Right to bear arms..

Here in the state of California, or rather even the city of SF, Firearms of any type are illegal, and you are to be arrested on the spot should you be caught with one. So you're saying, if I'm to be caught with an AK-47 or M16, or w/e....I am to be arrested? This puzzles me.....I thought....the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms? I know theres been a lot of crime lately, but still. "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." So if I get arrested, aren't my rights being taken away? Which I think is also supported by the Ninth Amendment, which provides unenumerated rights.

Ah but me using AK-47 or M16 in my post were just examples....Thus the term Firearms lol.

seriously though, why do you need an ak-47? the british aren't planning on invading us. who needs assault rifles? are you a drug lord?im_mr_brown

Do you REALLY think founding fathers were thinking of automatic rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, et cetera when they drafted this amendment? No, of course not. Broad interpretations of the amendment only came about after the NRA started lobbying. Before then, the Supreme Court mostly went with a stricter interpretation. The version ratified by the states has a capital P (for People), which makes you think they thought of the People as a collective group--As the militia. en-z-io

We're at the point in our society that we don't need people to be able to get AK-47's or auto shotguns. They have no purpose but to kill other (and often times many) people. I can understand having a pistol for self defense, or a rifle for hunting, but do you need to riddle a deer with 25 AK bullets to kill it? No. These stupid laws would be so much easier to interpret and follow if people weren't morons and exercise discretion, but sadly, that's not the case.hillelslovak

The whole "Being necessary to the security of a free state" thing refers to the fact that the people should have the power to forcibly overthrow the government should the government get out of hand. Our founding fathers understood that the first step toward tyranny is to disarm the people.

Do you REALLY think founding fathers were thinking of automatic rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, et cetera when they drafted this amendment? No, of course not. Broad interpretations of the amendment only came about after the NRA started lobbying. Before then, the Supreme Court mostly went with a stricter interpretation. The version ratified by the states has a capital P (for People), which makes you think they thought of the People as a collective group--As the militia. en-z-io

It's says , (comma) THE PEOPLE....

If you honestly believe otherwise you're delusional. Just take 5 minutes of your time to read what the Founding Fathers wrote about the right to bear arms.

I support the right.

[QUOTE="clembo1990"]Right to bear arms so long as the British are there. That needs to be changed. There is no need for a militia anymore. Plus automatic weapons are illegal anyhoo.trix5817

No it's not...

So many ignorant people who don't care to look at the facts in one thread...

[QUOTE="trix5817"]

[QUOTE="clembo1990"]Right to bear arms so long as the British are there. That needs to be changed. There is no need for a militia anymore. Plus automatic weapons are illegal anyhoo.clembo1990

No it's not...

So many ignorant people who don't care to look at the facts in one thread...

OP: In Illinois you have to have a FOID (Firearm Owner's IDentification) before we are allowed to carry a weapon. This does not give us the right to concealed carry (where you hide the gun on your body) or the right to carry the gun while it's loaded. The only time you can do that is during hunting season or at designated areas; personal property that is outside of city limits. Most cities make it illegal to openly carry guns because it raises tension levels. However, the second amendment gives us the right to carry guns so if we ever had to protect ourselves, we would be able to.

To those of you asking, "Do you really think the founding fathers were thinking about semi-automatics?" No, they weren't. They were thinking about a way to protect themselves with as much deadly force as the opposition was bringing to the table. But you're right, maybe we should go back to muskets and blackpowder guns so if we are ever invaded and a malitia is required, we can just get slaughtered by bazookas and automatics. Good idea.

When will you people learn that criminals don't care about laws? They'll get the guns anyway. You can look to Australia for proof.

