You and I may well be close to agreeing on some points of this, however I do take a pretty hard stance on this one. The reasons are:
Second Amendment: 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.
Definition of militia:
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") for confrontation. Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia, since history had shown the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents was to simply take away the people's arms and make it an offense to keep them. In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right."
The intention was to keep arms in the hands of the public so that a militia could easily be formed. IMO, that has not changed nor should change.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Just because the 2nd amendment says you have a right to bear arms, IMO doesnt mean that the general public should have access to every kind that exists.</div></div>I agree, as there are arms out there that have no place in private hands, but that certainly does not include semi-auto weapons which are at the forefront of what the anti-gunners want to prohibit.
The anti-gunners don't want more paperwork, they want total disarmament of the public.
"Yes, there are two paths you can go by
But in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on."
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ut1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, you just rewrote history. </div></div>
But you have to admit the only time he does not tell the truth on here is when he makes a post.
_________________________________________________________
HOW'S THAT HOPE AND CHANGE WORKING OUT FOR YA ??????
I have no problem with good people like you owning them for your collection. But there must be restrictions/license etc for these very, very dangerous weapons. Will it get every one out of the wrong hands? No. But it would help a lot and prevent many nuts from getting them and going whacko act a school or any public place. After VT it worries me tremendously to go to college and think that someone could carry guns in their bag and use it on someone or me. I do disagree with the anti gun person part, you are right in that some are radical and want to just do away with them. But most want to up restrictions, they even say that in the NRA letters.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> someone could carry guns in their bag and use it on someone or me. </div></div>
How is a law going to change that?
[IMG]http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l53/blpjr77/culpeper1.jpg[/IMG]
By upping restrictions, it cuts the chances of a gun no matter what kind getting into a psycho's hands. Will it cut it out completely? No like I said in the other post, but its a move.
Yeah we all know that criminals are law abiding citizens who follow the laws of this great nation.
crack is whack
More law abiding citizens should carry guns and be allowed to do so. That's a good deterrent to someone using one on you, a throw-back to the old west days as they're portrayed by Hollywood. It's kinda like Nukes. If you know another country has got them, you're less likely to use them on that country.
"Yes, there are two paths you can go by
But in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on."
But are you going to wear a big sign on your back saying "I have a gun". Most arent. IMO more guns isnt going to help, but thats just my opinion. I see where your coming from though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But are you going to wear a big sign on your back saying "I have a gun". Most arent. IMO more guns isnt going to help, but thats just my opinion. I see where your coming from though. </div></div>
But the facts say states with conceal carry laws have had crime decreases. And you don't have to have a sign on your back that says "I have a gun". The criminals don't know who has one or who doesn't so that will keep some safe who don't have one.
Conceal Carry Works...
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
Welcome to the USSA!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But are you going to wear a big sign on your back saying "I have a gun". Most arent. IMO more guns isnt going to help, but thats just my opinion. I see where your coming from though. </div></div>
I don't carry a big stick either, but if I did it would deter some from wanting to start something. The whole idea is for no one to know who is "packing". [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]
"Yes, there are two paths you can go by
But in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on."
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks