I think you are combining the 3rd with the 2nd.
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.To me the 2nd amendment seems fairly clear when it states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the first part not so much.Amendment III
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 a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This does not refer to the militia, as it clearly states the people, very clearly worded.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. Well regulated militia, implies training and organization. Being necessary to the security of a free state, this implies the National Guard of each state being needed to protect the state from the federal government.
If we want to as a society to change our gun laws, we need to amend the constitution, historically not an easy task.
I'm trying to determine where the line should be drawn. It seems people think I should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon because it's so obviously impractical. So where is the line of practicality? A bazooka? Can I own one of those in the name of defending myself and my home? SCUD missiles? Uzi's and AK-47's? Can I use a grenade launcher or just lob them by hand?
I've heard repeatedly that the bushmaster is a hunting weapon. For what exactly? I think it's kind of comical that I would be laughed at and ridiculed for considering that the 2nd amendment should allow me to own a bazooka, grenade launcher, or a nuclear warhead by the same people who feel a bushmaster is ok.
I mean with all due respect I'm not skilled at al with a rifle or machine gun, I think I should be allowed to use a bazooka or grenade launcher if you're coming at me with a machine gun to level the field. Hell, if I piss alot of you off I think a Nuke would be perfect for me to defend myself. Why not? The second amendment affords me that freedom.
Feinstein will introduce assault weapons ban in Senate
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) vowed Sunday to introduce legislation to ban assault weapons at the start of the next Congress.
“I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year,” Feinstein said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” during a discussion about guns following Friday’s deadly mass shooting as a Connecticut school.
Feinstein said she was confident such a measure could pass. In a separate interview on Sunday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he too was was optimistic about the prospect of passing a gun control measure.
“I think we can get something done,” said Schumer on CBS’s “Face The Nation.” Schumer advocated focusing on three areas: Banning assault weapons, limiting the size of clips, and making it harder for “mentally unstable” individuals to obtain firearms.
A nuke is considered a weapon of mass destruction, and the secret on how to build one is well guarded, regardless they are illegal for civilians to own in the us.
Bazookas are legal in the US, and in most US states. But you have to have a Class III license which is expensive. and requires lots of back ground checks and things of that nature. takes like 6 months to get your weapon.
Not trying to poo poo your point, which is legit, not agreeing with your point either. We needto work through this
This would work, not that I agree to it at this point, in 50 to 75 years all the assault weapon owners would be dead and there guns would then need to be destroyed.
The term assault weapon needs to be clearly defined, as I understand the military describes an assault weapon as a select fire rifle (safety, semi auto, full auto), which I believe is different then what most Americans would define an assault weapon. I am not at all sure I understand what an assault weapon is.
this is something that really pisses me the hell off. "Oh, if we can save just one victim !!!!:"
Where's the outcry over freaking bathtubs and the movement to ban them ??
I mean, do you know how many kids die in bathtubs each year ? Guess what ? It's higher than the number of kids killed in psychotic gun attacks at schools.
Not unlikely at all. All depends on how many SCOTUS Justices at any one time believe in a "living" Constitution or will bow to political pressures. For example, John Roberts recently cast the deciding vote for Obamacare, expanding the power of the Federal Government to force us to do just about anything, as long as it's couched as a "tax".
Last edited by Demosthenes9; 12-17-2012 at 06:34 PM.
Rarely are bath tubs used to murder anyone.
To me restricting an individuals right to bare arms/protect themselves and others, is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water, guns are in the right hands capable delivering safety and justice.
Everyday there are people saving lives and preventing violent crime thanks to the use of legal firearms.
Still not convinced, but what do I know.
Seems to me if this country that is governed by the will of the people wants to change access to certain weapon classes, then a constitutional amendment is the way to go, waiting on the SCOTUS could be a long wait.
Something should be done. And I don't think the people are ready to accept my idea of arming more people, including teachers, to reduce mass shootings.
My anger has waned, I am left with an overwhelming sadness and frustration.
I am also highly motivated to find common ground and discover/recognize a solution that will prevent further atrocities.
At the same time I do recognize that I am firmly entrenched in my 2nd amendment beliefs. Generally I pride myself on being able to see both sides of an issue, but I'm struggling here.
I do believe better mental health care is what is needed. I just don't see how to implement a mental health program that would eliminate these acts altogether. How to force those that need mental health care when they don't want it and they to this point have committed no crimes.
Everyone is so quick to point to mental health being the focal issue here. Lets not forget a perfectly sane woman put these guns in this kids hands. Whether she was careless or just had a wanton disregard for safety she is ultimately the one who gave this kid access to the guns. It ultimately cost her life and dozens of others. I bet if she had a chance to do it over she wouldn't have the guns in her home.
if not home...where? I use a barometric safe for my 2 guns but realistically, it can be pried open in an hour or so.
If a 20 year old wants to get the guns, he will unless they are not in the house.
perhaps trigger locks?
But in general, if this child showed signs of trouble , most especially, these guns needed to be locked and secured.
Look the statement: "Oh, if we can save just one victim !!!!:"
Kids who drown in bathtubs are victims too, and there are more of them each year than there are school shooting victims.
The point is that there are many different ways that kids/people die unnatural deaths, and yes, it is tragic. But, in most cases, there isn't a knee-jerk reaction to run out and ban things.