Thanks to DC vs. Heller, some people are using that precedent to try to get some strict laws, like those in San Francisco and Chicago, struck down. Tennessee is a pretty gun-friendly state though. I see no justified reason to carry an automatic weapon on your person unless if you're expecting a gang to try to gun you down, but I have a handgun carry permit, so by law I can take my Glock 22 with me to many places.MAILER_DAEMON

I thought the second amendment was added only to ensure your safety back in the 1700-1800 from the british. Making it a pretty outdated right.Treflis

You people are willingly desiring to give up your freedoms. Do you not realize that? You are not forced to have a gun just because it's allowed and criminals will do it anyway so you might as well keep what few rights we have left.

I know exactly what you mean! The other day, a gun kicked my door down, walked into my livingroom, and shot me in the leg. It was mighty painful, but my Chuck Norris Roundhouse took care of it. We gotta do something about these guns, they're just out of control! I didn't even know they had legs to walk around. :roll:

OP: In Illinois you have to have a FOID (Firearm Owner's IDentification) before we are allowed to carry a weapon. This does not give us the right to concealed carry (where you hide the gun on your body) or the right to carry the gun while it's loaded. The only time you can do that is during hunting season or at designated areas; personal property that is outside of city limits. Most cities make it illegal to openly carry guns because it raises tension levels. However, the second amendment gives us the right to carry guns so if we ever had to protect ourselves, we would be able to.

To those of you asking, "Do you really think the founding fathers were thinking about semi-automatics?" No, they weren't. They were thinking about a way to protect themselves with as much deadly force as the opposition was bringing to the table. But you're right, maybe we should go back to muskets and blackpowder guns so if we are ever invaded and a malitia is required, we can just get slaughtered by bazookas and automatics. Good idea.

When will you people learn that criminals don't care about laws? They'll get the guns anyway. You can look to Australia for proof.

AustXilo

Who is going to invade America? France? Belgium? Maybe those pesky Canadians right on your doorstep? Get real.

I thought the second amendment was added only to ensure your safety back in the 1700-1800 from the british. Making it a pretty outdated right.Treflis

No, not in the slightest...

[QUOTE="trix5817"]

[QUOTE="clembo1990"]Right to bear arms so long as the British are there. That needs to be changed. There is no need for a militia anymore. Plus automatic weapons are illegal anyhoo.clembo1990

No it's not...

So many ignorant people who don't care to look at the facts in one thread...

The main purpose of the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment stating that the people shall have the right to bear arms was for the the people to dispose of or protect themselves from a tyrannical government. They looked at history for this one. The State usually always outlawed weapons when they wanted full control. They weren't idiots. They studied history heavily.

[QUOTE="Treflis"]I thought the second amendment was added only to ensure your safety back in the 1700-1800 from the british. Making it a pretty outdated right.AustXilo

You people are willingly desiring to give up your freedoms. Do you not realize that? You are not forced to have a gun just because it's allowed and criminals will do it anyway so you might as well keep what few rights we have left.

[QUOTE="Treflis"]I thought the second amendment was added only to ensure your safety back in the 1700-1800 from the british. Making it a pretty outdated right.AustXilo

You people are willingly desiring to give up your freedoms. Do you not realize that? You are not forced to have a gun just because it's allowed and criminals will do it anyway so you might as well keep what few rights we have left.

[QUOTE="AustXilo"]

[QUOTE="Treflis"]I thought the second amendment was added only to ensure your safety back in the 1700-1800 from the british. Making it a pretty outdated right.Maniacc1

You people are willingly desiring to give up your freedoms. Do you not realize that? You are not forced to have a gun just because it's allowed and criminals will do it anyway so you might as well keep what few rights we have left.

[QUOTE="AustXilo"]

[QUOTE="Treflis"]I thought the second amendment was added only to ensure your safety back in the 1700-1800 from the british. Making it a pretty outdated right.Maniacc1

You people are willingly desiring to give up your freedoms. Do you not realize that? You are not forced to have a gun just because it's allowed and criminals will do it anyway so you might as well keep what few rights we have left.

Most criminals obtain their guns illegally...it's called a black market. Making firearms illegal just puts them out of the hands of good people and into the hands of bad people. Simple as that.

