joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
The Second Amendment
As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States:
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.
If you notice, the 2nd Amendment does not specify what kind of arms one can or cannot own, therefore, you should have the legal right to own whatever type of firearm you want, up to and including automatic and burst fire weapons.
Under the law, anything that disqualifies you as a voter or juror prevents you from owning a gun.
Now, I have a hard time believing that career criminals have obtained guns from a licensed dealer or sporting goods store.
Now I am a democrat but I believe in the right to keep and use firearms. I enjoy hunting, and can frequently be found on a range.
Now, since there is no way under the constitution that the right to own guns is going to be removed, how about some sensible suggestions dealing with regulating or making it possible for law enforcement personnel to trace a weapon that may have been used in a crime.
Your assuming of course, that the 2nd Amendment implies without restriction or 'shadow of a doubt' that arms are for the sole purpose(s) of individuals, and not, "well regulated militias". Not all arms are firearms, but all firearms are arms. Likewise, a militia in 1776 terms is EXTREMELY different from its defination in 2011.
We have 'well regulated militias' right now: Local Police Officers, State Troopers, Sheriffs, F.B.I., C.I.A., N.S.A., ICE, National Guard, US Marshals, and the USGC. Lets not forget in a time of comflict or disaster, the US Military can step in (and used sparingly) to handle law enforcement. Each of these groups from local to federal, meet the defination of 'a well regulated militia'. They have rules, held to laws, and are well trained in their profession.
Back in 1776, the local law enforcement was non-existant at best. To help keep 'law and order' as the prevailing course of the day, states were allowed to have militias in their towns/counties to keep brigands, thieves, indians, and other assorted evils as bay. The common citizen, had the best professional infantry weapon of the day: a musket (un-rifled too). Was it implied in the 2nd Amendment that the common citizen be granted access to military grade weapons and ammo? That's a very good question, since if it does, the very rich people (of today's terms) will be able to arm small armies that 'lord' over a given area.
The National Rifle Assocation (NRA) has for over thirty years, tried to imply the 2nd Amendment grants firearm rights to the common citizen. Not only that, but an unlimited right/access to all arms (as long as there firearms). Who does the NRA really represent in the USA? Not the common citizen or the 2nd Amendment. They represent the gun industry plain and simple. The gun industry, like every other industry, needs to make a profit by selling products and services to US Citizens. Does it help the gun indstry if the common citizen is given 'limited access' or 'unlimited access'? So it could be argued the NRA has an obvious bias that has nothing to do with individual citizens or the 2nd Amendment, couldn't it?
Trying to craft a universal law on arms in 1776 was extremely simple compared to 2011. Back then, people did not look for loopholes and ways to 'skirt the law' for the most part. In 'today terms' that happens with every law BEFORE its put into effect. And people still find loopholes afterward. People in 2011 are extremely more complex then 1776. What we understand of the world, the land, science, economics, and even 'The Law' was completely beyond the wildest imaginations of folks in 1776. What would the Signers of the US Constitution have said of the USA as it exists today, on the subject of firearms?
So yes, trying to craft laws that apply equally to all persons under the law (as it pertains to arms), is about as easy as creating a second Earth that is within the travel distance of say....Mars. A person on a farm far from the city will have different needs/uses for a firearm then an inner city young adult trying to resist gangs. People have firearms for a whole host of different reasons, not just for self defense.
How would one define a 'Military Arm' that should or shouldn't be accessable to common citizens? How about 'Military grade ammo'? The questions are easy, the answers that lead to a solution of legislation are nearly impossible.
|
RE: What kind of Gun Regulation Makes Sense? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread