Just out of curiosity, do either of you even know what the 2nd Amendment is and what freedom it protects?

 

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 law MAY but does NOT necessarily protect an individual's right to bear arms. It does, however, protect a State's rights to arm a well regulated militia [ie. National Guard]. Just some food for thought.

 

Here's some further reading: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

This is where the confusion comes into play. Because it says milita, people assume our founding fathers were referring to something along the lines of the National Guard, however we are all members of our states militia by default. Any able bodied man who is of legal age for military service is automatically a member of their particular states militia.

 

The militia was nothing more than your average person. We didn't have a National Guard force or anything else. The idea behind the second amendment was to ensure that the people would have weapons to prevent the government from taking away the basic rights of a person.

 

While the 2nd Amendment itself may be confusing to some, there are countless quotes from our founding fathers which outline specifically what it was intended for and the actual meaning of specific parts, such as:

 

"Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia."

-Thomas Jefferson, 1781, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX

 

With the 2nd Amendment they wanted to protect not only the individual citizens right to self defense but also as a means to protect all other rights because a society in which only the government has access to arms is what the founders feared most.

Gang violence such as that occurs because of our constituational right to bear arms. Whether the gang members bought the guns themselves or not, they were purchased by someone who then passed the gun on. I realize that there are illegal gun deals in the states, but a majority of the guns used in violence such as gang violence were purchased legally and registered. The main arugment against gun control does not use accidental death but rather the fact that guns are killing thousands and thousands of people every year.

That is asinine. Gang violence occurs because of the 2nd Amendment? I cannot even put into words how ridiculous that statement is, that's on the level of something that Jimmy would post. Gangs without guns would still kill each other, and the addicts wouldn't be robbing people at lollypop point for their next fix if guns didnt exist. You are extremely short sighted to think that gun violence is the problem, and not a symptom of the larger issue. Let's be real here, you don't honestly believe that gang violence exists only because of guns? That's just blatant stupidity, you can't be that naive and I don't believe you are. Are there no gangs in England where guns are completely banned and crime is through the roof?

 

Where there's a will, there's a way. In places which have outright banned all firearms, the same crimes still happen, the same gangs still exist, and the same violence still occurs. In Australia where there are no guns, the new trend is mugging people with a blood filled syringe. You can take away all the threatening items on the planet, but people will still resort to swinging a board with a rusty nail in it.

 

Then to say that a majority of the guns used by gangs were purchased legally and registered also could not be any farther from the truth. Virtually all crimes committed with a firearm are acquired by either stealing them, through a straw purchase, or the black market such as a Saturday Night Special on a street corner - all of which are felonies.

 

But forget all this, I have a real solution: Let's just make murder illegal.

 

Oh wait...

Gang violence such as that occurs because of our constituational right to bear arms. Whether the gang members bought the guns themselves or not, they were purchased by someone who then passed the gun on. I realize that there are illegal gun deals in the states, but a majority of the guns used in violence such as gang violence were purchased legally and registered. The main arugment against gun control does not use accidental death but rather the fact that guns are killing thousands and thousands of people every year.

That is asinine. Gang violence occurs because of the 2nd Amendment? I cannot even put into words how ridiculous that statement is, that's on the level of something that Jimmy would post. Gangs without guns would still kill each other, and the addicts wouldn't be robbing people at lollypop point for their next fix if guns didnt exist. You are extremely short sighted to think that gun violence is the problem, and not a symptom of the larger issue. Let's be real here, you don't honestly believe that gang violence exists only because of guns? That's just blatant stupidity, you can't be that naive and I don't believe you are. Are there no gangs in England where guns are completely banned and crime is through the roof?

 

Where there's a will, there's a way. In places which have outright banned all firearms, the same crimes still happen, the same gangs still exist, and the same violence still occurs. In Australia where there are no guns, the new trend is mugging people with a blood filled syringe. You can take away all the threatening items on the planet, but people will still resort to swinging a board with a rusty nail in it.

 

Then to say that a majority of the guns used by gangs were purchased legally and registered also could not be any farther from the truth. Virtually all crimes committed with a firearm are acquired by either stealing them, through a straw purchase, or the black market such as a Saturday Night Special on a street corner - all of which are felonies.

 

But forget all this, I have a real solution: Let's just make murder illegal.

 

Oh wait...

 

Please read my previous post... not just my argument but the points I made on making this discussion better. You seem to have skipped over those.

Maybe if we make murder legal, there won't be the "thrill factor" there. I say we try it.

 

Hell, it's a lot easier than finishing this paper.

Just out of curiosity, do either of you even know what the 2nd Amendment is and what freedom it protects?

 

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 law MAY but does NOT necessarily protect an individual's right to bear arms. It does, however, protect a State's rights to arm a well regulated militia [ie. National Guard]. Just some food for thought.

 

Here's some further reading: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

 

 

The text as passed by Congress and ratified to the states reads as:

 

"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."

 

Both the U.S. Senate Journal and the Annals of Congress show the final version of the Second Amendment as not containing the additonal commas. On September 25, 1789, the completed Bill of Rights was written to parchment by a House scribe. In this version, now held by the National Archives, the comma was inserted. All other surviving original texts of the Bill of Rights, including the copies sent to the states for ratification, do not contain the comma.

 

The 2nd Amendment preserves the right to keep arms as well as to bear them. It is not a law, it is part of the Constitution and is therefore beyond the scope of law, but instead governs what laws may be passed and how such laws may be enforced. All of the rights in the bill of rights are individual rights.

 

Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights -- common law rights -- of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States...

Usually a sign means a real sign, not something like this on someone's house.

 

 

Hooray loose interpretation of rules.

 

 

Here is the first legal question:

 

What is a sign?

Usually a sign means a real sign, not something like this on someone's house.

 

 

Hooray loose interpretation of rules.

 

 

Here is the first legal question:

 

What is a sign?

what is is? :shifty

Usually a sign means a real sign, not something like this on someone's house.

 

 

Hooray loose interpretation of rules.

 

 

Here is the first legal question:

 

What is a sign?

what is is? :shifty

 

depends on who is asking and who is answering.