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"][QUOTE="AustXilo"] You're right. And we've never been in any wars since then. Maybe we should just throw out all laws created before 1900. Not like anyone is still around from before then. Let's just rip up the Constitution, the Declaration, and the BIll of Rights. Fantastic idea.

You people are willingly desiring to give up your freedoms. Do you not realize that? You are not forced to have a gun just because it's allowed and criminals will do it anyway so you might as well keep what few rights we have left.

Danm_999

Pretty easily. They can't control everyone if most of the population is armed. It's called guerilla tactics. You now, kind of what insurgents are doing right now in Iraq (not that I support this).

Do you REALLY think founding fathers were thinking of automatic rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, et cetera when they drafted this amendment? No, of course not. Broad interpretations of the amendment only came about after the NRA started lobbying. Before then, the Supreme Court mostly went with a stricter interpretation. The version ratified by the states has a capital P (for People), which makes you think they thought of the People as a collective group--As the militia. en-z-io

And if your government chooses to oppress you, given modern military technology, how effective is a handgun going to be?Danm_999

Exactly.

Most criminals obtain their guns illegally...it's called a black market. Making firearms illegal just puts them out of the hands of good people and into the hands of bad people. Simple as that.trix5817

I never said firearms should be made illegal. I said their should be strict regulations. No one needs more than one gun, no one needs to take it out in public. And the argument of "because I can" just doesn't cut it anymore. It seems to me people are buying guns for the sole principal of it, not even understanding what it's original purpose in the Constitution was.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]And if your government chooses to oppress you, given modern military technology, how effective is a handgun going to be?Maniacc1

Exactly.

Most criminals obtain their guns illegally...it's called a black market. Making firearms illegal just puts them out of the hands of good people and into the hands of bad people. Simple as that.trix5817

I never said firearms should be made illegal. I said their should be strict regulations. No one needs more than one gun, no one needs to take it out in public. And the argument of "because I can" just doesn't cut it anymore. It seems to me people are buying guns for the sole principal of it, not even understanding what it's original purpose in the Constitution was.

Do you think criminals are going to follow these restrictions!?:lol::lol:

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Maniacc1"] I don't think we're willing to give up our freedoms, we're willing to amend them so they apply more easily to modern times. Right now, I'm at more danger from getting shot in the face by someone legally carrying a handgun then a government tyranny or violent revolution. trix5817

Pretty easily. They can't control everyone if most of the population is armed. It's called guerilla tactics. You now, kind of what insurgents are doing right now in Iraq (not that I support this).

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Exactly.

[QUOTE="trix5817"]Most criminals obtain their guns illegally...it's called a black market. Making firearms illegal just puts them out of the hands of good people and into the hands of bad people. Simple as that.trix5817

I never said firearms should be made illegal. I said their should be strict regulations. No one needs more than one gun, no one needs to take it out in public. And the argument of "because I can" just doesn't cut it anymore. It seems to me people are buying guns for the sole principal of it, not even understanding what it's original purpose in the Constitution was.

Do you think criminals are going to follow these restrictions!?:lol::lol:

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Exactly.

[QUOTE="trix5817"]Most criminals obtain their guns illegally...it's called a black market. Making firearms illegal just puts them out of the hands of good people and into the hands of bad people. Simple as that.trix5817

I never said firearms should be made illegal. I said their should be strict regulations. No one needs more than one gun, no one needs to take it out in public. And the argument of "because I can" just doesn't cut it anymore. It seems to me people are buying guns for the sole principal of it, not even understanding what it's original purpose in the Constitution was.

Do you think criminals are going to follow these restrictions!?:lol::lol:

Here in the state of California, or rather even the city of SF, Firearms of any type are illegal, and you are to be arrested on the spot should you be caught with one. So you're saying, if I'm to be caught with an AK-47 or M16, or w/e....I am to be arrested? This puzzles me.....I thought....the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms? I know theres been a lot of crime lately, but still. "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." So if I get arrested, aren't my rights being taken away? Which I think is also supported by the Ninth Amendment, which provides unenumerated rights.

