Since when do you represent "the people"? You're a minority control freak.
Is the right to bear arms outdated.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Since when do you represent "the people"? You're a minority control freak.
marc
Lifetime Supporter
Jim
You have all the right in America to shout at the top of lungs that guns are dangerous and should be banned. Many of you out there feel the same way.
However, statistically, the rest of us believe that the accidental deaths are preventable. if one gun is in a house, the responsible owner should be just that, responsible. Children should be schooled by the parent to properly understand all that is involved with that responsibility.
Folks have had such weapons as long as America has been its own country. It is in are bill of rights. Written in blood in the defense of your freedoms you flagrantly wish to give up.
Laws have been created to curb the access to guns, and yet the are not enforced. Especially to felons, illegals, and the mentally challenged.
Chicago and DC have proven that bans dont work as more murders are committed there. If you want to ban them where you live, get up and do something about it, but please worry about your neighborhood.
It is the right to own that isnt most worrying. It is giving up any rights afford to us by our ancestors that is fundamentally wrong.
We the people, Jim, not a few, are not agreeing with your position. We, legal and responsible gun owners, mourn over events like Sandy Hook and others. But it doesn't require a simple snap decision of closing the barn door after the horse got out.
I blame the bureaucracy of the police and goverment for way they think and act. More laws aren't the answer, following the law is.
The police should be going after the gangs. The parents should be controlling their children. And we the people should be vigilant about removing the disturbed from having access to a firearm.
You have all the right in America to shout at the top of lungs that guns are dangerous and should be banned. Many of you out there feel the same way.
However, statistically, the rest of us believe that the accidental deaths are preventable. if one gun is in a house, the responsible owner should be just that, responsible. Children should be schooled by the parent to properly understand all that is involved with that responsibility.
Folks have had such weapons as long as America has been its own country. It is in are bill of rights. Written in blood in the defense of your freedoms you flagrantly wish to give up.
Laws have been created to curb the access to guns, and yet the are not enforced. Especially to felons, illegals, and the mentally challenged.
Chicago and DC have proven that bans dont work as more murders are committed there. If you want to ban them where you live, get up and do something about it, but please worry about your neighborhood.
It is the right to own that isnt most worrying. It is giving up any rights afford to us by our ancestors that is fundamentally wrong.
We the people, Jim, not a few, are not agreeing with your position. We, legal and responsible gun owners, mourn over events like Sandy Hook and others. But it doesn't require a simple snap decision of closing the barn door after the horse got out.
I blame the bureaucracy of the police and goverment for way they think and act. More laws aren't the answer, following the law is.
The police should be going after the gangs. The parents should be controlling their children. And we the people should be vigilant about removing the disturbed from having access to a firearm.
An FYI to supporters of the Second Amendment (Jim, no use commenting since I've blocked you):
Dear Dr. Kaler:
Thank you for contacting me regarding federal firearms laws. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.
As a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I believe it is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to own and use firearms designed for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-protection. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.
It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has upheld the will of our Founders and re-affirmed the ideals our country was established upon. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller provides a greater guarantee that Americans' Constitutional rights remain secure from federal government intrusion. I was proud to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in that case stating an individual’s right to bear arms is fundamental. This historic ruling continues to have implications far beyond the District of Columbia. In 2010, the Supreme Court decided in McDonald v. City of Chicago to strike down the arbitrary gun ban in Chicago—and thereby affirm that the Second Amendment safeguards against state and local encroachments on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. I believe that strictly enforcing the law—and meting out tougher sentences for career criminals and those who use firearms when committing crimes—will reduce crime more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
Dear Dr. Kaler:
Thank you for contacting me regarding federal firearms laws. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.
As a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I believe it is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to own and use firearms designed for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-protection. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.
