User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 33 to 40 of 60

Thread: Making the constitution useless

  1. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    N'awlins
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Taken straight out of the amendments to the constitution.

    "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."

    Enough said.

  2. #34
    Moderator Schmoderator Fluorescent fluorite, England PlantAKiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia/Zone 7
    Posts
    10,335
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think that when that was amended to the constitution, the idea was rights for a "militia" to have arms for defense. I don't think that translates today into meaning its ok for individuals to be able to own AK47s and Tech 9s so they can shoot each other on the streets. That's not a militia. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/confused.gif[/img]

    So I interpret that as "the people" meaning a group of people formed together as a unit (militia) bearing arms for the defense of the country or state. I think people have taken that too far into meaning everybody should have as many guns as and types of guns as they want.

    UGH.
    "Fox terriers are born with about four times as much original sin in them as other dogs." - Jerome K. Jerome

  3. #35
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    to the comment that Britain is getting ine w/o guns...it isnt look at the violent crime rates, they have gone up. also did you know it is against the law to defend yourself in England? if you are are attacked and you fight back YOU will go to jail. ok you dont like the argument about Hitler, ive got an example that goes 180 from that one. Switzerland requires that able bodied law abiding males to keep a rifle with X amount of ammunition in there homes. they are required to practice with them and most towns have a 300 meter target range in which to do so. they have an EXTREALY low violent crime rate. also here in the states, Florida made it quite easy for law abiding residents to get a concealed weapons permit. there was an increase of about .5% of the population getting the permit BUT violent crime and robbery against Florida residents dropped DRAMATICLY, the criminals started preying on tourists cause they knew they didnt have the permits.

    PAK if your going to translate that arms didnt mean AK47's does that mean freedom of the press doesnt include TV radio and internet?

    Rattler
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  4. #36
    Capslock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,088
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm actually with the gun folk on the interpretation of the Ammendment.

    The "militia" part is mentioned as a justification for, but not a condition for gun ownership. In other words, the second part, "he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not dependent on the first, and stands on its own.

    However, I also agree that one can oppose this ammendment, and still support the Constitution. One can cherish the right to assembly and free speech, and feel that the same inherent rights don't extend to gun ownership. However, in my opinion, the way to address that is to repeal the 2nd ammendment rather than just ignore it.

    On the other hand (lol!) gun-supporters don't go running around arguing for the right to own nuclear weapons, so there IS a limit to the armaments an individual should be able to own. It's just where to draw the line that is the question.

    Capslock
    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

    My photos are copyright-free and public domain

  5. #37
    Stay chooned in for more! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metro Atlanta Area
    Posts
    9,681
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    that law of switzerland is sexist and forces you do do something unnessicary.

    i hate sexism.

  6. #38
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    JLAP, i wasnt commenting on that, i was saying their form of "gun control" has worked to their advantage during war and peace time.

    Rattler
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  7. #39
    Somewhat Unstable superimposedhope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Where the Slime Live; Where the Slime Breed
    Posts
    1,697
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the gov is targeting the non-gun owners on this. Many people who are not familiar with guns think that a fully auto-matic is something like an AK and a semi-automatic is something like an UZI or MAC-10or 11 whatever. They will say that you don't need to mow people down to defend your home or hunt. That is true, and i don't know anybody who hunts with anything I've named, also an assault rifle would be a bit cumbersome to get ready if someone broke in to your home. The truth is any handgun besides a revolver is semi-automatic, semi-automatic means that you don't have to nice guy the hammer for each pull of the trigger but you do have to pull the trigger every time, holding the trigger down to "mow people down" is fully-automatic.
    I think the problem is that this is trying to scare non gun owners into further false beliefs about guns and control along with their use.
    I must admit I am very biased, my family does not own guns but my wifes family are collectors of many, many, many guns as well as my uncle-in-law ( [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/confused.gif[/img] ) owns the largest gun store in NE. I personally have a Taurus Raging Bull 48 long nose on payment plan. I reserve my right to shoot you for entering my home without my permission and intending to do me or my family harm. If you do none of these things you will NEVER see the wrong end of my barrel and you will not know it is in my home unless I want you to know. This bill does not target black market (where gums involved in crime come from) and will not stop any criminals from buying, using, and disposing of anything. It would only take away my last chance to give you #### for trying to bring harm upon me or my family.

    Joe
    \"There is nothing here of interest to any nation, as a matter of fact there is nothing here but humans!\"

  8. #40

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    N'awlins
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well said Super,

    Take a look at the Brady bill. Has it done a good job of cutting down on gun crimes? No. Now, on the other hand, it may have slightly cut down on gun use in "crimes of passion" situations, so instead its a knife etc..

    Criminals do not buy guns leagally. Therefore, making it illiegal for an honest law abiding citizen to own a certain type of gun is simply taking ones rights away. Now, I am not talking about uzi's and 60mm canons, I am talking about semi-auto shotguns. A gun that is used darn near every day for squirl hunting.

    Oh wait, there is more. Included in the bill is a ban on all armor piercing bullets. Now, while that may sound like a darn good idea, you must first know what the classify as an armor piercing bullet. Any bullet that will penatrate a kevlar vest is what they are calling it. Well, just about ANY bullet used in deer hunting will penetrate a kevlar vest. Lets not even get into moose and elk hunting.

    You know, I live in New Orleans, and the murder rate is quite high here. Not once have I heard of a murder, much less a murdered cop (assuming the bullet proof vest here) with a hunting rifle. Or ANY large calliber rifle for that matter.

    96% of gun crimes are with ILLIEGAL HAND GUNS. So please, someone tell me what good this bill will do for the public?

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •