Bring your guns to DC

[Whoha]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


So I can make it illegal to possess gunpowder and the 2nd amendment wouldn't have anything to say?

If people aren't paying attention and let the local/state/national government do that then yes absolutely the legislature can do that(you can't unfortunately KH). God forbid people would have to pay attention to their government.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Whoha


I think they'd count on us to solve our own problems, and they did give us the tools to do so.

Except for that little detail about people carrying guns without reason.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Except for that little detail about people carrying guns without reason.

He's refering to the process to repeal any liberties we don't feel the need for any longer the document contains.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He's refering to the process to repeal any liberties we don't feel the need for any longer the document contains.

Yeah, that might be so, but was I'm trying to say is that the original writings would have been way different if they have had any idea about what the future would have produced.

The arms part of the constititution actually only made sense in the early years of the existence of US - after that it has only been a source of grief due to the vast amout of unnessecary killings of innocents.

[DinoDoc]

In that case, it would be better to simply repeal it rather than ignoring it in substance while paying rhetorical lip service to respecting it.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In that case, it would be better to simply repeal it rather than ignoring it in substance while paying rhetorical lip service to respecting it.

Quite right, but the genie has left the bottle and it's not that easy to get it back where it belongs.

[GePap]

The founders obviously placed the wording about militias in the text of the Constitution for a reason. They could just as simply have said "It is the right of citizens to bear arms" if all they wanted to do was state that individuals had the right to bear arms.

As for a "historical perspective", the main issue with the second ammendment today are not weapons like Howlitzers or nukes. Actually, a private citizen could own a Howlitzer (just like private collectors own tanks), but they would have a hell of a time buying shells. As for nukes, the ownership of fissionable material and the type of explosives needed to make a nuclear weapons are so highly regulated that private legal ownership is a pipedream. The real problem are handguns. And from a historical perspective, handguns are hardly the kind of weapons you could run a militia with, plus back in 1790 all firears were expensive, and any sort of pistol even more difficult for anyone to own.

So the battleground today is handgun regulation. Very few crimes are committed with long guns, if only because it is nearly impossible to conceal them, and if you don't conceal your weapon agents of the state (the police) will pretty much be able to track you down if you have any criminal intentions.

Personally, if some forms of speech can be regulated and banned, and some forms of religious practices can be regulated and banned and that passes constituonal muster, I have no problem with some forms of arms (like handguns) being regulated or banned. After all, the first ammendement never states that only political speech is to be protected, yet that has been the historical path courts have taken in explaining the constitutionality of decency laws.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Because the difference between a printing press able to reach a few hundred people and requiring a huge investment on the part of the person running it and the internet where you are able to reach hundreds of millions of people instantly and with very little investment on your part is precisely the type of difference between personal arms and nukes.

You could argue that many of the founders saw freedom of expression as an almost entirely positive force*. On the other hand, the right to bear arms was supposed to only be excercized (usefully) by the people as a whole, as a safeguard against tyranny. Thus a weapon which grants an individual or a tiny group the ability to blackmail the vast majority is not consistent with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, whereas a medium granting a speaker the ability to reach most of the population is consistent with the purpose of the 1st.

* or at least, that they wouldn't have considered increased ability to distribute speech a bad thing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lonestar
The whole point of individual gun ownership is so that we can stand ready to overthrow the government in case it get's too uppity.

Hooah 2nd Amendment.

And that's why it's an anachronism and should be repealed so we can stop pretending it doesn't exist.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


They are relative to the alternative (thousands of people with guns)

There are no personal alternatives to a nuclear bomb.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Perfection
There are no personal alternatives to a nuclear bomb.

There are no personal alternatives to the Internet, you numbskull.

Nobody can reach that many people in that short a timeframe without the cooperation of hundreds (or thousands) of other individuals with technology as it existed in 1789.

You can continue arguing, but you're pretty well demolished here...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You could argue that many of the founders saw freedom of expression as an almost entirely positive force

You can argue a lot of things. But it's purely speculative.

[LordShiva]

why dont't they lekt guns bve legal, but outlaw bullets?>

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
The founders obviously placed the wording about militias in the text of the Constitution for a reason. They could just as simply have said "It is the right of citizens to bear arms" if all they wanted to do was state that individuals had the right to bear arms.

As for a "historical perspective", the main issue with the second ammendment today are not weapons like Howlitzers or nukes. Actually, a private citizen could own a Howlitzer (just like private collectors own tanks), but they would have a hell of a time buying shells. As for nukes, the ownership of fissionable material and the type of explosives needed to make a nuclear weapons are so highly regulated that private legal ownership is a pipedream. The real problem are handguns. And from a historical perspective, handguns are hardly the kind of weapons you could run a militia with, plus back in 1790 all firears were expensive, and any sort of pistol even more difficult for anyone to own.

So the battleground today is handgun regulation. Very few crimes are committed with long guns, if only because it is nearly impossible to conceal them, and if you don't conceal your weapon agents of the state (the police) will pretty much be able to track you down if you have any criminal intentions.

Personally, if some forms of speech can be regulated and banned, and some forms of religious practices can be regulated and banned and that passes constituonal muster, I have no problem with some forms of arms (like handguns) being regulated or banned. After all, the first ammendement never states that only political speech is to be protected, yet that has been the historical path courts have taken in explaining the constitutionality of decency laws.

A sawed off .303 is easily concealed and will kill you more surely than most handguns if you're hit.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


A sawed off .303 is easily concealed and will kill you more surely than most handguns if you're hit.

Which is why sawed off long guns are illegal.

Do you have anything relevant to say?