Score one for people that love America!

Many of the "liberals" here support the right to bear arms as shown in previous threads. I'm an avid hunter. Why the jab/hostility, when more than half the people here also support the ruling? Despite a solid majority being "liberals". Are you that seething with paranoia that liberals are out to take away your guns?
No one is coming to take your guns. End of story.

 

He's trying to make me take the bait again. I'm not, though. I'm rising above.

Too bad. We were getting along SO well...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 9 2007, 03:11 PM) [snapback]402951[/snapback]</div>

Love it. Love my Glock series 19. Love getting along.
Have a nice weekend!

 

I am fine with people owning guns as long as they demonstrate and embrace that owning and firing a gun comes with GREAT responsibility.

I was thinking that a license, similar to a driver's license would a be a good thing, so once every few years to take test (at a shooting range) demonstrate good gun control (not just a tight grip ) and safety and you are off to go shoot something for another few years

 

Desynch
If it wasn't bait, and you show the dissenting vote was a conservative, then why the gun grabbing liberal jab?
It's allright, just admit you like to pick fights...We understand.
That's one of the reason FHOP exists, right?

Someday everyone's going to understand that Dem and Rep are more about which groups of wealth hold power, than any particular ideology or social policy. It'll be librty, justice, and boredom for all!

In regards to the gun range. We have that. It's called gun safety class and everyone (under a certain age) in my state must take it for a huning license. Showing you can shoot a gun is easy, it's showing you know how NOT to shoot a gun that is important, and that comes from having a good parent teach you through family hunting experience.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 9 2007, 12:35 PM) [snapback]402974[/snapback]</div>

While some of the federal courts have decided differently, the Sup. Ct has always decided this way, and the DC Circuit's decision is one that the Sup. Ct. would have made if they didn't already make it!

The 9th Circuit has decided differently, I think, along with one other.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 9 2007, 04:24 PM) [snapback]403002[/snapback]</div>

kids don't kill kids, kids with dad's gun kill kids.

plants don't kill people, people kill people...the only way the jack-boot government is gonna take my vegetables is if they pry my cold dead fingers off my garden trowel.

better still, what's more effective than some good German steel on some fine Italian fashion? I like to see the mounties in those silly little red coats take me down when I've got a 105mm howitser between my legs. [attachmentid=6840]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 9 2007, 09:41 AM) [snapback]402816[/snapback]</div>

As long as the right to bear "arms" by the "well regulated" militia is respected, you have nothing to worry about.
Seems many people forget the part about being "well regulated."

I don't need to grab your gun, I already have my own.

 

Well said display. I think I remember desynch saying something to the fundies to quit judging his views without them knowing anything about them.......

(Recently read an article about statistics in which deaths due to alcohol, wrecks, etc far outweigh deaths form guns)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 11 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]403845[/snapback]</div>

Not by the hand of any "activist judges" this time either, presumably. Ok, here goes:

"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."

The well-regulated militia was intended (actually in fact was) comprised of the People. That's why this amendment is one sentence. Everything said in the sentence is related. That's why it's a sentence. The People where given the right to bear arms for the purpose of fulfilling the need for a well-regulated militia. Arms, at the time this was written, were muzzle loaders, not anthrax-warhead ICBMs. There is no other purpose in this amendment - not self-protection, not hunting, but solely for the ability to form an organized militia. At the time this was written, that purpose was to repel the British or other foreign invaders who might jeopardize the sovereignty of the nation. The militia was to be well-regulated, and the people with the arms who were in the militia were therefore also well-regulated. There is more to this than simply taking snippets off of documents and determining original intent. There was purpose and intent that is commonly ignored. I too could place numerous combinations of bold text versions of the amendment and make it imply a completely different scenario, but having some respect for the intent of the founding fathers, I won't do that.

I suppose if you completely ignore the context of the amendment, you could presume that the founding fathers felt that everyone (and since it doesn't say "except small children", then small children too) should be able to keep and bear any and all arms of any type or amount developed by the imaginations of anyone in the future, in perpetuity. But that would be pretty absurd wouldn't it?