It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has upheld the will of our Founders and re-affirmed the ideals our country was established upon. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller provides a greater guarantee that Americans' Constitutional rights remain secure from federal government intrusion. I was proud to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in that case stating an individual’s right to bear arms is fundamental. This historic ruling continues to have implications far beyond the District of Columbia. In 2010, the Supreme Court decided in McDonald v. City of Chicago to strike down the arbitrary gun ban in Chicago—and thereby affirm that the Second Amendment safeguards against state and local encroachments on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. I believe that strictly enforcing the law—and meting out tougher sentences for career criminals and those who use firearms when committing crimes—will reduce crime more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
Mr Craik...
I believe you are referring to the 22nd Amendment which limits presidential term limits.
However, nowhere in the Constitution or in the Amendments does it give the RIGHT to be President at all.
The Constitution does spell out what powers the Executive branch and the President have, but does not give them the RIGHT.
I believe you are referring to the 22nd Amendment which limits presidential term limits.
However, nowhere in the Constitution or in the Amendments does it give the RIGHT to be President at all.
The Constitution does spell out what powers the Executive branch and the President have, but does not give them the RIGHT.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Dan,
When they took away the right to own slaves, the people effected were just as angry and incensed as gun owners are now. They were wrong then and you are wrong now.
Dan, do you think it was wrong to take away their right to own slaves?
Mr Craik,
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery but it did not take away the right to own slaves since neither the Constitution nor Amendments gave that right to start with. The 13th just gave people freedom.
Yes there were slave owners who were angry, but they never had the RIGHT to own slaves.
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery but it did not take away the right to own slaves since neither the Constitution nor Amendments gave that right to start with. The 13th just gave people freedom.
Yes there were slave owners who were angry, but they never had the RIGHT to own slaves.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Dan,
The 9th amendment protect rights not enumerated in the Constitution. One of them being the right to own "Personal Property". In the Dread Scott decision, the Supreme Court confirmed the "right" to own slaves when they ruled that slaves like arms, were "Personal Property".
Dan, do you think it was wrong to take away their right to own slaves?
The 9th amendment protect rights not enumerated in the Constitution. One of them being the right to own "Personal Property". In the Dread Scott decision, the Supreme Court confirmed the "right" to own slaves when they ruled that slaves like arms, were "Personal Property".
Dan, do you think it was wrong to take away their right to own slaves?
And since you pointed out that I should look at the 12th Amendment as well.... It only spells out the process for electing the President... Still doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to be President (which I am assuming you were trying to argue by Presidential term limits in the 22nd Amendment).
Pat
Supporter
Dang, just for the record, just the first 10 amendments of the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. The only property specifically identified there are “the right of the people to KEEP and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Dread Scott was a court interpretation as misguided as the one where the court povided that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a mother can kill her unborn child.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Pat, its good to here from you.
Yes it does mention "the right of the people to KEEP and bear Arms".
OK, as it says nothing about guns, lets look at "ARMS"
A weapon, arm, or armament is a device or equipment used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.
The following is a short list of "ARMS", let me know which ones the founding fathers were refering to.
Knives
Swords
Cannons
Torpedos
Land Mines
Guns
Bombs
Mortors
Nuclear Bombs
Drones
Numchucks
Switchblades
Tank
Armored Car
50 cal Machine gun
Brass Nuckles
Pepper Spray
Surface to Air Missles
So are all these "ARMS" protected?
If not, which ones and why?
Yes it does mention "the right of the people to KEEP and bear Arms".
OK, as it says nothing about guns, lets look at "ARMS"
A weapon, arm, or armament is a device or equipment used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.
The following is a short list of "ARMS", let me know which ones the founding fathers were refering to.
Knives
Swords
Cannons
Torpedos
Land Mines
Guns
Bombs
Mortors
Nuclear Bombs
Drones
Numchucks
Switchblades
Tank
Armored Car
50 cal Machine gun
Brass Nuckles
Pepper Spray
Surface to Air Missles
So are all these "ARMS" protected?
If not, which ones and why?
Last edited:
And as for the Dred Scott case.... Which the Supreme Court ruled on in March 1867 which was much later then when the Bill of Rights was ratified on 12/15/71....
