What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what you feel the amendment actually means.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I beleive that it means that the people of the United States can own weapons of their choosing. I beleive that the the founding fathers knew all to well the importance of having a armed public to defend itself. The argument that it means arms of the times such as muskets is void, if that logic was applied to the constitution we would only have free speach in spoken word and written text.
This question is beyond my payscale to answer as I am not a Constitutional Attorney. ;-p
Ok Ralwus, here is your factual answer from the Spreme Court: It wasn't above their pay scale:
In a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the "majority" of the Supreme Court ruled that individuals have the right to own firearms, meaning that it was unconstitutional for local officials to prohibit the vast majority of Washington, D.C., residents from owning handguns.
So unless you think the rest of us have less rights then the residents of DC I guess the question has been asked and answered.
I know the libs use emotions for most arguments, but as for me? I'm going with the Supreme Court on this one.
The Shark--not letting the facts cloud the water.
I totally agree! Your view is supported by numerous writings of the debate of the second amendment by our founders. In addition, the recent supreme court ruling (2008) of DC v Heller supports that view.
I definitely agree with you. The right to bear arms, means any weapons, new or old, they cant go on and write, "and when the machine gun is invented the people can use that to". a machine gun is an arm, so we can bear it.(you can replace machine gun with any other weapon of your choice). The people need to be able to have a revolution and overthrow the government if ever necessary, that is what this country was built off of.
LOL etb! Sounds like we are of like minds here!
yeah exept for one problem. you cant legally own a achine gun in the u.s without a license.
I think it meant exactly what you think. The public has the right to keep weapons. Further I think it was placed in the document as an assurance to individuals that, if the Federal Government they were proposing got out of hand, they would have the means to revolt. I think that at the time it was a neccesary guarantee in order to get the States to agree to a central form of government. This country was born out of revolution, and I think the federal government would do well to remember that...
I would think that this law is in succession with illegal search and seizure. ???
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If I can recall right, back the "blue coats... the British" were invading the citizens homes and it was tyranny, so in order to protect against tyranny of the governments it required the regular citizen a way to protect themselves and family in the event that these tyrants used unlawful or forceful means to obtain or seize people or things.
In this day it would seem that a Darenger has nothing against a machine gun. So did they leave it open to include all means necessary... yeah probably.
Of course I don't want anything to do with weaponry but I do teeter back and forth as to whether or not I should own on just in case. So I think the "just in case" is as good as any.
"Keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is a law of survival and freedom....it is a human right to protect one's self and one's family. Better buy up the shells boys...the taxes are coming!
Yeah, lets arm every loony we can find, after all America is such a safe place with all the arms.
there has never been any evidence to show that america would be any safer with a ban on guns. If you think that the criminal element will give up guns you are mistaken. Many criminals already have access to illeagal automatic weapons now, they seem to have little respect for exsisting bans i dont beleive they will respect future ones.
You think? All you have to do is look at any number of countries in Europe and Australasia which have gun controls. Compare the level of crime, violence and death associated with guns in those countries and in the US. Case closed.
The second amendment says, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That statement is very clear - the purpose of allowing people to bear arms was so that a well-regulated Militia could be called up if necessary. If a well-regulated Militia is no longer required, or if it is supplied by other means (which it is, these days), then allowing people to bear arms is no longer a requirement.
yes i beleive comparitively it is. If we ban guns lets hope the criminals who dont still have guns hear about the pointy things called knives.
Who said anything about arming loonies ? Those loonies you're referring to do not apply for licenses. They're the ones decent, hardworking, law-abiding citizens of this country invoke the second amendment for.
So easy to point and lay blame on the proliferation of guns and their easy availability on gun ownership proponents when some loose nuthead goes on a rampage with a gun but really, what kind of protection and where is the solid alternative that liberals offer in return for taking away this right ?
All they have are criticisms. Talk.
Point more fingers somewhere else, like maybe the police.
Its amazing how the first clause of the Amendment is always forgotten. That being said, yes, the right to bear arms means that people can own guns unless a compelling state interest overides that right in a specific individual (from US Supreme Court interpreting the 2nd Amendment.)
I think that is referring to licenses, such that you need a license in order to have a fire arm. i could be wrong though. and its also the way that they keep the guns from the "loony" people, for earnestshub.
you know whats loony? I know of a couple people who are not allowed to own firearms. They were dishonorably discharged from the millitary. They were both 18, so...
well, one was a girl, she dated a superior. so...he broke up with her, she got kicked out, your not supposed to date your boss. I realize, you should probably obey the rules, but seriously? She can never own a gun now, cuz she dated her boss.
Case #2. He got caught selling 20$ worth of pot. In civillian life, they dont even look at it. But in the army...3 months in jail, dishonerable discharge, no more benifits,no college, and no rights to own a gun. ever. and now, no passport even. cant leave the country. For 20 freaking dollars worth of POT in the 90's
I know, they broke the rules, but...come on!! Do you have to pay for it the reast of your life? for being a dumb kid?
As it is right now most states forbid felons from owning guns and i dont beleive many people protest it.
Without the threat of violence the people have no real voice. Im not condoning violence or calling for it but you have to realize there is a time for everything. I agree with everyone so far but i was hoping for the opinion of someone who oposed it. I often hear of people oposing gun ownership but no real reason for why its not a right afforded by the constitution. I once heard Bill Maher say that it meant muskets and have heard some say that it affords the right for the government to have a military. Im really wonder if anyone can give a decent argument for gun control being constittutional never mind logical.
Well I oppose gun ownership. I don't believe ordinary citizens need to carry around AK47s. I also believe the Amendment was written in a different time, when guns were used for food and defense and British soldiers were on the borders, as well as Native Americans, Spanish, etc. They were needed to form militias to defend against these forces.
Evidence of gun control working. Look at every industrilzed country who has stricter guns laws. A few years ago there were statistics that showed if you added up the number of gun related violence in ten of those countries you got a population roughly the same size of the United States, yet the US had a drastically higher rate of gun violence.
With all that being said, even though I personally don't like guns, I don't think the government has the right today to take them away from law abiding citizens. I think they need to be regulated, but if you have committed no crimes, do not appear on the terror watch list, and are of sane mind, you should be able to purchase a gun.
The terror watch list and guns is actually an issue right now. I wrote a hub, slanted of course, about the NRA's objection to gun laws that prohibit people on the terror watch list be able to purchase a gun legally. There are some things we should all be able to agree upon.
Do not agree but its at least a logical post, more than most who opose gun ownership offer. If you ban guns its reasonable to state that you may see a drop in gun violence but not in other types of crime. I beleive i need to take a closer and more careful look at the numbers but i beleive it indicates a very slight drop in murder but a fair rise in rape and robbery. When it comes down to it we have a constitutional right to own them you can not look at relacancy of a amendment by the time period it was written.