The founding fathers may have lacked foresight, but they weren't insane.

If this amendment actually was intended to give every single person the "right" to bear any possible kind of arms, then the future of the country is bleak.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Mar 12 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]404314[/snapback]</div>

Maybe I read you wrong but it seems as if you are saying that only the militia should bear arms. Well if so then why didn't it say "the right of the militia to bears arms shall not be infringed?" The second sentence is just weak it never has been that way and probably never will be.

Tell me then what is your analysis of this sentence?

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."


Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Mar 12 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]404314[/snapback]</div>

"The Founding Fathers may have lacked foresight" ???? What part of that document they created a QUARTER MILLENIUM ago lacks foresight? Perhaps the Bill of Rights is a little shortsighted in your opinion? Perhaps the part that all men are created equal? It is a pretty extensive document - give me a list of the parts you think they our Founding Fathers who in your opinion "lacked foresight" were mistaken about......

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 14 2007, 05:45 AM) [snapback]405277[/snapback]</div>

Sure, lots, which is why there is an entire discipline devoted to Constitutional Law.

Do you believe you could have foreseen the development of nuclear weapons had you been around in the early 1700s? I couldn't, although some greater care could have been taken in wording the documents to make future interpretation simpler. The issue of bearing "arms" is one of the best examples.

From your example: "All men are created equal". Do you think they intended only men?
Only white men? The spirit of the document suggests all "people", not simply white men, which is what is supported specifically today. Obviously the framers did not foresee quibbling over what constituted a "man" in the future, and who could have? There was no contradiction perceived in having your slaves bring you a parchment for you to write the words "all men are created equal."

On the issue of "arms", do you think it would have been possible for anyone to forecast the development of shoulder-fired rockets? You probably couldn't, neither could I. We would have lacked foresight. Yet isn't a shoulder-fired rocket an "arm"? So do you think that the "right to keep and bear arms" means that every person was actually intended to be guaranteed the right keep and bear shoulder-fired rockets? Biochemical warheads? Depleted uranium munitions? Of course they lacked that foresight because it's simply not possible to be able to predict the future.

Although had they noticed that technology was developing even then , which gave them the musket in the first place, they may have been more clear about considering continued technological improvement. It is clear that "in order to form a more perfect union" and provide for the "common good", the spirit of the documents must be respected. To claim that the right to bear arms means everyone is guaranteed the right to have any weapon they want is a stretch.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 14 2007, 08:28 PM) [snapback]405820[/snapback]</div>

Did I ever say the government should disarm us? I own firearms, but then I actually hunt and am not delusional enough to believe anyone can overthrow the US armed forces with help from the NRA.

Yes, our country is one of the youngest on the planet and we've already lost sight of our founding principles.

Yes I realize why they put it in there, so they could raise an effective military capable of national defense. We have an effective military which does not rely on rallying a group of farmers anymore. So the "freaking" second amendment doesn't even make sense anymore. This does not mean I advocate disarming the populace. On the other hand, I don't think weapons should be given to any lunatic who feels like he needs one either. Just as I think people should be trained and qualified to drive a car, people should be trained and qualified to use a firearm. If you use only the second amendment as a guide, you have nothing at all which would suggest people not be insane if they're using a firearm. The biggest threat to the "domestic tranquility" the founding fathers were striving for is a bunch of lunatics with massive firepower. Look where that's gotten the middle east.

Are you capable of debating without resorting to personal attacks?

So anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is a "retard" or a "liberal" or liberals are retarded?

You do realize that the nation was founded by a bunch of long-haired liberals right? They were about as liberal as they get, and they formed the country you call home. There's no changing that.

If you put any effort into truly understanding what principles this country was founded on, you'd see that your inability to hear and respect differing opinions is particularly un-American.

You continue to refer to the federalist papers as a "backup" as if they were another amendment. I'm not the one who hasn't done their reading.