Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

It's a pointless amendment if it doesn't have teeth. The Founders agreed that it needed teeth. People today want to give it dentures.

There are too many who would leave the populace with nothing but their gums for a weapon, forget about dentures. I'm not for that at all, I'm suggesting more of a defanging (rest of the teeth can be left in) which the states can reinstate as they see fit. The weapons are different and the times are different and I think it is quite reasonable to have the 2nd amendment revisited to better define it for these times.

But please, please, no verbosity in the Constitution; Keep the verbosity in debate. Leave alone the elegant economy of words our forefathers laid down. Let us rebuild our society with the Law of our forefathers, not expand the number of legal tomes we need to control our fellow man.

Yeah. I wasn't too keen on the length and style of the list either. I'd never suggest what I wrote be inserted into the constitution as is. I'm all for simple and would hope any new amendment would be in keeping with the simplicity, exacting generality, and overall style of the document. However, the world of weaponry is much larger and more complex now than it was then and there are issues like concealed and open carry vs home defense and sporting uses; it may take more than a one liner.

I take it you don't think there is any need to amend on this issue? Lets see about this: A person has a right to buy and possess a mini-gun, RPG, or a grenade; do the feds or states have the right to control under what how and under what circumstance such a weapon is legally used, stored, and transported?

mikeandgerry wrote:I think they came out of the Bonnie and Clyde/Dillinger days but I could be wrong. I haven't researched it.

I'm pretty sure CCW permits started in the late 1920's or early 30's and started in the state of New York.

It has been said in this discussion that even Dodge City had people check their weapons when entering town. This may well have been the case, but I suspect this was more about stopping outlaws from coming in and terrorizing people rather than keeping people from defending themselves. Perhaps if there was a barrier around NYC and every entryway had active disarmorment of those who entered then we could reasonably talk about disarming the population of the city, but we don't have that. Passing gun bans and making CCW impossible to get while doing nothing even close to that active "check your gun" disarmorment is irrational and tacitly unfair to the law abiding.

These days even the smallest towns and villages have very large visitor and resident populations compared to their number of LEOs and people are apt not to even know their neighbors. Such disarming of the residents is not reasonable and actively disarming visitors is not practical.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

it takes a couple seconds for it to come up, its 107 pages.

John

I guess there is really no point in debating this controvercial issue since mikeandgerry have spoken! (Maybe the Supreme Court should just defer to their more learned Constitutional interpretations?! .........It really is all so simple)

mikeandgerry wrote:

Devil5052 wrote: I think my arguments were absolutely accurate & I really dont understand your obvious anger, as the thrust of my post was to point out the inherant problems dividing the sides in the gun ownership debate when neither side is totaly right or wrong.

Your arguments are not even well thought out. To wit:


I only get angry at capricious arguments foisted upon the People to seize their clearly enumerated rights. Your ignorance is apalling. You need to read the Constitution with annotations.

There should be no argument concerning gun ownership that needs to be settled. Only the left thinks there is a problem with it and they are summarily wrong.

After re-reading your uneccesarily insulting rant here I will put you in the same category as some others who can't control their childish temper & have an adult debate without resorting to name calling. I guess some people just want to fight, no matter what is said to them. An adult is capable of making his/her point without resorting to "schoolyard" insults. I suggest you GROW UP!!

pvolcko wrote:

coaledsweat wrote:ATF does agree, it states arms, not flintlock muskets. You can purchase RPGs, machine guns, 5" cannons, "destructive devices" or whatever else you want, it just takes the proper paperwork and a clean record. There is no case of a legally registered item on that list of ever being used in a crime to my knowledge so I don't think anyone will lose their right to purchase these things in the near term. I'll warn you that these items are pricey however.