The beleif in gun control held by most liberals tends to flow with the trend of thinking very little for the abilities of the individual but rather for government knowing best.
as to the terror watch list case i know nothing of it yet but would say that there would have to be proof of wrong doing not just suspicion. If you were denying any other constitutional right on the basis of being on a watch list the liberals would be highly oposed and upset.
Uh, yeah...concerning that last para. But then you also have a bill being considered in Wild West Arizona, where they wanna make it legal for any citizen licensed to carry a concealed weapon to carry said weapon into a bar or casino and drink.
I think that sounds jus real dern smart.
Some of this stuff is just (or should be) common sense.
The second amendment tells me that I have the right, if not really a duty (it was important to someone, right?) to carry a firearm.
There's many situations where a firearm may prove to take care of a situation, but I don't think it's the only way.
Guns are pretty much obsolete by nuclear missles and rogue nations, though.
Anyone want to set up a SAM site? haha
I agree, there are problems with the terror watch list and needs to be updated more often and accurate. Don't want to limit rights without just cause.
However,According to the GAO, between February 2004 and February 2009, regular background checks found numerous matches on names that appeared on the terrorist watch list. Under current regulations, 90% of these people were allowed to purchase guns and explosives legally.
There is currently a bill before Congress, sponsored by Peter King, a Republican, to prohibit those on the terror watch from obtaining guns and explosives legally. The NRA is vigoursly opposing it. Senator Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat, will be submitting a similiar bill soon.
My take on this issue is during the Bush years, we were told that we had to sacrafice some of our rights in the name of national security. We were told privacy was not as immportant as safety. Those who opposed President Bush were told patriotism was more important that free speech. There was no real correlation given, but for the most part, the Country allowed that infringement because we believed it would protect us.
However, now, when some people may not be able to get guns and explosvies because they appear on the known or suspected terror watch list, we are told that we cannot limit Constitutional rights. The Right can't have it both ways.
But like I said, the 2nd Amendment is there and should be upheld. But can't we all agree that just for perception purposes, those on the terror watch list should not get guns legally. Of course, it is most likely those who don't bother filling out applications that we should worry about.
You are right, republicans cant have it both ways, but neither can Democrats. I am not a Bush hater, in fact i beleive he made bad decesions but not a bad guy or terrible president. That being said ive recently readjusted my opinions on some of what was going on witht he infringement of rights after 9/11 and i dont agree with them at all. To give up the rights that our constitution allows for us is to let the terrorists win.
The Simpsons did a show about gun control, it was accurate and enlightening in my view.
it pointed out a few home truths about having a gun in the family.
the truth is that most law abiding citizens confronted by a criminal would just freeze and have the gun taken off them, or be unable to pull the trigger anyway!
I havent seen the episode but with all do respect i dont think you can acurately base public policy on the simpsons. And as far as your conclusion of most law abiding citezens not using a gun to defend themselves, i beleive it to be false. The reaction of almost all human beings is fight or flight. When you threaten a persons saftey or famly most will respond accordingly. I do think that with gun ownership comes a personal responsibility to be comftorble and proficient with it. Otherwise it wont be of much use to you. The media being what it is you do not often hear of the succesful story of citezens defending themselves with firearms. On the other hand you hear of every accidental gunshot or gun related death.
I think bgpapa gets it, its a matter of it being constitutional right not of public policy.
Well I generally don't go to the Simpsons for answers to political issues. But if we're quoting Hollywood I'll go with Michael Corlione's line: Make sure the gun is there, I want to come out of that batroom with more than my _ _ _ _ in my hand.
I would at least like to have the opportunity to freeze with a gun in my hand.
The Shark---keeping my teeth sharp.
I'd rather have a gun and defend myself and my family than just let the criminals kill us all. If you are basing your life and your family's security on The Simpsons then I'm sorry for you.
I'm with the majority of you. I don't understand why some people think it logical and practical to abolish the 2nd Amendment. How do justify irradicating one on the amendments??? Addition by subraction? Mind you, I don't even own a gun (which may in fact change very soon) but I am an avid supporter of the 2nd amendment. Losing any of our rights is never a good thing. Our ability as a people to defend ourselves is preventing this country from turning into a fascist state. I heard that the president will soon have his own private police force! Everywhere on the news you hear about gun control and the propaganda supporting the the irradication of our rights. What would our Founding Fathers say if they were all alive today? There would probably be another revolution if you ask me!
A person's own particular experience with firearms decides how they feel about the amendment. In my largely rural area almost everyone has several, if not numerous, rifles and shotguns used for hunting and of course, protection if needed.
I never hear of burglaries performed while the residents are at home or even very often because of the armed owners. The children in these households are not curious or fascinated by the guns because they grew up around them so gun accidents by children are relatively unheard of. Hunting accidents are rare as most are comfortable safely handling a rifle or shotgun.
I too feel the amendment was enacted as a means of protecting the citizens from having no voice in America's future.
The wild west embodied what America was and still is on its most base level so i wouldnt use it as a derogatory term. What other amendments do liberals let hinge on as many circumstances as they try to let the 2nd amendment? It is a liberal concept that free speech includes desecration of national symbols so how can they try to limit the right to bear arms? On the simplest level you should be able to carry a gun wherever you see fit short of possibly government buildings that ban them or private buildings that ban them. If the owner of a building doesnt allow guns that is not infringing on your rights, but you should be able to have them in your car or on your persons anywhere else. I agree that it probably isnt the best idea to have a gun in a casino (unless this happens to be a very dangerous casino) but i also dont think its a good idea to burn flags.
It's all a bit more complicated than that, I'm afraid. And this idea about the Old West is a myth that has been propagated to the American public by decades of Hollywood cowboy movies--it isn't the reality of our history. You need to investigate history for that. Yet there is this cowboy sense here...and I should also say I LIVE here, and maybe am seeing these thing close up... I'll use the term Wild West satirically as is my right under the 1st Amendment.
I believe you are letting left/right identity politics influence your views too much.
..ie, there are liquor control laws in AZ that impend on this situation concerning concealed weapons--and I learned of it from a presentation by law enforcement officials here (usually very conservative constituents). They don't think it is a good idea, either. Neither do the frontline employees who have to work and deal with certain situations in some of the bars in our establishment. I guess you'd have to research AZ liquor and Dramshop laws to really understand.
I said i wouldnt use it as a derogatory term not that you should not. I am not talking of the romantacized west of Hollywood but rather the search for sucess in the American west wich drove almost every wave of migration to it despite the danger(until you could hop on a plane) also the sense of self sufficiency that came from many of the inhabitants being a long ways from help or neighbors. I see parallels between the concepts that the country was founded on and themes that i just pointed out and others. I tend to know my history pretty well generally speaking.
