Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

a reply to: Ahabstar

It is always a good place to start.

I'm not so sure. The P and I clause prohibits states from applying state laws differently to persons that are citizens of another state. All laws must be equal to any individual.

Another line of thought is that Congress has both the authority to call forth the militia and the responsibility to provide arms, ammo, training, command and other needful provisions such as food, clothing and shelter.... which is another old definition for "well regulated"--equipped and ready to go would be a more modern word usage.

We already have that. It's called the National Guard.

Anti-constitution states (where somehow State law trumps the constitution? How the f***)
NY
NJ
CA
IL
MI
more states than that which i am forgetting about

Go to Texas or somewhere down south and enjoy being an American.
You wonder why people want guns, when you look at downtown chicago and the savages there in their gang warefare, the amount of crime in certain areas, even rural areas high amounts of crime, jobs and economy force more people into crime, it becomes imperative that not only can people protect themselves but we are able to create a better economy for this country.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: superman2012

The fact is they are trained, they have better weapons and they follow orders.

Yes.... the US military beat the poorly trained Viet Cong... right?
The Soviets beat the poorly trained Afghans... right?
and that was in countries where the well trained and armed soldiers had an enemy that did not consist of their own friends and relatives.

Try again.

So you are comparing US citizens to the Viet Cong and the Afghans? You do know who comprises the US military right?
Are you saying that the average US citizen would be able to fight better (or different) than the US armed forces consisting of Americans?
Sorry, you lost me on the point you were attempting to make.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: superman2012

That is how I see it.
I would have the same reaction if the govt wanted to change who got a jury trial or who needed warrants to search a home.

I think the limits on govt power that were established, were done so with specific examples in mind. Things that were done in England at the time, or in the colonies at the time that the founders did not agree with.

I do think the founders intended for the general population to be armed(if they chose to be) as the ultimate check to a tyrannical govt. They had firsthand knowledge of what the govt could do to an average citizen in England, and they wanted lives less constricted by govt.

I think we can both agree that this failed. The only right that people seem to care passionately about in the US (from a foreigners viewpoint) is gun control. How exactly is the average US citizen not restricted by government, even from say 30 years ago?

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: EternalShadow
If it really were to oppose a tyrannical government, what chance do you think the public has against a trained army?
I believe that people use that wording as an excuse. If they started going door to door collecting weapons, who is going to say no when they have a group of soldiers in front of them and their family behind them?

The Rambo mentality will not last in the face of reality. The fact is they are trained, they have better weapons and they follow orders.

My God, you sound just like the opposition to breaking away from King George.

History really does repeat itself. Wow.

When are people going to address the post instead of the poster? My God, that is a major reason I don't participate in many of these threads.
You do know what weapons they had in the revolutionary war, right? And that we are living now, not then?

It seems like you're implying that most Americans are cowardly knee benders. I personally take offense to that notion considering how most Americans are good people who WANT to do good things for their families and others. It's the corrupt policies and agendas of the few that's causing so much division and turmoil in our lives. Then this chick and others like her want the People to turn over their rights?? For what? A failed economy and government hand outs? More wars overseas and quite possibly here? A judicial system that's a complete mockery of justice? A failing infrastructure no one is addressing? A laughable educational system? Shall I go on????

Not at all. I have said that anyone that needs a gun for any other reason other than hunting or target shooting, acknowledges there is a problem (either by needing a gun for protection or for crime). For either of those two reasons, I would label them a coward. Not all Americans by any means. Besides some cultural differences, you are no different than us Canadians.
Everyone acknowledges that there is a problem (at least in this thread) with violence but the answer for many is to go buy more guns. It just mystifies me.
If there is an acknowledged problem and the government wants to get rid of a persons rights because of it, what are people doing to address the problem instead of the government knee jerk solution?!? Answer is nothing. It's just so weird to me.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: superman2012

That's a big part of what I don't understand. Something needs to change, but no one wants change.

The change that needs to happen is the LAWS already on the books need to be enforced with extreme prejudice.


If you are not going to enforce the laws on the books, then don’t start talking about implementing new laws.

What laws are they not enforcing?

Why don't the democrats vote in some real gun laws.

Like 30 years with no time off for felons caught with a fire arm. 50 years if a gang member.

Or life for felons using a gun in a crime.

Or the needle for felons killing some one with a gun.

In most states a felon gets 2 to 10 years

a reply to: introvert

So is it okay for both the State and Federal Government to maintain a standing army in times of peace, while at the same time advocating for and acting upon the people to be disarmed or limited to grossly limited weapons? In other words act completely contrary to which is written in the Constitution.

I ask because I want to be clear as to what your position is on this.

a reply to: introvert

National Guard fell under the control of the Governor of a state...

Until the Clinton "draw down" of Active Military....

Since then we have been conditioned to think that the Nat'l Guard is just another resource for Federal whim....

Clinton's draw down, was to divert responsibility of KEY active duty assignments, to part timers, all the while appeasing the ignorant civilian voters who wanted that draw down..

