The Right to Bear Arms.

We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

The Right to Bear Arms. - USA; and not the right to arm bears. ;)
Topic Started: Jun 13 2009, 07:37 PM (292 Views)
Aaron	Jun 13 2009, 07:37 PM Post #1
Green Rocks Blue Socks! Posts: 4,160 Group: Community Moderator Member #31,457 Joined: October 2, 2004 I'm Browsing With Firefox 3	When the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) was passed the second one stated: "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." Today there is a controversy if it applies to only the military, or to citizens, does it like other amendments or if it applies only to the Federal Government. Since Heller V DC (2008) there have been many legal challenges to the ability of governments to prevent people from owning/carrying guns. Most recently in NRA V Chicago a three judge panel ruled that Heller and the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government under much criticism. Topic Rules This topic is about discussing the Second Amendment Issue, gun rights/ gun control movement in the United States. It will not degenerate into a discussion about how things are in other countries. Discussion pertaining to state law vs. federal law is acceptable. While everyone is entitled to their Opinions, generalized, biased opinion with no factual support will be removed from this topic.



Deleted User	Jun 15 2009, 09:22 PM Post #2
Deleted User	That three judge panel should be immediately fired, or worse. Last I heard, Chicago was still in Illinois. Illinois is a member state in the United States of America. The United States of America has this thing called the United States Constitution, which all member states must abide by and which all citizens are protected by. This United States Constitution quite clearly and inarguably says the anti-gun legislators and judges need to stfu already. (Though it's a bit more wordy than that. ) Article Six of the United States Constitution reads: Quote: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. So, the 2nd, 14th, all other amendments, as well as the rest of the Constitution apply to every state in the union, including Illinois, with or without the Heller case's opinion on things in the non-state District of Columbia. Go figure.. The real issue is not whether this sort of thing is legal or not, but rather what to do about all these people violating their oaths.. According to Article III of the Constitution, as well as letters from at least Jefferson and Hamilton, impeachment is apparently the proper first course of action, though that seems a bit light to me.
Deleted User


ElementalAlchemist	Jun 21 2009, 12:14 AM Post #3
ERROR: This title does not exist. Posts: 1,063 Group: Members Member #28,414 Joined: August 26, 2004 I'm Browsing With Opera 10	Short: Gun control sucks. Long: There have been various studies which show INCREASED crime in areas with gun control, the exact opposite of what is intended by the law. http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lemieux1.html (And many more.) And to those who argue that it was intended to support a militia, I give to you a quote I really like: J. Neil Schulman As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following 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." My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma? I realize that that would be changing the meaning, but consider it in the context of gun control, and it will make great sense. Guns are for everyone. Long-short: Hitler takes guns. Hitler oppresses people. People die. The end.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Java Hut · Next Topic »