AS for the situation being more complicated im sure of it and i also said that if an institution does not want to allow guns they should have the right to refuse to do so. I also stated that i didnt think it was the best idea to go through with the law as it was stated.
I beleive that Hollywood has done the most damage to the fight for second amendment rights. The only media representation of guns are in hyperviolent action movies or tales of tragic accidental shootings. The movie the Runaway jurry was based on a book by John Grisham and was originally set around the tabbaco companies but was remade for hollywood to involve the gun industry.
I think i have been pretty center of the road on this one.
I agree about the use of common sense where firearms are concerned. I do think we should have some protection against those lacking this important virtue though. I consider myself neither a conservative nor liberal and know more and more of like mind it seems. I do not feel owning a firearm is simply republican in nature.
Casinos and bars usually have their own security so being armed in these places would seem to be unnecessary.
If we are to consider the 2nd amendment, then we need to consider the times around which it was written.
The typical weapon at the time was inaccurate and was used to defend a country, not commit a crime. How often, in colonial days, do you think one man robbed another with a musket?
Also, weapons in those days served a second purpose ... hunting down food. How many of the gun owners out there hunt for food nowadays?
As such, I think the right to bear arms (which is actually the right to own a gun to defend one's own country and to hunt for food) has been stretched to mean the right to own a gun and shoot anyone a person might deem as a threat.
A machine gun, in my honest opinion, is not a hunting weapon and does not promote one's own self-defense (unless you are a member of the military). As such, it does not belong in anyone's personal gun cabinet.
Of course, if we are to interpret the 2nd amendment *literally* to the letter, then we should all be permitted to carry nuclear weapons. They are weapons, after all, and we can claim we carry them for our defense.
Of course, people would say that's stretching it. A nuclear bomb can't be trusted in just anyone's hand ... and I offer the same argument against the machine gun.
My opinion? The amendment allows everyone a rifle (which is a modified version of what our forefather's had - a musket).
I hunt for food.
There were pistols during that time period as well. Those two points aside i agree that automatic weapons are probably the only line we should not cross. There is no self defense scenerio where an automatic weapon will help you short of all out warfare. Like i said earlier that if the meaning of an amendment does not shift to keep up with the times then free speech only means spoken word and print. I also think that the second amendment encompasses personal arms not missles.
http://www.nssf.org/IndustryResearch/FA … oI=generic
20.6 million "active hunters"
I know many who hunt for the meat the sport provides. My crops feed the deer all year long so I harvest them the same as the other foods I grow. Firearms are necessary for a quick, clean dispatching of the animals, unless one would prefer hitting one with a vehicle on the highway. Which,by the way, is the way most of the deer are killed around here.
The hunters I know are safety oriented and have no need to murder anyone with their hunting firearms. Law abiding citizens do not need weapons to attack others, only to defend themselves from criminals, including corrupt governments.
The Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting food or protecting your family from criminals, it has to do with having a well-armed militia at the ready for national defense. Now we have a standing army instead. Which is worse, an armed militia that can be raised as necessary or a standing army? That's a question worth debating I think.
There's also the implication in the Second Amendment that arms may be needed against one's own government, and so the government should not be allowed to take arms away from individual citizens.
You hit that one exactly, May I use these words in other forums?
Yes the whole point is to prevent the Government from having a distinct advantage over the citizen.
They weren't really afraid of foreign invaders as the long travel be sea, meant not even the greatest military power in the world could sustain in a protracted conflict.
Aw, yes... hence our founding fathers were a government of the people for the people. In the event of tyrannical governments the citizens or people of this nation have the full authority over them...
too bad it doesn't protect us from central banking.
TMG you can use those words anywhere!
It really irritates me that Second Amendment discussions go off on this hunting/protect your family tangent. It's totally off the mark. (So to speak.)
I wont argue that the amendment says nothing about hunting or protection but from historical precedence you can infer that meaning with pretty fair accuracy. AS far as the government granting itself the right to have a military as some have stated before that is ludacris.
I do beleive that if the legality of hunting itself came under fire it would probably not be protected under the 2nd amendment even with historical precedence. But i do think that the right to protect yourself would be covered as to that being the pourpose of a firearm.
I think you're going to find that having a standing army is the worse of the two evils. When you have a professional army there will always come a time when the military and civilian leaders diverge. I think we're about to see that today. Our government, since the end of World War II has tended to treat servicemen rather badly. Sooner or later they're going to get fed up with being sent to die in places around the world where they don't see any benefit to it. And they do have most of the heavy weapons. The civilian government does not.
The reason we're allowed to bear arms is that the development of gunpowder weapons was a watershed event. Prior to that an aristocracy could be pretty sure that they could control the military force. It cost a lot to train a knight. Horse, weapons, armor, etc. Only the wealthy could afford the arms and had the time to train in the arts of war. With gunpowder weapons, it's point and click. You don't need years of training or loads of money to use firearms. Our founders understood that firearms leveled the playing field and ensured our liberty. They saw gun ownership as the last hope for defending society against a tyranny.
I Googled the second amendment and couldn't find any reference to that. It would be handy if someone posted the wording here. I get the feeling the 2nd Amendment is a bit like the Bible - a lot of people interpret it without actually having read it carefully.
If you want to know what was meant by the Second Amendment all you have to do is read the Federalist Papers, they make it pretty clear that the reason for that amendment is so that the government couldn't strip the citizens of the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
I don't know what is meant by the Federalist Papers - but like all laws, the only thing that really matters is what actually passed into law.
You seriously don't know? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_papers
Do try to learn a little bit of why things happened they way they did otherwise you spout stuff that makes a good argument for restricting suffrage.
That made me laugh, the next time I am talking to some one that has no clue I am going to use that Phrase.
Honestly, we can put much of our current woes on the doorstep of an ignorant electorate. So much so, I'm starting to see the wisdom of Ayn Rand's characters at the end of Atlas Shrugged.
There's our whole problem defense guy, they doesn't even "like" know what the Fedarlsist papers are. "Like" if it's not on a reality show, or in the window at McDonalds or the food court at the mall people have no clue about our government and how it operates. It's why our rights are being trampled so easily.
This is what we're up against today, and these are the same people that get to pull the lever in the voting booth. Ask a few people about the electoral college and you'll get my drift.
I direct you to Misha's point above - Marisa is Australian, so will not be pulling any levers in your voting booths. She has already asked if anybody could clarify the 2nd Amendment for us non-US folks - why not do that instead of making snide insinuations about her?
Educate us about your system instead of throwing verbal Molotovs - some of us are interested in learning how things work in your country. You cannot assume that everybody on an international site is educated about the finer details of your political system.