S0mEGuY12

[QUOTE="S0mEGuY12"]

Here in the state of California, or rather even the city of SF, Firearms of any type are illegal, and you are to be arrested on the spot should you be caught with one. So you're saying, if I'm to be caught with an AK-47 or M16, or w/e....I am to be arrested? This puzzles me.....I thought....the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms? I know theres been a lot of crime lately, but still. "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." So if I get arrested, aren't my rights being taken away? Which I think is also supported by the Ninth Amendment, which provides unenumerated rights.

Ontain

I support the right to bear arms. In case of political suppression/dictatorship/civil conflict. I want to have my MP2k, and boomstick along with my M-16 around me to fight back.

Bear arms are rather tasty, I don't see why that right should be taken away from us. Oh... wait, the right TO bear arms, thats right. No one needs an assult rifle, a 12 gauge completely suffices for both hunting and home denfense, you need nothing more. If you want to bear arms in public, take the course of whatever to get certified.

I support the right to bear arms. In case of political suppression/dictatorship/civil conflict. I want to have my MP2k, and boomstick along with my M-16 around me to fight back.

Kamekazi_69

I'm from one of the most gun-happy states in the USA, and everyone in my family including my Grandma has a gun or five. But even there we don't think anyone has the right to minguns, AKs, ARs, or 50 cals, nor do you have the right to brandish it in public. You have aright to keep and bear arms that were legally purchased and registered, but that does not entitle anyone to weapons that were solely meant for war; they won't protect you from the guv'ment, nor will they make a major difference in the defense of our nation.

A gun deals death, and that isits only purpose. It is not just another tool that you are entitled to own, like a hammer. Because of its exceptionally high capacity to cause harm even unintentionally, it must be carefully but reasonably regulated.

I'm from one of the most gun-happy states in the USA, and everyone in my family including my Grandma has a gun or five. But even there we don't think anyone has the right to minguns, AKs, ARs, or 50 cals, nor do you have the right to brandish it in public. You have aright to keep and bear arms that were legally purchased and registered, but that does not entitle anyone to weapons that were solely meant for war; they won't protect you from the guv'ment, nor will they make a major difference in the defense of our nation.

A gun deals death, and that isits only purpose. It is not just another tool that you are entitled to own, like a hammer. Because of its exceptionally high capacity to cause harm even unintentionally, it must be carefully but reasonably regulated.

sieg6529

The main purpose of the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment stating that the people shall have the right to bear arms was for the the people to dispose of or protect themselves from a tyrannical government. They looked at history for this one. The State usually always outlawed weapons when they wanted full control. They weren't idiots. They studied history heavily.

trix5817

[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="S0mEGuY12"]

Here in the state of California, or rather even the city of SF, Firearms of any type are illegal, and you are to be arrested on the spot should you be caught with one. So you're saying, if I'm to be caught with an AK-47 or M16, or w/e....I am to be arrested? This puzzles me.....I thought....the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms? I know theres been a lot of crime lately, but still. "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." So if I get arrested, aren't my rights being taken away? Which I think is also supported by the Ninth Amendment, which provides unenumerated rights.

Danm_999

[QUOTE="trix5817"]

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"]

I never said firearms should be made illegal. I said their should be strict regulations. No one needs more than one gun, no one needs to take it out in public. And the argument of "because I can" just doesn't cut it anymore. It seems to me people are buying guns for the sole principal of it, not even understanding what it's original purpose in the Constitution was.

Danm_999

Do you think criminals are going to follow these restrictions!?:lol::lol:

The number ranges depending on the survey, but they are all well over half. It also depends on the area. If the area has strict gun laws, then they are much more likely to be obtained illegally.

A

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Ontain"] are you part of a well regulated militia?Ontain

He was mocking people like me to somehow prove his point. HILARIOUS!!!:roll:

And no, the right to bear arms was not just for a "well regulated militia", it was meant for everyone. There really is no denying this. Read what the Founding Father's wrote.

double post. whoops.