The 2nd 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."

So, does "the people" mean individuals, or "the people" collectively, as represented by their elected state officials?

And if you do believe it is the right of the individual to bear arms, where would you draw a line as to what kind of weapon ordinary individuals can legally possess? Small caliber firearms? Nuclear Bombs? Would you draw a line?

Thoughts? Opinions?

Dave


(P.s. When I joined this group, many of you welcomed me aboard and said you looked forward to my input. To which I responded, "Are you sure about that?"
Because I fully intended to spark serious, yet civil, debate. This is not to say that that didn't already exist here. I just meant to state that I intend to throw gasoline on the fire.)

It clearly means the people cumulatively and has nothing to do with individual rights to threaten others.

Lot's of posts here on this you may want to do a search and read some.
I am about talked out on the subject. (and that's saying allot!)

"Bear arms?" Geez, I didn't know it was spelled like that. I always thought it had to do with the right to wear short sleeves.

Regards,

D-Ray

They don't? Where have you been?

You're right, I didn't check. But I don't see the harm in bringing it up again.
If you're talked out, abstain. It's cool, I'll still love you, Man.

Dave

".....shall not be infringed." So, I guess it only applies to sleeves with fringes?

Dave

As near as I can determine from reading Madison's notes on the convention debates it had much to do with giving the Federal government some contol over the militia. The 13 colonies (States) resisted this, however if a militia was to be the replacement of a standing army there had to be some commonality of arms. A supply of 50 calibre mini-balls would be little use to a 45 calibre smooth bore. Then of course there was the need for people to be able to hunt for food as well as defend themselves in frontier locations.

The use of the word "bear" might also be taken to mean if you can't pick it up you can't have it.

As much as I disagree with wholesale arming of all and sundry it is in the Constitution so I will defend your right to arm bears, just in case Sarah P. is around.:D

No harm at all, I hope you have better luck with it. ;)
I just meant that many views are on record here and you could get a feel of all our views.
Here ya go if you are interested.


http://www.politicalchat.org/offroad...ghlight=drunks

In all the discussions of the 2nd amendment I never see anyone deal with the word "infringe". Seems to me that the word is very important in its use here.

[QUOTE=merrylander;8096]As near as I can determine from reading Madison's notes on the convention debates it had much to do with giving the Federal government some contol over the militia. The 13 colonies (States) resisted this, however if a militia was to be the replacement of a standing army there had to be some commonality of arms. A supply of 50 calibre mini-balls would be little use to a 45 calibre smooth bore. Then of course there was the need for people to be able to hunt for food as well as defend themselves in frontier locations.

The use of the word "bear" might also be taken to mean if you can't pick it up you can't have it."

And that's pretty much how I see it.

BTW, I have a brother who is very "passionate" about this issue and thinks anyone off the street should be able to "stop at their neighborhood 7-11 and pick up a Stinger Missle , if feels he needs one". So, I am quite used to dealing with extremist views.;)

Dave

So, what does it mean to you?

To me it means that the right should not be messed with at all. That being said, I do not include bombs and other weapons of mass destruction in the definition of "arms". I would guess that a statement like that will bring a world of posts about exactly where the line should be drawn. (I guess its like porn, I know it when I see it.) :)

Then, let it fly.

Maybe this is an aspect of the issue that we have not touched on yet?

Thoughts, anyone?

Dave

Don't forget the use of the term "well regulated." That has to be given some meaning as well. The construction of the provision clearly links the right to bear arms to the necessity of a "well regulated" militia. Shouldn't that phrase have some meaning in the context of regulating firearms?

Regards,

D-Ray

I suppose that since the idea of a "well regulated militia" was conceived as the replacement for a "standing army" the question would be moot as 1812 proved that a militia was no match for a trained army.

One need also consider what types of weapons were available to the Framers, flintlocks, a few rifled long guns, blunderbusses, after that cannon on wheels (and I would love to see you 'bear' one of those). Stingers, RPGs, AK47s, Sterlings I do believe do not qualify.

Merrylander has a much better way with words than I do. He has just expressed my thoughts.

You are welcome.

The 2nd Amendment is an extreme embarassment to the Left-No other country has as free & unfettered access to civilian ownership of weapons as we do. And they know that even when they eventually succeed in getting this relic removed, & have enacted mandatory confiscation/destruction, there will STILL be hundreds of thousands of firearms "out there". Virtually every gun owner has a few that are "Off the Books". There is an easier way to slow down/stop the gun problem in the US, though-While the 2nd Amendment stands in the way of overt gun confiscation for now, it says NOTHING about ammunition. This could easily be outlawed on post 9/11 homeland security grounds. Another thing would be to get another couple of Justices on the Supreme Court, bring up another 2nd Amendment case, & have them rule in such a way as to render it meaningless, for all practical purposes. However, the left is being as stupid as usual, & prefers directly assaulting the 2nd Amendment, which will prolly NEVER work.

How do I define the 2'nd? And shall not be infringed? See below. ;)



http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9...-large-sec.gif

I donno Sandy, the Democrats have kinda dropped their anti-gun rhetoric after they figured out it was costing them elections. There are a lot of union members, who should be solidly in the Democratic camp, who vote Republican strictly on the gun control issue.

Ammunition is another story. I can see the anti-gunners going after ammo because they think that the can slide this in under the radar. I doubt that it will work at this time, but it is another means to their ends.

Besides, if the war on ammo is as effective as the war on drugs, most everybody will be walking around looking like Pancho Villa.

This isn't to say that the gun grabbers have given up, they haven't. They're just taking a long term approach.