What got my goat, Sufi was her comment that she didn't know the Federalist papers, she only knew what was passed into law. Without an understanding of the philosophy behind laws, you cannot really pass judgment on them. Also I don't see where Marissa claimed to be from Australia, if she did I'd have been less rude.
In any event, anyone who has an opinion on the Constitution needs to, at minimum, read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers otherwise they really don't know what they're talking about. I'd also like to contest her point about lower crime rates in places like the UK, Canada and Australia since they banned their guns.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … urope.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/ … 0547.shtml
It would seem that more research is needed before you can say that the US is more dangerous due to gun possession as opposed to more dangerous due to an unarmed citizenry.
Unfortunately, it is the same response from voting Americans, go back a few answers and check out the guy quoting the Simpsons to support his position. These are products of years of government education. The Simpsons!!
You get bent out of shape by somebody quoting a "Simpsons" episode but have no problem with a person referring to "the wisdom of Ayn Rand's characters at the end of Atlas Shrugged" ?
Has the Unabomber adopted a new nom de plume?
Well, considering Marisa is an Aussie, I doubt she could vote for Obama or Bush, so this sounds misplaced and unfortunately rude and ignorant in itself...
As you've now found out, I'm not an American so that remark is completely unjustified
I read your later defence of your statement, which I think is rubbish. You're effectively saying that you assume everyone on these boards is American, and anyone who is not has to declare their nationality before entering the discussion.
I dont opose the legalazation of automatic weapns but at this point it would be a lost cause to argue for. The "just in case" argument is one of the things that has kept this country safe. As in we will make it illeagal to search your home without a warrant just in case the government becomes corrupt.
The only thing that is keeping the deer population at healthy levels are hunters.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 1.5 million car accidents with deer each year that result in $1 billion in vehicle damage, about 150 human fatalities, and over 10,000 personal injuries. The actual numbers are probably higher because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's figures for deer accidents, rely on inconsistent state reporting- there is no standard reporting of deer accidents in the country yet, and a "reportable deer accident" varies significantly between states.
the above came from the following link http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/deer … stics.html
The founding fathers didn't know everything. They compromised on the slavery issue for almost a century. They had no idea how abusive they were being to their women. Remember at the start of our country only landowners could vote and it would take a long time before women could.
The point is the right to keep any kind of weapon you like does not fit our society but our founding fathers could not have forseen that. They had no idea that a single person would have the means to own something as powerful as a heavy machine gun or an RPG.
The idea of amendments was introduced because they were smart enough to know they could not forsee everything.
To those who see any compromise to the 2nd Amendment I say this.
Remind me when I liberate you from your conentration camp you felt this way today, so I can leave your weak asses there to starve. In fact you guys will probably snitch me out because it might keep your family safe a little longer.
The really sad part is thanks to all of my blatant post here they will probably round me and those like me up first. That means that when they come for you I won't be there. And to that I will laugh my ass off when they execute me. Knowing you will be working your asses off in a death camp slowly starving! Wondering what the guards are doing with your daughters.
Very true but the constitution itself was what ensured the future rights of slaves and women. It wasnt the constitution that held theese people back but rather what the periods view of "men" were. AS society evolved to see that there was nothing inferior about any human beings they were included in the definition of "men". I would not hold RPGs in the same category as arms as set down in the constitution.
I may be mistaken but i dont recall very many amendments taking away from the original text.
Yes, I agree. I would go further and say that it is the 2nd Amendment that guarantees all the others. The person with the gun is always going to win out over the person with words. Without the ability to back up your stance with force, in a tyrant's world, your stance is irrelevant. Arguing over what kinds of guns or weapons is a secondary issue.
As for the 2nd being just about "a well regulated militia" or standing army, which the US has, that is simply false. The spirit of the 2nd is about being able to defend oneself from harm, in whatever form. Thus the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I wonder how many gun-haters would refuse to use a machine gun if thugs were invading their homes and threatening their children. Would they say "no, it's against the law, so I guess we should just die?"
What kind of parents would they be if they refused to protect their children? I think self protection against criminals was also considered in the constitution, mot just against the government.
Hunting was very prevalent at the time of the forming of the constitution, more so than today on average. And by the way, some of the rifles from this time period were very accurate as the records show. American snipers made kill shots on the British troops from over 200 yards away during the Revolutionary War using squirrel rifles. So it's not true these arms were mere blunderbusses.
I think there is a little more to it then that. I think learning how to use a gun and stow it properly out of reach of children etc... is the first step before any responsible parent should even consider keeping a gun in their homes.
That is my primary concern. I do fear being a victim of crime but I fear more my own child being shot by the very thing that is supposed to protect her.
I don't think I could live either way without my child but I think I would have a harder time coming to terms if it was because of something I myself could have prevented.
Plus some people do consider self defense as a more practical method rather than "shoot to kill". ... the use of other weapons that are not life threatening but debilitating is enough I would think.
I do agree with you Sandra about being responsible in teaching our children about firearms and their safe usage. Leaving loaded guns where children have access is always a no no. But again, in this area children are not fascinated with firearms like many kids who watch TV and the movies for their only view of guns.
This is rural America, boys get a BB gun when they are deemed old enough to responsibly have one. If he doesn't learn to carry and use this weapon safely then he is never trusted with a real firearm. This is very important down here for a young man and young women too. There is a certain honor aspect which seems to be lacking elsewhere in the country.
I know cities are different and I do understand your viewpoint but some places are still safe despite the many firearms.
I think getting wrapped up in the self defense concept is exactly what our masters would like us to do.
I say this because all sources of data that list Homocides include the number of people killed by the police. Making the number look quite large.
Once you dissect those numbers down you find the Police kill more people than people not on the government payrole kill.
The only conclusion is you are much more likely to be killed by the police than you are by a criminal, and much less likely to be harmed by an accident.
The most deadly thing you can do for yourself or your family is get/put them in a car, yet you never think twice about that.
The point is wasting time on numerical insignificance is a great way to find yourself at the end of the governments gun.
I am more afraid while driving than at a mourning dove shoot where they may be fifty shotguns going off all around the field, especially since cell phones became so prevalent.
The self defense thing is too iffy. A baseball bat might work IF the intruders have no guns, my martial art training may be enough IF there aren't to many of them. And there's no need to shoot to kill if you are trained with a firearm. But again this comes down to being familiar with firearms and what they're for.
I do not speak for all hunters but I know how guns are used in my particular area. I would certainly want a gun if I lived in an urban area.
I also consider the 2nd amendment to mean I can bear arms to protect my family against a corrupt government. Trying to tangent back in ya heah!
On second thought, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with the premise of hunting not being considered in the 2nd amendment.
The early European immigrants were overjoyed to learn they were permitted to hunt in America. Back home, only royalty and it's cronies were permitted to hunt the king's game. Commoners were relegated to lesser side arms than the upper classes. Poachers of the kings game were dealt with severely even though they were trying to feed their families.
