Why do politicians completly ignore and stomp on the second amendment?

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I generally oppose gun control to a reasonable degree. However, I have to admit - seeing the way some of them, *ahem*, proponents of the second amendment go parading around, I don't exactly have any sympathy. Also, Obama is not going to take away yur guns. Get over it.T_P_O

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

The second amendment, like any other aged book or law, was the law of the day. Sure it worked 200 years ago or so. But does it work today with a growing and more violent population?

danwallacefan

It does work today. If you were a criminal, whos house would you rob? Rusty who has a shotgun and is willing to kill you to protect his family, or Marty who will run out the back door when you break in.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

I think a very common problem with most everyone in this thread is that they misunderstand the burden of proof when it comes to State action. If one proposes that the State enact any law, the burden of proof is upon them to show that the state ought to make such a law.

Here's a good example: I hear a lot of people ask "C'mon seriously? Do you really need an Uzi to defend yourself? You can do it fine with a Pistol"

No, that argument does not carry, you are shifting the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that I need an Uzi to defend myself, its YOUR job to show why I should not be allowed to own an Uzi.

comp_atkins

OK, sure. Why not? You're going to fork over the $6.2 million it'll cost you, because I sure as hell aren't going to help you.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.megahaloman64

national guard = military.

Military = government

government /= militia

From Wikipedia in a list of the many different meanings of militia: "An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.". While I agree that outlawing guns would be against the second amendment and an unnecessary infringement on Civil Rights, it could very easily be argued that the amendment is an anachronism by its own stated prupose. The right of individual citizens to bear arms no longer contributes to a well-trained militia and ensuring a well-trained, well-equiped militia was the original purpose of the amendment.

Not only that, but Constiutional rights are not unconditional. In the same way that there are conditions on freedom of speech (no slander, no libel, clear and present danger, etc), there can be conditions on the right to bear arms (assault rifle bans, waiting periods, etc).

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

I think a very common problem with most everyone in this thread is that they misunderstand the burden of proof when it comes to State action. If one proposes that the State enact any law, the burden of proof is upon them to show that the state ought to make such a law.

Here's a good example: I hear a lot of people ask "C'mon seriously? Do you really need an Uzi to defend yourself? You can do it fine with a Pistol"

No, that argument does not carry, you are shifting the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that I need an Uzi to defend myself, its YOUR job to show why I should not be allowed to own an Uzi.

comp_atkins

you see my friend, a tank is not a firearm

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

The second amendment, like any other aged book or law, was the law of the day. Sure it worked 200 years ago or so. But does it work today with a growing and more violent population?

megahaloman64

It does work today. If you were a criminal, whos house would you rob? Rusty who has a shotgun and is willing to kill you to protect his family, or Marty who will run out the back door when you break in.

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.HomicidalCherry

national guard = military.

Military = government

government /= militia

From Wikipedia in a list of the many different meanings of militia: "An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.". While I agree that outlawing guns would be against the second amendment and an unnecessary infringement on Civil Rights, it could very easily be argued that the amendment is an anachronism by its own stated prupose. The right of individual citizens to bear arms no longer contributes to a well-trained militia and ensuring a well-trained, well-equiped militia was the original purpose of the amendment.

Not only that, but Constiutional rights are not unconditional. In the same way that there are conditions on freedom of speech (no slander, no libel, clear and present danger, etc), there can be conditions on the right to bear arms (assault rifle bans, waiting periods, etc).

From Wikipedia, it also says a milita is a non government funded group of citizens.

I think the individual right to bear arms is well established in this country.

Alabama - 1819

That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Alaska - 1959

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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

Arizona - 1912

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Arkansas - 1836

The citizens of this state shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

Colorado - 1876

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Connecticut - 1788

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Delaware - 1787

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Florida - 1845

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Georgia - 1788

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

Hawaii - 1959

Awell 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.

Idaho - 1890

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

Illinois - 1818

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Indiana - 1816

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Kansas - 1861

The people have a right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Kentucky - 1792

Rights of life, liberty, worship, pursuit of safety and happiness, free speech, acquiring and protecting property, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, bearing arms. All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:

The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Louisiana - 1812

The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

Maine - 1820

Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms, and this right shall never be questioned.

Maryland - 1788

That a well regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free Government.

Massachusetts - 1788

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Michigan - 1837

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Mississippi - 1817

The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

Missouri - 1821

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Montana - 1889

Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Nebraska - 1867

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are ... the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.

Nevada - 1864

Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.
2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

New Hampshire - 1788

All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

New Mexico - 1912

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986).

New York - 1788

The Constitution is Silent, however, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights
Law provides:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

North Carolina - 1789

Militia and the right to bear arms. 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty. they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

North Dakota - 1889

All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are ... to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

Ohio - 1803

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Oklahoma - 1907

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

Oregon - 1859

Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Pennsylvania - 1787

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Rhode Island - 1790

Right to bear arms. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

South Carolina - 1788

SECTION 20. Right to keep and bear arms; armies; military power subordinate to civil authority; how soldiers quartered.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of thepeople to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consentof the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.

South Dakota - 1889

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

Tennessee - 1796

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense; but the legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

Texas - 1845

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Utah - 1896

The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.
January 1, 1985

Vermont - 1791

ARTICLE 16th. [RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS; STANDING ARMIES; MILITARY POWER SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL]

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Virginia - 1788

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of thepeople to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Washington - 1889

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

West Virginia - 1863

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

Wisconsin - 1848

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose.

Wyoming - 1890

Right to bear arms. The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] The crime rate statistics speak against your statement that today's population is more violent than the one 200 years ago.

Ace_WondersX

It does work today. If you were a criminal, whos house would you rob? Rusty who has a shotgun and is willing to kill you to protect his family, or Marty who will run out the back door when you break in.

Banning guns does not mean stopping gun crimes. It means stopping about 0.2% of gun crimes.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

I think a very common problem with most everyone in this thread is that they misunderstand the burden of proof when it comes to State action. If one proposes that the State enact any law, the burden of proof is upon them to show that the state ought to make such a law.

Here's a good example: I hear a lot of people ask "C'mon seriously? Do you really need an Uzi to defend yourself? You can do it fine with a Pistol"

No, that argument does not carry, you are shifting the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that I need an Uzi to defend myself, its YOUR job to show why I should not be allowed to own an Uzi.

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I generally oppose gun control to a reasonable degree. However, I have to admit - seeing the way some of them, *ahem*, proponents of the second amendment go parading around, I don't exactly have any sympathy. Also, Obama is not going to take away yur guns. Get over it.T_P_O

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

national guard = military.

Military = government

government /= militia

megahaloman64

From Wikipedia in a list of the many different meanings of militia: "An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.". While I agree that outlawing guns would be against the second amendment and an unnecessary infringement on Civil Rights, it could very easily be argued that the amendment is an anachronism by its own stated prupose. The right of individual citizens to bear arms no longer contributes to a well-trained militia and ensuring a well-trained, well-equiped militia was the original purpose of the amendment.

Not only that, but Constiutional rights are not unconditional. In the same way that there are conditions on freedom of speech (no slander, no libel, clear and present danger, etc), there can be conditions on the right to bear arms (assault rifle bans, waiting periods, etc).

From Wikipedia, it also says a milita is a non government funded group of citizens.

It does, you however, stated that because the National Guard is a part of the government, it is not a militia. This is clearly not always true as one or more of the definitions listed could be applied to the National Guard.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] I'd REALLY love to know how you can be so certain given Obama's legislative record.

danwallacefan

Say, where are the militias, by the way?PannicAtack

burried with Ted Kennedy

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

I think a very common problem with most everyone in this thread is that they misunderstand the burden of proof when it comes to State action. If one proposes that the State enact any law, the burden of proof is upon them to show that the state ought to make such a law.

Here's a good example: I hear a lot of people ask "C'mon seriously? Do you really need an Uzi to defend yourself? You can do it fine with a Pistol"

No, that argument does not carry, you are shifting the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that I need an Uzi to defend myself, its YOUR job to show why I should not be allowed to own an Uzi.

danwallacefan

espically if he needs a tank to defend his family

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

It does work today. If you were a criminal, whos house would you rob? Rusty who has a shotgun and is willing to kill you to protect his family, or Marty who will run out the back door when you break in.

megahaloman64

Banning guns does not mean stopping gun crimes. It means stopping about 0.2% of gun crimes.

