Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 4:22:43 GMT -5
I think assult rifles should be illegal. You don't need an AK-47 or an AR-15 to shoot Bambi. Any old shotgun will do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 4:24:59 GMT -5
I think the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted. It says that civilians will have the right to bear arms in "a well ordered MILITIA." It doesn't say anything about packing a gun to Walmart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 6, 2017 17:36:59 GMT -5
I think the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted. It says that civilians will have the right to bear arms in "a well ordered MILITIA." It doesn't say anything about packing a gun to Walmart. I think the courts have it right. They said (1) individuals have the right to own guns and (2) governments have the right to reasonably regulate #1. I agree that people should not pack a gun to Walmart. I believe Walmart, like any private property owner, has the right to disallow guns on its property. I believe Walmart leaves this decision to its individual store managers. |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Oct 6, 2017 22:20:48 GMT -5
I support all five steps to gun control.
|
|
|
|
Post by ben on Oct 7, 2017 12:02:48 GMT -5
Until human beings acquire self-control, no law can keep humans from killing each other.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beachguy on Oct 7, 2017 16:40:04 GMT -5
This country has always been about guns from the start , the more shootings there are the more guns will be bought , some fear a race war in the future , all know people can get guns on the corner street , yes in time it may return to old west days as 21 states you can open carry , making a gun fully firing may be outlawed if the people in charge allow it by vote , the only reason to not is not to lose votes , the lobby people $$$$$$$$$ run the men and women of DC not just in the lobby .
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 7, 2017 18:17:11 GMT -5
Until human beings acquire self-control, no law can keep humans from killing each other. True, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. |
|
|
|
Post by Beachguy on Oct 8, 2017 6:40:12 GMT -5
Until human beings acquire self-control, no law can keep humans from killing each other. until self-control you mean like don't eat the apple in the tree ? , in other words Never as the apple had a worm in it . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 8:23:25 GMT -5
I think the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted. It says that civilians will have the right to bear arms in "a well ordered MILITIA." It doesn't say anything about packing a gun to Walmart. Rick, I think your "well ordered militia" argument has a flaw. Militias don't pass out guns. Citizens wishing to join a "well ordered militia" have to be able to bring their own weapons, requiring individuals to be able to buy weaponry suitable for a militia, which, I suppose, includes LAWs Rockets and more. While that would be overkill for Bambi, it might be adequate for an state controlled armored vehicle coming to take your weapons in order to subjugate you and your neighborhood watch group. While that is not an everyday situation, WE THE PEOPLE are expected to 'be prepared'. Actually, as I read what I wrote, it is kind of chilling, isn't it? But who knows, someday we may live in a society in which the "other party" may want us disarmed to their advantage. Rick, Until I thought your comment through, I was more on your side. Probably still am, but in thinking about what the real intent was by the founding fathers, the above is what I came up with. Now, I have to sign off for a while and get to Walmart before they sell out all their LAWs Rockets. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 8:28:53 GMT -5
I think assult rifles should be illegal. You don't need an AK-47 or an AR-15 to shoot Bambi. Any old shotgun will do. I agree with you that until Bambi demonstrates the ability to fire an automatic weapon, a regular hunting rifle [not fully automatic] should be adequate for the deer hunters. By the way, the AR-15 is semi-automatic. I still wouldn't want to be shot by one, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 8, 2017 10:43:16 GMT -5
an state controlled armored vehicle coming to take your weapons in order to subjugate you and your neighborhood watch group. While that is not an everyday situation, WE THE PEOPLE are expected to 'be prepared'. Like the FBI subjugating the cult in Waco TX? A "well ordered militia" made sense in 1776 but it would be hard to argue how ANY militia, well ordered or otherwise, would make any sense now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 10:49:41 GMT -5
"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."
My interpretation:
First, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", is directly related to the beginning of the sentence "A well regulated Militia". It does not stand by itself!
Second, "shall not be infringed" means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to form a well regulated Militia, shall not be limited, undermined or encroached on.
Third, nowhere does this say that the reason it was created was to protect against a tyrannical government! It says that a "well regulated Militia (citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need)", are necessary to defend a free State(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)).
In order to keep a "well regulated Militia", the citizenry must have the right to "keep and bear Arms".
Nowhere does this say that the citizenry has the right to use this weaponry for any other purpose than defending the "security of a free State"!
Nowhere does it say that the Arms are any more than a person can "bear" (hold, carry, etc.)
We will have to assume that the framers meant that the armed citizenry remain well informed and trained in the usage of said Arms and that periodic training and target practice kept them "well regulated".
JMO!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 10:51:56 GMT -5
an state controlled armored vehicle coming to take your weapons in order to subjugate you and your neighborhood watch group. While that is not an everyday situation, WE THE PEOPLE are expected to 'be prepared'. Like the FBI subjugating the cult in Waco TX? A "well ordered militia" made sense in 1776 but it would be hard to argue how ANY militia, well ordered or otherwise, would make any sense now. Until the 2nd amendment is repealed, that is the interpretation of that amendment, and is therefore the law of the land. Lots of times, we can argue about the fairness/intelligence/relevance of a particular law in a particular situation, it is the law, subject to the interpretation by a court. We are a land of laws, both good and bad, depending upon ................... [fill in the missing blank]. One does not have to entirely agree with a law or its interpretation in order to understand it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 11:00:19 GMT -5
We have a lot of laws surrounding the inappropriate use of a weapon [including guns bombs knives, hatpins]. None of those laws will protect any of us in the immediate presence of a madman determined to do harm. They will serve to punish the madman afterwards, though. Not much consolation in the moment, though.
By the way, I am not Pro NRA, just informing people of the meaning of the 2nd amendment as I understand it. I too see a lot of harm coming our way as a result of guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by agog on Oct 8, 2017 11:10:04 GMT -5
Until human beings acquire self-control, no law can keep humans from killing each other. Ben, do you think humans will ever "acquire" self control? |
|