I do not know how many supporters of the amendment were hunters, but it's hard to believe they didn't consider the privilege of hunting somewhere along the line. Guns were the primary hunting weapon at the time. Do you think they expected everyone to use bows and arrows to harvest the game?
Hunting was considered a very important freedom at the time and as a break from the royal past of Europe.
here is the bottom line and why are we even talking about this? even if congress does pass a new law making every person in the u.s turn in there firearms, do you honestly think for one minute that the millions and millions of criminals who roam the streets everyday commiting murders and robbery's will actually hand theres over? no they wont so heres whats going to happen, the next time a seven eleven gets robbed the clerk behind the counter will not be able to PROPERLY DEFEND him or herself against the gun yielding robber. simply because the government decided to pass this stupid act not allowing any one to lawfully own a gun anymore. and that is why i will never turn my weapons over if they tried to force me too. and tucker dont worry about it so much as we have talked about obama before, he cant pass this law single handedly and there are even some democrats in office that believe it or not dont agree with him on this.
While I do believe in the right to have weapons for self-defense, I also believe that there should be more measures to control them, or at least the ammunition that goes with them.
Two years ago my best friend's sisters were at a party with the older sister's boyfriend. That boyfriend died protecting the two sisters when a party crasher who had left some time before came back with a .45 Magnum with hollow point bullets. The younger sister was injured as well.
The age of the shooter? 17.
If a 17-year-old can get hold of such a powerful weapon and even more powerful ammunition, there needs to be some real reform surrounding the gun laws in this country.
The second ammendment is about survival, it's about being able to feed your family by hunting down turkeys, and pumping out fully automatic, lead bursts, at ten to fifteen per second. And/or unregimented volumes of explosives which can be concocted by the Human mind.
And they say Dolphins are smart? Try building an internal combustion engine, Flipper!
No worries, LDT - I was addressing The Shark. You were guilty of a little mild sarcasm, which is never a problem, although you could have checked her profile
Must agree with you, statistics are easily manipulated. This part of Greece has no crime, but there are parts of Athens that I would not walk down at night. I am pretty sure that the US is the same - a mixture.
Whilst I do not like guns, I can understand where the US came from and why you have them. It seems to work well for you, although I have little deeper knowledge of the second, whether it is for defense against government or personal protection.
This debate is yet another US history lesson - interesting to read
EDIT - Shark: That was another Australian! As for some Americans being apathetic - I have no idea about that
I can understand Shark's anguish. I, to some extent, share it. You're right I should have checked her profile, but I think I'm careful in the forums about talking about where I'm from and what I have experience with and when I'm making assumptions, I suppose I expect others to do the same.
Some of the scarier things I've seen come out of Britain lately is the thought that nobody has the right to defend themselves, it is society's duty to protect you. There was another post somewhere that had a like to the Telegraph I think that talked some about that very topic and, wouldn't you know it, now I can't find it. Still you find less burglaries and crime in Texas, where you have Castle Doctrine laws than you do in Massachusetts, who pretty much strip their people of the right to defend themselves. In the end, that's all the proof I really need.
Unfortunately, I have very little idea about that one - I meet a lot of pleasant Americans visiting Sparta, but have never talked politics with them. They seem to be very smart people, but it is only a small sample of your countryfolk, the ones interested in Ancient Greek history.
Other than that, I genuinely have no idea
You meet the "Beautiful" people, get down in the trenches and have the idiots vote affect you because they either stupid, ignorant, or want the gov't to give them everything for free. Then you'll know what working, tax paying tuned in Americans are up against every day. You can tune in, go on the web and look up Laura Inghram, read her page, you can listen to her on the web.
I see eye to eye with her. (on hubpages try Madam X she right on too)You could even try my hub.
I will take a look, although I do not have much free time to keep up with the latest news from the US. One of the reasons why I like the forums here - always a learning experience
Sure - this is where cultural differences enter the fray. Don't read too much into the Telegraph and the British media, because they do sensationalise. Still, there is some truth behind the journalism. Until a few years ago, it was not so much that people expected society to protect them from crime, more that there was very little violent crime.
I lived in many places in the UK, and it has become less safe over the past few years, although that is only a personal perception of a few towns. Most people are happy with gun control, at the moment - as for the future - who knows?
We are much happier here - we have a zero crime rate, and I am happy for my partner to walk across Sparta at night because nothing is going to happen. That's the way we like it!
Sure all papers do, sensationalism sells. I wonder Sufi how much of that safety has to do with the high level of trust in Sparta as opposed to, oh I don't know, a bad neighborhood in Athens. I imagine the residents of Sparta have a high level of trust towards their neighbors and those of the bad neighborhoods in Athens have a lower level of trust. It might be profitable to see what we can find out in that regard.
Ron, have you, by chance, ever read Atlas Shrugged? Do you know anything about economics for that matter? Or is all you know lowbrow personal attacks and what you get from mass media outlets?
Yes, I have read Mein Ke.......errr.. I mean "Atlas Shrugged" and have personally met Milton Friedman, so yeah, I know a bit about economics and the uber-utopian rantings of the queen of the extreme right, Ayn Rand (unless they have replaced her with the equally nonsensical Sarah Palin). The Shark (who also got it wrong as to which animal has the other for lunch) could not grasp the brilliance of Matt Groening, so of course he had to ridicule him. HE probably has never read Ayn Rand (well, maybe the Cliff's Notes versions) and thus didn't realize that you had made a reference to one of the silliest books ever written.
Milton Friedman had some good points, but the Chicago school of economics is fatally flawed. Funny you should mention Friedman and Hitler in the same post. Have you ever compared and contrasted the economies of Nazi Germany and the US. Or ever really looked at the effects of FDR on the national life? Of course not. Still seeing as Papa Obama is the Second Coming of FDR, we're all of us about to get a lesson in the failed policies of the New Deal.
Couldn't agree with you more on the last point. I belong to the school that believes FDR did more harm than good during the depression, and that his policies continue to have disasterous effects on our society today. Obama will not be able to cause the same level of damage, but he will try to implement some big government solutions to problems that a "true" free market is better able to solve.
How is it you can believe in free markets, yet blast Ayn Rand? Also have you by any chance read James Clavell? He was the guy who really got me started in free market economics and he wrote a dedication to Ayn Rand. I'm not so much worried about Obama as I am the entire Democratic Party. Even most of the Republicans have me worried. It would be great to see the remnants of the Old Right of the Republicans, the guys who opposed FDR, and the Blue Dogs get together and take our country back. Otherwise I don't think anything less than a revolution will. Also you might want to check out the Austrian School and contrast it with the Chicago school: http://www.mises.org
I must admit, I have no idea about that the exact figures on that one. I do not know Athens very well, but my Athenian friend told me that even twenty years ago, Athens was an extremely safe city, but times are changing. Sparta is a small farming town and has a very strong sense of community.
