Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CatofWar

Your Hi-Point Carbine, Banned.

141 posts in this topic

When read alone, it does seem so. However, when you read the entire Bill of Rights, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it becomes a little more clear.

To me, this says the Amendments are there to prevent the government (or states) from abusing it's power. Since an armed militia is necessary to keep the country sovereign, the people should be armed in order to prevent being abused by the militia. For more support, the third Amendment says the militia can't take over your house. The second gives the third teeth.

Excellent. Thank you for pointing this out. I will consider it further. I'm interested in this beneficent purposes statement. It appears to me to give significant wiggle room in the logical interpretation that I hadn't considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your assuming you have that right. It hasn't been determined, and in fact based on the fact we had a prior "assault weapons" ban, your likely going to be incorrect.

I don't agree with the proposed ban, but i am tired of people deciding what they think their constituional rights are. It's kind of simple, challenge it in court, if you lose appeal, and then the SCOTUS will tell you if it is constutional or not, and if they rule against you, it isn't a right.

It's great you have an opinion and all, but that doesn't change the law

Thats why the 2nd admendment is supposed to be protected by habeas corpus. To insure my right to bear arms in defense and protection of foreign domestic and tyrannical threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you know that a right in fact does not unequivocally mean you can do whatever you want because it's defined by societal parameters?

exactly, thats why I said you don"t have the right to attack someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy to live in a country that allows me the right to arm myself for protection as I decide is nessessary. If in the future, politicians dictate that right null and void, I will thank God for the God given free will to continue to arm myself as i decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government officials exempt from ban

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feinstein-gun-control-bill-exempt-government-officials_697732.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gun control is always going to be a touchy subject but it's fun to read some of the responses all the same!!!!

I'm curious how many pro gun people actually believe there will be a state uprising and all those firearms you have stockpiled is going to save you and your family one day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gun control is always going to be a touchy subject but it's fun to read some of the responses all the same!!!!

I'm curious how many pro gun people actually believe there will be a state uprising and all those firearms you have stockpiled is going to save you and your family one day?

I wonder how many gun control advocates believe that they will ever actually get some significant control of guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With advancements in technology there can be no further regulation. Within 10 years you will be able to personally manufacture weapons in your very own living room. Sorry bleeding hearts but american innovation wins again!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many gun control advocates believe that they will ever actually get some significant control of guns.

yup, big time. As I have mentioned before, I don't care either way...I just like reading the comments and following the arguments.

for me, it's education, not legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When read alone, it does seem so. However, when you read the entire Bill of Rights, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it becomes a little more clear.

To me, this says the Amendments are there to prevent the government (or states) from abusing it's power. Since an armed militia is necessary to keep the country sovereign, the people should be armed in order to prevent being abused by the militia. For more support, the third Amendment says the militia can't take over your house. The second gives the third teeth.

It appears to actually say that some States feared too much federal control and desired that the ability to arm themselves against what they might consider an overreaching Federal government. This seems to be why the Second Amendment is written as it is, so the Federal government could not disarm the citizens of a State to expressly forfeit it's ability to militarily control their own destiny.

This need was largely nullified when it was apparent that a stronger Federal approach was needed to keep the US together, and settled for good in the Civil War. Add to this the fact that states now have full time Guards to protect their own interests and it's pretty clear that all these ideas are from a long gone era of government experimentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites