You are correct that the handgun ban was overturned. My point centers around the comment that not all guns are protected.

 

That is a decision that was weighed 5-4. There is no clear cut stand on that issue in this country. It is something that our Supreme Court Justices are even completely split. Nothing will make it clear short of a new amendment, which will never have the necessary backing. There are many citizens in this country that have never broken a law that will instantly become criminals if section in our government try to take away their firearms. I don't know if the left understands this or not, but they are approaching a state of civil unrest. Many citizens do not and will not honor anyone's right to do this.

That is a decision that was weighed 5-4. There is no clear cut stand on that issue in this country. It is something that our Supreme Court Justices are even completely split. Nothing will make it clear short of a new amendment, which will never have the necessary backing. There are many citizens in this country that have never broken a law that will instantly become criminals if section in our government try to take away their firearms. I don't know if the left understands this or not, but they are approaching a state of civil unrest. Many citizens do not and will not honor anyone's right to do this.

 

Fine and dandy and, again, not the argument. When you have a staunch conservative Justice saying it's not protected then there is no way ANYONE can say that the Constitution guarantees the right to carry any type of firearm.

 

Agreed?

 

That is a decision that was weighed 5-4. There is no clear cut stand on that issue in this country. It is something that our Supreme Court Justices are even completely split. Nothing will make it clear short of a new amendment, which will never have the necessary backing. There are many citizens in this country that have never broken a law that will instantly become criminals if section in our government try to take away their firearms. I don't know if the left understands this or not, but they are approaching a state of civil unrest. Many citizens do not and will not honor anyone's right to do this.

 

Y'all gonna grab your guns and march up to the White House?

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

Fine and dandy and, again, not the argument. When you have a staunch conservative Justice saying it's not protected then there is no way ANYONE can say that the Constitution guarantees the right to carry any type of firearm.

 

Agreed?

No, there are four other justices that disagreed with him. He has been a conservative justice for most of his career. He was nominated by Reagan. However, he has always been midline on the issue of gun control. He is also very pro executive power, which many jusitces have historically disagreed with. Of course there is someone that can disagree with a justice, including other justices.

Y'all gonna grab your guns and march up to the White House?

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

No, but I can guarantee that many gun owners will not allow their weapons to be taken peacefully, and many members of law enforcement will refuse to enforce those laws. I would call that civil unrest.

 

No, but I can guarantee that many gun owners will not allow their weapons to be taken peacefully, and many members of law enforcement will refuse to enforce those laws. I would call that civil unrest.

 

I can't remember where I read it, but I'll look for it. Apparently, law enforcement as a universal group are not as lock step in opposing such legislation as many would imply.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

I can't remember where I read it, but I'll look for it. Apparently, law enforcement as a universal group are not as lock step in opposing such legislation as many would imply.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

Once again, there is a major difference between urban and rural law enforcement on this issue, much the same as the differences in urban and rural political views across this country.

You are correct that the handgun ban was overturned. My point centers around the comment that not all guns are protected.

 

Fine and dandy and, again, not the argument. When you have a staunch conservative Justice saying it's not protected then there is no way ANYONE can say that the Constitution guarantees the right to carry any type of firearm.

 

Agreed?

 

I guess it depends on what you feel the original intent of the 2nd was. For me it's intent was for the people to be armed with the same firearms as their possible oppressor. While the go to argument has always been that our founding fathers could never have envisioned the types of weapons we have today ever existing, I would say 1. we aren't giving our founding fathers enough credit, and 2. wouldn't that apply to the government as well?

I guess it depends on what you feel the original intent of the 2nd was. For me it's intent was for the people to be armed with the same firearms as their possible oppressor. While the go to argument has always been that our founding fathers could never have envisioned the types of weapons we have today ever existing, I would say 1. we aren't giving our founding fathers enough credit, and 2. wouldn't that apply to the government as well?

 

If you want to follow that argument, okay, but the 2nd amendment doesn't say guns, it says arms. Under that logic we should be able to have any "arms" that the government has. Anyone know where I can buy a nuke? Just in case you know.

If you want to follow that argument, okay, but the 2nd amendment doesn't say guns, it says arms. Under that logic we should be able to have any "arms" that the government has. Anyone know where I can buy a nuke? Just in case you know.

Under your logic all of the founding fathers and their neighbors would have had cannons. Arms to me is guns.