I've seen the machine gun and cannon videos taken out in some US desert on the intertubes. Looked like piles of fun. Can't say I've seen the RPG fun in the US video though. Don't think I've seen the grenade or mortar in Nevada desert video's either. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

I'm guessing that possession and use of these is also regulated by state law too, not just federal laws? As I proposed, there would be nothing to stop a state from allowing these. And I'd get the feds out of it entirely (except for monitoring and regulating import and export of them into and out of the country). With such weapons I could see a strong case for regulating where they can be used. A minigun isn't really safe to use for home defense in the suburbs. Though I suppose it would be highly effective. Park it out on the porch and chances are no one is going to screw with burglarizing your place.

It should be noted that there is no instance of a legal NFA weapon, be it machine gun, rocket launcher or destructive device has ever been used in a crime. Why on earth would anyone need to ban them since they are not a problem?

In some states, these weapons are banned. To make a purchase of an NFA weapon, you need to talk to your local Police Chief. If he thinks your safe he will give you a letter of approval, you can then file your paperwork for an ATF stamp. It will take months for them to do their background checks, but once approved you may take possesion of the weapon.
So the approval process is basically what you describe as desirable. Local approval and Federal tracking and oversight.

On another note, it can be difficult to find a place to play with your new found toy. Most gun ranges do not allow full auto firing. Farmers that like guns don't mind at all, especially if you let them pull the trigger a few times.

Ed.A wrote:

stockingfull wrote:OK, I'll bite; then just how, if the 2nd Amendment grants the unfettered right to keep handguns, do you propose to take their guns away? By putting them in prison after they kill my wife or kid walking in front of their house?

Actually, if you were a real man you'd protect your family, it's your duty, but if your not there then you should have already taught your wife and kids how to handle and operate their own firearms so they'd not have to worry about scumbag criminals harming them. Sheesh, you can lead a horse to water.......

Listen, douchebag, I've never made this personal but you idiot cavemen are p!s$ing me off now. I've got a semi-auto .22 and a 20 ga. DB. That's all I need to handle you and/or the donkey you might ride in on.

But, you know what? I don't think any of the big-talking he-men here have ever discharged any of their weapons at another human (except in the military); if there are, I'd like to hear your story. If not, save your bluster for somebody who cares.

stockingfull wrote:

Ed.A wrote:

stockingfull wrote:OK, I'll bite; then just how, if the 2nd Amendment grants the unfettered right to keep handguns, do you propose to take their guns away? By putting them in prison after they kill my wife or kid walking in front of their house?

Actually, if you were a real man you'd protect your family, it's your duty, but if your not there then you should have already taught your wife and kids how to handle and operate their own firearms so they'd not have to worry about scumbag criminals harming them. Sheesh, you can lead a horse to water.......

Listen, douchebag, I've never made this personal but you idiot cavemen are p!s$ing me off now. I've got a semi-auto .22 and a 20 ga. DB. That's all I need to handle you and/or the donkey you might ride in on.

But, you know what? I don't think any of the big-talking he-men here have ever discharged any of their weapons at another human (except in the military); if there are, I'd like to hear your story. If not, save your bluster for somebody who cares.

LOL....It's hard not to get angry but don't let the few (unamed...but you know who you are) "children" here drag you down to their level for a 5th grade food fight! (I have had my share of run-ins here but have found that after the dust has settled a bit, most forum members here are pretty good hearted folks that we have alot more in common with than you would sometimes believe.
Not to say that alot of them will be switching to support the Democratic ticket next November, but you never know!

Ironic that the dopes who can't help making a discussion like this personal are the ones who think they need the guns.

stockingfull wrote:Ironic that the dopes who can't help making a discussion like this personal are the ones who think they need the guns.

They do need the guns! (after all ........most people justifiably hate them)

[quote="stockingfull
But, you know what? I don't think any of the big-talking he-men here have ever discharged any of their weapons at another human (except in the military);



Trust me, the ones you are angry with have never been in combat & most have never even been in the military at all.(Unless you count almost finishing your "Wolf" book in Cub Scouts as performing your civic/military duties) No, they haven't strayed to far from the hem of their mother's skirt but love to hide behind heroic signature files & undoubtedly wear American Flag lapel pins. They are sad little men to be pitied.

