-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Free Ammo @ Walmart
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve
Originally posted by: Bscott
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: Amused
The shocking part is, you obviously have no problems with requiring a permit to own a handgun.
That's right, I don't.
What other constitutional rights do you think should require a permit to enjoy?
Any that can be used to kill people.
The automobile can be used to kill people, and is not even listed in the Constitution. Ban them, ban them now!
Does anyone know what Knives, drain cleaner, crowbars, and Gasoline all have in common? They can all kill people, and they DON'T need a permit!
I saw a drive-by DRANO-ing the other day, it was horrible.
MooseKnuckle
Golden Member
Buy a pump shotgun then...
flavio
Diamond Member
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve
Originally posted by: Bscott
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: Amused
The shocking part is, you obviously have no problems with requiring a permit to own a handgun.
That's right, I don't.
What other constitutional rights do you think should require a permit to enjoy?
Any that can be used to kill people.
The automobile can be used to kill people, and is not even listed in the Constitution. Ban them, ban them now!
Does anyone know what Knives, drain cleaner, crowbars, and Gasoline all have in common? They can all kill people, and they DON'T need a permit!
I saw a drive-by DRANO-ing the other day, it was horrible.
There's been a rash of convenience store robberies in NYC area committed by DRANO weilding assailants as well.
LethalWolfe
Diamond Member
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: Amused
The shocking part is, you obviously have no problems with requiring a permit to own a handgun.
That's right, I don't.
What other constitutional rights do you think should require a permit to enjoy?
I could've sworn it says right to bear arms, not right to bear handguns. Last time I checked rifles and such still qualified as "arms."
Lethal
We could take the liberty of killing people. Do we need a permit for liberty? 😛Originally posted by: Bscott
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: Amused
The shocking part is, you obviously have no problems with requiring a permit to own a handgun.
That's right, I don't.
What other constitutional rights do you think should require a permit to enjoy?
Any that can be used to kill people.
MooseKnuckle
Golden Member
Other than open carry, which I don't care to be involved in...New Mexico is no better than my county in NYS.
WinkOsmosis
Banned
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: Amused
The shocking part is, you obviously have no problems with requiring a permit to own a handgun.
That's right, I don't.
What other constitutional rights do you think should require a permit to enjoy?
I think people should have a permit to own slaves.
I think the real question here, is what well-regulated, organized militia are YOU a part of?Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: Amused
The shocking part is, you obviously have no problems with requiring a permit to own a handgun.
That's right, I don't.
What other constitutional rights do you think should require a permit to enjoy?
People always forget that pesky 'militia' part of the argument.
Amused
Elite Member
Oh gee, another person has been brainwashed by the history revisionist gun grabbers.
The Second Amendment was clearly intended as an individual right. One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard (it's not, and does not fit the original intent of a "militia"), the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.
To those who would take the 2nd to an illogical extreme; In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried, i.e., standard issue to an infantryman. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.
The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" They were not, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment which clearly separates the individual "people" from the "state."
In fact, here is my challenge:
Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.
The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them."
-- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
The Second Amendment was clearly intended as an individual right. One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard (it's not, and does not fit the original intent of a "militia"), the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.
To those who would take the 2nd to an illogical extreme; In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried, i.e., standard issue to an infantryman. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.
The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" They were not, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment which clearly separates the individual "people" from the "state."
In fact, here is my challenge:
Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.
The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them."
-- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
My challenge: find a quote from our Founding Fathers which illustrates how they would have approved of the United States holding 45% of all WORLD gun deaths in 1998. Text.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to kill and maim other Americans should not be infringed."
Fact: guns today aren't being used, for the most part, to protect the security of our state. They are being used to rob convenience stores, hunt deer and rabbits, and to bring to drug deals.
I wish there was a study done about the uses of guns. It would be great if we could see what percentage of guns were used to hunt vs. commit crimes vs. preserve security of the state vs. the number of accidental gun deaths.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to kill and maim other Americans should not be infringed."
Fact: guns today aren't being used, for the most part, to protect the security of our state. They are being used to rob convenience stores, hunt deer and rabbits, and to bring to drug deals.
I wish there was a study done about the uses of guns. It would be great if we could see what percentage of guns were used to hunt vs. commit crimes vs. preserve security of the state vs. the number of accidental gun deaths.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