I guess it depends on what you feel the original intent of the 2nd was. For me it's intent was for the people to be armed with the same firearms as their possible oppressor. While the go to argument has always been that our founding fathers could never have envisioned the types of weapons we have today ever existing, I would say 1. we aren't giving our founding fathers enough credit, and 2. wouldn't that apply to the government as well?

 

I like this analysis and I think it's where any discussion of this has to take place. Even the most basic reading of the Second Amendment leads to the conclusion that its purpose was to make sure citizens could defend themselves against actions of a rogue state or a state that has turned to radical. This amendment, like all the other ones in the Bill of Rights, is specifically directed to protect people from government action. All arguments about a culture of firearms, hunting rights or the need to protect one's home against criminals are secondary and have little to do with what the amendment is actually there to do.

 

But there's a significant problem with this line of thinking and it's the reason discussion of this issue can't take place on this level even if it probably should. It makes a man sound like a crazy person. As soon as I use a phrase like "rogue arm of the state," people write off anything else I might have to say. And maybe for no other reason than, if the government's coming for me, a .380 pistol isn't going to do much in an age when they can smart bomb my house with a stealth aircraft before I knew what was happening or roll tanks down the block armed with uranium-tipped shells. In truth, maybe that aspect of the amendment is arcane, which causes huge problems for its original purpose and effectiveness.

 

I don't know the answer here, but I do think that the executive orders signed yesterday were no wholly unreasonable and seemed to be based on enforcement of current law through reforms of processes that were already initiated by the executive office. I give the president due credit for not overstepping his bounds there. The people most likely to overstep their bounds in this will be the Democrats in Congress. That's where this fight will get ugly.

I like this analysis and I think it's where any discussion of this has to take place. Even the most basic reading of the Second Amendment leads to the conclusion that its purpose was to make sure citizens could defend themselves against actions of a rogue state or a state that has turned to radical. This amendment, like all the other ones in the Bill of Rights, is specifically directed to protect people from government action. All arguments about a culture of firearms, hunting rights or the need to protect one's home against criminals are secondary and have little to do with what the amendment is actually there to do.

 

But there's a significant problem with this line of thinking and it's the reason discussion of this issue can't take place on this level even if it probably should. It makes a man sound like a crazy person. As soon as I use a phrase like "rogue arm of the state," people write off anything else I might have to say. And maybe for no other reason than, if the government's coming for me, a .380 pistol isn't going to do much in an age when they can smart bomb my house with a stealth aircraft before I knew what was happening or roll tanks down the block armed with uranium-tipped shells. In truth, maybe that aspect of the amendment is arcane, which causes huge problems for its original purpose and effectiveness.

 

I don't know the answer here, but I do think that the executive orders signed yesterday were no wholly unreasonable and seemed to be based on enforcement of current law through reforms of processes that were already initiated by the executive office. I give the president due credit for not overstepping his bounds there. The people most likely to overstep their bounds in this will be the Democrats in Congress. That's where this fight will get ugly.

 

Very good post. And that settles it, M1 tanks and Stealth bombers for everyone.

 

On a serious note I really think the part in bold nails it.

Under your logic all of the founding fathers and their neighbors would have had cannons. Arms to me is guns.

 

No, the question isn't DID they have cannons, it is COULD they have owned cannons. My guess is yes they could. If you go back to when the Bill of Rights was written there is little question that there was a strong feeling that the individuals or individual states might need to act against an overreaching Federal government. For the same reason, many of the founders were opposed to a standing federal army. We settled a lot of those questions in the civil war. Like it or not, states and individuals cannot decide that a law overreaches and nullify it. Like it or not, arming citizens so that they can resist the federal government is a prescription for national suicide. Our recourse against an overreaching government is now at the ballot box. Anything else is anarchy.

.

No, the question isn't DID they have cannons, it is COULD they have owned cannons. My guess is yes they could. If you go back to when the Bill of Rights was written there is little question that there was a strong feeling that the individuals or individual states might need to act against an overreaching Federal government. For the same reason, many of the founders were opposed to a standing federal army. We settled a lot of those questions in the civil war. Like it or not, states and individuals cannot decide that a law overreaches and nullify it. Like it or not, arming citizens so that they can resist the federal government is a prescription for national suicide. Our recourse against an overreaching government is now at the ballot box. Anything else is anarchy.

 

You are incorrect. Our founding father's made it very clear, to disable tyranny of the majority, that an amendment requires a three fourths vote. Circumventing this process to change rights guaranteed in the constitution is tyranny. Our founders were very clear on what to do with tyranny.