ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
By the way, I find it interesting that you refer to "today's interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, and by extension, the rest of the Constitution. That's kind of the crux of the matter, is it not? (Why the clear words of the Constitution need to be interpreted is another matter...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dryheat44
At the risk of getting off topic, maybe because things like AK-47s didn't exist when the Constitution was written. I don't think Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc. had going to a gun store and buying a machine gun in mind when putting in a provision preventing a brutal military ruling class ever taking control of the new nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pujo
That's a joke, right? The clear words of the constitution? The constitution wasn't written as a 500 page volume with specific instructions for how each right should be enforced and how far it goes. It lays down several basic ideas, but it doesn't deal with the exceptions (yelling fire in a crowded theater). Let me quote you the relevant part of the 2nd amendment:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pujo
Seems like it COULD be construed to give the STATES the right to regulate arms instead of the federal government (otherwise what's with the "well regulated militia" part?). And what about people who want their own nuclear warheads? Those are "arms", is the amendment absolute?
I happen to very much support gun rights, but to say the constitution is black and white does a disservice to the living document it is.
The way to make an off-topic remark on-topic...
Last edited by BlueTalon; 03-02-2006 at 12:33 PM..
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Although I'm a moderate on gun control, favoring strict registration procedures and strong punishments, but not against gun ownership per se, I don't think the Constitution resolves the issue, and I've never quite understood that argument.
"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."
How is the individual gun owner part of a well regulated militia? I could see that being used to argue that National Guardsmen should be allowed to keep and bear arms, but I don't see what it has to do with gun collectors, for example.
How is the individual gun owner part of a well regulated militia? I could see that being used to argue that National Guardsmen should be allowed to keep and bear arms, but I don't see what it has to do with gun collectors, for example.
If the "Screaming Radical Religious Savage Maniacs" we are at war with now should somehow come to our streets you will see that MILITIA, they will be there, GUNS BLAZING.
They may even save a liberal from "Decapitation"
If the "Screaming Radical Religious Savage Maniacs" we are at war with now should somehow come to our streets you will see that MILITIA, they will be there, GUNS BLAZING.
They may even save a liberal from "Decapitation"
Actually, Harry, you really don't know that. Also, according to the Christian Science Monitor, in Saddam's Iraq gun owership was at the same level as gun ownership here. That fact neither protected the people from Saddam or from the American invasion.
Actually, Harry, you really don't know that. Also, according to the Christian Science Monitor, in Saddam's Iraq gun owership was at the same level as gun ownership here. That fact neither protected the people from Saddam or from the American invasion.
Most of the people didn't want to be protected from the Americans, they were cheering them when they pulled the Saddam statue down.
The people that owned guns under Saddams rule did as we do, we don't go out shooting at our Government, the People of Iraq didn't either, they like us knew better, the police and the army would kill them just as our police and army would kill us.
Although I'm a moderate on gun control, favoring strict registration procedures and strong punishments, but not against gun ownership per se, I don't think the Constitution resolves the issue, and I've never quite understood that argument.
"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."
How is the individual gun owner part of a well regulated militia? I could see that being used to argue that National Guardsmen should be allowed to keep and bear arms, but I don't see what it has to do with gun collectors, for example.
I am pro-gun ownership, but don't know if I see a 2nd amendment basis for gun rights. The two arguments I could make FOR are:
-The amendment says "the right of the PEOPLE" rather than "the right of the STATES".
-When the constitution was being originally drafted, the language of the 2nd amendment was going to be inserted into Article 1, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, near a section enumerating individual rights (prohibition on bills of attainder, suspension of habeas corpus, etc). But the forefathers didn't want to start listing individual rights because they thought other, unlisted rights, would not be protected. That's why they decided to write the Bill of Rights.
Guns and the Constitution
Linear Mode
