- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
...You support the NYC gun laws and that means you approve of honest people being denied the right to keep, bear or carry arms
we tire of your evasions...
and yet, lots of folks in NYC own lots of guns.
I have two co-workers with lots of handguns & rifles.
so your ridiculous idea that supporting NYC's gun-laws says that one is against the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, is well.....ridiculous.
or...simply lies.
...I oppose them as does just about any other sane person...
ah, so anyone who supports NYC's gun-laws, is insane?
funny, the USSR used to say the same thing about folks who were "counter-Revolutionary".
The whole part about belonging to a well-regulated militia too?
...(I already know the answer-this is for those who haven't read your numerous posts about how great the NYC gun laws are)
you are asking questions to which you already know the answer to?
what an amazing waste of time. I don't feel the need to play your juvenile & ignorant games.
sorry.
...
we know you support the NYC gun laws which means you are against the second amendment as properly interpreted
I'm for the right to responsible weapon ownership. However, I oppose allowing anyone to own an atomic bomb.
I'm for the right to responsible weapon ownership. However, I oppose allowing anyone to own an atomic bomb.
I'm for the right to responsible weapon ownership. However, I oppose allowing anyone to own an atomic bomb.
but that's infringing my right to bear arms.
We are all already members of the militia under the law, and it's not possible for the militia to be "well-regulated" if its members do not have the legal authority to equip themselves appropriately to carry out their duties. Thus in order for there to be a "well-regulated militia" for the individual citizens to be members of-- which is described as a Constitutional necessity-- the right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed by the government.
By my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the Federal government is Constitutionally obligated to provide a minimum standard of militia training to every eligible member of the militia, regardless of whether or not they enlist in the "organized militia", and the government's continued failure to uphold this obligation in no way invalidates the rest of the 2nd Amendment, especially given that the guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is essential for the government to be able to uphold their Constitutional obligation at a later date.
the potential of being in the militia was a sufficient reason not a necessary one
and more importantly, the federal government was never delegated the power to regulate small arms thus the 9th and Tenth amendments are actually more important
The problem is, we're not all members of the militia. Without a draft, we cannot be called to military service at a moment's notice and even in the event of a draft, not only could we not bring our own weapons, we would be prohibited from doing so.
Therefore, the right to bear arms has absolutely no bearing on the modern-day "militia". We have to look at what was written in the context of the time at which it was written and understand their intent. Like it or not, the Constitution cannot be reasonably expected to deal with situations that the founding fathers could not have conceivably foreseen.
When do you think they'll be doing that?
I'm not arguing against private ownership of weapons, more against the people who seem to think they ought to be able to own anything and everything, from RPGs to tanks to nukes, because they interpret the second amendment absurdly broadly.
The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the United States would rely entirely on its militia instead of fielding a standing army. While they certainly could have foreseen our modern military, they would have been opposed to it and wrote the 2nd Amendment-- and other articles of militia law-- to ensure that the militia could serve as an adequate replacement.
Their intent to support the militia and their intent to not have a standing army are separate issues. We can have a standing army, against the Founders' intent, and still follow their intent as it pertains to the militia and the rights thereof.
And so long as that militia is well-regulated, as they intended, I have no problem with that. When do you think that's going to happen?
Why bother amending it when every tinpot would-be dictator in the country thinks he can just ignore it? Gun grabbers are as bad as pro-lifers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?