Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by Rip Van Winkle on Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:44 am
Don't make the mistake that only Democrats are against individual rights. There are just as many Statist Republicans who would like nothing better than rule you.
I will never apologize for being an American.
Post 435 Gun Club
North Star Rifle Club
cmpofficer@post435gunclub.org
DR #2673
President's Hundred (#48 2018)
Certified NRA RSO
Post 435 Gun Club
North Star Rifle Club
cmpofficer@post435gunclub.org
DR #2673
President's Hundred (#48 2018)
Certified NRA RSO
-
Rip Van Winkle - Posts: 4229 [View]
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:04 pm
- Location: Unfashionable end of the western spiral arm, Galaxy Milky Way
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by xd ED on Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:02 am
jgalt wrote:Rip Van Winkle wrote:Don't make the mistake that only Democrats are against individual rights. There are just as many Statist Republicans who would like nothing better than rule you.
+
Yep; there's a reason it's called government
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by MNGunner on Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:38 am
Rip Van Winkle wrote:Don't make the mistake that only Democrats are against individual rights.
Nor has anyone claimed that.
The fact that you can point to othes who are also doing something wromg is supposed to make the wrong that you support somehow "less wrong"? How?
The main problem with democrats wanting to get rid of the 2nd is that once you lose the 2nd, you relinquish all control of what happens to the rest of your rights.
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by FJ540 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:25 pm
The republicans pushing gun laws in MN right now are doing so to provide a more reasonable alternative to the dem's oppressive bills. We have a society of band-aid needing cry babies. You know, the kid who's not really hurt but won't shut their pie hole until you put a band-aid on it.
Personally, I don't think this is the correct move, but it's better than giving up more rights.
If it was my army to command, I'd tell paymar GFY.
Personally, I don't think this is the correct move, but it's better than giving up more rights.
If it was my army to command, I'd tell paymar GFY.
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by yuppiejr on Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:46 pm
If you want to understand why the second amendment is in the Bill of Rights, include a review of the historical significance of April 19, 1775 (specifically, WHY the British regulars were heading to Concord) prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th of the following year:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
... it would also be useful to familiarize yourself with The Federalist Papers AND the perspective of the Anti-Federalists which were directly addressed in the Bill of Rights (a guarantee of individual liberties not explicitly outlined in the Constitution) including the second amendment. Good luck with the project!
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
... it would also be useful to familiarize yourself with The Federalist Papers AND the perspective of the Anti-Federalists which were directly addressed in the Bill of Rights (a guarantee of individual liberties not explicitly outlined in the Constitution) including the second amendment. Good luck with the project!
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by XDM45 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:26 pm
FJ540 wrote:If it was my army to command, I'd tell paymar GFY.
If it was my army, I'd court marshal him, try him for Treason, Treachery, or whatever crime fits the bill, and then order the sentence to be carried out immediately. The fact he took an oath to uphold the constitution and represent the people followed by breaking it, is reason enough for me. Send him to Block 10.
Gnothi Seauton
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by MNGunner on Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:00 pm
jgalt wrote:Um, are you reading what you are writing?
Someone clearly isn't. Or doesn't comprehend it. Or doesn't want to face or cannot handle the truth.
jgalt wrote:So no one has said that only the Democrats are the problem, and in the next sentence you go back to talking about Democrats?
With tens of millions of voters, of course there are plenty of exceptions. No-one has ever claimed that there aren't. But unfortunately it's not those exceptions who represent and define the goals of the national democratic party.
Let me try to explain it this way: If you had to take a "wild guess" on which ofthe two main parties would like to limit your 2nd A rights much more than the other, what would be your guess?
jgalt wrote:There are a whole lot of folks who vote for Democrats who support the individual rights interpretation of the 2A.
Given the position and goals of the national leadership of the party, those are not rational people.
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by EdwardsTo on Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:31 pm
THE MOMENT OF TRUTH! A couple late nights, frustration from trying to work on it at work with a dishwasher that kept stopping in the middle of cycles, and doing citations (worst part of any paper!)
1,279 words. Only over by 279. Let me know what you guys like!
Once a year Americans celebrate the signing of a very important document. Every year it’s grilled hot dogs, brats, hamburgers, baked beans and endless salads with a day out at the beach or around a town decorated with red, white, and blue, wrapping the day up with fireworks of abundance. July 4, 1776 was not only a day of a country gaining its independence but a day leading up to the adoption of a founding constitution for the people of a nation to grow. One such right in question of being violated by many different aspects is the 2nd Amendment, which reads as follows:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
At the time of the Constitution being written and accepted our new nation was under attack from a country that once controlled us. There was little to no common “armies” as we know today. By definition a militia is “a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights.” In more understandable terms, a group organized to defend themselves, their family and the nation they call home against any threats that may cause harm. The Second Amendment was, and remains to be, a very important aspect to our nation today.
