I was going to type that, but I couldn't tell what the admendent referred to exactly. I didn't know the Supreme Court ruled on this issue that way, but the first part of the amendent clearly is in reference to militias, but the second part is unclear. But if the Supreme Court has already clarified this several times, then I don't even know why there is debate.
Actually, the gay marriage and assault weapon ban issues are more similar than you think. Basically, both issues revolve around this question - "Does the government have the right to regulate (marriage/guns)?" If the Constitution does not specifically delineate regulatory powers over these issues (it doesn't), are there compelling policy reasons for regulating/them? If so, what are these compelling policy reasons and do they outweigh any Constitutional considerations (i.e. freedom of speech, 2nd Amendment, right to privacy, etc.)? I would hope that Congress is not so lazy that they fail to provide the compelling reasons for banning gay marriage/assault weapons. You might assume that the reasons are obvious, but as they say, when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. Although my gut tells me that such weapons should be banned, I really can't justify it if statistics indicate that the ban will not (or has not) prevented gun carnage (which I assume - crap - is the reason they were banned in the first place).
The second amendment is not about the right to hunt or shoot targets, but the right to defend oneself from criminals or an oppressive regime. It is the ultimate one of the checks and balances on govt. As for the "assault" weapon ban, when the bill to do so was being formulated, Democratic operatives were searching gun catalogs on what "looked" like an assault weapon! If you don't believe me, check it out here: link The ban needs to go away, because these "assault weapons," contrary to what the liberals say, are not machine guns, which have been regulated since 1934.
Bull****. That is a lie. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect INDIVIDUAL rights to gun ownership.
the last case to directly deal with this topic is US vs Miller 1939 it is a definitive decision that the Second Amendment was designed to preserve state militias, not to give individuals an absolute right to keep and bear arms. in its ruling, the Supreme Court said the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a (sawed-off shotgun) at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the court said. The lower courts cited Miller in 1983, when they ruled that a city ordinance in Morton Grove, Ill., banning possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court, without comment, let that decision stand. the Supreme Court has declined, since Miller, to accept any appeals of Second Amendment cases from the lower courts. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who led the court in the 1970s, has publicly criticized the NRA for fostering the view that any right to bear arms extends beyond the states
THere's a 5th circuit case from a few years ago that recognized it that the SC didn't grant cert for.
I believe it was written to protect militias to keep the US government in check. NOT to allow Billy bob and Jim Boy to own an AK47 and shoot up tree stumps. It was musket loaded flint lock guns. If we want those to be legal...fine... But the rest of us do not need access to an automatic weapon. Also, Roxran, Aren't guns that we available PRIOR to the law still allowed to be sold? Therefore it is a law without much teeth. DD
That is in direct violation of what the Founders intended, Sam Pinko. I know you're afraid of guns, fatty foods and other things that might injure you and you need Big Brother to protect you. Leave me and my guns and my right to defend myself alone. But don't even attempt to assert that one of the Constitution's lynchpins was a meaningless bit that allowed states to have a National Guard. Why is that you liberals are so hell-bent on making it to where only criminals and govt. have guns? Why is it that you live in such a paranoia of law abiding citizens bearing arms? I know you'll call me a a paranoid, a nut, a loon, whatever. But at least I take seriously the matter of mine and my family's defense from the various predators present in our society. I believe strongly that the left's agenda is to ban guns completely. If you'd come out and be honest about it rather than camoflauging under the pretense of "sensible" gun control laws, it would be much appreciated. --- James Wilson, Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in 2 The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896). --- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851). ---The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Huh? Do you?
Yosemite, you can whine and b**** and moan all you want, but the citations that Chump provided are accurate. The supreme law of the land (also see Presser v. Illinois) says otherwise. I don't see anything about people having AK-47's in those delightful federalist paper quips...care to highlight them for me?
Personally, I find the whole "it's a check against big government" argument hilarious. Honestly, do you think that having a stash of weapons is going to protect you if the most powerful military ever assembled wants to get at you? If you want to argue over self-protection from criminals or whatever, that's fine. I'm not going to bother getting into that argument. But, protection from the government? Puh-leeze!
You can protect your family with a 357 magnum and hunt for your red fatty meat with shotgun or a rifle. You don't need assault weapons to accomplish this ----- unless your a wimp yosemite. __________________________ The British are coming I need RPGs !!!!!! __________________________ BTW, Who's paranoid? Bama we're gunna git your guns, when your not looking we're gunna git em', bama we're gunna git them guns, watch out here we come to git your guns. Muuuuuuha Ha Haahahhhahah.
There is an EXCELLENT comedian named Eddie Izzard who is a transvestite...the guy is just freaking hilarious and so dead on in so many things he says, from my point of view. He said, "you know, people say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' but don't ya think the guns at least help? i mean, let's let these kids who blow up their schools go in with finger pistols instead...'bam...boom'...i'm thinking we end up with a lot less dead that way."
"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." This PLAINLY gives every hillbilly the right to own and use whatever type of automatic weapon he wants. If you can't see that, you are an Arab loving homo. A man needs to protect his family!
Isn't he a riot? I love his gig that's been shown on HBO several times, "Dressed to Kill". Hilarious comedy and satire... firmly based in history and politics. In short, intelligent. The take he does on the Church of England has me crackin' up bigtime. Sorry. Carry on. (everyone should see this guy!)
I think about the Branch Davidians. They had amassed a fairly capable stockpile of weapons, but if the military wanted them dead (and was willing to use military tactics to achieve that rather than treating it as a hostage situation), they'd have been dead minutes after the initial raid. But what about when the Cubans invade like in Red Dawn? Honestly, I don't know what to think about gun bans. I'm not a gun owner (note to burglars: if you're thinking of robbing my house, then I have a whole bunch of guns), so it doesn't affect me directly.
As a corollary, do you really think there's even a remote possibility that the members of our military would ever use their arms against fellow citizens?
