• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

2nd Amendment, it can't be any clearer

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

The Wildcard

Platinum Member
Oct 31, 1999
2,743
0
0
Alot of the problem can just be blamed on society these days, more importantly, the lack of values or morals. Guns are just a piece of the puzzle. Some claim it to be small, other claim it to be big. Either way, doing away with the guns would help but it wouldn't completely solve the problem.
 

Aceman

Banned
Oct 9, 1999
3,159
0
0
Boberfett, no that document should not become invalidated. I, in fact, side with the people that believe in the strictest interpetation of the Constitution.


Moonbeam,

a) Please tell me the reference that you got this from....




<< It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government as to them shall seem most likely affect their safty and happiness. We're talking ten ammemendments here not the commandments. >>



Actually they are considered &quot;commandments&quot; to many. The first ten ammendments are know as &quot;The Bill of Rights&quot;

The last major time a group of people decided to alter or abolish it and institute new government was around 1860. It didn't get them too far. Like many others have said....If you don't like America. LEAVE!
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Gandalf and Aceman

I must admit, I was a bit confused by Aceman's post. It seemed to sway from anti-gun to pro-gun. I apologize if I misunderstood you.

Just so you know, I'm not against gun laws. I don't want criminals or children to be able to get ahold of weapons. I am in the process of getting a permit to buy a handgun, and I plan to have a trigger lock on it and keep the gun and the ammo locked up in separate places. I don't want my daughter to be able to get at them. However I do intend to teach my daughter to respect guns as soon as I deem it proper.

My problem is with those who find no room for compromise. Most gun grabbers find the current gun laws just a temporary setback on their quest for total banning of weapons. That's what I'm fighting to stop.


baconbutt

If you removed the bacon from your rectum, you might find it easier to think about you're saying rather than thinking about that searing pain in your @ss.
 

Aceman

Banned
Oct 9, 1999
3,159
0
0
Boberfett,
I wasn't swaying in the least. I barely let known my position on the 2nd ammendment until the last line. My point is that I read and interpet The Constitution with the belief that black is black, white is white. There should be no gray.



When the Consitution was drafted, I interpet this as the Framers believing that upon war the People shall form into a well regulated militia. In the colonial times, we did not have a State funded large militia. It was believed that it was every &quot;man's&quot; duty to come to the aid of the country. We stockpiled weapons and ammo before the Revolutionary War started. It was the intent of the the British to destory these stockpile of weapons. Unfortunately for the Brits, most of the &quot;soldiers&quot; at the battle of Lexington and Concord brought their own arms from their homes. (The stockpile of arms were in the process of being destroyed when the &quot;shot heard 'round the world&quot; was fired.)

Today we have a large State funded militia with a large stockpile of weapons. So people interpet the 2nd Ammendment as &quot;no longer valid or needed&quot; and emphasis the &quot;A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, &quot; and forget about the
&quot;right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.&quot;
The ammendment was poorly written and we will never know what the true intent and message was from the Framers.
My humble interpetation is simply this: We need a strong militia, should our country ever be invaded. Therefore, the government will not interfere with citizens stockpiling arms for this reason.
Hell, if you look at that ammendment, it's unconstitutional for the government to deny me the right to own a M60 machine gun. Now on the flip side of it, I do not have the right to utilize that weapon to kill another citizen with it. I do have the right to posses that weapon, to maintain proficiency with that weapon and to use that weapon should my country call me up to serve as part of the militia.
IMHO, does the government have the right to deny me access/ownership to these arms? NO! Do they have a right to make me register that arm? YES! The consitution makes no reference or implied reference that I can own arms without them being able to track who's got the arms.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
Aceman, do you really get off saying, &quot;if you don't like America, LEAVE!&quot; It just amazes me that people like you live in a country whose founders valued freedom; freedom of thought, freedom of affiliation, freedom of speech, freedom of political party, freedom to criticize the government, freedom to seek to change it, freedom, freedom, freedom, and YOU, so filled with your brand of phoney self-reflective patriotic glory, hearing a word interpretable as besmirching it, collapse into self-doubt-self loathing and immediately lash out with that ever ready, master retort, &quot;If you don't like it, LEAVE&quot;. Well you know what? I think I'll stay. Oh, and that quote you asked about. HAHAHAHA, I think it was the Communist Manifesto, but don't quote me on that. I know it's familiar :) Where did I hear it :) Maybe somebody else knows. Then too, maybe it would be better if you don't know. Wouldn't want you becomming a radical or anything. :D

By the way I like your approach on the gun thing. Reasonable, I think unless the soccor moms change the rules.
 

unxpurg8d

Golden Member
Apr 7, 2000
1,373
0
71
As a &quot;soccer mom&quot; I thought I'd toss my useless opinion in. ;) Guns kill less people in the United States than vehicles do. Ban all vehicles not owned and operated by the government?