It's reputation, as the home of tough men, probably helps - the descendants of Leonidas.
I wonder if there has been much immigration into Athens over the last 20 years? Until they assimilate, immigrants can contribute to trust issues and that, I believe, can lead to higher crime. If that's the case the best thing to do would be to integrate foreigners into society as quickly as possible in order to minimize disruption and crime. My hypothesis becomes more compelling when you look at Japan. Japan is pretty homogeneous, and that accounts, I think, for the lower crime rate.
Interesting idea - I will have to run it by my Athenian friend. A lot of the problems are caused by organized gangs - a lot of things, such as guns and drugs, are leaking over the border from the Balkans. According to what I have heard (pure hearsay rather than media sources!), there are a lot of organized Eastern European and Russian gangs in Athens; that is very plausible given the location of Greece and the impossibility of patrolling the borders.
Ron Montgomery has said: HE probably has never read Ayn Rand (well, maybe the Cliff's Notes versions) and thus didn't realize that you had made a reference to one of the silliest books ever written."
Atlas Shrugged has been in the top ten best sellers list since 1991, and increasing its popularity as we go into this economic downturn, coupled with the cultural clashes demanded by the progressive agendas we are now absorbing....Hardly a " silly " book...Now you want silly, try reading Chomsky's writings on the Khmer Rouge...
Yeah, it's a damned silly book. It plays to the irrational fears of gun-toting evangelical nut jobs who believe that a few "giants of industry" create everything that is good in the world and that their economic security is threatened by the unwashed masses of "lesser" beings who owe their existence to the efforts of the industrialists. The book rears it's ugly head occasionally, especially among the talk radio crowd, and that does help with sales. Rand sells lots of books like McDonald's sells lots of hamburgers, by appealing to the lowest common denominators of economic / gastronomic wisdom.
So if giants of industry don't drive an economy what does? Apparently the financial sector doesn't drive an economy.
The synergy of consumers and producers allowed to interact in their own best interests, protected from fraud, coercion and corruption by a freely elected government. Economic activity outside of these parameters is of no long term benefit to society or any individual involved.
"How is it you can believe in free markets, yet blast Ayn Rand?"
Because I believe that a free market is categorically imperative to the moral and economic foundations of any free society. To have a battle between socialism and capitalism childishly dramatized as it is in "Atlas Shrugged" gives ammunition to those who try to make the world less free. It makes free market advocates easy to dismiss when they preach the word of Rand.
Try reading the book "objectively" (pun intended) rather than as a heavenly revelation of truth.
Freedom and subjugation exist in degrees, not absolutes. More Ben Franklin, less Patrick Henry.
Yet you find in a free market that about 20% of the people amass 80% of the wealth precisely because they are the most productive of people. That's an effect of a free market. You'll find that happening in a non-free market as well, at least until the collectivists notice it and put a stop to it. It's like a natural law. The 20/80 law.
I happen to agree with you about the utter necessity of a free market, but what Rand was trying to show was the collectivists' insistence that they were working in the best interests of humanity was incorrect. That's why she chose to take such a hard line against "altruism" and I can see her point. I rather think that self-interest should have been used rather than selfishness, but in the end that's just semantics.
Until we experience a free market, we will never know whether the oft-quoted 80/20 rule holds true. It is true that a tiny minority of people does CONTROL most of the world's wealth, but this wealth was obtained in a variety of ways, some legal and productive, some through other means. The super-wealthy are not a class of economically-righteous, smarter-than-the-rest-of-us super humans, they simply have more money, and that gets to my irritation with the "Who is John Galt?" t-shirt wearers. There is no battle of Armageddon between the producers and the takers, there are simply people in different circumstances trying to make better lives for themselves through the means available to them. Those less well off who think that government is their best hope for prosperity are misguided, not evil.
I don't lose sleep worrying about Atlas deciding to shrug. I learned a long time ago that he neither literally nor figuratively supports the world.
I still think you miss the point. Anyway, it's been shown through studies that if you start a group of people off with the same amount of stuff, currency or what have you, soon enough 20% of people will have amassed 80% of the wealth. You've also correctly identified the agency that causes most of the problems. Government, because it can deprive people of life and liberty is used by the wealthy to bar entry of new players into their economic class. That is evil and detrimental to people in the long run.
Still you're right, in the long term you cannot hope to keep people down. If you take a list of the wealthiest people of the gilded age and compare it to a list of the wealthiest people today, the names on the list would be very different. You'd have guys like Bill Gates who ushered in an entirely new field of work which was not even on the horizon a century ago. And that is what keeps humanity progressing. Entrepreneurship. If we were smart, we'd set up society to maximize entrepreneurship so that better products and services would appear faster and faster, raising the standard of living for more and more people.
This year will go down in History. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future. - Adolph Hitler, 1935
Hey Onusonus, right on, they gave up their right voluntarily in Germany too. Check out an article at a site called: The American Thinker, there is na article by a woman whose parents are from Nigeria, she's 1st gen American and a conservatve despite being brought up by parents not unlike Obama. She wrote a great article about Obama's influnce by his Kenyan father and colonial politics of Africa. She used passages from Obama's own book to substantiate her position. I'll tell you after reading this it really opened my eyes to what makes this guy tick.
His response to the question about America being responsible for diminshing the Soviet influence in the world, which was to deny it was America's success but rather credit a consortium of counties, was made clear why he thinks this way. This article, only reinforced my belief that we're screwed! Especailly with the sheeple we have today.
The Shark---hoping it's not to late when 2010 arrives
"This year* will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
---Falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler, "Abschied vom Hessenland!" ["Farewell to Hessia!"], ['Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation)], April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann [Introduction by Eberhard Beckmann].
This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date given (*in alternate versions, the words "This year..." are replaced by "1935..." has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been a need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect. The Nazi Weapons Law (or Waffengesetz) which further restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license was passed on March 18, 1938. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
Here is another hot button issue where people will not agree. Please can we show more interest and appreciation for where people are from, and what their perspectives are. Read a profile or two and realize not everyone is American. Also, not all Americans support gun ownership, myself included, and I actually think civilians really do not need guns.
So true. I am Australian, and we have pretty good gun control. I have seen the difference in our stats, and I am for getting rid of something that was never intended by the US constitution. Comparisons with the situation in Germany is drawing a long bow.
How do you explain this: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html
I understand that you, personally, may not feel unsafe or be confronted with crime on a personal level, but how can you speak for every Australian? You cannot. Also how do you explain the gangs of hooligans running amok through the streets of cities like Sydney, rioting for lack of a better term? Are you sure things are as safe as you think they are?
sweetiepie, the problem when someone responds to an issue about our gov't and says they know nothing about our basic documents they should say they are not American. Otherwise it just looks like another person that knows noting about our gov't, which unfortuantely is most Americans today.
As for you not supporting gun ownership that's fine, but our Constitution does. So we don't run our gov't cafeteria style where you pick and choose what you think we should have. In other words, what if I don't believe people should have freedom of speech, (no more blogs), well ok for me to believe that, but our constitiution dictates otherwise.
The Shark---saying stick to the law not your feelings
Of course you don't, but it's pretty well established by your comments that <snipped personal attack>.
Actually I am a very educated and intelligent person, and if anything your own comments indicate you are close minded. People are allowed to have divergent opinions, and you are not accepting of this. Why is it so popular to heap personal insults on those who are not in line with your way of thinking? I do not do that to you, and I would not.
In a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court "majority" ruled that individuals have the right to own firearms, meaning that it was unconstitutional for local officials to prohibit the vast majority of Washington, D.C., residents from owning handguns.
So unless you think the rest of us have less rights than the residents of DC I'm going with the Supreme court on this one.
The Shark--snipped by the liberals
Many Americans fight over the interpretation of the second amendment, and surprisingly some conservatives are for gun control. Ronald Reagan survived an assasination attempt and supported the Brady Bill, and I remember Bush Sr. being flustered on TV when asked about it.
Whereas I think we would be better off with a total ban on guns here in the US, the NRA is a very strong lobby and will always proclaim that people would be deprived of liberty without these weapons. Several people were held up a gun point recently in our city, which is pretty crime free compared to others near by. I just do not understand how people feel their liberty is protected with fire arms, but I suppose I am not a big gun enthusiast either.
Here is an interesting link about the second amendment:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SFNdYJ … p;resnum=1
As much as I admire your intelligent remarks and wonderful demeanor in these forums, I feel your insight into government practices is a bit idealistic. Guns don't kill....people do. If we abolish the right to own weapons then only the evil people using them to kill would have them (and the military of course). I would love to see a statistic comparing "legitimate" gun owners who used their weapons to commit crimes vs those who used "unlicensed or illegally gotten" weapons to commit crimes.
I feel the real problem with gun ownership is that people cannot use them. I could not pull the trigger, and yet as an Australian bush kid, I was a crack shot by time I was 10 yo. It would not be possible for most people to shoot, and as pointed out in the Simpsons episode the real danger is in having a gun at all.Criminals may have no problem shooting someone, but most citizens just could not hurt a fellow human.
Nothing idealistic about how I feel and it is my well thought out opinion. However, as I stated the NRA is a strongly backed lobby, so people will always be demanding that gun ownership be perserved. By the way many people are against gun ownership in this country, and we are not idealistic, just sharing our realistic opinions on how guns cause more harm than good.
I am not going to get into a statistic quoting war with you here, and all I know is many of us will continue to be against gun ownership. Please learn to accept not everyone interprets the Constitution the same way, and it was loosely written because the framers wanted it to stand the test of time.
I will continue to present my divergent opinions here, and rest assured I am not the only one that feels this way.
That just shows how wrong you are. Ever hear of a series or pamphlets called the Federalist Papers? You might want to give them a read. I can't believe a supposed scholar of the Constitution doesn't seem to know anything about them. There was even a series of pamphlets written against the adoption of the Constitution called, interestingly enough, the Anti-Federalist papers. One of the more interesting points of the Anti-Federalist stance was the belief that the Constitution would be loosely interpreted and government centralized. The Federalist Papers went to great lengths to deny this accusation. It would seem that the writers of the Anti-Federalist papers had a point. Are you sure your history teachers were as impartial as they should have been?
I read the Federalist Papers and today there are many interpretations of the Constitution. Stop putting down my education and I could ask you, did you know not all Constitutionalists interpet the second amendment as you do? Of course maybe you love to just put people down. The second amendment applies to the protection of Americans by the militia, and I am not the only one who thinks so.
What you don't get is that interpretation is not the issue. The Constitution was crafted the way it was for a particular purpose. You claim to have read the Federalist papers, can you tell me what they were about. What arguments did they make for the adoption of the Constitution and how did they quell the fears of those opposed to its adoption? Those are important questions and your ability to answer them speaks to the thoroughness or lack thereof of your teachers.
The very fact that we have a Bill of Rights with those very amendments are the only reason it was adopted in the first place. There is not interpretation of the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution was meant to limit the government, it was not a document that is supposed to be interpreted. The Federalist papers claim that very point. What you've been taught is a Progressive revision of history that totally ignores what people of the time thought. Do some studying of the Progressive era and their views on the separation of powers, you might find some things of interest there.
Many of the reconstruction and civil rights eras ammendments (especially the fourteenth) came about specifically as a result of the various interpretations of the tenth.
I don't see that. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments prohibit slavery, abolish the Three-Fifths Rule, prohibit states from violating a person's privileges, immunities or due process, things that are already guaranteed at the Federal level by the Bill of Rights. Those three amendments extend those limitations on governmental power to the states.
You have conveniently omitted the historical context. One of the primary justifications for the wording of the tenth was to grant the states the right to continue slavery.
I had a weird experience with a gun carrying white guy in a motel in America.
I met a black couple at dinner in the motel, and as we left the restaurant to go to our rooms, we had to walk down a hallway. I saw a white couple approaching and saw the white guy reach inside his jacket and produce a gun as we approached. I took it off him. I was about twenty five at the time, and did not even consider getting shot. It was an uncocked revolver, a 38 S&W if memory serves me. He was paranoid about the black people I was with. I would not give his gun back, and threw it in a pond outside the window. I also abused him and his stupid wife for scaring the daylights out of this nice couple. Later in NYC I saw a guy get mugged, and two of us ran him down, disarmed him and called the cops.Despite those experiences I found America to be a pretty safe place over all.
Damn...I feel compelled to apologize to you for your unfortunate encounters here in the states. I've lived here all my life and have never come close to witnessing anything like that first hand. I mean I know it happens...we see it in the news every day. But I have never been in a position to have actually had to deal with it...
However some scholars for gun control interpret the second amendment to mean police force, militia, and the military, not people just having guns for the fun of it. I am an American who has studied Constitutional history, and your cafeteria style comment is slightly uninformed. Have you ever taken a college course at a university? There are many professors who tell you what I am saying and more, but I know many of my professors were probably more to the right than some would like, but many college professors are. Sorry my liberal opinions make you feel disconcerted, but conservatives do not have a monopoly on the Constitution, which was written loosely and is debated highly, even by the justices on the Supreme Court. When will people realize not all Americans interpret the Constitution as you do? Read the link I shared, which is a book with articles by scholars that are for and against gun control.