Devil5052 wrote:Not to say that alot of them will be switching to support the Democratic ticket next November, but you never know!

This is what I don't get about you specifically and gun friendly dems in general. Their candidates and party acolytes often will pay lipservice to the 2nd amendment. "I support the fine American tradition of hunting." Rarely will they acknowledge self defense or home defense as protected, and if they do the moment is short lived as you delve into their voting records and public speaking records of strong gun control positions, of supporting gun bans, of limiting hunting and increasing fees to make it less common, of supporting highly subjective permitting processes and non-refundable, high-fee processes to further discourage applications, of incremental restrictions on semi-auto guns (and referring to them all as assault weapons or automatic weapons) of all types with the goal of eliminating them, and the list goes on. In states like NY and many governors and mayors around the country you have out an out anti-gun politicians intent on not only limiting legal gun possession in the cities, but openly advocating statewide and region wide implementation of similar anti-gun policies because "it's all connected" and they want to stop people from driving 4 hours away, buying a gun, and bringing back into their precious gun free zone metro areas. Then top it off with unofficial policies of harassment of local gun shops and firing ranges with the clear intent of driving them into bankruptcy or making to too much of a liability to stay open, to further erode gun availability to all citizens.

With the exception of some local government dems and a very few national government "blue dog" dems, there is a clear, concerted effort to disarm the law abiding people of the country on the part of the mainstream democrat party.

You may agree with some of their gun related proposals, but it seems clear from this discussion you don't agree with a large part of the agenda (assuming you agree with my characterization of the agenda and how widespread it is in the party). Hillary and Obama both would qualify as candidates that pay lip service to the 2nd amendment but have demonstrable far-left, anti-gun agendas. How can you support them? Do you simply prioritize other issues (Iraq war, Health Care, Education, Economy, etc.) and will take the bad with the good? Or do you see their agendas as having very little chance of success and thus feel comfortable supporting and voting for either without much fear on this particular issue?

Seriously, Paul, I said above and continue to believe that, as to gun control, it's really an urban-rural thing. Guns are everyday objects actually used in the country, while they have no innocent use in the city. Republicans, who believe they are subsidizing the city "welfare state," think Democrats are trying to render them vulnerable to "bad guys" with guns, while Democrats are wondering why our forebears who restricted gun possession had so much more common sense than the NRA does today.

But really, the problem is not the hunting pieces naturally found in the country, it's the handguns and assault pieces never used for hunting at all. And you should just ask your local police dep't if they think giving everybody ccw is a good idea. Few do.

But no matter; the D.C. handgun law was overturned on constitutionality grounds by the D.C. Appeals Court and is being heard this Term by the Supreme Court. So it really doesn't matter what we think; the Supremes will rule whether the 2nd Amendment right is personal or not. And, IMHO, if they rule that it's personal, it will be extremely difficult to fashion a constitutional rationale supporting any restrictions whatsoever on possession of any type of "arms."

And then it'll really be "open season."

Devil5052 wrote: After re-reading your uneccesarily insulting rant here I will put you in the same category as some others who can't control their childish temper & have an adult debate without resorting to name calling. I guess some people just want to fight, no matter what is said to them. An adult is capable of making his/her point without resorting to "schoolyard" insults. I suggest you GROW UP!!

My comments were made in earnest. Any schoolyard insults are your own paranoid interpretation. There is no issue regarding the second amendment to debate. The debatable issues are social issues. The society of 1787 was far superior to the society of 2008. Ask yourself....Who has been in control of social change for the last 100 years or more? Certainly not the Republicans! What was that placard on the podium in front of Obama recently? oh yeah.............CHANGE!

What needs repair is the tattered fabric of society. Please.........no more change......please!

69Drag wrote:http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

it takes a couple seconds for it to come up, its 107 pages.

John

Thank you very much John