I would like to see tougher parental responsibility laws - both for guns AND vehicles. If the gun came from your home and your child used it then obviously you should be held responsible. I feel the same way about vehicles. Too many 16 year olds are turned loose with cars when they have neither the experience or maturity to handle the responsibility.

I own two shotguns, I know how to use them, and they're kept safely away from any chance of my five children getting their hands on them. I live in a neighborhood where gangs are becoming a problem and definitely feel I have a right to the ownership of weapons to protect myself and my children. At 5'3&quot;, female, and with a husband frequently away on business travel I'll be damned if I'm going to rely on waiting for policemen to show up.

How many of you really believe that criminals are deterred by gun laws from obtaining guns? I'm willing to bet that none of the little punks running around here waving guns are also carrying a concealed weapons permit, or that the fact that it's illegal for them to have it bothers them in the least. If someone's going to break into my house do you really think they're going to balk at breaking a few MORE laws by carrying an illegal gun? Gun laws only deter people who obey laws in the first place.

Marijauna, heroin, cocaine, LSD, etc. are illegal. Gee, THAT really stops the sale and use of THEM, doesn't it?



Just my opinion, of course.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
The 2nd Amendment poorly written? By that interpretation they all are!

You cannot take away 'God Given Rights' by abolishing them.

Thomas Jefferson said it plain and simple..&quot;The object is that all men be armed...&quot; Every man was considered part of the 'Militia.'

The argument that it was written in regards to a State Militia such as the National Guard doesn't hold water. It was 99+ years before any state had anything remotely resembling a militia.

The Bill of Rights was written to fortify individual rights and has beans to do with group rights such as the state militia argument.

Crime is dropping like a stone. Accidental deaths regarding guns is at the lowest since the Government has tracked gun deaths. All this while we have record gun sales! 49% of individual citizens in the US have the option to legally carry a gun! Allthis and some still want more laws!

The object is plain....as Sarah Brady, founder of Handgun Control, said &quot;Only the Police and Military should have guns.&quot;

Confiscation is their goal!




Ferocious...without the NRA YOU would not have a legal gun today! La Pierre is just fighting fire with fire. If you are too stupid to see this, just choose to remain ignorant.
 

rmeijer

Member
Oct 3, 2000
133
0
0
unxpurg8d:

Wouldn't you agree that stopping gun trafficking would be a little easier than stopping drug trafficking? There is not much overhead in creating drugs...

Moreover, don't you think that there is a problem with overly easy access to guns today....? From your description of your neighborhood, it certainly sounds so. Frankly, I think it is sad that you don?t feel safe in your neighborhood and don?t trust the police. This speaks to a larger societal problem.

I certainly don?t have all the answers, but IMHO, probably the worst thing the government could do to create a safe environment is to arm everyone. I can?t image a faster way of breaking down a sense of community and belonging. In any case, just because it will be hard to remove guns from the streets doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

As for the car thingy, this is a poor analogy. Cars a designed to transport, guns are designed to kill. But in a sense I do agree. Folks do drive way way too reckless? a lot of folks have a sense of entitlement on the road. Now give them an huge SUV and gulp!
 

Aceman

Banned
Oct 9, 1999
3,159
0
0
Tominator,
I think you are taking the word &quot;State&quot; as meaning an individual state. In the constitution, particularily in the second ammendment, the word &quot;state&quot; is referring to the U.S. And you need to crack that history book a little more. Invidividual, state run militias, were around BEFORE the consititution. The U.S. Congress passed laws in 1792 to establish the state run militias as many in Congress did not believe in a central national militia.