.2% of gun crimes are committed with a licensed gun, by the license owner. The percentage of criems committed by those legally bought, then illegally sold is much higher I'm sure.

It means militias, not individuals. but making guns illegal won't solve the problem. Its an american culture thing.RushMetallica

it means both

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

The second amendment, like any other aged book or law, was the law of the day. Sure it worked 200 years ago or so. But does it work today with a growing and more violent population?

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="aransom"]

Liberals and tyrants fear armed citizens.

megahaloman64

"Sorry Ted, citizens are armed, we're gonna have to push back our plan to make America a communist nation."

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Say, where are the militias, by the way?megahaloman64

burried with Ted Kennedy

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

[QUOTE="aransom"]

Liberals and tyrants fear armed citizens.

--Thomas--

"Sorry Ted, citizens are armed, we're gonna have to push back our plan to make America a communist nation."

Is your sarcasm detector on?

Why can't felons own guns?

They're part of the people, the Bill Of Rights clearly states no one should infringe on this right, especially not the federal government.

There is no constitutional amendment stating felons cannot own guns. Some one stated that felons lose rights but that isn't true for any of the 10 amendments or subsequent 17 except for the right to bear arms.

Also just to get this out the way, there is no amendment stating every citizen has the right to vote. There are amendments stating that people cannot be barred from voting due to sex, race, etc.

Stripping felons of gun rights wasn't added until 1986, by the views of some of the people on here. That is unconstitutional, because it clearly defies the language of the constitution.

That is why people say that the constitution is open to interpretation.

I think some of them are trying to limit the guns so that we don't end up with assault weapons in every hose on the block...personally I feel like it is a self-continuing state of paranoia that drives people to want guns in the first place. Johnny has one and to protect myself from Johnny, I need one too.

[QUOTE="--Thomas--"]

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

"Sorry Ted, citizens are armed, we're gonna have to push back our plan to make America a communist nation."

megahaloman64

Is your sarcasm detector on?

There's a big difference between having the right to bear arms and the right to own any gun you want... the second amendment does not prohibit gun control...chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]There's a big difference between having the right to bear arms and the right to own any gun you want... the second amendment does not prohibit gun control...danwallacefan

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand...

Who's trying to ban guns? People always complain about it, but I've never heard of any widely supported legislation to do so.

Who's trying to ban guns? People always complain about it, but I've never heard of any widely supported legislation to do so.

Lab392

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]There's a big difference between having the right to bear arms and the right to own any gun you want... the second amendment does not prohibit gun control...-Sun_Tzu-

To be fair, you really can't reference the Supreme Court on this one since they are the ones falling down on the job.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]There's a big difference between having the right to bear arms and the right to own any gun you want... the second amendment does not prohibit gun control...-Sun_Tzu-

Also, the supreme court isn't, nor should it be, the end-all-be-all authority on constitutional matters. If the supreme court upheld a federal law that says "The 1st amendment is null and void", that wouldn't make said law any more constitutional.

Unfortunately, government isn't all it's cracked up to be.

It doesn't matter when or why the amendment was added, all that matters is it's there.

Sorry to all you libs and statists who think you can take away my guns. The NRA being as it is, you guys have almost no chance of succeeding on that front. Only thing you can do is tax. That hasn't stopped smokers.

Also, whoever said people are running around with M-16 assault rifles in America is wildly inaccurate. An M-16 is a military weapon. The civillian version is an AR-15. And those are sold as semi-automatic only. So if you don't know anything about firearms, you really shouldn't be commenting in this thread.

I agree that assault weapons(fully-automatic) shouldn't be allowed to the populace without strict permits and licenses, though.

Back to polishing my SIG...

Edit: Oh, and just as clarification, people kill people. A trigger doesn't pull itself.

Why can't felons own guns?

They're part of the people, the Bill Of Rights clearly states no one should infringe on this right, especially not the federal government.

There is no constitutional amendment stating felons cannot own guns. Some one stated that felons lose rights but that isn't true for any of the 10 amendments or subsequent 17 except for the right to bear arms.

Also just to get this out the way, there is no amendment stating every citizen has the right to vote. There are amendments stating that people cannot be barred from voting due to sex, race, etc.

Stripping felons of gun rights wasn't added until 1986, by the views of some of the people on here. That is unconstitutional, because it clearly defies the language of the constitution.

That is why people say that the constitution is open to interpretation.

Ace_WondersX

criminals still get guns, not legally though

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]There's a big difference between having the right to bear arms and the right to own any gun you want... the second amendment does not prohibit gun control...danwallacefan

Whoever said I was infringing upon your right to bear arms?

Okay, but seriously, it does still depend on your interpretation of the amendment. "Infringe" in the strictest sense simply would prohibit taking away the right altogether, not limiting it. In any case, a completely literal interpretation (as you suggest) makes absolutely no sense. A rocket launcher could be considered "arms," yet there is certainly no feasible argument that the founding fathers would have meant to protect it under the second amendment. The context, of course, would have to be what is suitable for personal defense and from there determine what limitations are appropriate, not that no limitations are allowed...

Politicians hate the second ammendment because it limits their power. Many people in politics believe their way or their ideology to be the only correct choice and wish to enforce that ideology on everyone else. I'll most likely never own a gun and I don't think gun ownership curbs crime, but it's not my will that everyone must abide by.

criminals still get guns, not legally though

megahaloman64

I'm not saying some forms of gun-control are bad. I don't believe a felon should be able to own a gun, and they can't. That doesn't stop them, though.

It's the people you need to worry about, not the guns themselves.

That's the key issue. People will always get guns if they want one. Lets put more money into stopping that rather than making it illegal for a person to defend himself from an armed criminal.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] 2nd amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, an gun control is infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. owning any gun is bearing arms. Bearing arms is bearing arms. So gun control, by logical necessity, is infringing on the right to bear arms. I'm surprised that you didn't catch that when writing your post. danwallacefan

Also, the supreme court isn't, nor should it be, the end-all-be-all authority on constitutional matters. If the supreme court upheld a federal law that says "The 1st amendment is null and void", that wouldn't make said law any more constitutional.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]There's a big difference between having the right to bear arms and the right to own any gun you want... the second amendment does not prohibit gun control...danwallacefan

Again, every right comes with conditions. We have freedom of the press, but the press can be sued for libel. We have freedom of religion but you can't break laws and call it a religious ceremony to hide from the law. We have freedom of speech, but you cannot create irrational panic or spread slander without consequence. A Constitutional right is not an unconditional right.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

Why can't felons own guns?

They're part of the people, the Bill Of Rights clearly states no one should infringe on this right, especially not the federal government.

There is no constitutional amendment stating felons cannot own guns. Some one stated that felons lose rights but that isn't true for any of the 10 amendments or subsequent 17 except for the right to bear arms.

Also just to get this out the way, there is no amendment stating every citizen has the right to vote. There are amendments stating that people cannot be barred from voting due to sex, race, etc.

Stripping felons of gun rights wasn't added until 1986, by the views of some of the people on here. That is unconstitutional, because it clearly defies the language of the constitution.

That is why people say that the constitution is open to interpretation.

megahaloman64

criminals still get guns, not legally though

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

I think a very common problem with most everyone in this thread is that they misunderstand the burden of proof when it comes to State action. If one proposes that the State enact any law, the burden of proof is upon them to show that the state ought to make such a law.

Here's a good example: I hear a lot of people ask "C'mon seriously? Do you really need an Uzi to defend yourself? You can do it fine with a Pistol"

No, that argument does not carry, you are shifting the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that I need an Uzi to defend myself, its YOUR job to show why I should not be allowed to own an Uzi.

megahaloman64

you see my friend, a tank is not a firearm

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]There's a big difference between having the right to bear arms and the right to own any gun you want... the second amendment does not prohibit gun control...HomicidalCherry

Again, every right comes with conditions. We have freedom of the press, but the press can be sued for libel. We have freedom of religion but you can't break laws and call it a religious ceremony to hide from the law. We have freedom of speech, but you cannot create irrational panic or spread slander without consequence. A Constitutional right is not an unconditional right.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well, no. Per the Supreme Court, while some forms of gun control may be unconstitutional, the general concept of gun control is perfectly constitutional. -Sun_Tzu-

Also, the supreme court isn't, nor should it be, the end-all-be-all authority on constitutional matters. If the supreme court upheld a federal law that says "The 1st amendment is null and void", that wouldn't make said law any more constitutional.