- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,622
- Reaction score
- 68
- Location
- Toledo-ish OH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
SKILMATIC said:IMO I beleive americans should be able to have everything except a nuke. Reason why is to instill into the gov that it can not be more powerful than the people. Now of course there must be a way of instilling that the weapons that are bought are safely handled and restrained. I would love to be able to buy my own F-14 or a M1 abrahm. Or even just a AT-4.
Conflict said:I wonder who the heck voted that the 2nd ammendment should constitute the domestic wielding of nuclear munitions?:
The right to arms is not based on your perception of "need".GarzaUK said:Why would anyone need a automatic rifle in a house? Seriously for what purpose? Pumping 20 rounds a second into a squirrel? It baffles logic. Fair enough a rifle to hunt with, maybe a pistol tops, but a sutomatic weapon?
Thats a rather childish way of saying you dont really havy anything to say.I don't mean to offend but what sorta guy needs a piece of metal to make himself feel like a man??
I can't recalll that happening here. Perhaps you can refhresh my memory with a news story or somesuch.Then you Americans have the gall to get all shocked and angry when a pissed off kid gets his hands on a gun with an with a couple of uzis and performs a Matrix style slaying of his school.
The total murder UK murder rate is less than the US non-gun murder rate.In the UK we are allowed a hunting rifle and we have to keep that in a gun club. No pistols, nothing else. The last school shooting was back in 1997, done with a pistol when pistols were legal.
We don't need metal detectors in our schools.
Only 65 gun related deaths last year in a mutli cultured population of 60 million.
M14 Shooter said:The right to arms is not based on your perception of "need".
The right to arms necessarily protects military weapons because the intent of the 2nd is to see that the people will always have access to weapons suitable for assisting and resisting the standing armny.
Thats a rather childish way of saying you dont really havy anything to say.
I can't recalll that happening here. Perhaps you can refhresh my memory with a news story or somesuch.
The total murder UK murder rate is less than the US non-gun murder rate.
Thus, the "problem" isnt the guns, and the "solution" isnt gun control.
Deegan said:It was Columbine, and it certainly changed my mind.:shock:
M14 Shooter said:The kids in Columbine didnt use Uzis.
The kids in Columbine broke several state and federal laws just to get the guns - but one more law would have stopped them?
Deegan said:I just think it's a shame that guns are so available to kids these days, but I blame irresponsible parents, more then I do our laws.
So the right to arms is:M14 Shooter said:The right to arms is not based on your perception of "need".
The right to arms necessarily protects military weapons because the intent of the 2nd is to see that the people will always have access to weapons suitable for assisting and resisting the standing armny.
M14 Shooter said:Thats a rather childish way of saying you dont really havy anything to say.
M14 Shooter said:The total murder UK murder rate is less than the US non-gun murder rate.
Thus, the "problem" isnt the guns, and the "solution" isnt gun control.
M14 Shooter said:Please state your opinion and lay out your argument for same.
In US v Miller, the SCOTUS in effect created a test to see if any given weapon was covered by the protections affordrd to the right of the people to keep and bear arms by linking that weapon to its effectiveness if employed in militia service - that it must have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Thw weapons must be suitable for use in the missions the militia was expected to undertake -- generally. lendint assistance to or creating resistance against the standing army.
So, what weapons are covered today? To determine this, we must look at the militia as seen though history.
The militia, historically, were company-sized units of infantry, raised and employed locally by local leaders, sometimes at the behest of the state government and sometimes not. Today, like then, militia units would be infantry companies, and so, if the militia is to effectively assist or resist the standing army, any weapon (or one similar) commonly found in a typical infantry company would be protected by the 2nd.
This includes, pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, machineguns, light mortars and, possibly, light anti-armor weapons.
So, the 2nd certainly protects my right to own my .45, my M14, my shotgun and my M-60.
GarzaUK said:So the right to arms is:
a) to rebel against the most powerful army in the world
b) to assist the army if a foreign country invades the US
Can you see those two things happening? Seriously.
LOLIf there is no need for having a M14 rifle in your house. Why have it? There is no purpose to it. It's illogical.
I think I made that clear.No, I'm just trying to find out why you need to keep a weapon that is only issued to national armies.
Then you arent a third as bright as you think you are.I can only think that those guys most be over composating for something.
Interesting.a looney without a gun = a looney
a looney with a gun = deaths
There are 280,000,000 guns in the US.Tell me what is the solution to all those gun related deaths? More guns? Ignore it?
Strawman, false premise.FinnMacCool said:I find it slightly disturbing that so many conservatives are in love with guns
What 2-day waiting period?Those ****ing racist rednecks though that want to get rid of the two day waiting period and **** are just idiots though.
"A right delayed is a right denied"I mean seriously you can't wait two ****ing days to get a hold of your gun? are you that obsessed? I mean come on.
The right of the people, not the right of the militia, is protected by the Constitution.Iriemon said:Are you in the militia? If not, arguably you have no constitutional right to have arms of any type.
Conflict said:I mean humans can be stupid but not that friggin' stupid. Usually it is an emotional or psychological matter which causes such desperate grief... I don't see how anyone could objectively blame the gun.
M14 Shooter said:The right of the people, not the right of the militia, is protected by the Constitution.
I am of the re people.
Therefore, there is no argument.
Um.... no.Iriemon said:Had the founders intended that any person could possess any weapon, they would have just said: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Your argument renders meaningless half the clause. An interpretation which renders words meaningless is illogical.
And, historically, who were "the people"?As you said: The militia, historically, were company-sized units of infantry,....
Right of the people.In order to possess arms of warfare, then, as a consitutional proposition, they must be possessed pursuant to an organized infantry unit. There is no basis for the proposition that the founders intended private citizens to be able to independently possess weapons of warfare,
M14 Shooter said:And if you were right, that the founders intended that membership in the militia is necessary for the right to arms to be protected, then they would not have used the phrase "right of the people", but the "right of the militia" or somesuch.
Given that the right of the people is protected, your argument is without merit.
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?