Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
12/15/2017 11:52:10 PM
Posted: 7/16/2001 11:46:18 AM EST
I recently watched a special on the HISTORY CHANNEL where the topic of gun control and the 2nd Amendment was discussed. The panel included two anti-gun folks, one a "noted historian" and the other a "columnist"...and one pro-gun "columnist"... fair fight? Anyway... I found myself screaming at the TV... the whole discussion hinged on the premise that historically not many people owned guns when the 2nd amendment was written... thus, the amendment was intended to mean "only state militias are entitled to have guns, individual ownership is not covered" The way I see it.... The first and second amendments of the constitution were developed first and second respectively because the founding fathers wanted to ensure that "the voice of the people would never be suppressed"... Arming the militia....which in this day and age has been perverted to mean the federally controlled national guard...is not what was intended... It is clear that the founding fathers wanted the people to control the government, and thus wrote amendments to protect rights that we be armed and allowed to speak out... if we take either of these rights away, we ensure that our government will eventually become an oppressor as opposed to a servant of the people... Bottom line...free people must be trusted by their government... if the government cannot trust it's constituency to speak and act appropriately, the government is corrupt and in the wrong, a government must act in the people's interest, not visa-versa The two anti gun folks also behaved poorly, interrupting the pro-gun guest with irreverent statements like... "the founding fathers never intended every man to be armed with an AK47"...to this I say...damn right, they intended every man to be armed with an M16, the standard arm of the US military.... To be honest, I don't really care for the whole premise of uninfringed rights to own guns, and I do see the wisdom of carefully checking to ensure guns don't fall into the hands of criminals...however, I am very, very much against banning guns from public access because they are efficient at killing.... the founding fathers wanted us to have guns to protect "we the people" from all threats, including possible corrupt governments of the future...I do not care one bit about hunting weapons and pistols, they are tools of a different trade, what I want to protect from restriction is the purpose built weapons designed to kill humans..I don't foresee any deer uprisings in the near future..
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 11:51:52 AM EST
Gotta watch those "deer uprisings". Very effective suicide squads of whitetail deer have rendered driving in NJ a dangerous practice for years. These "agents of terror" have been aided and abetted by the local anti-hunting crowd for quite some time now.
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 11:52:17 AM EST
To be honest, I don't really care for the whole premise of uninfringed rights to own guns
View Quote
Then you don't really care for the Second Amendment. Just curious...would you mind a little infringement of your right to choose a religion? To prevent another Jonestown? You wouldn't do it for the children? Having a right is like being pregnant....either you is or you ain't.
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 11:55:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By FatMan: Gotta watch those "deer uprisings". Very effective suicide squads of whitetail deer have rendered driving in NJ a dangerous practice for years. These "agents of terror" have been aided and abetted by the local anti-hunting crowd for quite some time now.
View Quote
Hey FATMAN, why not go get LITTLE BOY and party like in, oh never mind!!!!!!
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 12:00:03 PM EST
The Antis will read what they want into the document. How about Amendment 10:
"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."
View Quote
In other words, all power resides with the People and the States, unless specifically given to the Federal Government, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! When the 'hippies' used to say 'Power to the People', they were correct.
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 12:05:27 PM EST
Originally Posted By ECS: The Antis will read what they want into the document. How about Amendment 10:
"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."
View Quote
In other words, all power resides with the People and the States, unless specifically given to the Federal Government, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! When the 'hippies' used to say 'Power to the People', they were correct.
View Quote
Careful, there are those on this board, that claim to support the 2nd Amendment, but always flame the militia, could they be false patriots? They are easy to identify, they almost always flame me, but hey, I am sure they would not be so bold in person, then again who cares!!!!
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 12:07:32 PM EST
Celt wrote "Having a right is like being pregnant, either you is or you aint". I'm not sure if we disagree... I choose not to have a religion.. I don't think that our "right" should be to own firearms... I believe our right should be "to own firearms to ensure freedom".... The topic is one that warrants discussion and I have an open mind... I do not agree with your pregnancy analog, but I'm willing to listen to your perspective and potentially change mine should you present a compelling argument. I believe we should choose the best ground to mount our defense against the antis.... I believe my argument is strong...play devil's advocate, attack it with solid, rational arguments...back up what you say with fact if possible. Let's kill of any weak defenses that might divide us...and develop a common position that is workable
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 12:41:42 PM EST
Hmmmm? I do believe, and I have read the entire Constitution several times, according to the 10th all Federal gun statuates are unconstitutional as SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas has previously alluded to. Also someone should ask one of these anti's why that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, whose premises, language, and integrity rely heavily on the distinctions between State and People, would include powers of the State on a group of ammendments that was drafted to outline what the frameres exactlty meant by the terms "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness"! Or, ask why would these terms be used interchangingly in the 2nd but no place else in either document! I mean imagine if we applied that reasoning to all the ammendments? Hell, only the gov't would have any power at all! Sound suspicious yet? The fact remains that all of the documented historical evidence illustrates vividly that the framers drafted the Bill of Rights in response to an uneasy populous that was not fully entrusting to the new federal gov't and they wanted "guarantees" that they could fall back upon if they percieved that the gov't was out of line. So the Bill of Rights was drafted, and it is the documented historical fact, that can be verified by any constitutional scholar, pro gun or not, that these 10 ammendments were intended to articulate the premise of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the individual citizen. The 10th and it's langugae only bolsters that fact. Think about it! If these rights or some rights were granted only to the states then why have an ammendemnet that outlines what the states authorities are on the ammendments? For the states to legistlate unto themselves in a never ending circle? Ludicrous! To reason that all the ammendemnts apply to the individual except for the only one that can secure the rest is a poor attempt at socialistic rule! We the gun owners of this country are the insurance policy! Would you drive in a new BMW in downtown Manhatten in rush hour traffic without insurance? I wouldn't and that's just a car. The framers didn't wish to empower a gov't or people without insurance that if needed the same could be overthrown. Because of the fact, that since our inception we have been an armed populous, we are not and will not be enslaved, oppressed, or abused in any manner. If we were not armed we would long ago have died in civil war or have been conquered. Much of the world envy's our greatness, stands in awe of our military might, our econimic influence, our advanced technology, and our colorful history but it is all drawn from the ideal that an armed populous can and will fight if nesseccary to ensure these principles of freedom from majority rule by popular election or totalatarian rule by oppression will be the deterent against such happenings. It is fundamental to understand that without US our country would be doomed.
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 1:41:11 PM EST
thus, the amendment was intended to mean "only state militias are entitled to have guns, individual ownership is not covered"
View Quote
This "collective right" crap is just that, crap! Let's apply the same standard to the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the [i]right of the people[/i] to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
View Quote
I guess that would mean only government agencies could gather in groups of more than two. I'm sure families would be exempted. Eddie
Top Top