Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsAmendment 2 - Page 2 of 3
Bill Whittle: Your Second Amendment US Gun - Page 2 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 29th Oct, 2014 - 3:50pm
Posts: 17 - Views: 2772
Second AmendmentPost Date: 9th Mar, 2008 - 5:24pm / Post ID: #
Amendment 2 - Page 2
KNToran, I think that Benjamin Franklin said this:
| QUOTE |
| They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. |
It is ridiculous, in my opinion, to feel that gun control laws will keep guns out of criminals hands. The US tried prohibition of alcohol once, and that certainly didn't work. It would only make it more difficult for the law-abiding citizen to obtain one, not the criminal.
Not only does our right to bear arms protect us from a tyrannical government, but also from the criminals within our society. This, in my opinion, is what the second amendment guarantees us now. The ability to protect yourself from people that would do harm to you or your family. It is interesting to note that a lot of the shootings that happen in public places are in supposed gun-free areas. Seems like the gun-free areas only stopped the law-abiding citizen from carrying, and created a target for the sociopath.
Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 10th Mar, 2008 - 4:35pm / Post ID: #
Amendment
Yes You are right on with that quote Bob I was just putting it into easier to understand terms.
Yes As a law abiding citizen a thief will be very sorry if they broke into my house hoping to score something cheap and easy. My weapons are designed to protect my things and my family. 
Edited: KNtoran on 10th Mar, 2008 - 4:40pm
Amendment
Finally. I doubt the gun-control advocates will back off, but at least we have it from the "highest court in the land" that we are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to bear arms, and to have them available to us for self-defense at all times.
| QUOTE |
| The landmark constitutional pronouncement came as the nation's highest court struck down a 32-year ban on private possession of handguns in Washington, D.C. The court also invalidated two other strict gun-control measures in the district that required that rifles and shotguns at all times be kept disassembled or secured with a trigger lock. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller. "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. The majority justices said the District's strict gun regulations violated 'the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." .... In addition, in the opinion's most significant limitation, the majority justices said the Second Amendment provides a right for Americans to possess the sorts of weapons that were in common use at the time of the drafting of the amendment - meaning rifles and handguns. "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons," " Scalia said. |
The trigger-lock industry will not be happy, nor others. And this is merely for Washington D.C.'s particular situation. Other states may find themselves in legal contests very soon over the same issue. I, for one, will watch it with interest, and the responses to this decision over the coming weeks.
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 
59.5%
Amendment 2
Scalia sent a shot over the bow of the group that will logically come forward now and claim that they need a M16 for home security. I really do appreciate Justice Scalia! But in Scalia even having to send out that message in his opinion, lays the problem. There is no middle road for either side for a great many who launch the pro and con causes. There WILL be a group that now interprets this to mean that they can have and tote automatic weapons...why not...in their minds the consitution says this is ok. On the other hand, all the regulations already in existence is not enough for the contol side. They ultimately want to take your gun away from you, which is what they tried to do here.
Honestly, it pains me to see how close the decision was and to read the desents from the other Justices. The callus manner in which they negate the ideology of the founding fathers and their understanding of tirany is very concerning.
Justice Stevens:
| QUOTE |
| The majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." |
Justice Breyer:
| QUOTE |
| "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." |
These 2 quotes really do raise concern about the direction of the Court in the future. You may regulate that was never in doubt as you have regulated for decades upon decades now. What you are ruling on is not regulation but a ban. The other Justice acknowledges that there is a right in the Second Amendment to keep a loaded handgun in the house in a crime-ridden area, but believes that either the Framers werent smart enough to know in the future, you shouldnt have that right. Wow..
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Post Date: 27th Jun, 2008 - 5:45pm / Post ID: #
Amendment 2 - Page 2
It boggles the mind to think that whom ever we elect into the white house may seat a new supreme court judge who then can turn the who thing around again to make gun owners criminals again. I hope that people wake up someday soon and realize that their basic rights that were given to us by the first and second amendments are close to jeopardy.
Post Date: 29th Oct, 2014 - 3:50pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: Informer [?]
Amendment 2 Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2
Bill Whittle: Your Second Amendment
US Gun Related News
Over at the Constitution Society, author J. Neil Schulman conducted a remarkable exercise. He sent the text of the Second Amendment not to a lawyer but to an expert on the English Language: Roy Copperud taught Journalism at USC for 17 years and served on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary. Mirriam Webster’s dictionary frequently cites him as an expert on American English usage. Copperud: The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.” Shulman:...
Source
TOPIC: Amendment 2