The second amendment

My opinion is that the NRA and the manufacturers that support it have never read any of the court decisions re the 2nd. Going back over 100 years the Supreme Court and state courts have consistantly held that the 2nd amendment does not bar the individual state nor the federal government from regulating the types of weapons and ammunition that individuals can own.

Folow this link if you would like to read some legal decisions on this issue: FINDLAW

0 Replies

In my opinion, the Second Amendment is one of the worst drafted amendments; perhaps only the Eleventh Amendment is more poorly worded.

0 Replies

Quote:

In my opinion, the Second Amendment is one of the worst drafted amendments; perhaps only the Eleventh Amendment is more poorly worded.

do you feel that a privet citizen should not have a gun?

0 Replies

emclean wrote:

Quote:
In my opinion, the Second Amendment is one of the worst drafted amendments; perhaps only the Eleventh Amendment is more poorly worded.

do you feel that a privet citizen should not have a gun?

I feel that the drafters of the Second Amendment should have been more explicit in specifying that the right to keep and bear arms depended upon the requirement to maintain a militia.

As for private ownership of firearms, I am in favor of stricter regulation, not elimination.

0 Replies

joefromchicago I to believe there should be stricter regulation. But the argument about regulation interfering with ownership has been turned on its head.

0 Replies

joe, how old are you? the US has had a standing militia for a long time, and i an not talking about the NG.

what further regulations would you want to see?

0 Replies

The problem isn't that we do not have enough laws regarding firearms.

The problem is that the existing laws are not being enforced.

0 Replies

JoanneDorel wrote:

joefromchicago I to believe there should be stricter regulation. But the argument about regulation interfering with ownership has been turned on its head.

Not sure what you're getting at, Joann: what do you mean "turned on its head?"

0 Replies

Well for some regulation equals infringment on their right to own a gun.

0 Replies

emclean wrote:

joe, how old are you?

Old enough that I shouldn't be addressed in that kind of patronizing fashion, emclean. If you have a point, make it. Leave the playground taunts for your pals.

emclean wrote:

the US has had a standing militia for a long time, and i an not talking about the NG.

what further regulations would you want to see?

Gee, emclean, it seems like you got something on your mind that's troubling you. Clearly, you didn't start this thread because you honestly wanted to find out everyone's opinion on the Second Amendment. Rather, it seems you want to talk about gun regulations (an entirely different matter) So instead of tip-toeing around the main point, why don't you just tell us what your beef is.

0 Replies

Ok, joe, me beef is people who state “guns are dangerous, and bad, and the Construction means just the military should have guns” I am tired of people willing to fight tooth and nail for the right of some to piss on the flag I suluted, whal demonizing those who don’t want to see desecration of the flag, but wont do a thing to protect the 2nd.

I asked you age as a step to ask if you know that you are in the militia, I did not intend to be patronizing and I apology if you felt I was. As for the 2nd question, I wanted to find more specific of what you wanted to see. It is hard to debate with out knowing specifics. What new regulations do want to see? Seeing you are from Chicago, would you like the country mirror the laws there?

No I started this thread in hopes that there could be some discussion without getting bouged down in the propaganda from either side. It is nice (I feel) to see what a person thinks, not a prepared statement from one side or the other.

Joann, it is hard to except that new regulation is not a step to totally disarm the country. That is the stated goal of some of the anti-gun groups.

0 Replies

emclean wrote:

I asked you age as a step to ask if you know that you are in the militia, I did not intend to be patronizing and I apology if you felt I was.

Apology accepted.

And, according to the Illinois Code (20 ILCS 1805/1 et seq.), I am a proud member of the unorganized Illinois State Militia, the sole function of which apparently consists of being a roster of all able-bodied persons between the ages of 18 and 45. As a club, it is not very exclusive.

emclean wrote:

As for the 2nd question, I wanted to find more specific of what you wanted to see. It is hard to debate with out knowing specifics. What new regulations do want to see? Seeing you are from Chicago, would you like the country mirror the laws there?

I believe that regulations on gun shows should be tightened. I believe that limits on gun purchases are worthwhile. I believe that automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned entirely.

But none of that has anything to do with the Second Amendment. The amendment merely limits federal power over firearms; it does nothing to limit the authority of states in this area.

emclean wrote:

No I started this thread in hopes that there could be some discussion without getting bouged down in the propaganda from either side. It is nice (I feel) to see what a person thinks, not a prepared statement from one side or the other.

As far as I'm aware, I belong to no organization that has taken a stand on the issue -- not even the Unorganized Illinois State Militia. How about you?

0 Replies

Quote:

As far as I'm aware, I belong to no organization that has taken a stand on the issue -- not even the Unorganized Illinois State Militia. How about you?

Yes, but I am tired of seeing people use others words for there beliefs on these (or any other) issue.

Quote:

believe that regulations on gun shows should be tightened. I believe that limits on gun purchases are worthwhile. I believe that automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned entirely.

Could you give more specific? Such as, should all privet sales of firearms be banned? Limit on the # of purchases in a year? May I ask what should be done with the semi-autos in privet hands? Why ban full-autos? The only murder with a legal owned full-auto was by a cop.

0 Replies

emclean wrote:

Why ban full-autos? The only murder with a legal owned full-auto was by a cop.

You asked it and answered it emclean.

0 Replies

emclean wrote:

Could you give more specific? Such as, should all privet sales of firearms be banned? Limit on the # of purchases in a year? May I ask what should be done with the semi-autos in privet hands? Why ban full-autos? The only murder with a legal owned full-auto was by a cop.

Can I be more specific? Sure, I suppose I can. But, before I provide details of my ingenious and innovative program of firearm regulation, I must ask once again: what does state or local regulation of firearms have to do with the Second Amendment?

0 Replies

Quote:

But none of that has anything to do with the Second Amendment. The amendment merely limits federal power over firearms; it does nothing to limit the authority of states in this area.

Why can the state limit one right and not another? Would it be ok for your mayor to restrict use of the term "migs field"?

Quote:

Can I be more specific? Sure, I suppose I can. But, before I provide details of my ingenious and innovative program of firearm regulation, I must ask once again: what does state or local regulation of firearms have to do with the Second Amendment?

The states should not be allowed to limit Constitutional rights.
And are you familiar with this?

Quote:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Quote:

You asked it and answered it emclean.

One murder, and ban them all? Is that a realistic criteria for banning things? How many things have been used for murder once in the last 70 years?

0 Replies

No emclean. You still don't get it. It's not "one murder and ban them all".

What you proposed as an argument was a bit silly. See, automatic weapons are regulated. So your stat only says as much.

Here's an example:

There have been no legal murders!

Indeed, this is typically what happens when something is made illegal.

Your "one murder" stats (which I suspect is apocryphal, but that's irrelevant) simply illustrates that there are very few automatic weapons out there that are legally obtained.

0 Replies

so why punish those who obtain them legally?

Quote:

What you proposed as an argument was a bit silly

Not my proposal, yours. I was restating in an attempt to understand your statement. It looked to me you were trying to say one murder is reason enough to ban full-autos. If I miss understood, please clarify.

0 Replies

emclean,

Full autos are pretty much banned as it is. I propose no change and again you are reading things that do not exist (i.e. what is my proposal?). Quite frankly, within a gun culture there's little immediate effect of gun-control.

0 Replies

The second amendment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know