The Second Amendment

[icenine]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

This is why it's in place for more than 200 years.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “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.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...245_story.html

If you haven't noticed the threat yet your head is in the sand.

the point of the article is that state and local governments have the power to regulate types of weapons. I know it was difficult reading.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

This is why it's in place for more than 200 years.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “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.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...245_story.html

If you haven't noticed the threat yet your head is in the sand.

Thank you...thank you. One for each face. Make up your fucking mind. Is the 2nd there to protect you from the government or from your crazy neighbor with a concealed carry permit? Which threat is it?

[bobabode]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z2

I like this retired jurist's take and suggestion.

[donquixote99]

Of course, the five words aren't there. But if everyone who counts would pretend they are, it's the same thing.

But that's not happening either.

Any right can be limited for cause, by due process of law. That's the route to take.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Of course, the five words aren't there. But if everyone who counts would pretend they are, it's the same thing.

But that's not happening either.

Any right can be limited for cause, by due process of law. That's the route to take.

It appears a strict constructionista you ain't, eh?

BTW - I object to Stevens' statement that this is a national "tragedy". A tragedy is a fire in a theater or a school bus going down an embankment. Newtown and the Navy Yard were not tragedies...they were wanton and willful gun carnage. That is not a national tragedy it is a national disgrace.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by icenine

the point of the article is that state and local governments have the power to regulate types of weapons. I know it was difficult reading.

Dip shit I live in California remember. We have had bans on weapons no other state has for many many years.

It's not a new concept.

So you must then agree with individual state rights.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Thank you...thank you. One for each face. Make up your fucking mind. Is the 2nd there to protect you from the government or from your crazy neighbor with a concealed carry permit? Which threat is it?

My mind has always been made up, individuals rights, state rights and the fed can go fight foreign wars and print money. If the fed fails to do there job we have the right to remove them by vote or force.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

It appears a strict constructionista you ain't, eh?

BTW - I object to Stevens' statement that this is a national "tragedy". A tragedy is a fire in a theater or a school bus going down an embankment. Newtown and the Navy Yard were not tragedies...they were wanton and willful gun carnage. That is not a national tragedy it is a national disgrace.

Not exactly strict--but not all loosey goosey either. My point that the Constitution can be pretty much ignored does NOT mean that this is a good idea, in my view. I think we ought to stick to the spirit of the thing.

But a person can be hung, for cause by due process of law. So there are no rights that cannot be at least infringed, by a combination of law and courts. Not either one by itself, but by both together.

So if a judge or other duly appointed officer of the court says that, by law, you are too crazy to have a gun right now, that would stand. But it has to be due process, with a showing and adjudication for each individual so found, in a public proceeding, the witnesses sworn, and with the individual entitled to representation, his own witnesses, and all other due process rights.

What constitutes 'too crazy,' and what evidence must be shown of it, can be specified by law.

[mpholland]

Pretty sure it was an Eminem song I heard once that used the term "divided states of embarrassment". For a rapper he wasn't too far off.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Dip shit I live in California remember. We have had bans on weapons no other state has for many many years.

It's not a new concept.

So you must then agree with individual state rights.

Until they take away the rights of people. People have rights not states.
If citizens feel their government should regulate assault weapons so their life and liberty are not endangered by said assault weapons then so be it.
You can call me dipshit all day long......I am way better off in my life than you are lol.