The Second Amendment

[Monel Funkawitz]

<< Amendment II

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.

Infringe - Verb
To break or ignore the terms or obligations of (an oath, agreement, law, or the like); to disregard; violate. To go beyond the boundaries or limits of; trespass; encroach. >>



How can the government say what I can have and cannot? I was just thinking about this. I have to go through all this ruckus to get a BATF permit to be able to own full automatic rifles, and I was wondering what right the government has to violate an amendment and deny me this right (Not that I will get denied. All I have to do is go get it and pay the rest of the fees)

Isn't this what our great great great grandfathers fought for? I'm sorry, but I think if I am not a criminal (I have no criminal record, even speeding tickets), I should be allowed to get whatever the hell I want. The criminals can still get them very easy, but it is almost impossible and expensive as hell for me to get one. Granted, there are valid reasons... this I can understand, but it still is a VIOLATION of the 2nd Amendment, yet not many people want to fight it.

Hell, for some people its easier to steal guns than it is to buy them, even with clean records.

 

<< A well regulated Militia, >>



I don't care if people have guns.
But why does no one EVER highlight the first part of that statement.
Are you in a militia? Are we at war?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Do we have to be? God I hope not. Cuz when the turf wars break out in my neighborhood like they used to, I don't want to have to leave to the gun-shop in the middle of the night to be ready to defend myself, then get rid of it when the &quot;war&quot; is over.

 

[Russ]

SammySon,

You might want to research exactly what &quot;a well regulated militia&quot; meant when the 2nd Amendment was written. Hint: it has nothing to do with the Army, the National Guard or any rules and &quot;regulations&quot;.

Russ, NCNE

 

[pulse8]

You said yourself you can get the guns you want, so what's the problem? Because you have to fill out some forms that may prevent certain individuals from getting guns legally you feel your rights are being violated? The amendment doesn't say that the government can't regulate you having a gun, it just states the fact that you can if you'd like.

 

<< Hint: it has nothing to do with the Army, the National Guard or any rules and &quot;regulations&quot;. >>



Yes I understand that, but are we living in the 1700s still?
Double standards, you want some rules to stay the same, but then you want some to change to suit your current needs. Funny.

 

[Monel Funkawitz]

Ok. These are for my area....

Full auto AK-47 without serial numbers - $500 - Time required to purchase... 30 min drive

Pineapple or Flash Bang hand grenades - Around $20 each plus case of beer- Time required to purchase... 15 min

Shoulder Launch Rockets - $6500 - Time required to purchase... 2 day drive

Full auto AK-47 with serial numbers and legal - $1100 + $200 BATF tag - Time required to purchase... 2 1/2 to 3 months

Pineapple or Flash Bang grenades (Legal) - Can't buy

Shoulder Launch Rockets (Legal) - Can't buy

 

[Russ]

SammySon,

What exactly are you babbling about? Your initial statement made it painfully obvious that you were completely ignorant of the meaning of the language, now you claim you know what it means but we should ignore it?

How about, since it's &quot;not the 1700's still&quot; we just ignore the rest of the Bill of Rights while we're at it?

Russ, NCNE

 

[Jfur]

Monel, just curious, but what does one do with these automatic weapons??? :Q

 

[js1973]

In certain cases, I believe that what is good for society as a whole is more important than the wants of the individual.

 

[shiner]

Sure...let's register our guns so that when the govt. decides to become belligerent or dictatorial they know who round up and &quot;re-educate&quot; first.

Sorry comrade...I don't think so.

 

[Monel Funkawitz]

Right. I understand all the laws, and I am not complaining about them, but I am saying...

The government CANNOT violate your right to bear arms PERIOD. They cannot make you pay for licences on guns to be able to purchase them. People have accepted this, and therefore are doing it, and are saying nothing is wrong. Word it however you want, but it still is violating the 2nd amendment by doing so. They are controlling what arms you are allowed to own. The same thing happened with China. When they revolted, they had to use whatever they had available, like grain handles (Tonfa) water bucket carrying rods (Bo Staffs) etc.

