About the Amendment II.

[James Raynor]

Alright then, I'll put the amendement in words that you could understand.

Since the militia is needed to defend the freedom of the USA, the right to have guns shall not be revoked.

If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.

I giggled there for a second.

Since these are laws, you have to read them from a legal mindset.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Alright then, I'll put the amendement in words that you could understand.

Since the militia is needed to defend the freedom of the USA, the right to have guns shall not be revoked.

If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.

I giggled there for a second.

Since these are laws, you have to read them from a legal mindset.

I giggled for two seconds this time. Because you're accusing me of misreading after you clearly noted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I specify again "the right" and "shall not be infringed".

Now, how am I misreading? You said "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and ignored the rest. How's that LEGAL MINDSET. IF YOU IGNORE HALF OF THE AMENDMENT????

 

[KSarty]

National Guard = Militia...

The Nation Guard only makes up part of the US militia. Unorganized Militia [http://usgovinfo.about.com/blusmilitia.htm]

 

[James Raynor]

Alright then, I'll put the amendement in words that you could understand.

Since the militia is needed to defend the freedom of the USA, the right to have guns shall not be revoked.

If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.

I giggled there for a second.

Since these are laws, you have to read them from a legal mindset.

I giggled for two seconds this time. Because you're accusing me of misreading after you clearly noted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I specify again "the right" and "shall not be infringed".

Now, how am I misreading? You said "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and ignored the rest. How's that LEGAL MINDSET. IF YOU IGNORE HALF OF THE AMENDMENT????

The right of the people in the militia can bear arms.

 

[KSarty]

Alright then, I'll put the amendement in words that you could understand.

Since the militia is needed to defend the freedom of the USA, the right to have guns shall not be revoked.

If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.

I giggled there for a second.

Since these are laws, you have to read them from a legal mindset.

I giggled for two seconds this time. Because you're accusing me of misreading after you clearly noted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I specify again "the right" and "shall not be infringed".

Now, how am I misreading? You said "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and ignored the rest. How's that LEGAL MINDSET. IF YOU IGNORE HALF OF THE AMENDMENT????

The right of the people in the militia can bear arms.

Which is one interpretation of the amendment. Under that interpretation, anyone eligible for the draft still has the right to bear arms.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Alright then, If you so beleive your "theory", go and ask a lawyer. ( I say theory, because I'm gonna stay polite for now).

While I put this here http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections

 

[Mariena]

There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.

You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?

Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?

It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.

And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?

On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.

Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.

 

[KSarty]

There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.

You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?

Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?

It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.

And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?

On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.

Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.

It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.

 

[Mariena]

There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.

You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?

Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?

It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.

And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?

On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.

Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.

It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.

Alrighty, but still my question is:

And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?

 

[mokes310]

Oh boy, here we go again.

It was worded that way for a reason. Think about it?

 

[KSarty]

Simple answer: Cultural differences.

Some countries that have done it can't do it safely. In the UK crimes involving firearms jumped from 13,874 in '98/'99 ('97 being the year the ban was put into place) to 24,070 in '03/'04. More recently, the % of crimes commited with a firearm has lowered, yet the crime rates have stayed the same or have even risen.

 

[darkless]

There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.

You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?

Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?

It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.

And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?

On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.

Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.

It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.

Alrighty, but still my question is:

And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?

Because you would only be able to regulate the guns the general public uses at first for a long time you would have criminals running around with guns while the civilians are now unarmed. It works in Europe because the law has been in place from the beginning we didn't wait for everyone to amass armories or guns before taking them back.

 

[James Raynor]

There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.

You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?

Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?

It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.

And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?

On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.

Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.

It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.

Alrighty, but still my question is:

And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?

Because you would only be able to regulate the guns the general public uses at first for a long time you would have criminals running around with guns while the civilians are now unarmed. It works in Europe because the law has been in place from the beginning we didn't wait for everyone to amass armories or guns before taking them back.

Firearms for self defense is a joke, almost all the time they draw the gun before you to, you try to draw your gun, you get shot.

 

[darkless]

The only solution i can really tink of is at first make it harder to get a concealed carry license then when guns are off the streets from that you start slowly making them harder to get and in a few years you can get them out all together just taking them away suddenly would cause an uproar.

I do all my best thinking with a few drinks on me apparently now whether its valid or not is a different question

Oh and sorry i didnt quote you but that would start making posts ridiculously long real fast

 

[gmer412]

Spoiler

There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.

You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?

Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?

It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.

And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?

On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.

Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.

*sigh* I wish I lived in Europe...

It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.

Virginia Tech massacre. They found a receipt on him for two pistols. From an average gun shop. And: Even if it won't stop crime, why not make it harder for them to get guns? There are better and safer methods of security than owning a gun.

 

[Liminal Dusk]

If I've misread the above argument (which is admittedly difficult with all the legal talk),I apologize for the following statment. In the statement "Right of the people...to bear arms," it sounds like the OP is saying that the militia IS the people represented with their right to bear arms uninfringed, when its been establish that the united states military is a BRANCH of the government. That's not the people. That's the government. What would infringe on the rights of the people would BE the laws and the government that acts according to them (Embodying them). So, then the amendment can't mean that the established militia is the ONLY one to have guns, because that would mean the GOVERNMENT only has the guns, which means that the PEOPLE have none, which means the PEOPLE have no right to bear arms.

Have I gotten lost?

 

[James Raynor]

If I've misread the above argument (which is admittedly difficult with all the legal talk),I apologize for the following statment. In the statement "Right of the people...to bear arms," it sounds like the OP is saying that the militia IS the people represented with their right to bear arms uninfringed, when its been establish that the united states military is a BRANCH of the government. That's not the people. That's the government. What would infringe on the rights of the people would BE the laws and the government that acts according to them (Embodying them). So, then the amendment can't mean that the established militia is the ONLY one to have guns, because that would mean the GOVERNMENT only has the guns, which means that the PEOPLE have none, which means the PEOPLE have no right to bear arms.

Have I gotten lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

Look at the definition.

 

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Amendment II
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.

This clearly states that only Militia has the right to bear arms, so don't use the second amendment as a way to say "Gun Control is unconstitutional".

It means that because the government needs an army to protect society, the people need guns to protect themselves from the government. Therefore the peoples rights to have weapons shall not be abridged.
Any other reading is twisting the words, it's not vague and even if it was put yourself in the mindset of a bunch of people who just committed an armed uprising. Governments don't need protection, people do.

Wrangling the wording of the constitution isn't the right way to go about gun control, the constitution is clear on that. The right way is to argue that the world has changed and that the peoples right to armed uprising is less necessary and the amendment should be repealed.

I'm a second amendment supporter, but please don't try render the constitution meaningless, it makes it too easy for others to mangle the intent of amendments you do support. Instead amend it, this is a democracy after all if the people want gun control they should get it.

 

[Caliostro]

Amendment II

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.

Allow me to translate this, since apparently you're not getting the idea:

"Since a well regulated militia is necessary, and might be necessary at any point, you guys should be allowed to keep and have guns."