Supreme Court Defends Righ Of US Citizens To Live On Terrifying Streets

[dt3]

I'm in the camp that the 2nd amendment protects states rights, not individual rights.

So Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are for the people; number 2 is for the States? Do you truly believe that? Even the damn ACLU admits that they are individual rights:

The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration - or bill - of individual rights.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_...m_immigrants-rights/bill-rights-brief-history

 

[Accountable]

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.

:dunno

Ah.
Don't forget the name of our federation. The United States of America. "State" in this case means one of the States united, not the federation. The militia was to protect the State from a tyrannical federal gov't as much as from a foreign enemy.

 

[Alien Allen]

Ah.
Don't forget the name of our federation. The United States of America. "State" in this case means one of the States united, not the federation. The militia was to protect the State from a tyrannical federal gov't as much as from a foreign enemy.

Oh come on lets not let facts get in the way

Of course we are supposed to be a limited republic and you can see how that is working out

 

[Peter Parka]

Ah.
Don't forget the name of our federation. The United States of America. "State" in this case means one of the States united, not the federation. The militia was to protect the State from a tyrannical federal gov't as much as from a foreign enemy.

Key word right here. Oh, and to whoever was trying to compare knives and blunt objects to guns, get real! Only and idiot would think they are as dangerous as guns not to mention they have a useful and practical purpose other than killing people.

 

[Accountable]

Check out what I found!

http://manybooks.net/titles/hamiltonaletext98feder10a.html

The Federalist Papers in free Ebook formats ... even audio book!

 

[Accountable]

Key word right here.

I'm simply trying to give you the context so that you can better understand. You wish to willfully misunderstand, that's on you.

 

[Peter Parka]

I'm simply trying to give you the context so that you can better understand. You wish to willfully misunderstand, that's on you.

You are wrong, I'm not willfully misunderstanding you though obviously I have misunderstood you, care to explain to me what a militia means in the USA? I kind of got my understanding of the word from American Western films but I see they are false.

 

[Alien Allen]

Check out what I found!

http://manybooks.net/titles/hamiltonaletext98feder10a.html

The Federalist Papers in free Ebook formats ... even audio book!

Great find :thumbup

I will have to check that out

 

[Accountable]

You are wrong, I'm not willfully misunderstanding you though obviously I have misunderstood you, care to explain to me what a militia means in the USA? I kind of got my understanding of the word from American Western films but I see they are false.

Sorry, I'll give it another shot.

If you really believe that the defenses of your country are really so poor that there is even a chance that your country will get invaded and an emergency situation will arise where it will be necessary for a militia to rise up in its defense then, yes, I think you are very deluded!

Indeed, if that was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. :smiley24:

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.

:dunno

Ah.
Don't forget the name of our federation. The United States of America. "State" in this case means one of the States united, not the federation. The militia was to protect the State from a tyrannical federal gov't as much as from a foreign enemy.

Key word right here.

No, the key word is "free". If you have the time (and who does?) look through the federalist papers. They help clarify what was written in the Constitution. The whole system was set up with a focus on liberty of the citizen a priority, government subjugated to the citizen, and all gov't bodies balanced in power and ability to check one another. If the citizenry had not been armed, they never could have thrown off the tyranny of King George. The Founders understood the very real danger of the federal gov't becoming corrupt and tyrannical as well. The check against that was to leave the power to resist in the citizens' hands, both through bearing arms in self-protection and organized military resistance through state militias.

We have state militias in the form of the National Guard. This far down the road of history, I doubt most Guards realize their loyalty is first to their particular state gov't and then to the federal gov't. Regardless, the citizen is supreme in the USA. Each of us has the right, even the obligation, to toss out a tyrannical government when we see it.

 

[Peter Parka]

Dont get me wrong, I'm not trying to rubbish your entire constitution, I'm not even completely rubbishing the second amendment. I'm just pointing out that 300 years ago, weapons were quite primative as well as society to what they and it are now. While the second amendment was relevant back then, society has kind of moved on in 300 years. The USA defense system is so good today that there really is no need for non military citizens to be armed in case of an invasion that the army cant deal with. In recent years, 9/11 is the nearest you're come to that and something tells me that people walking around New York with guns in their pockets wouldn't have managed to prevent it.

 

[retro]

Only and idiot would think they are as dangerous as guns not to mention they have a useful and practical purpose other than killing people.

Guns are a tool; people kill people, not guns. You can shoot targets with a gun, hunt with a gun, defend your home and family with a gun (non-lethal force). It's a shame that all of you brits are so brainwashed to be anti-gun that you can't see any other point of view.

 

[Guyzerr]

It's a shame that all of you brits are so brainwashed to be anti-gun that you can't see any other point of view.

It's a shame you don't live in a country where you wouldn't feel the need to own a gun. It's actually quite relaxing. Ya'll should give it a whirl some time.

 

[Peter Parka]

Guns are a tool; people kill people, not guns. You can shoot targets with a gun, hunt with a gun, defend your home and family with a gun (non-lethal force).

Shooting targets with a gun - not useful
Hunt with a gun - give you that, useful except with hand guns which Americans seem to love so much
Defend your home and family with a gun - it's statistically proven than a gun in the home is more likely to kill an innocent person than a burglar

It's a shame that all of you yanks are so brainwashed to be pro-gun that you can't see any other point of view. :sarcasm

 

[Accountable]

Dont get me wrong, I'm not trying to rubbish your entire constitution, I'm not even completely rubbishing the second amendment. I'm just pointing out that 300 years ago, weapons were quite primitive as well as society to what they and it are now. While the second amendment was relevant back then, society has kind of moved on in 300 years. The USA defense system is so good today that there really is no need for non military citizens to be armed in case of an invasion that the army cant deal with. In recent years, 9/11 is the nearest you're come to that and something tells me that people walking around New York with guns in their pockets wouldn't have managed to prevent it.

I got cramps in my forearms for nuttin'?!? *pulls two pints; slaps Pete on the head & hands him one*
We're not even supposed to have a standing army! Who are we defending against? Never mind. Different subject.
The armed citizenry is to guard against a tyrannical American federal government as much as an outside invading force. Now we have a standing army we don't need to worry about an invading force, but the potential for a tyrannical government is greater than ever.

It's a shame you don't live in a country where you wouldn't feel the need to own a gun. It's actually quite relaxing. Ya'll should give it a whirl some time.

I do live in a country where I don't feel the need to own a gun. The difference is that I can go get one if my situation changes. You can't. Sleep well.

 

[Peter Parka]

I got cramps in my forearms for nuttin'?!? *pulls two pints; slaps Pete on the head & hands him one*
We're not even supposed to have a standing army! Who are we defending against? Never mind. Different subject.
The armed citizenry is to guard against a tyrannical American federal government as much as an outside invading force. Now we have a standing army we don't need to worry about an invading force, but the potential for a tyrannical government is greater than ever.


I do live in a country where I don't feel the need to own a gun. The difference is that I can go get one if my situation changes. You can't. Sleep well.

You have no faith in democracy? Scary! I might not always agree with the government of my country but I've never seen the need to get so drastic that I have to invade Westminster and kill politicians!:willy_nilly:

 

[Tim]

I do live in a country where I don't feel the need to own a gun. The difference is that I can go get one if my situation changes. You can't. Sleep well.

You make it sound like you can't own a gun in Canada. Canada has the 9th largest collection of privately owned guns in the world.
With a simple test and registration you can go out and buy a nice 12gage that will provide more protection than any handgun.

If someone is on my property or in my home, the first gun I will reach for is the 12gage, not any of my handguns.

 

[retro]

It's a shame you don't live in a country where you wouldn't feel the need to own a gun. It's actually quite relaxing. Ya'll should give it a whirl some time.

I don't own a gun or feel the need to own a gun to be honest.

 

[retro]

If someone is on my property or in my home, the first gun I will reach for is the 12gage, not any of my handguns.

I agree, a handgun for self defense isn't necessarily the most useful. A 12 gauge > handgun any day... unless you're worried about collateral damage to your house :24:

 

[Guyzerr]

I do live in a country where I don't feel the need to own a gun. The difference is that I can go get one if my situation changes. You can't. Sleep well.

If you're situation changed to the point of needing a gun it would be required immediately assuming of course you don't already own one. You wouldn't have the time to leave your house and go buy one.

I know exactly what your response will be... something to this effect...

Guyzerr you made a great point and that's why I wanna protect my rights to own one now.

To which I would reply... well Accountable just imagine my present scenario. ( I know it will be hard for you to do that because you've never lived it but try your best to use your imagination ok. ) I don't feel threatened in any way, shape or form because I live in a gun free society. Because of that I have no problem sleeping at night wondering if I'll need one now or in the future.

Pleasant dreams....................

 

[Guyzerr]

I don't own a gun or feel the need to own a gun to be honest.

I'm glad you are honest about it. I was starting to think there were very few of you left. It truly is a very relaxing way to live vs the US system.