Many believe by deracinating this right, predicaments such as school shootings, murders, robbing of stores, banks, and even family homes will be taken care of and no more issues will surface. This is not the case, if you think back to before black powder and guns were even invented there were still issues, the first story many learn is of Cain and Abel from the Bible and it only goes from there. While most people call a gun a weapon, anything can be used as a weapon as it is defined as an instrument used to cause injury. In the 2nd amendment it labels these weapons as “arms” which is more often used in the context as instruments of war and carries with it the notion of preparation (MNGuntalk). Would you not consider an attack on your own household or a robber holding the bank you’re at at gun point a war and would you not want to be prepared to defend your life and the innocent lives of those around you? Yet there are those who feel guns should be banned or have some sort of ban on firearms.
There are a few things to clarify, first off bans are against our constitutional rights but there are also various types of bans. These include: Ban by Harassment, which makes it extremely troublesome to own a gun, or not worth having one; Financial Oppression, which makes it too expensive to own or maintain guns; Threat and Fear Bans where laws and restrictions are so complicated that you get rid of firearms you do own for fear of a simple mistake and being labeled as a felon for the rest of your life, also, any partial or full bans on ammo or prevention of use is a violation to our 2nd amendment right (MNGuntalk). Though these examples are ones of violations, regulations of when and where an individual can carry outside home and property or bans on felons or unable bodies were, and are, common place with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In the case of constitutional bans that don’t violate our rights, such as mental health checks, if it is required for every individual attempting to own a gun then it is unconstitutional, whereas those who have shown they cannot be trusted, such as criminals who have improperly used a firearm or another weapon or those who have shown they do not carry the mental capacity to own a firearm does not violate the constitution. With this comes the question of how to test people or how to decide if a person is trustworthy or not, which is a separate argument in itself. With bans that have been placed on firearms in more recent times they have brought along court cases or the omen of court alongside.
The first matter of contention was in August of 2005 after Hurricane Katrina. Police, after the hurricane flooded 80% of the city, went from house to house confiscating firearms from not only abandoned houses but also from those in their homes as well (N.O. and NRA). While the lawsuit was eventually dropped when the city agreed to return confiscated guns, the NRA and many other organizations sued the city of New Orleans by saying “it took away people’s means of protection amid lawlessness that gripped” them (N.O.).
Upon return of the guns, any individual could go in without paperwork of any kind before April 2006 and reclaim their firearms but any discord over ownership of a returned firearm the city would not be held liable, yet, starting April 2006 paper work with either Bill of Sale or affidavit with the weapon’s serial number was needed to reclaim them (N.O. and NRA). Both of these instances had complaints of difficulties, for example, after the city was flooded most individuals who had owned firearms did not have proper paperwork for their firearms (N.O.). The city’s Police Superintendent Warren Riley responded to the confiscation,
“We took guns that were stolen that were stashed in alleyways. If we went into an abandoned house and a gun was there, absolutely we took the weapons. Obviously there were looters out there. We didn’t want some burglar or looter to have an opportunity to arm themselves (N.O.).”
The second argument comes from a 2008 Supreme Court case when police officer Heller in DC was refused an application to register a handgun to keep in his home while the city argued that the 2nd amendment only protects firearm rights for those in a well regulated state militia (District of Columbia, Lawnix). Heller also argued that the 2nd amendment not only provided the right to bear arms for a militia but as well as self-defense and to defend against our own government “should our Nation someday suffer tyranny again (District of Columbia, FAQs).” The Supreme Court ruled that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes unconnected with service in a militia (District of Columbia, FAQs).”
The last example comes from the 2010 Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago in which citizens challenged a city ordinance that had banned private handgun ownership in the city (McDonald). While the Supreme Court ruled that, such as in Heller, bans such as these were unconstitutional and the 2nd amendment protects the right of possessing firearms in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense while some regulation to firearms in constitutionally permissible and the right to bear arms is not unlimited, meaning it is “not a guarantee to possess any firearm anywhere for any purpose (Summary).”
Examples of “‘presumptively lawful’ gun control laws include laws that prohibit carrying concealed weapons, prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally ill, prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, impose ‘conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms’, prohibit ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’, and regulate firearm to prevent accidents (Summary).”
While there are those who agree that guns should have control laws, there are those who see that even with all the bad in life, these weapons can help as much as they can hurt. Another point with the right to bear arms is also the right to not own a gun; it’s your choice as an American Citizen.
WORKS CITED
"District of Columbia v. Heller Case FAQs." District of Columbia v. Heller Case FAQs - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2013. <http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/supreme-court-and-the-second-amendment/district-of-columbia-v-heller-case/58-district-of-columbia-v-heller-case-faqs>.
"District of Columbia v. Heller“ Case Brief Summary." Lawnix Free Case Briefs RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html>.
"SUMMARY OF THE RECENT MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE." SUMMARY OF THE RECENT MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm>.
"N.O. Police Returning Guns Confiscated Post-Katrina." Fox News. N.p., 19 Apr. 2006. Web. <"NRA to Settle Suit over Katrina Gun Seizures." USA Today. N.p., 8 Oct. 2008. Web. .>.
"NRA to Settle Suit over Katrina Gun Seizures." USA Today. N.p., 8 Oct. 2008. Web. <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm>.
Edwards, Tori “Gun Control and Second Amendment Right” MNGuntalk. 06 March, 2013. Web.
1,279 words. Only over by 279. Let me know what you guys like!
Once a year Americans celebrate the signing of a very important document. Every year it’s grilled hot dogs, brats, hamburgers, baked beans and endless salads with a day out at the beach or around a town decorated with red, white, and blue, wrapping the day up with fireworks of abundance. July 4, 1776 was not only a day of a country gaining its independence but a day leading up to the adoption of a founding constitution for the people of a nation to grow. One such right in question of being violated by many different aspects is the 2nd Amendment, which reads as follows:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
At the time of the Constitution being written and accepted our new nation was under attack from a country that once controlled us. There was little to no common “armies” as we know today. By definition a militia is “a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights.” In more understandable terms, a group organized to defend themselves, their family and the nation they call home against any threats that may cause harm. The Second Amendment was, and remains to be, a very important aspect to our nation today.
Many believe by deracinating this right, predicaments such as school shootings, murders, robbing of stores, banks, and even family homes will be taken care of and no more issues will surface. This is not the case, if you think back to before black powder and guns were even invented there were still issues, the first story many learn is of Cain and Abel from the Bible and it only goes from there. While most people call a gun a weapon, anything can be used as a weapon as it is defined as an instrument used to cause injury. In the 2nd amendment it labels these weapons as “arms” which is more often used in the context as instruments of war and carries with it the notion of preparation (MNGuntalk). Would you not consider an attack on your own household or a robber holding the bank you’re at at gun point a war and would you not want to be prepared to defend your life and the innocent lives of those around you? Yet there are those who feel guns should be banned or have some sort of ban on firearms.
There are a few things to clarify, first off bans are against our constitutional rights but there are also various types of bans. These include: Ban by Harassment, which makes it extremely troublesome to own a gun, or not worth having one; Financial Oppression, which makes it too expensive to own or maintain guns; Threat and Fear Bans where laws and restrictions are so complicated that you get rid of firearms you do own for fear of a simple mistake and being labeled as a felon for the rest of your life, also, any partial or full bans on ammo or prevention of use is a violation to our 2nd amendment right (MNGuntalk). Though these examples are ones of violations, regulations of when and where an individual can carry outside home and property or bans on felons or unable bodies were, and are, common place with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In the case of constitutional bans that don’t violate our rights, such as mental health checks, if it is required for every individual attempting to own a gun then it is unconstitutional, whereas those who have shown they cannot be trusted, such as criminals who have improperly used a firearm or another weapon or those who have shown they do not carry the mental capacity to own a firearm does not violate the constitution. With this comes the question of how to test people or how to decide if a person is trustworthy or not, which is a separate argument in itself. With bans that have been placed on firearms in more recent times they have brought along court cases or the omen of court alongside.
The first matter of contention was in August of 2005 after Hurricane Katrina. Police, after the hurricane flooded 80% of the city, went from house to house confiscating firearms from not only abandoned houses but also from those in their homes as well (N.O. and NRA). While the lawsuit was eventually dropped when the city agreed to return confiscated guns, the NRA and many other organizations sued the city of New Orleans by saying “it took away people’s means of protection amid lawlessness that gripped” them (N.O.).
Upon return of the guns, any individual could go in without paperwork of any kind before April 2006 and reclaim their firearms but any discord over ownership of a returned firearm the city would not be held liable, yet, starting April 2006 paper work with either Bill of Sale or affidavit with the weapon’s serial number was needed to reclaim them (N.O. and NRA). Both of these instances had complaints of difficulties, for example, after the city was flooded most individuals who had owned firearms did not have proper paperwork for their firearms (N.O.). The city’s Police Superintendent Warren Riley responded to the confiscation,
“We took guns that were stolen that were stashed in alleyways. If we went into an abandoned house and a gun was there, absolutely we took the weapons. Obviously there were looters out there. We didn’t want some burglar or looter to have an opportunity to arm themselves (N.O.).”
The second argument comes from a 2008 Supreme Court case when police officer Heller in DC was refused an application to register a handgun to keep in his home while the city argued that the 2nd amendment only protects firearm rights for those in a well regulated state militia (District of Columbia, Lawnix). Heller also argued that the 2nd amendment not only provided the right to bear arms for a militia but as well as self-defense and to defend against our own government “should our Nation someday suffer tyranny again (District of Columbia, FAQs).” The Supreme Court ruled that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes unconnected with service in a militia (District of Columbia, FAQs).”
The last example comes from the 2010 Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago in which citizens challenged a city ordinance that had banned private handgun ownership in the city (McDonald). While the Supreme Court ruled that, such as in Heller, bans such as these were unconstitutional and the 2nd amendment protects the right of possessing firearms in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense while some regulation to firearms in constitutionally permissible and the right to bear arms is not unlimited, meaning it is “not a guarantee to possess any firearm anywhere for any purpose (Summary).”
Examples of “‘presumptively lawful’ gun control laws include laws that prohibit carrying concealed weapons, prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally ill, prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, impose ‘conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms’, prohibit ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’, and regulate firearm to prevent accidents (Summary).”
While there are those who agree that guns should have control laws, there are those who see that even with all the bad in life, these weapons can help as much as they can hurt. Another point with the right to bear arms is also the right to not own a gun; it’s your choice as an American Citizen.
WORKS CITED
"District of Columbia v. Heller Case FAQs." District of Columbia v. Heller Case FAQs - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2013. <http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/supreme-court-and-the-second-amendment/district-of-columbia-v-heller-case/58-district-of-columbia-v-heller-case-faqs>.
"District of Columbia v. Heller“ Case Brief Summary." Lawnix Free Case Briefs RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html>.
"SUMMARY OF THE RECENT MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE." SUMMARY OF THE RECENT MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm>.
"N.O. Police Returning Guns Confiscated Post-Katrina." Fox News. N.p., 19 Apr. 2006. Web. <"NRA to Settle Suit over Katrina Gun Seizures." USA Today. N.p., 8 Oct. 2008. Web. .>.
"NRA to Settle Suit over Katrina Gun Seizures." USA Today. N.p., 8 Oct. 2008. Web. <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm>.
Edwards, Tori “Gun Control and Second Amendment Right” MNGuntalk. 06 March, 2013. Web.
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by MNGunner on Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:29 am
jgalt wrote:MNGunner wrote:jgalt wrote:Um, are you reading what you are writing?
Someone clearly isn't. Or doesn't comprehend it. Or doesn't want to face or cannot handle the truth.
Yep, can't hand the truth. Regardless of how "2nd Amendment friendly" you may personally consider yourself or even happen to be, any vote you cast in support of democratic party's Presidential candidate is far less "2nd Amendment friendly" as one cast for the Republican party's candidate.
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by farmerj on Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:40 am
I count 1404 words in Office 2007.
You also need to check your punctuation. F7 works for that. There are several comma's that are missing as well as other grammar issues.
But the content is great.
You also need to check your punctuation. F7 works for that. There are several comma's that are missing as well as other grammar issues.
But the content is great.
We reap what we sow. In our case, we have sown our government.
Current moon phase
Current moon phase
-
farmerj - Posts: 4802 [View]
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:11 am
- Location: The edge of the universe in the vertex of time on the space continuum of confusion
Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights
by MNGunner on Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:20 am
jgalt wrote:MNGunner wrote:Yep, can't hand the truth. Regardless of how "2nd Amendment friendly" you may personally consider yourself or even happen to be, any vote you cast in support of democratic party's Presidential candidate is far less "2nd Amendment friendly" as one cast for the Republican party's candidate.
It is rarely a good idea to assume someone's political / philosophical positions based on, in this case, a complete lack of any evidence at all...
You jumped in to imply that the democratic party is somehow as supportive of 2nd Amendment rights as the Republican party because there are "a whole lot of folk who...". Those are, once and again, the exceptions among tens of millions of voters and do not reflect the goals of the national leadership of the party.
My conclusions were based on written evidence you yourself (or someone with access to your account) produced.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests