Posted on 01/18/2005 11:25:23 AM PST by newsgatherer
Handgun Control Inc. says it wants to keep handguns out of the hands of the wrong people. Guess what. If you are a law abiding citizen who owns a handgun you have the "wrong hands."
Banning guns works. That is why New York and Chicago have such high murder rates.
Washington D.C. which has strict gun controls has a murder rate of 69 per 100,000. Indianapolis, without them has an awesome murder rate of 9 per 100,000. Gun control works.
You can incapacitate an intruder with tear gas or oven spray. If you shoot him with a .357 he will get angry and kill you.
A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman standing with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
The "New England Journal of Medicine" has some excellent articles on gun control just as "The American Rifleman" carries equally great articles on open-heart surgery.
The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard which was created in 1903, 112 years later.
The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
One should consult an automobile technician for vehicle repairs, a computer programmer for problems with your hard drive and Sara Brady for firearms expertise.
Most citizens cannot be trusted so we need firearms laws because we can trust citizens to abide by them.
If you are not familiar with most of the above you have not been following the firearms debate. In fact you haven't tuned in to the liberals who still have their hands in your pockets and on your firearms even though the pounding defeats ...
(Excerpt) Read more at Christian-news-in-maine.com ...
"That only applies to those merchant ships acting under the authority of the US against the French"
"no armed merchant vessel of the United States shall receive a clearance or permit, or shall be suffered to depart "
"No" is a very clear word. It's just stupid to pretend otherwise. I don't even know what you think you're arguing.
Like I said, people could and did certainly own warships. Obviously they also owned the cannons they put on their warships, or on their merchant ships.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm not surprised.
Good catch! NFA '34 was passed as a tax measure because, as admitted in conference, outright prohibition of large-scale modern arms would violate the 2nd Amendment; as a sneaky evasive trick, they claimed a need to regulate interstate commerce in arms ... then taxed those arms so highly as to be practically prohibitive.
Are you now claiming that the 22,000 Federal Gun laws are Constitutional because we have been at war since 1934?
Utter buffoon. Go away before you embarrass yourself further.
You talk of the importance of the meaning of words, yet still fail to provide a definition of "arms" as understood by the Founding Fathers.
Again: those guys just went thru a war and owned cannons themselves; give a SINGLE quote from them indicating they did not consider cannons to be "arms".
Well, you ARE arging for a limited interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which doesn't help.
Yep. However, privateer ships were expected to share any captured wealth with the US government. It was a "tax" as it were. Privateers got teh adventure, authority, and the lions share of the spoils. The US FedGov got armed ships, able crews, and more resources to work with from the "tax".
"The 14th eliminated this caveat."
“Actually it didn't. If it did, every state would have concealed carry like Vermont (Equal Protection).”
This is the best write up I have found on the intent of the 14th. There is little doubt that the drafters wanted this to apply the bill of rights to the states, especially the second.
http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
The read is long but fascinating. That the courts and state legislatures simply ignore the Constitution has little to do with what the amendment was designed to do and more to do with obstructionist and activist judges and politicians pandering to liberal bases.
“I've read Miller. The Fed Gov had no just power, powers given by the Constitution, to even rule on the issue. The case should have been thrown out. Period.”
Now you are applying your powerless opinion of what the 2dn means in place of the very real meaning as perverted by the imperial court. What you or I believe is of no consequence. What the Court wrote drives the law.
We have yet to see any indication that the Founders did NOT consider artillery "arms". We're waiting. In the meantime, we observe that said Founders had cannons on their front lawns, and wrote a Constitution authorizing individuals the right to use (not obtain; to use) their pre-owned heavily-armed (with multiple artillery pieces) ships.
And that militia artillary companies were not based on the idea that anyone could effectively use such weapons.
If a group (gov't, militia) owns a cannon, they don't want just untrained schmoe using it.
If someone owned their own cannon, and DID know how to use it well, do you think the militia artillary company would (a) welcome his contribution of tools and talent, or (b) reject, if not jail, him?
This is where I stopped reading the article. Although I'm pro-second amendment, I'm not in favor of lying to make a point. The author of the article must be using statistics from the 1960's and 70's because of the last 10 years or so, New York City has had one of the lowest murder rates (and overall crime rates) of any big city in the world.
We see the opinion, but fail to see any indication the Founding Fathers (who owned "ANY D@MN WEAPON they wanted") agreed with you.
Errr...um...hate to break it to you, but the Founding Fathers explicitly made it clear they WANTED the people to be better armed than the government.
No, I'm not surprised you don't understand the word "no'.
If the government no longer functions by the very document and rules set out for it... what is it called?
Tyranny? Anarchy? Democracy?
Anything but a Constitutional Republic. It is for this very reason our Founders rebelled against the Crown to begin with. It is for this very reason the Founders wanted EVERYONE armed. In case we had to do it again...
LOL... and I'm not at all surpised that you are too stupid to realize that your "source" supports my side of the argument more than it does yours...
Well, he's talking to someone who doesn't understand the meaning of "no".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.