And Moonbeam,
We talk about the U.S. Constitution and you bring up the Communist Manifesto? It is the right of the majority of the people to alter and change this govenment thru Constitutional Ammendments. It is not the right of any individual to attempt to abolish it and start up a new government. And as many others have said along with my quote, &quot;If you don't like this country, LEAVE&quot;, &quot;The system is not perfect, but it's one of the best ones out there.&quot; It has withstood 200 years with only 27 changes to what we believe in.
 

DABANSHEE

Banned
Dec 8, 1999
2,355
0
0
I've just been browsing through an 'Antique Gun webring' &amp; it seems that as long as you buy a gun made before 1900, that fires ammo that's not normally avalible (except under special order) you don't need no license at all, you could also have a record a mile long to.

So basically just buy an old gun in some strange caliber &amp; buy a reloading kit &amp; you don't have to then worry about things like gun licenses, registration, cooling off periods &amp; background checks (imagine no paperwork).

If I was so bothered then, I'd get something like this Webley-Fosbery .455, only thing is they cost a bloody fortune ($4000 odd, mind you its preety neat the way recoil force is used to rotate the chamber &amp; cock the hammer, as long as you don't get trench mud in the slots), so maybe I might have to settle for a Imperial Russian M1895 Nagent (gas sealed) Revolver, its only $400 odd.

I wouldn't imagine that .455 British or 7.62 Russian (revolver) rounds would be avaliable at the local hardware store.

Only thing is you'd have too shop arround as both those guns were also made after 1900 too, so you'd have to check the year on 'em
 

Bryan

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,067
0
71

lowfatbaconboy


<< when was the last time you were randomly stopped to check your papers, >>



Oh, let's see. At a roadblock 2 years ago. Luckily, all my &quot;papers&quot; checked out. After waving their flashlight through my car and making me pop my trunk, I was allowed through. Roadblocks also happen to violate my Constitutional rights.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,096
590
126
Laws are not written in (brim)stone. That's why the courts and Amendments exist in the first place. But as you may guess, I don't buy your interpretation anyway.

I plan on taking a gun course, but since I live here in Canada I also am happy to know that pretty much every gun owner in Canada will need to be licenced to buy ammo as of next year. I don't have a problem with people owning guns - some of my friends hunt, or take shotguns when they're working in the wilderness, etc.

I just find it odd that people don't complain about motorcycle licenses but scream about gun licences.

Bober, I agree with your position re: gun laws however as you can see. Nothing wrong with regulation, when such a dangerous thing is involved, but people do have &quot;need&quot; for private gun ownership.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
Hay Aceman, I found it:

&quot;We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.&quot;

It's the second paragraph after &quot;When in the Course of human events...&quot; Of The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America. July 4, 1776

 

Aceman

Banned
Oct 9, 1999
3,159
0
0
Moonbeam,
You're comparing Apples and Oranges here. Yes, both documents were written by basically the same framers, but 16 years apart. At the time the Declaration of Independence was written, the Brittish had basically taken away all of the colonialists' freedoms. It was a declaration of INDEPENDENCE. 16 years later, the Constitution was written as the sole basis of which all laws would be created under and how our government was to be set up and operate. Upon winning independence from Great Britian, Americans studied other forms of government in search of the best model of government. They found none that truly suited their beliefs and &quot;created&quot; their own. The Constitution was set up as THE LAW of the United States of America. The framers' beliefs were all incorporated into that binding document. The government was set up under the Constitution so that there would be no need to abolish the government and let no ONE or GROUP of individuals abolish it. It is a living document that can be CHANGED in how we govern this country be a majority of the people, by the people, for the people. That if anyone or group of individuals wanted to break from the Union, they would have to do it by a majority of votes from the people. After that it would be up to the majority of the representatives from the Union to allow or disallow this succession. If a radical minority of citizens of the United States wanted to leave the Union they too would present a &quot;declaration of independence&quot; from the Union. The Declaration of Independence was an illegal document 224 years ago in Britian's eyes just as it was 140 years ago with the USA when the Confederation of Southern States tried it 140 years ago.
The Constitution is there so that the people of the USA would never and will never have to fear losing it's freedoms from a radical faction trying to take over the government to abolish it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
Every establishment thinks there is no need for revolution. My complaint to you Sir, is that your worship of a system as is and your admonition to those who see differently to leave, is how this country was founded. Those who left were cream.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY