THE 2nd AMENDMENT MARCHES ON

Forums: Guns
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Pro-Second Amendment Resolution
Passes Unanimously in the Wisconsin Assembly
Friday, November 06, 2009

On Tuesday, November 3, the Wisconsin State House unanimously passed
Assembly Resolution 15. This resolution requests the participation
of the Attorney General in the “friend of the court” brief in
the U.S. Supreme Court case, McDonald v. Chicago.

The case will address the application of the Second Amendment
to the states through either the Due Process clause or
the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun
laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States.

Full support by the Wisconsin Assembly and other states will only strengthen
the stance of the Second Amendment’s true meaning in the eyes of the court.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 728 • Replies: 13

No top replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David, putting the second amendment aside for the moment, do you think people have the right to NOT carry guns if they choose?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

David, putting the second amendment aside for the moment,
do you think people have the right to NOT carry guns if they choose?

Well, I thought that thay had the right NOT to wear
seatbelts either; that did not work out as I 'd expected.
In both cases, it is for the wearer 's own safety and protection.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

you're more likely to be killed in a car crash, than you are to be shot by a lunatic

of course i realize you're working on narrowing the gap david

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, I thought that thay had the right NOT to wear seatbelts either; that did not work out as I 'd expected.
In both cases, it is for the wearer 's own safety and protection.[/quote]
I don't happen to agree with Seat Belt requirements either, but putting seat belts aside also, do you think people should be required to carry guns?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Well, I thought that thay had the right NOT to wear seatbelts either;
that did not work out as I 'd expected.
In both cases, it is for the wearer 's own safety and protection.

Quote:

I don't happen to agree with Seat Belt requirements either,
but putting seat belts aside also,
do you think people should be required to carry guns?

I am undecided; however,
I can see that politically correct people
shoud not be required to take any safety precautions whatsoever.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am undecided; however,
I can see that politically correct people
shoud not be required to take any safety precautions whatsoever.

And by that, do you imply that non-politically correct people should be required to take safety precautions?

Are you implying that if someone doesn't carry a gun, that they are then responsible for any aggression which is perpetrated against them because they did not carry a sufficient deterrent?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am undecided; however,
I can see that politically correct people
shoud not be required to take any safety precautions whatsoever.

rosborne979 wrote:

And by that, do you imply that non-politically correct people
should be required to take safety precautions?

Are you implying that if someone doesn't carry a gun,
that they are then responsible for any aggression which is
perpetrated against them because they did not carry a sufficient deterrent?

I was kidding around a little.
As a libertarian, I 'd not use the machinery of government
to compel anyone to do anything for his own good.

Government was never granted jurisdiction to do that.

The answer is: NO.

Note, incidentally that in Colonial America,
it was against the law to go to Church in an unarmed condition.
Thay must have been losing too many Christians on the way to Church.

Going around unarmed was considered irresponsible.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Note, incidentally that in Colonial America,
it was against the law to go to Church in an unarmed condition.
Thay must have been losing too many Christians on the way to Church.

Going around unarmed was considered irresponsible.

That's quite true. I've always thought of it as a remarkably un-Christian manifestion of church policy. Whatever happened to 'turn the other cheek'?

However, that aside, note also that in many of the towns of the 'old West' in the 1870s and 1880s, places that we think of as hotbeds of gunplay and shoot-outs, it was against the law to come armed into town. Some historians think that the only reason people like the Earp brothers or 'Wild Bill' Hickock went itno law-enforcement at all was that, if they wore a badge, they could also wear a gun.

Going around armed was considered looking for trouble.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Interesting. I wonder why they required being armed to go to church.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Interesting. I wonder why they required being armed to go to church.

witches

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

David, putting the second amendment aside for the moment, do you think people have the right to NOT carry guns if they choose?

If you don't think you should carry, you are right.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

David, putting the second amendment aside for the moment,
do you think people have the right to NOT carry guns if they choose?

If you don't think you should carry, you are right.

This is true, all joking aside.
A good friend of mine is very, very intelligent,
but for some mental reason, he cannot drive.
He has his girlfriend drive him around.

For the same reason, as Roger has correctly said,
if u r temperamentally aversive to guns,
then u probably shoud not carry one and just take your chances.
It coud be possible that maybe u will live out your life with no
predatory emergencies; it coud happen, but if that goes rong --
well, I just don 't know what to say. Hope for the best, for all the good that will do.

David

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am undecided; however,
I can see that politically correct people
shoud not be required to take any safety precautions whatsoever.

And by that, do you imply that non-politically correct people should be required to take safety precautions?

Are you implying that if someone doesn't carry a gun,
that they are then responsible for any aggression which is perpetrated against them
because they did not carry a sufficient deterrent?

I do not believe that a gun must be a deterrent (open carry).
A defensive gun can BECOME a deterrent, after the predatory attack has begun,
and the victim begins to fight back, as in my own case on the road.

I don 't practice "open carry" which is required in some jurisdictions,
unless u have a license to carry concealed weapons.
However, failure to be well-armed is a de facto failure to mitigate damages.
In my opinion, most of the time, that is "comparative negligence"
in the victim, analogizing to negligent failure to wear an available seatbelt.

(I do not mean this in a strict legal sense.)

David

0 Replies

THE 2nd AMENDMENT MARCHES ON

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know