YMMV

a reply to: Ahabstar

Have any state or federal governments begun "acting upon the people to be disarmed"?

I think not.

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Finally! Take all the guns!

Use your brain not a gun.

All the guns except the ones that belong to "them" right?

I said all the guns.

I love you

Harry

'Take all the guns.'
Do tell who would be doing the 'taking'.

You would be a good citizen and comply with the unarmed Peace officer when the amendment is repealed.

While I very much like to fantasize about the world John Lennon sang about in "Imagine", I also believe truly that "Those who beat their swords into plowshares, always end up plowing for those who did not".

a reply to: introvert

Disarmed completely? Not as yet. Limited to what is legal to own? Yes. Many times. Clinton's AWB for example. California, New York and Illinois are three states that have limitations on firearms. Ironically many of those limitations are in conjunction with cosmetic features. Yet some interfere with Federal Firearms License holders for Curios and Relics like the M1 Garand.

I don't know who's keeping the tally up to date, but I'd say that about guarantees another 100,000,000 votes for Trump. That's all of 'em right? LOL


Hillary: Come ... Take

a reply to: uncommitted

Ever heard of the Federalist Papers?

If you never took history in high school, they are articles written mostly to explain the meanings and intent of specific parts of the Constitution to help it get ratified by the states. The fore fathers specifically talked about how the right to own guns was intended for the average citizen.

The first ten amendments, often referred to as the Bill of Rights, were included in the Constitution BEFORE ratification. Also in the federalist papers is the reason for the BOR is to REITERATE what are already God-given rights, specifically rights required to overthrow a corrupt government. Not just the second amendment, but all ten of the Bill of Rights are needed to do this. These rights are unalienable.

It was a major debate to include them because they could give the impression that only rights written in the Constitution were protected. When you read the federalist papers it is clear Americans have freedom to do whatever they want except those DIRECTLY PROHIBITED by law.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.

Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document? Not sure I can remember seeing that anywhere, or where people on a terrorist watch list should still be allowed a gun, because, you know, they are American. Could you point that out?

What part of "bear arms" confuses you??

Geezus.

What part of 'as a well regulated militia' do you belong to in which you have the right to bear arms?

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: uncommitted

Ever heard of the Federalist Papers?

If you never took history in high school, they are articles written mostly to explain the meanings and intent of specific parts of the Constitution to help it get ratified by the states. The fore fathers specifically talked about how the right to own guns was intended for the average citizen.

The first ten amendments, often referred to as the Bill of Rights, were included in the Constitution BEFORE ratification. Also in the federalist papers is the reason for the BOR is to REITERATE what are already God-given rights, specifically rights required to overthrow a corrupt government. Not just the second amendment, but all ten of the Bill of Rights are needed to do this. These rights are unalienable.

It was a major debate to include them because they could give the impression that only rights written in the Constitution were protected. When you read the federalist papers it is clear Americans have freedom to do whatever they want except those DIRECTLY PROHIBITED by law.

Oh, I'm sorry, you assumed because I have an interest that I must either be American or live in America. I think though you'll find that "it is clear Americans have freedom to do whatever they want except those DIRECTLY PROHIBITED by law." is stating the bleeding obvious and citizens of any country - certainly in the Western world enjoy exactly the same rights within their own country - why would you assume otherwise? But you are assuming that this means that a private citizen can own and carry a gun wherever they so wish based on the original constitution. Obviously not so.

www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: introvert

Disarmed completely? Not as yet. Limited to what is legal to own? Yes. Many times. Clinton's AWB for example. California, New York and Illinois are three states that have limitations on firearms. Ironically many of those limitations are in conjunction with cosmetic features. Yet some interfere with Federal Firearms License holders for Curios and Relics like the M1 Garand.

There is no restrictions on basic M1 Garand's in calif.
There are on M1 Carbine, M1As and Beretta BM59 because of the removable magazine, but not the M1 Garand

a reply to: Ahabstar

I would agree that many of the restrictions on firearms do not make very much sense. That is what happens when politicians pass regulations without knowing nothing or little about firearms.

That being said, I believe regulations passed within each state would be well within their constitutional right as long as the laws are equally applied.

The SCOTUS had this to say in their decision of DC vs. Heller:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

That decision would indicate that states are within their right to pass certain regulations or conditions on firearms.

a reply to: superman2012

Which part is failed?
People protested and exposed the surveillance state to the extent the patriot act was debated in congress and some reforms were made.
As much as some people dislike what he did, Snowden and others like him expose where citizen rights and govt oppression meet.
People protest every time any gun control is suggested.

As long as people resist govt oppression how is there a fail?

a reply to: uncommitted
It is not bleeding obvious to everybody, even to people who should know. A friend of mine who is a state trooper believes you only have the rights that are given to you by the government. This erroneous view is more common than you could imagine here. The only thing most people could tell you about the Constitution is there is something called the first amendment that grants the freedom of speech and the second granting the right to own a gun.