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 ...
You make my point: nothing explicitly or implicitly granted the gov't the power to restrict ownership of large arms. The Constitution was written on the premise that people have natural rights, and the government may only do what the Constitution explicitly grants the government the power to do. As there is no prohibition of owning any class of arms (individual or crew-served), and to the contrary "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", you can own a cannon.
As you articulate my point, I rest my case.
No where in any case is the right to own a cannon protected under the Constitution.
No where in any case is the right to own a cannon not protected under the Constitution. Our rights do not require court permission to exercise; that a court has not permitted cannon ownership does not imply cannon ownership is not permitted.
I have a TV set and VCR. Is that a protected right under the Constitution?
Absolutely! as a 1st Amendment matter, of course!
I see the problem: you presume that unless the courts have stated you have a right, you do not have that right.
Here's a clue: you can own a cannon. Right now. No paperwork, no permission needed. No kidding.
Show my one law to that effect.
It may have been a rule for enlisted soldiers, but certainly not for citizens who had enough $$$ to buy their own.
Having just thrown off British rule, they knew it could be - hence they took steps to ensure the people (as a whole) were better armed than the military.
“The word "arms" IS in the Constitution. I have yet to see ANY definition or indication leading one to believe the Founding Fathers meant any restriction on the term, esp. limiting to individual usability. In many many discussions like this, I have NEVER seen any limited definition of arms other than what current posters make up.”
How about the very list of arms in the Militia Act? The very same founders who wrote and approved the second amendment also wrote this act.
There is a difference, at least under the law, between what is explicitly seen as a right with specific limits and terms and what any individual citizen wants, wishes or believe IS a right. There is no body of law out there that grants anyone a “right” to own a cannon. You may or may not based on the laws in place but the founders simply did not discuss this class of arms nor did they indicate they were in any way protected.
If I am wrong, show me the cites in the debates, the Constitution, or case law. I can come up with a whole lot about small arms.
“2nd Amendment. A citizen owns a ship => the citizen has the right to arm it.”
Constitutional law simply does not work that way. If you believe differently, try arming your boat and letting the coast Guard see it.
Yes and the "arms" referred to were firearms which could be carried in the arms and other similar devices like swords, spears, axes etc. It did not refer to Artillary.
I don't look up things for others but you are free to examine the history of his administration and its attempts to deal with the seizures of American shipping by both France and Britain.
Your interpretation has no coherent argument to back it and conflicts with the meanings of the terms and the words within the constitution. While there was no fedlaw preventing the arming of private ships during most of our early history it was not specifically protected other than in your flawed interpretation. Though Lex Luthor and Osama Bin Hiding would like it.
Privateers were authorized to operate only during periods of outright war (or during the Undeclared War against France after a long chain of abuses.) They were early phenomena which soon disappeared.
So you have no problem with Al Queda America having nuclear weapons or the Latin Kings developing a biological weapons capability?
Arguing in such fashion means more and more people will oppose a rational intrepretation of the 2d and give more power to the gungrabbers. For no good reason either.
Madison and Hamilton saw no reason to oppose the BoR just because THEY though it useless. Thus, they agreed to include it in order to accomplish their purpose. They would say that they accepted this "defeat" in order to win the real battle.
Troll? Rhymes with Ahole.
Roe just twists the meaning of words and finds imaginary rights like the Bert Gummers Brigade does to protect its "right" to an A bomb. What is its slogan "A bombs for A holes"?
And you manage somehow to overlook the obvious FACT that there is a big difference between ships at sea outside of US control and Bert and the boys roaming the countryside blasting whatever they wish.
Why do you keep stating the same stuff over and over again despite having been proven wrong?
And I think you are way past burying but that doesn't stop you from stinking up the joint.
excellent - you saved me the trouble.
I doubt he'll listen, but you nailed it.
"And what constitutional understanding forms your opinion concerning semi vs. full auto?"
More pragmatism than anything else - throw the anti-gunners a small bone. A M16 is only really useful in the semi-auto mode. The M16A1 used to have a full auto mode, and it wasted ammo with few hits. So, when they came out with the M16A2 they converted the full auto mode to 3 round bursts. A skilled rifleman can do just fine with semi-auto only.
However, there is no reason to force civilians to remove flash suppressors or bayonet lugs. That is just plain silly. Plus, it renders the weapon useless for "militia" duty.
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
Shut the hell up troll.
he won't listen, DC.
he has had a taste of the grabbers' Kool Aid.
The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard which was created in 1903, 112 years later.
There were militia artillary companies and that was what I was referring to. At that time the artillary was the most technical and most advanced of the military branches requiring training far in excess of what the ordinary man possessed. Hence Hamilton's need to hire a tutor in mathematics from Kings College to teach him what was required to become an officer.
Untrained men trying to use cannon were likely to blow themselves up and were useless in a military engagement.
It could be put to peaceful use, for example, "shoveling" your driveway after a blizzard. Now THAT would be awesome.
I would pay to see that!
: )
Certainly I am aware that that amendment has more "rights" stuffed into it than any decent sentence can bear. And that it has been one of the two amendments (along with the nineth) which has played almost no role in constitutional history and that the Country would have not changed one iota without them.
Anyone can claim "rights" and many claim an extensive set. Jesse Jerkson claims we have a "right" to healthcare and affordable housing and any other of a number of "rights." Some of our ancestors claimed a "right" to enslave their fellow humans. Why should I care about such claims?
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.