Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/31/2002 6:22:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/31/2002 7:15:34 AM EST by lordtrader]
This is from David Kopel at National Review and is a wonderful idea although I am sure many LEO's here will not approve. I wish this thing would pass. Then most of the stupid gun laws will be reversed. [url]www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel073002.asp[/url] I know I am stupid and can't activate the link sorry. [i]edited to activate link for you. lordtrader[/i]
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 6:32:37 AM EST
[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel073002.asp[/url]
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 6:34:50 AM EST
I don't know if many of the stupid gun laws will be reversed, as you say, but it certainly does "call the bluff" of many gun-control groups that claim these weapons are INHERENTLY DANGEROUS. It's like Rosie O'Donnell hiring a gun-toting bodyguard, but opposing such protection for those who can't afford it.
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 6:37:11 AM EST
I'd vote for it. Of course it is all redundant. In my opinion, it's all in the original second amendment.
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 6:37:28 AM EST
After reading, I would definately vote for it, and I am a law enforcement officer. I agree with you in the respect that the "law makers" would not be quite so swift to initiate further gun restrictions if they were applied "across the board". That could be exactly what lawful gun owners need. That said... it would never happen.
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 6:37:45 AM EST
I simply want to outlaw "junk politicians".
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 6:51:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By Torf: I'd vote for it. Of course it is all redundant. In my opinion, it's all in the original second amendment.
View Quote
technically, no, it's not. the 2nd amendment itself doesn't protect the citizens' rights to keep and bear what the military has. granted, it was the thoughts and opinions of the framers of the Constitution that this be the case since the purpose for having that right was rooted in the citizens' ability to throw off tyrannical leaders and governments. which consequently meant having like and kind fire power. but unfortunately, the 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly protect [i]what[/i] citizens may carry, just our [i]right[/i] to carry. of course, i'm not exactly happy about this since it does allow for the creation of an "us versus them" mentality between the people and the government (not to mention the people and the police forces). i think for this amendment to succeed (were it ever to be introduced), the entire mindset of the people of the U.S. would have to change to reflect the fact that all people, aside from the military, are civilians. even our elected representatives, our police forces, and our non-elected (appointed) leaders. were it not for the current paradigm that sets those groups apart from the rest of the people of the U.S., i'm not so sure we would even have to worry about this Amendment Two-and-a-half.
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 7:02:37 AM EST
Originally Posted By Torf: I'd vote for it. Of course it is all redundant. In my opinion, it's all in the original second amendment.
View Quote
I have to disagree here, and explain why I voted "don't know" (when I'm actually now thinking I should have voted "no"). The Second Amendment states that our freedom to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The "Goose and Gander" amendment does nothing to prevent already unconstitutional infringements, nor future ones. It is simply an equality thing. And if the governments were bold enough to call the bluff, then all is lost. So, you'd have the 2nd Amendment station that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, then 2.5 Amendment stating that infringement is okay as long as it applies equally, except to the military. Then crime becomes rampant, the police can't cope, and the military is called in "for our safety". I like Torf's comment on outlawing junk politicians. Just think of all the people we could employ in a dept. with that responsibility!
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 7:09:00 AM EST
Why does a FDA agent need an M-60? CRC
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 7:11:32 AM EST
This Amendment does exist. The problem is that most people ignore it. It is the 4th, equal protection under the Law. Many simply refuse to recognize equal. "Some pigs are more equal than others" - George Orwell Animal, Farm
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 7:23:48 AM EST
I'd love to see it more general and not tied to the second amendment at all. [bold] 1. No government agency, nor employee of any government agency shall be allowed to pass, enact, or enforce any law or regulation that do does not apply equally to all citizens of the United States or the state, county, or municipality in which they serve. 2. No government agency, nor employee of any government agency shall be exempt from any law or regulation of the United States or the state, county, or municipality in which they serve. [/bold]
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 7:32:21 AM EST
I just voted No. Here's why: in a nutshell, all law enforcement whether city, county, or state will eventually become militarized because political leaders feel the need to maintain law and order. A "civilian" law enforcement agency that does not have "superior" weaponry to the population it attempts to police will not be perceived as "equal" to its potential adversaries, but as "inferior." Any elected executive in this day and age who manages an inferior agency will be seen as weak and will be replaced. Likewise, people want to be governed by strong leaders. Strength is often a perception thing and is determined how the leader projects it. The SWAT team is one of the ways leaders project superiority and strength over the population. If today's political leader is forced to accept weaponry for law enforcement no better nor any more powerful than what you and I can buy at the gun show, that leader is naturally going to "elevate" the status of local law enforcement to the National Guard, despite the current restrictions upon the military acting in a police role. Never forget that the average person who enters the private space we call the voting booth is looking to be led, not necessarily "served" by elected officials.
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 7:35:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By gsc0527: This Amendment does exist. The problem is that most people ignore it. It is the 4th, equal protection under the Law. Many simply refuse to recognize equal. "Some pigs are more equal than others" - George Orwell Animal, Farm
View Quote
Excellent point! I doubt that this amendment would ever pass, but it creates awareness of how unfair current firearms laws are. At least that is something positive for gun-owners/pro RKBA.
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 7:35:37 AM EST
Originally Posted By CRC: Why does a FDA agent need an M-60? CRC
View Quote
probly the same reason hte Dept of natural resources has a SWAT team
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 8:04:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By ARLady:
Originally Posted By Torf: I'd vote for it. Of course it is all redundant. In my opinion, it's all in the original second amendment.
View Quote
technically, no, it's not. the 2nd amendment itself doesn't protect the citizens' rights to keep and bear what the military has. granted, it was the thoughts and opinions of the framers of the Constitution that this be the case since the purpose for having that right was rooted in the citizens' ability to throw off tyrannical leaders and governments. which consequently meant having like and kind fire power. but unfortunately, the 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly protect [i]what[/i] citizens may carry, just our [i]right[/i] to carry.
View Quote
I know it doesn't explicitly say any of that, but most of us agree that "shall not be infringed" means gun bans and heavy taxes and regulations are out, and "well regulated Militia" means well equipped and ready for action should the need arise. If the actual intent of this amendment was upheld, then much of the 2 1/2 amendment wouldn't be needed. It is just my opinion, that much of what was written about was actually the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to give all the rights, without conveying some entitlement.
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 3:30:09 PM EST
BTT for the night guys
Top Top