What DID the second Amendment really mean?

However... another thing to consider.. there is NO right that is without regulations.. there are regulations on free speech... with regard to hate speech.. there are regulations on the right to privacy.. These rights are regulated and rightfully so.. to protect all of us.. I firmly believe that the right to bear arms should be regulated also.. with common sense.
 

Sorry Butterfly, I was just trying to extend the narrative out a little bit.
Sometimes all we remember of history are the story lines we relate to.
We drop off all the rest and they tend to be airbrushed from history.
The role of women is a classic example of this.
 

The Inspector said:
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.

You dropped the first part (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State)

It's very clear it's talking about people's gun right in a State run Militia.

But what the writers were trying to say, is not important. It's how the Supreme Court rules on it.

Because of the Second Amendment's clear Ambiguity it can not guarantee people gun rights.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the Second Amendment is ambiguous. Rather, it is very clear -- "the right of the people shall not be infringed" is crystal clear.
 
Butterfly said:
I disagree that the Second Amendment is ambiguous. Rather, it is very clear -- "the right of the people shall not be infringed" is crystal clear.
Click to expand...

I agree Butterfly, very clear.

second-amendment-1.jpg
 
SeaBreeze said:
I agree Butterfly, very clear.
Click to expand...

It seems that this topic for/against gun control has been going on for years...perhaps centuries. The most vocal anti-gun people would be happy to see all firearms banned, while the pro-gun people totally disagree. This is an argument that will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. Only if some way were found to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminals and lunatics....and That falls under the heading of "fat chance"....would this topic move to the back burner.

The vast majority of people....gun owners included...have no problems with better screening and background checks for gun purchases. However, so long as the "bad guys" remain well armed, any attempts to reign in the ability of responsible people to arm themselves is going to meet with major resistance. Guns have been part of the U.S. culture virtually since the Pilgrims first landed, and will remain part of our society.

Some of our foreign friends think gun confiscation, such as what Australia did, would be a solution....but if such were ever tried here, we would probably quickly descend into a civil war. Many local authorities have had gun "buy back" programs for several years, but most of the firearms surrendered in those kinds of events are usually one level above pure junk, and barely usable.

Nope, Guns are here to stay, and the Only Sensible thing to do is to try to take steps to identify and disarm those who would use guns illegally. So far, that "utopia" has proven to be futile.

The truest words I've ever heard, with regard to guns in the hands of individuals is...."Remember, when Danger is Only Seconds Away, the Police are Only Minutes Away".
 
QuickSilver said:
I'm not sure why the conversation always turns to "taking guns away".... Don't believe that was included in the President's EO.
Click to expand...

Those who have fallen victim to the brainwashing of the NRA are quick to use "taking guns away", "confiscation", "slippery slope", etc. Few of those asking for assistance keeping guns out of the hands of the criminals and the mentally ill are in favor of a 'firearm free' society. Yet, billions of dollars are spent filling the media with an over-abundance of rhetoric suggesting they are. Billions of dollars are spent wining and dining legislators telling them to leave the firearm industry alone. It's more about money than about the rights of and the safety of our citizenry.

Terrorists on no-fly lists can "legally" purchase firearms because the industry won't permit Congress to discuss it. Criminals can go to gun shows and Craigslist to purchase guns without fear of background checks. The mentally insane can purchase firearms legally simply be falsely filling our the application. Parents can leave firearms unsecured and bear no responsibility when their kid takes one to school and blows away a teacher. My Facebook page is filled with posts from those who suggest the "liberals" are coming to take away our guns. Those posts are driven by the fear promoted by the NRA.
 
I agree Grumpy. Sensible regulation of dangerous goods is not the same as total prohibition and confiscation.
However, there are some dangerous people who forfeit their right to have possession of a firearm.
The trick is to identify they before they become armed and remove any guns after they come into their possession.

In OZ members of Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs are automatically deprived of any guns that they are found to be carrying or found in their homes when they are raided. This is because these gangs are associated with organised crime - importation of drugs and illicit guns. They are also associated with violence and intimidation. A background check with the police would red flag any known members.
 
I don't think that is fear created by the NRA at all. One of Obama's goals it to at least replicate the Australian way of turn in your guns. He wants all guns off the streets when he should be working to end the crime gangs from existing. Maybe more police in the troubled neighborhoods would be a start. How about mandatory working for those living on the welfare freebies and in the houses they also tear up and destroy for items to sell.

Far too much freedom for the nasty folks but that is OK as we will just punish the workers that abide the laws. And that does not come from the NRA or the Democrats or the Republicans.
 
BobF said:
I don't think that is fear created by the NRA at all. One of Obama's goals it to at least replicate the Australian way of turn in your guns. He wants all guns off the streets when he should be working to end the crime gangs from existing. Maybe more police in the troubled neighborhoods would be a start. How about mandatory working for those living on the welfare freebies and in the houses they also tear up and destroy for items to sell.

Far too much freedom for the nasty folks but that is OK as we will just punish the workers that abide the laws. And that does not come from the NRA or the Democrats or the Republicans.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree Bob, I'll add that anyone who believes anything our idiot in chief say has a major problem with reality. If we start picking and choosing who can do what, the question comes up, who does the picking and choosing? Frankly I don't trust the government to choose what I'm allowed to do and not to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imp
Jackie22 said:
You know it is just really strange how a black man in the White House affects some people's thinking.
Click to expand...

I believe you have just hit the nail on the head Jackie..... a SCARY Black man... taking guns away from law abiding While folks... so the Black folks can take all their stuff... How ludicrous. If they could just stand back and see how STUPID that is.. they would have to be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for them.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top