$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('holmes', 't')he 2nd amendment should be the American citizens gun permit. and thats that. end of story. what needs to be done is the herd up alll the cretins who are pushing gun ban on citizens while strengthening the gestapos and execute them all by firing squad.
THE END.
PeakOil is You
Guns in classrooms: has the USA gone totally insane?
Re: Guns in classrooms: has the USA gone totally insane?
by Loki » Wed 11 Oct 2006, 23:32:59
Holmes, chill out dude. I agree that the tree of liberty needs watering, but it should be with the blood of tyrants, not that of our neighbors who happen to disagree with us on this particular issue.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ECM', 'T')anks, bombs, aircraft, and many other things are not covered by the Second Amendment either. Do you propose that we allow people to have these items? The Second Amendment does not allow for the ownership of any particular arms or prevent the exclusion. Technically, if the government allows you to own a knife and that it is then they have fulfilled the right to bear arms.
Private citizens can certainly own aircraft (including former military aircraft), and they can also own tanks and bombs. I can't pick them up at my local Circle K, but they are available, as are grenade launchers, mortars, howitzers, etc. But you have to have lots and lots of money and the patience to deal with lots and lots of government paperwork. But your argument is a red herring, often trotted out by anti-gun activists. The majority of gun rights advocates argue that the Second Amendment includes weapons an individual can carry, i.e., "bear." To quote Glenn Harlan Reynolds, professor of law at the University of Tennesee:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he right to keep and bear arms is no more absolute than, say, the right to free speech. Just as the demand "your money or your life" is not protected by the First Amendment, so the right to arms is not without limits. But the right to arms is no more undone by this fact than freedom of speech is undone by the fact that that right is not absolute either.
Mainstream scholars of the Second Amendment draw limits from the text and from the purpose of the provision.[79] Textually, the language "keep and bear arms" is interpreted as limiting the arms protected to those (p.479)that an individual can "bear"--that is, carry.[80] This fact, together with the fact that the right is seen as one pertaining to individuals, leaves out large crew-served weapons such as howitzers, machine guns, nuclear missiles, and so on. Presumably individuals (if wealthy and eccentric enough) could "keep" such weapons, but they could not "bear" them.[81]
Because one purpose of the right is to allow individuals to form up into militia units at a moment's notice, the kinds of weapons protected are those in general military use, or those that, though designed for civilians, are substantially equivalent to those military weapons.[82] Because another purpose is the defense of the home, Standard Model writers also import common-law limitations on the right to arms, as they existed at the time of the framing.[83] Under the common law, individuals had a right to keep and bear arms, but not such arms as were inherently a menace to neighbors, or that had an unavoidable tendency to terrify the community. Thus, weapons such as machine guns, howitzers, or nuclear weapons would not be (p.480)permitted.[84] Note however that the much-vilified "assault rifle" would be protected under this interpretation--not in spite of its military character, but because of it. The "recreational and sporting uses" often cited by both sides in the contemporary gun control debate, on the other hand, are not relevant.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds. "A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment." 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 (1995).
As for your comment about a knife fulfilling the fedgov's obligations under the Second Amendment, this just proves how sorely uneducated you are not only about gun rights, but about civil liberties and natural rights in general. It speaks to the inadequacy of our education system--I have an MA in American history, yet I had to learn all of this stuff on my own. I strongly suggest you do some basic reading on the subject. Joyce Lee Malcolm's work is a good starting point. Another good place to start is the Second Amendment section here: http://www.guncite.com/
It's been a fun discussion y'all, but I think I'm done. I'll end with a quote from my favorite gun-totin' treehugger. Seems appropriate.
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy."
--Edward Abbey
-
Loki - Expert
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Oregon
Re: Guns in classrooms: has the USA gone totally insane?
by ECM » Wed 11 Oct 2006, 23:38:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ECM', '
')
Gego do you ever respond without insults? Also, stop making assumptions about a person's knowledge as you look like an ass. I know quite a bit about ammunition and guns. I served my time in the military. You are arguing from an absolute black and white standpoint. You think any limitation is bad. So care to tell me why I or you should be able to own every concievable weapon? You can't possibly justify it.
Again the Second Amendment DOES NOT expressly give you the right to own any specific class of weapons. Nor does it prevent the regulation of arms. It does not say the right to bear arms of choice. The Constitution is a framework document and the founding fathers certainly did not intend for absolute freedom of weapons ownership. You can argue against this all you want but unless you are willing to let anyone have the a-bomb you are are a hypocrite if you do.
')
Gego do you ever respond without insults? Also, stop making assumptions about a person's knowledge as you look like an ass. I know quite a bit about ammunition and guns. I served my time in the military. You are arguing from an absolute black and white standpoint. You think any limitation is bad. So care to tell me why I or you should be able to own every concievable weapon? You can't possibly justify it.
Again the Second Amendment DOES NOT expressly give you the right to own any specific class of weapons. Nor does it prevent the regulation of arms. It does not say the right to bear arms of choice. The Constitution is a framework document and the founding fathers certainly did not intend for absolute freedom of weapons ownership. You can argue against this all you want but unless you are willing to let anyone have the a-bomb you are are a hypocrite if you do.
The right to life is not granted by government, nor is the right to keep and bear arms. These rights predate the Constitution. If the right to keep and bear arms were granted by the government, then it would have said "We hereby grant you this right", but instead, it says ...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Since the government did not grant this right, but only recognized it in the Constitution, any infringement is a violation. The government may have imposed regulations of guns, but this is a violation of the constitution, only maintained by those judges and other government officials who choose to violate their oath to protect and defend the constitution.
Here is a very good discussion of this right, but none other than some government officials which you need to read before you put forth your distorted views.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
As to my demeanor, I can be abbrasive, sometimes unjustly so, but in your case I think I was overly polite.
If it a suitcase nuke, it is an arm, and if private citizens had them, the dickheads in government would act more like the cowards they are and slink into the woodwork rather than spend their time plundering the citizenry.
The only Rights you have are those you grant yourself. No one can give them to you. Other people and governments can only help you to protect them. You state the Constitution is poorly written then you use it to support your argument. Brilliant!
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written in a time when guns were far less powerful and most of today's weapons did not exist even in concept.
Firearms of the American Revolution
The Second Amendment needs amended to take into consideration modern armaments. It is outdated like many parts of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew the Constitution would need to be modifed to keep it current and unambiguous. We have had 15 Amendments in the last 200 years. Many of those deal with voting, prohibition, and term limits. It is far outdated and needs to be rewritten for modern times and approved as any amendment to replace the existing document.
Gego you are a fool. Allowing anyone to own a weapon of mass destruction that can use it without significant safeguards is insane. 300 million people with nuclear bombs is not a problem to you. You have no common sense in this matter as you fail to see why some things must be controlled. "Hey Billy Joe let's get drunk and have us a fireworks show. Grab the beer and bombs."
I hope when things go bad you are among the first to be put down as your kind is not what is needed. My original post supported gun ownership and you attacked me. What a great way to get support! Attack anyone that doesn't agree 100% with you even if the essence of their position is the same as yours!
-
ECM - Lignite
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
