I agree, and I've never understood the slippery slope logic either. I mean using the same logic and the list above we should be starting down that slippery slope since we've outlawed handgrenades, sarin gas, etc. Since those are illegal surely the govt. will be coming to peoples doors to take their guns away anyday now.
Congratulations! You are now a proud member of the NRA's Blacklist. You are in good company. Let's see how big we can make this list! Please e-mail this website (www.nrablacklist.com) to as many friends as you can and urge them to be the first one on their block to join the NRA Blacklist. If you would like to help us, please click here and contribute whetever you can. The contributions will be used 100% for an advertising campaign that begins this week. Thank you so much. Sweet!
No doubt. I'll be at the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in 2 weeks stalking the wily yet very tasty axis deer. Personally, my suggestion for gun control would be: - ban the posession/sale/manufacture of all "assault weapons"; - require a federal firearms license and minimum 30 hours safety & shooting instruction for handgun ownership; - hold gunowners responsible for children getting ahold & using their firearms; - prosecute the hell out of gun crimes - you brandish a weapon while commiting a crime, minimum 5 years prison, no parole; you fire a weapon, 10 years; in addition to whatever sentence the crime carries.
I am definitely jealous Buck....I will be chasing the wiley-white tails of Lampassas Co. during peak rut this year--Nov 14-16 and hopefully will make it doen to South Texas for a Rut-Hunt in Dec. Good Ideas by the way--not sure I want to give up my SKS though--it's great for porkers and Varmits....
Imagine if a 'terrorists' had these weapon wouldn't you wasnt to be able to protect your family against them.
The last time I looked around, criminals weren't killing people with a joint. If the criminals have guns, and law abiding citizens do not...it's fish in a barrell.
The right to bear arms. Hmm...what could that have meant? Well...if you look at it historically (and in the further text of the Amendment), it speaks of the right to have a militia. By its very nature that means firearms. Either you were being facetious, or you haven't the first clue what you are talking about.
The single most deadly violent act in our history (9/11/2001) was committed without the use of a single gun. If people are inclined to violence, they will commit acts regardless of the weapon. Knives work just as well. Would it make you less uneasy if the victims were simply pushed out of a window? The framers of the Constitution found this so important that it is the second Amendment...coming right after the freedom of speech.
Yeah, clueless old me. Anyway, I also see the words "well regulated militia." What does "well regulated" mean? Oh, actually never mind. That's off track. Let's continue with our little exercise in statutory interpretation. Since you're a historical fellow, what about bayonets? Since they had bayonets back then are, sharp edged instruments covered by Amendment No. 2? Can they be regulated? Is my knife protected or what? or my samurai sword? yes? no? Also, how about cannons? Certainly they had those back then. And certainly they were arms. So I ask you this, Can I keep a cannon in my apartment? Does it have to be an old timey cannon or can it be a 155 millimeter howitzer? Please explain, and use only the text of the second amendment too, if you can.
Sam you can have that cannon, if you can find a working one to haul up in your apartment...I'll stick with my .50 cal. BMG gun by Bartlett with the 750 grain black tipped incendiary rounds I have stashed away for use against those with blue helmets and light armor vehicles...Come to my house fools...My gun control is my finger... That is my cannon...only $6500.00... I say a responsible person has the right to stockpile all conventional arms...the right to bear arms,...and out of my cold, dead hands! c*m get sum!
Thomas Jefferson: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the quality alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764) [Kates,"Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Michigan Law Revue 203,234 (1983).
BTW, I know this will probably be interpreted the wrong way and send us on a careening tangent, but that is nowhere near the single most deadly violent act in our history. As far as loss of life, and "deadliness" and "violence", the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden absolutely dwarf September 11. Just a sense of perspective.
It isn't just statutory interpretation. The deliberations were well chronicled for every part of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers are a good place to start. Also the Supreme Court generally looks to the history of the times in determining what any provision means (except the First Amendment...but that's a different story). If you look at the Federalist Papers and other position papers of the time as well as the history, it is clear what was meant.