The funny part is the government says you cannot own it (It as in fully automatic weapons), but I can legally own them in my state if I pay the $200 tag, and go through BATF to get approved. How does this make sense?

I just wanted to know when people stopped caring about their rights, and didn't care to fight for them?

 

[AndrewR]

what does one do with these automatic weapons???

I can answer that one --- have a hell of a lot of fun!

 

[js1973]

I would guess they want the fees to act as a deterrant. The only thing is, $200 isn't that much money when you consider the greater cost of the rifles.

 

[ImTyping]

<< You might want to research exactly what &quot;a well regulated militia&quot; meant when the 2nd Amendment was written. >>



I think there is ONE body in this country whos sole job it is is to interpret the constitution...and that body is the Supreme Court. In The United States Vs. Miller, the SUPREME COURT ruled that the first part of the sentence takes precedent over the second part.

Who you gonna believe? The Supreme Court or the NRA?

 

[Monel Funkawitz]

They waste alot of $$$ in lead, lemme tell ya Andrew.

I just do it, just to do it. Complex, but its honest. I don't hunt even. Self defense? The chance of someone breaking into my house is slim, and even slimmer to do it when I am home. I don't even think I could shoot someone if I had to.

The point is, I do it just to keep what I have. Alot of people died a long time ago so we could have these rights, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna give them up.

Has all these gun laws fixed anything? No. Its easier than ever to get an illegal weapon. Its much harder for the average guy who did not ever commit a crime to get one than it is for the criminals.

Point I have is none of the current gun laws work AT ALL. Period. Not a single one. Registration? 99% of criminals use stolen and/or guns without serial numbers. Manditory gun lock sales? More kids in school carrying guns than the ones that do not.

 

[reitz]

<< I think there is ONE body in this country whos sole job it is is to interpret the constitution...and that body is the Supreme Court. In The United States Vs. Miller, the SUPREME COURT ruled that the first part of the sentence takes precedent over the second part. >>

It is true that the Supreme Court is the one body with the power to interpret laws, but it was never intended to become the policy making instituion it is today.

 

<< I can answer that one --- have a hell of a lot of fun! >>



I agree with that, there is a range out in Nevada that lets you shoot your choice of weapon (which there was a large selection), from AKs to grenade launchers.
That was a good time.



<< In The United States Vs. Miller, the SUPREME COURT ruled that the first part of the sentence takes precedent over the second part. >>


There is some nice proof with a court case to back it up.

We should never lose our right to have guns. But do you really need a bunch of people with fully automatic assult rifles and grenades and other assorted military equipment, living in your neighbor hood.

It might come in useful when the germans invade right.

 

[Russ]

<< Who you gonna believe? The Supreme Court or the NRA? >>



Neither. I believe the Founding Fathers. The Federalist Papers make it crystal clear what the language means, and the stupidity of any court decision cannot change that.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Monel Funkawitz]

<< But do you really need a bunch of people with fully automatic assult rifles and grenades and other assorted military equipment, living in your neighbor hood. >>



Have you ever seen someone from &quot;The hood&quot; rob a 7-11 with a fully automatic grenade launcher?

 

<< Have you ever seen someone from &quot;The hood&quot; rob a 7-11 with a fully automatic grenade launcher? >>



No, But what about hicks like this. Imagine if they had one?

 

[ImTyping]

<< Neither. I believe the Founding Fathers. The Federalist Papers make it crystal clear what the language means, and the stupidity of any court decision cannot change that. >>



So you are saying that your personal interpretation of the law (based on reading the Federalist Papers) holds more weight than that of the Supreme Court? Or are you just one of those guys who will only follow the laws he likes?

It is too bad the Federalist Papers were not around at the time of The United States Vs. Miller, and that the Supreme Court did not consider them when it made it's deliberation?

Oh, wait, the papers DID exist, and the Supreme Court DID consider them????? Oh, sorry!

I propose we disband the Supreme Court, and let RUSS be the final word on our nation's laws!

 

[Ferocious]

LOL.

 

[rangeLife]

Try here.

 

[Siva]

The federalist papers were meant to give the meaning of the constitution, but the language in the actual constitution was left ambiguous for a reason.