"The Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford was issued on March 6, 1857. Delivered by Chief Justice Roger Taney, this opinion declared that slaves were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts. In addition, this decision declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution."
"The Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford was issued on March 6, 1857. Delivered by Chief Justice Roger Taney, this opinion declared that slaves were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts. In addition, this decision declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution."
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Arrrrgh.STFU all of you!:dead::dead::dead::dead::dead::dead::cussing::zzz::zzz::zzz:
From what I see of the American Consitituion thingy, is the word 'admendment'. I read from that, that its been changed or 'amended' along the way. And thats how it should be.
Just because it was a good idea back in 1700s, doesnt mean it will work in the time of an evolving society. It should be 'amended'
We have a similar thing here in New Zealand called 'The Treaty of Waitangi'.
Where the self-professed natives of the country feel they have a right to everything because of this treaty. In fact at this present time, there is battles with the government, because the natives feel they 'own' the water and want handouts for usage in our hydro lakes, they 'own' the airwaves, and at present get dividends from radio stations for the use of the airwaves, they 'own' everything under the ground and want payments for any mineral found under the ground. They 'own' the seabead and all fish in it.
This 'treaty' is dividing and monetary crippling the country due to an open ended document that has not kept up with an evolving world.
We cant keep living in the past.
Just because it was a good idea back in 1700s, doesnt mean it will work in the time of an evolving society. It should be 'amended'
We have a similar thing here in New Zealand called 'The Treaty of Waitangi'.
Where the self-professed natives of the country feel they have a right to everything because of this treaty. In fact at this present time, there is battles with the government, because the natives feel they 'own' the water and want handouts for usage in our hydro lakes, they 'own' the airwaves, and at present get dividends from radio stations for the use of the airwaves, they 'own' everything under the ground and want payments for any mineral found under the ground. They 'own' the seabead and all fish in it.
This 'treaty' is dividing and monetary crippling the country due to an open ended document that has not kept up with an evolving world.
We cant keep living in the past.
Pat
Supporter
Jim, somehow, I don’t think the framers had nuclear bombs, drones or numchucks in mind. Well maybe numchucks...
When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common-law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by single infantrymen in land warfare." What the military generally refers to as "small arms" today. That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns and shotguns for purposes that include, recreational sport, self-defense and defense of one's family and friends and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense (which is at the heart of the second amendment).
Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea.
If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
Protecting your family from an intruder with a nuclear weapon may be effective but it probably would have unintended consequences and be even less effective than the Vice President's advice to women that when a prowler is present, they should grab a double barreled shotgun, fire it twice in the air on the back porch… and wait…
(Good luck on that one)
Americans,
I think we are missing the true intension with the second Amendment. It was not created to insure your rights to hunt food or protect yourself from your neighbor. The "arms" they were referring to was all weapons as known at the time, not "small arms" as we define them today. It was specifically to protect ourselves, the people, from government that might become tyrannical, the specific government they were creating. Any dilution of the Second Amendment is a dilution of that protection.
Throughout history Governments that are not "for the People" have immediately controlled the arms of the governed. The most famous was Hitler that stated in 1935: "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!" In 1936 he used that registration to confiscate private arms in Germany. This insight was from my wife's mother who was raised in the Hitler Youth, and then recognized the value of our Second Amendment.
Tom
I think we are missing the true intension with the second Amendment. It was not created to insure your rights to hunt food or protect yourself from your neighbor. The "arms" they were referring to was all weapons as known at the time, not "small arms" as we define them today. It was specifically to protect ourselves, the people, from government that might become tyrannical, the specific government they were creating. Any dilution of the Second Amendment is a dilution of that protection.
Throughout history Governments that are not "for the People" have immediately controlled the arms of the governed. The most famous was Hitler that stated in 1935: "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!" In 1936 he used that registration to confiscate private arms in Germany. This insight was from my wife's mother who was raised in the Hitler Youth, and then recognized the value of our Second Amendment.
Tom