Bravo! You absolutely nailed it. The constitution is full of compromises and vague language that is open to interpretation. This is not a flaw, but rather an acknowledgement of the participants' acceptance of their own limitations. Anyone who claims that the second amendment incontrovertibly supports only their own viewpoint demonstrates a total ignorance of the document and the intentions of those who produced it.
Yes the second amendment is open to interpretation, and people must remember this. Thanks for actually seeing what I am talking about .
The only people who "interpret" the 2nd Amendment that way are those who also think it is a "living" document. Of course there are many professors who think the 2nd only applies to state-sanctioned forces, that is the liberal stance.
Conservatives uphold it's original intent - which is a doctrine of negative rights. Do you understand that phrase? Or not?
Ok, so we're going to sling mud, did I ever take a course at a college? Well Sweetie, not only do I happen to have a degree, but I also fill in at a college for absent Professors. I have also spoken at MIT. I'll interpert that for you, that would be the Mass Institute of Technology. As for professors interpeting our laws, your going to allow the biggest bunch of liberals to interpert our laws. I told my daughter,(wow she attended a univ too), before her first class at Penn State what she was in for from the liberal professors. She called after her first class telling me that her ENGLISH professor made the grand announcement that she was a "staunch" democrat, and then proceeded to ask the class by show of hands who was a dem. The same day another class "Professor" said we can only hope that Arnold Swartzenager loses the campaign, then began mocking his accent. Yhea, thats the people I want to go to for my constitutional interpertation. Why not go to that idiot from Colorado State that said the people that died on 9/11 were Nazi's. I don't own a gun, but I sure think every American has a right to defend their family from someone that wants to do their family harm.
<snipped - cool it on the aggression towards other users!>
The Shark--- responding to Sweetie, <snipped>
Sweetie, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. As for your, I'm sure very conservative professors, here is the ultimate answer from the Supreme Court.
In a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court " majority" ruled that individuals have the right to own firearms, meaning that it was unconstitutional for local officials to prohibit the vast majority of Washington, D.C., residents from owning handguns.
So unless you think the rest of us,(Americans), have less rights then D.C. citizens, the question has been asked and answered.
As for me I'm going with the Supreme Court rather than your professors. (My daughter got a kick out of your elitist condesceding approach--"have you ever taken a college course"
Just as no one on this thread speaks for all Americans, all Australians, or anyone. We each have are own stances on issues.
Which is fine, but you claim to be a Constitutional scholar. You should at the very least be able to demonstrate a knowledge of the people and events that shaped the crafting of that document. Your words show that you are misinformed. Now while that is due to the oversight of your instructors, you too have a duty to repair any deficits in your instruction. By your very words and actions you show that you are not interested in doing so.
You may claim that I am closed minded, but at the very least I can give reasons why I reject certain ideas. Not just mealy mouthed platitudes and statements like "Have you ever taken a college course at a university?". That right there, my dear, shows how intolerant you really are. Colleges and universities are sorely lacking in true scholarship these days and your adherence to judging people based on the fact that they went to college or not is sad. You can find wisdom from peasants as well as kings and philosophers. But I'd not expect you to know that.
If anything I am one of the people that have stood up for people that did not attend college, and your words are biased. Universities actually have many astute scholars well versed in the Constitution, and saying I have to correct my learning is control freaky. I will continue to believe what I believe and read widely, and someone telling you to do something will never work. It is cajoling, and never works.
My aside about attending a college course at a liberal university has to do with illustrating not all scholars of the Constitution will have a conservative slant. If you go to a conservative university you will be much more likely to find that, but there is room for opinion in these matter. Ultimately little old me will never deprive people of their right to own guns in this country as the NRA lobby will always have a strong push to guarantee this right.
Honestly I don't really care if you don't really apply yourself to scholarship. I will, however, continue to point out where you propound fallacies and errors in scholarship. The fact that you don't think you have anything else to learn is freaky. You never stop learning. If I stopped learning I'd be just like you. But I don't, I continue to read and assimilate what I've read. Unlike many scholars, I don't think the attainment of a piece of paper is what makes you a scholar.
As for standing up for people who don't go to college, how can you square that with what you asked Shark just because he disagreed with you. You deliberately tried to make him look stupid and ill informed because you were hoping that he hasn't gone to college. That, my dear, is exactly what you've accused me of doing. "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
I have studied the Progressive area and I admire this a great time of positive change in American history. As I said the Constitution was written loosely, the Bill of Right were created to address the rights that were not included there. Even the Supreme Court debates the second amendment interpretations, and some things may change when Sotomayor is appointed as she is a gun control advocate. I actually support her stance on this by the way.
Of course you do. But you don't seem to have an understanding of the sweep of history and the consequences of things. Progressive politics will always lead to tyranny. We're about to experience that ourselves. Now you may like such a setup, but I do not. In addition all tyrants have had to unleash bloodshed to keep their power. It is easier to maintain power through a terror if you disarm the populace first. Still the future will tell who is right, you or I. I hope you are right, although I don't believe it, because if I'm right, we're in for "interesting times" as the Chinese like to say.
You both are speaking down to me and I do not have to stand for it. All I said was in any college course you will hear what professors are saying. I learn new things every day, and no more references to that please. I feel I have much to teach you also, if you want to go in that way of thinking though.
So teach. Give names, sources, debate. Don't just tell, show me you know what you're talking about. Give me authors, books, articles to read. If you bother to take the time to see what I've written, you'll see that I'm pretty liberal in giving sources and further reading ideas to people. Do the same. Challenge me.
I actually have a deep and solid understanding of history, just not along your lines. I never spoke down to shark or implied he did not go to college, but if you could stop speaking down to me that would be great.
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun enthusiast who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny are...
by Xenonlit 6 years ago
Has the National Rifle Association gained too much power and influence in America?Is it time to force the NRA to step out of the business of dictating our laws in ways that allow mass shootings? If no one pulls out the gun that they are allowed to carry and defends a crowd, then what good is the...
by Mr. Happy 6 years ago
A question for people who are against gun control: does the fact that 'the founding fathers" wrotethat the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed lead them to believe that gun laws will never change? With this kind of thinking, should Italy return to Roman laws and should Egypt re-enact the laws...
by jgrimes331 3 years ago
Do you think the founding fathers of America; in consideration to AK-47's, assault weapons and handguns, would have reconsidered there position to NOT include the 2nd Amendment in the American Constitution? If we are going to have the right to bear arms, shouldn't the "burden" in...
by Nicola Thompson 6 years ago
Do you think our 2nd Amendment should be reconsidered?With the recent tragic shooting on the East Coast, coupled with the shooting at the opening of the newest Batman, as well as the lesser heard of shooting in California on voting day, is it time we reconsider whether or not we should have the...
by Cindy Vine 8 years ago
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|