Right to bear arms

Thanks

Well, what would you like to discuss? I believe Clinton mentioned on Letterman awhile back that a ban on assualt weapons is going to expire very soon, and it is unlikely that Bush will renew it. I'm not sure if he said what he thought Kerry would do with it if he was president because I heard about the news secondhand.

I personally would not like to see the assualt weapons ban lifted. I know a lot of people (including the NRA) oppose almost any kind of gun control because technically the second amendment doesn't specify any circumstances where the government can prohibit the possession of weapons.

However, I honestly don't believe that assault weapons are necessary for ordinary citizens to have. The purpose of these weapons is to, well, assualt. More specifically, to assualt people. What use do we have for these? These guns are used in war. People mostly own guns for gaming and hunting. Do we really need assualt weapons to hunt a deer?

I do believe that the American people should be able to own guns, even though I never will. However, there should be limitations on the types weapons allowed. We can do all the background checks in the world, but that won't stop someone from recklessly turning a gun on another in a sudden bout of anger. Why give the public guns that are only most practical for killing people?

I agree completley. Anyways, although the 2nd ammendment does state that people have the right to bear arms, it also says, unless im not understanding it, that they can do this because it is nesicary for the protection of a free state. That leads me to believe that a state military can have arms, and ordinary citizens can have arms, but only to an extent as to protect oneself or onestate. Furthermore, it specifically states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. By limiting what kind of arms people may bear you are not infringing upon ones right to bear arms, just their right to bear certain arms that are only ussed for sensless slayings and massacres by terrorists and criminals. There is no need for an assult weapon except by criminals. You certainly wouldnt go hunting with a sub machine gun.

sandy2 says : "you are not infringing upon ones right to bear arms, just their right to bear certain arms"

The framers of the Constitution were not dumb, they did not mean anything except exactly what they said, since when does infringing on someones right to bear certain arms, not fall under the catagory of infringing ones right to carry arms -period? The Constitution is not like the bible, there are no interpretations of it, it is meant to be read and taken literally. You can't pretend to be able to enter the minds of the framers and decide that what they really meant to say was "this law does apply to this situation, but not to this situation" just because in your mind it shouldn't. This is a free country and there are certain consequences that come with the territory. Living in a free country is sometimes good and sometimes bad, but not living in a free country is always bad

doh! sorry for the yellow post, was an accident

this is the same as reply #4, but easier on the eyes


sandy2 says : "you are not infringing upon ones right to bear arms, just their right to bear certain arms"

The framers of the Constitution were not dumb, they did not mean anything except exactly what they said, since when does infringing on someones right to bear certain arms, not fall under the catagory of infringing ones right to carry arms -period? The Constitution is not like the bible, there are no interpretations of it, it is meant to be read and taken literally. You can't pretend to be able to enter the minds of the framers and decide that what they really meant to say was "this law does apply to this situation, but not to this situation" just because in your mind it shouldn't. This is a free country and there are certain consequences that come with the territory. Living in a free country is sometimes good and sometimes bad, but not living in a free country is always bad

The Constitution is not like the bible, there are no interpretations of it, it is meant to be read and taken literally.

Um... I think the Supreme Court and every court in the United States would take issue with that. They do indeed interpret the constitution.

However, I honestly don't believe that assault weapons are necessary for ordinary citizens to have. The purpose of these weapons is to, well, assualt. More specifically, to assualt people. What use do we have for these? These guns are used in war. People mostly own guns for gaming and hunting. Do we really need assualt weapons to hunt a deer?

The 2nd amendment wasn't written to preserve the rights of deer hunters. To understand it, you must see it in its historical context.

In colonial America, it was forbidden to operate even a FORGE. Even the most rudimentary farming implements, if made of metal, were to be procured from Britain. The purpose of this was to prevent us from making weapons that could be used against the British.

The founding fathers recognized the necessity of the populace to be a potential threat to a tyrannous government. It was part of their checks and balance system, e.g., that the PEOPLE checked the government if the government became malicious. We can see this thought echoed in the writings of Thomas Paine and of Jefferson himself.

I live in an area where "open carry" is the norm; that is, you will see citizens with guns holstered at their hip. Violent crime is ridiculously low here (almost nonexistent), and you never hear of a kid accidentally blowing off his head or that of a friend.

What proponents of the Bill of Rights often fail to understand is, if you F%$# with one facet of the Bill of Rights, the integrity of the rest are suspect as well.

The job of the courts is (supposed to be) to review laws and decide wether they are constitutional or not, not to interpret the constitution itself. Unfortunatley, it doesnt alway work how it is supposed to. There are many who believe that the constitutuion can have things read into it, and of course they read into it whatever benefits thier personal belief, even more unfortunately, alot of these people hold offices of power in this Country.

Of course, there is the whole "well-ordered militia" thing...

If a militia is:

"civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army" or "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers."

then how can someone who DOESN'T fit this criteria, claim they are protected by the Second Amendment?

personally would not like to see the assualt weapons ban lifted.

I agree. Those is designed to kill a lot of people. Bad idea to sell to anyone who may use em just for that. Guns still can kill people, but in least not lots at once.

im personally very pleased the founding fathers acknowledged our right to bear shoulder launched assault rockets. 

and since rights are not established by government (since they wouldnt be rights otherwise) in the constitution, but rather acknowledged and upheld, and are also universal, its good to see the people of iraq have so quickly and enthusiastically exercised their right to do the same.

Will you agree that the circumstances at the time when the constitution was written do not exsist today (for expample, since there are laws against killing people except in self defense, any uprising by the people with weapons would be illegal to begin with). Are you further suggesting that what is happening in Iraq is a good thing? I do believe there is a word for those people in Iraq, and its not a militia. Its terrorists. Car bombs? Killing civilians? Thats not a milita. Stated already have well regulated militas, there national gaurds. And they are allowed to to have weapons, and use those weapons. For you to use an assult weapon in any way other than self defense would be illegal, and if you can present me with a time when any one person has defended themself with an assult weapon, and they could not have defended themselves with a pistol or normal rifle, I would like to see that. Some people say that all guns should be banned, but I don't agree. If anyone has a gun (including a criminal) then I should also have the ability to have one to defend myself. This does not apply to shoulder launched assult rockets. You do not defend yourself with such things. You shoot down helicopters and airplanes with such things. And the founding fathers couldn't have acknowledged your right to bear such assult weapons as are now commonplace because they did not exsist.

The framers of the Constitution were not dumb

I agree, and as such they would now be able to see that you DO NOT defend yourself with the weapons of terrorists.

i dont at all approve of the insanity thats going on in iraq. however its very possible that al sadr's militia is exactly what was intended by the authors of the bill of rights in that theyre defending their homeland against an occupying foreign army. (just as you or i might do in the same situation.)   nevertheless, theres no definition of what type of arm citizens are entitled to bear.   ill waive my right to a slaw....as long as i can have an m-79

I think we should just ban all guns. In certain countries, like Japan, guns are illegal, and the murder rates are significantly lower than in the U.S. And did you all hear about this new debate? Some gun nuts want to use armor piercing rounds for hunting! What? Did the deer suddenly buy bulletproof armor? It's absolutely insane how today's America is focused on it's guns.

kingbee. you have failed to indicate to me your need for such a weapon. Banning all guns in unconstitutional, banning certain guns is not. Unless another amendment is made, the federal goverment can not ban weapons. Is a single state capable of banning the sale of assult type weapons? For example, could they pass a law saying any company with sharholders in x-state can not make, market or sell such weapons.

the states dont have the power--any more than the federal government--to suspend or rescind a right.   rights arent granted by the constitution.   they are natural or inherent by virtue of being human.  the constitution is a document in which the government recognizes they exist and agrees to protect the rights of each person.  the 2nd amendment doesnt say i need to have a weapon.  it doesnt say i have a right to a firearm for that matter.  it says i have a right to bear arms.   a battleaxe is an armament as is a sword or a dagger.  or a dirty bomb

If you can't explain to me your need to have such armament, then maybe it is time for an ammendment to the constitution banning certain weapons.

In order to defend yourself properly you need to possess an equal means of defense, if , by the right to keep and bear arms, the framers meant to protect oneself and ones state, you need more than a pellet gun and a small caliber pistol to defend yourself from the enemies of our state today

Who are the enimes of your state, and doesn't the police department and the national gaurd protect your state?

Its important that people have the right to own weapons, and not just for hunting, but for legitimate protection of their person and property. Although we have to draw the line somewhere, I think that there are some reasonable cases where assault weapons are appropriate. Think about it this way- whether or no there is a prohibition on assault weapons, criminals will have access. By illegalizing assault weapons you're making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves to the same level that they may be threatened.

I definately believe that there is no correlation between gun prohibition laws and a reduction in violent crime, and actually have read much evidence that suggests the opposite.

If it is a necessity for all citizens to defend themselves "at the same level that they may be threatened," then maybe there should be a law requiring us to all have atomic bombs under our beds.

Exactly softballchicky. So are you people suggesting that if someone is holding up a bank with a rocket launcher then the only way for me to stop this person is by having a rocket launcher of my own? I'm not sure I would safely be able to use that rocket launcher. So maybe we need mandatory classes teaching everyone how to operate all sorts of different weaponry. That should surley make this country safer.

whether or no there is a prohibition on assault weapons, criminals will have access

Also, If manufacturs aren't allowed to make this weaponry, and you can't import it, then how do you expect criminals to get their hands on banned assult weapons?

If you ban guns the crime rate will increase, this may seem strange but it was done in australia. The government claimed that it would cut crime and they they banned some guns and as a result home invasions rose by 20%, assaults up 28%, gun murders up 19% and armed robbery went up 69%. People need guns to defend themselves, you can ban all the guns you want and the criminals will still find a way to get the weapons.

read the book more guns, less crime by wayne lapierre

I think the writers of the constitution really meant "The right to Arm Bears".

They just wanted the bears to have a sporting chance.

I just think someone at the print shop got the words mixed around.