A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Second ammendment seems abundantly clear in granting "the people" the "right" to not only own weapons but to carry them. That is what bear arms means. And "Shall not be infringed" is very strong language indeed. Any encroachment or limitation is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Registration, liscencing, reqired training, these are all infringements. Every gun control law in the country violates this constitutional right. If you know a valid legal reason it doesn't, I'd like to hear it.
Answers:
Its pretty simple, gun control laws completely violate the second amendment. Last time I checked the 2nd amendment didnt say you have the right to bear arms as long as you have proper training, your gun is registered, liscensed, holds a max of 10 rounds, its not automatic, and you have not gone to jail. And my question to these other morons is this, how can you form a militia if you do not have firearms in the first place? Oh yeah, and what do you think the people who created this country were a part of, ohhh yeah a MILITIA that defeated the british. Plus the constitution is the final word, it does not matter how long ago it was written. And to those people who think that we would be better off without firearms, just open a history book, this is the precise thing that the nazi's did before World War 2. People have to realize this is the real world, not some fairy dream land.
How very precious!
Gun Control Laws do not prevent one from buying and owning a gun. If you pass the licensing process, you can buy one.
If you can't, then you will remain gunless.
Law abiding citizens have the privilege; thugs, lowlifes, felons and criminals do not.
Because the 2nd Amendment only applies to federal laws, not state gun regulation. That's well established precedent going back over a century.
Like the 7th Amendment, and the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th, the 2nd Amendment was never incorporated by the 14th against the states. Leaving states free to regulate all they want under their powers in the 10th. The states aren't violating any constitutional requirements -- the 2nd (and 7th) don't apply to them at all.
Also, most federal circuits (except the 5th Circuit and DC) consider the 2nd to be a collective right, based on the "well regulated militia" clause. So, being a collective right, it's also a matter solely for the states to decide.
Finally, some regulations are permitted even for absolute rights. Such as 1st Amendment speech, which also "cannot be infringed". BUT, it can be regulated as long as the regulations meet constitutional scrutiny by being narrowly tailored to an important (or compelling) govt interest -- like keeping people from using guns to commit crimes in our case.
That's the current state of the law. It may change in a couple years when the Supreme Court reviews the recent DC decision.
So.. You Really Think we should have the right to carry around machine guns ??
I agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate, I would say that laws regulating...handguns, for example, might be legitimate because handguns aren't standard issue for well-regulated militias.
Well ~ most gun control laws center around convicted felons and crazy people not getting guns (like that nutbar in Virginia who killed dozens) and semi-automatic assault rifles and other similar kinds of weapons being banned or in limited use. That seems reasonable to me.
You don't need an Uzi to protect your family. To me, keeping and bearing arms for the security of our freedom means just that ... keep and bear arms to protect yourself and your family. Have a gun to stop an intruder. Have a rifle to shoot a deer in the woods.
It doesn't mean to give everyone a gun, or to allow weapons that are ONLY used for mass violence, like semi-automatic weapons. Personally, I think that no one needs weapons like that.
It's 2007, not the same as when that paper was written. Life has changed ALOT. Get real. Do we really need any nut-case walking around with a loaded gun ? Common sense pal. Sorry, you lose.
Good question! Based on my observations, most of the gun control laws that exist do not prohibit law-abiding citizens from obtaining and using guns, they merely offer a method of controlling and tracking the purchases of firearms. This is how they stand up to the muster of Constitutional Review.
I'll leave it up to you on whether you think that violent, or potentially violent, criminals-who are the only people prohibited from purchasing guns under current laws-should be allowed to own guns. They are a threat to the security of a free State, and therefore would be in opposition to the intent of the second amendment (A ... militia being necessary to the security of a free State).
Okay, so do you support people being able to buy grenade launcher? How about RPGs? Nuclear arms? They are all arms. Any logical person would see that the Constitution doesn't intend for all arms to be available to all people.
You know their game plan. They can't outright prohibit you from owning a gun, but incrementally they will restrict your activities concerning your gun... one little bite at a time. Must be gun locked at all times. Bullets kept at least 50 feet from the firearm. Can't take it from location A to location B without reporting to some gov't authority. Load you up with so much regulatory BS that you'll just throw in the towel...
do you belong to a "well regulated militia"? such as the national guard? the best example being the Swiss example where everyone keeps their weapon at home until call for service.if not then you need to understand that our forefathers did not believe in standing armies since most came here to escape same. they only wanted state militias to send troops when needed hence the need for arms in the home by the way regulations are not the same as taking your guns away but this logic is always lost on people like you who ask a question then want to give the answer
Are you in a well regulated militia?
I do not think that our forefathers would want criminals or those who are mentally unbalanced to have access to weapons. I support those limitations but not any other.
And almost all of us are members of the militia.
This is what constitutes the militia in the US:
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment