>>>>>>I assume you know that when that amendment was drawn up, the drafters had no idea that it
>>>>>>would be interpreted to mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry would have a gun.
>>>>
>>>>When the constitution was drawn up, every Tom, Dick and Harry
DID have a gun.
>>>>
>>>Well, probably not, but I take your point.
>
>>
>>Probably not?? The average person depended on their firearm for hunting as well as defense. Not
>>sure how that's an arguable point.
>>
>Not everyone lived in rural areas at that time. There were actual cities even then where [probably] most people did
not walk around with a gun.
But they owned them, nonetheless.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>Are you implying that everybody in the U.S. who owns arms of some sort is part of a
>>>>>>well regulated militia, and not just some idiot with a gun?
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>So then, all those who aren't, should have to give up their guns because they aren't living within the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Ok, I think that's fair.
>>
>>That's a strange interpretation of the second amendment.
>>
>>My take:
>>
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State>>A milita is needed to ensure freedom
>>
>>
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.>>People can have their guns.
>>
>>There is nothing in the amendment that says guns are only for the militia.
>>
>
>If allowing the citizenry to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment is not for the explicit purpose of having a well regulated militia, then why bother to mention the 'well regulated militia' at all. Why wouldn't they have written the 2nd amendement to simply say "
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If the ownership of guns is not resulting in a well regulated militia, then I contend that it is not fulfilling the purposes of the 2nd amendment and should probably be abandoned, or (worse) updated to remove that phrase.
Note Section II here :
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC1"Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion"
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State"
The two parts of the amendment are separate issues. Seems pretty clear to me.
>
>
>>>>>>We're not simply talking about some minor inconveniences. The big deal is that here in the US
>>>>>>the second amendment to our constitution says
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"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."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Requiring me to register my gun, or I can't have it, is infringing on my right to have it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I assume you know that when that amendment was drawn up, the drafters had no idea that it would be interpreted to mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry would have a gun. Are you implying that everybody in the U.S. who owns arms of some sort is part of a
well regulated militia, and not just some idiot with a gun?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now this might seem trivial to some, but when happens when the amendment is overlooked, and guns
>>>>>>are taken away from the citizens?? Then to we also take away my first amendment right to freedom
>>>>>>of speech? Where does it stop?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Law-abiding citizen in this context is the person who follows the law and registers their gun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Law-breaking citizen in this context is the person who declines to register their gun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, you actually used the word 'criminals', so I assumed you meant actual criminals, and not just people who don't register their guns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And "hinderence on a law-abiding citizen"??? Life is full of hinderences, and as long as they have a legitimate purpose, mostly we live with them. We register all sorts of things: cars, children, property, etc. I find it a hinderence to have to register my car. How about you? What's the big deal about registering a gun?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well, I'm all for tracking guns for the purpose of knowing tracking them to criminals.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The problem is that some would argue that it violates the 2nd amendment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And, crimanals are surely not going to register their guns, so all you've done is put another
>>>>>>>>>>hinderence on a law-abiding citizen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I keep hearing this about how all it does is penalise the law-abiding citizen. I'll say this one more time. In every case ever recorded, the first time a criminal breaks the law, whether it's a school massacre or a robbery, he/she was a 'law-abiding' citizen the day before.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>We have a national registry in Canada - It doesn't work. It's just a big waste of tax money. All it did was make every gun own a criminal in the eyes of the law. The government has since abandoned registry of long guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I think there should be a national registry AND a national firearms license.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Right now in the US a 16 year old kid can get a driver's permit and get behind the wheel of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>dangerous vehicle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>A potential gun owner should be required to attend training before being awarded a license.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Then each time he/she buys a gun, it's entered into the database.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Not only is the person tracked, but trained. This would reduce the accidental deaths by guns and
>>>>>>>>>>>>help track firearms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tracy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting links....and really supporting what is common sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>By the way, does anyone recall the Islamic looting that took place in Europe right after the 9/11 attacks? Makes you wonder if all those guys would have done so, had they known that their victims would have been able to defend themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm open to discussion on specifics of making sure that background checks for gun owners are as full-proof as possible. But the notions being promoted by some here are just way off base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kevin
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
public class SystemCrasher :ICrashable
In addition, an integer field is not for irrational people