amended since 1992 to be outlandishly ridiculous. The world has changed so much in just the last 40 years, that even something written 40 years ago wouldn't be appropriate for today's environment. A lot of the principles are still valid, but I find the lack of progress in our constitution, government, and legal system to be so ridiculously awful it makes my brain want to explode. And that amendment only had to do with Congressional pay. I know. And it took like almost a century to be ratified I think. It's just preposterous to me. And listening to people argue over their interpretations of it is silly when in reality in a lot of ways it barely even relates to modern society much like most holy books. And they are both anchors holding back real progress and evolution. |
|