Might work, might not.

Chas

Is everyone in Tennessee that pig headed?

If so, and you ever get lost, and wind up in Missouri...don't worry.

You're among friends.

Chas

"There are a lot of union members, who should be solidly in the Democratic camp, who vote Republican strictly on the gun control issue.

Chas[/QUOTE]


Right. This is my brother. Doesn't give a damn about anything else they stand for, (except he does share my pro-life stance, one of the views I share with the right.).

Dave

I think so.

I don't argue against regulation entirely, but I see no harm in responsible people owning and using weapons such as rifles suitable for hunting deer, fowl, and so on. I have no problem at all with folks owning handguns for personal/home protection. So long as reasonable measures are in place to screen individuals for violent criminal behavior, and/or mental illness. To me, these things are just common sense.

However, weapons such as AK47s, UZIs, MAC10s and 50 caliber sniper rifles are a bit over the top. The stuff of paranoid hate groups, criminals, jackasses and the tinfoil hat crowd. In my opinion, if it was designed strictly for the military, then that's where it belongs, and nowhere else.

I know I'm about to be lambasted for the above statement, and I really couldn't care less. Go ahead fellas, get it off your chests.

Dave

You have a better chance of being struck by lighting than having a hand gun be of value in home/personal protection. IMO one of the more bogus rationals used in the gun debate.
If you want to tell me that psychologically it makes millions feel safer, that I will agree with.

For your enjoyment:
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

http://www.nowandfutures.com/d2/Guns...fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/duffy62.html

The list could go on.
Guns are nothing but tools. The proper training is needed of course.

http://www.politicalchat.org/offroad...read.php?t=105

Please reference post 8 and the entire thread, then think about your personal experience.
I have overwhelmingly found that guns make one feel better but the bad far, far, far, far, far, far out weighs the psychological comfort they afford. Especially when skittish folks have Xanax and the like to make them feel less threatened availble to them anyway.

And your links will never come close to matching the links available for the tragedy's guns provide.

I am sorry that you have had bad experiences in you life with guns....But, drunks and people with mental problems should not be fooling around with guns in the first place. Just as they should not be driving or operating dangerous equipment. I never said everyone should have guns. A person should be able to demonstrate some measure of responsibility first. This is where the slope gets slippery I guess. I am still going to support the 2nd amendment and count on the common sense of the local community to provide guidelines regarding who should and who should not have access to dangerous machines or guns.

As to the number of links available on either side of the question, both are more than can be counted. Tragedy sells, no tragedy is not very interesting except to the parties involved.

That last sentence is poorly worded but I think you get my drift.

:thmbsup:

Lmao!!!

I can't believe there isn't basic gun safety training in early elementary school. It would surely cut down on some of those tragic accidents.

Pete

I have no problem respecting your opposing view and I have no issues with limited private gun ownership but it is rare for a gun to be of value in dissuading crime. I promise you, if I were a criminal the fact that you own a gun would be of little or no consequence.

Sandy old friend, when you talk about ammunition you may have hit upon what may make us on the left (I still feel it is the centre) get bothered. It was those idiots in the NRA that insisted that private citizens have access to armor piercing rounds, now how brilliant is that?

Though I had already taught our daughter how to safely handle & shoot a gun properly , I had her take the hunters safty course at age 11 in school as well. Can't be to safe and I figured the instructor may cover something I may have missed. When it came time to go out behind the school and shoot, the instructor noticed she wasn't kidding about firing a shotgun before. After she fired, he praised her for her solid footing and holding the stock firm to her shoulder. It tickled him when she asked him if he was expecting grass stains on her but :D

You never saw a squirrel wearing Kevlar?

Did you give her the keys to the car also?

I mean after instruction of course.


Aside from the politics, that is a great story and you must be very proud of her. ;)

Hillbilly, that's great! My neighbor has a 12 year old daughter he's been teaching too, the kids just seem to love it and I think it somehow gives the girls a leg up in life. So far no deer yet for her though.

He bagged one last weekend, bow, right through the heart, a beautiful shot.

Pete

Now that there was funny!

Speaking of which, I was looking at a new semi-auto hand gun that holds & shoots 20 HPR rounds, with no more of a kick than a 9mm. The guy behind the counter also mentioned that I could buy armor piercing rounds for it?

Oh, and Sandy, I lean left, also sometimes right at times, and I believe any 18-year-old US citizen who wants a rifle or a hand gun, and has no criminal record, should be able to obtain one for hunting & self-defense.




Indy

I've always been proud of my kids, but no, I wouldn't turn her loose with a car lol.

Hunters saftey is very common here in schools. Is TN the only state that still has it, or are we the only state that ever has? Honesty, I take it your a bit shocked. :confused:

I've gotta say, if I have a gun and the crook isn't scared, they're dumber than a box of rocks.

Have you guys seen the video of the new automatic shotgun? It's crazy.

Pete

Thats a point I sould add also. As much as I believe in gun rights, I only support them provided the owner has not been convicted of a gun crime, domestic assault, robbery of any sort, rape, and the like. I guess bad as I hate to say it .. I've admitted guilt to a tad of leftwards thinkn'. :o

LOL ... the first sentence bout killed me lol, the last half of the first sentence finished me off lol .. ain't here'd datten innawhile.. :D

Had a real juiced up load of baccer in my mouth and it had to go .. spitcup just to shallow .. gotta lil' splashback there ... anyone ever tell ya how baccer juice feels when it jumps up and hits you right in the eyeball .. :)