Oh I think they'd let the armoured personnel carrier that will replace the school buses through. It'll take a lot longer, what with the metal detectors, lie detectors and occasional strip search, but the NRA has assured us that it will make our kids safe and happy.
USA Gun Solution Very Simple
- Thread starter trtinajax
- Start date
There had been argument back and forth as the to correct meaning of the Second Amendment, As Fuji stated the SCOUS has spoken and basically stated that Cunning Linguists reading is the proper one. Now you can say that you personally disagree with the SCOUS, but if stare decisis means anything the matter is settled.
What's "duty" have to do with anything? It's a freedom (right in the US) people are free to choose their level of involvement. Just because something is legal or even a right, doesn't mean you're personally obligated to participate. The quick and easy solution for people who don't like guns; don't buy a gun.
The duty is to be prepared to protect their country against a threat of invasion. I mean with right comes responsibility. The prime time for them policemen to raid your castle is between 3 and 4 am. The paranoia that permeates the US psyche is amazing. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
I think that one winds up being implied by the right to bear arms, in a two step reasoning: You have a right to defend yourself against attack with whatever you have at hand, and you have a right to have a firearm at hand.
That said, you don't have a right to have a concealed firearm at hand in a public place. Open carry is less clear--does the right to bear arms mean anywhere? Or just that there must somewhere (i.e., your home and other sensible locations)? If it means anywhere then open carry would be protected--but I suspect it doesn't mean anywhere. So municipalities, states, etc., ought to be able to restrict whether you can open carry in their jurisdiction.
Although I have a problem with much of Canadian firearm law, I like the Canadian rule that a firearm can only be loaded in a place where it can be legally discharged, and that it must be properly stored, unloaded and locked, when it is not in use.
Wiki has good stuff on this.
Here is the 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.
The Senate explicitly defeated the restriction "for the common defense" in the amendment:
The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defense" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.
And, if origional intent is important this is worhty of note:
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]
deterring tyrannical government;[34]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Some prefer to focus on the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment - this I think is a mistake in that if we expanded this right to include weapons needed for a modern militia we would allow automatic weapons, grenades, artillery and RPGs.... (what militias have in poorly regulated regions of the world). The argument that the militia of the day used a musket is I think a poor one. Rights granted in the Bill of Rights have a tendency to expand overtime as times change (when these were passed Black people were property, women could not vote, gays would be felons) - there is no reason to argue that the right to bear arms would be stagnant to a particilar technology while the broadest definition of rights is applied to other rights.
Given the amount of back / forth that went on between the House and Senate over wording I think the phrase "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.
More recently the USSC has ruled that this right cannot be infringed, overturing a hand gun ban in Washington DC :
the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
This is particularly damning to the point about militia use and any doubt about the intent to allow private ownership of arms for self-defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Here is the 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.
The Senate explicitly defeated the restriction "for the common defense" in the amendment:
The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defense" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.
And, if origional intent is important this is worhty of note:
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]
deterring tyrannical government;[34]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Some prefer to focus on the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment - this I think is a mistake in that if we expanded this right to include weapons needed for a modern militia we would allow automatic weapons, grenades, artillery and RPGs.... (what militias have in poorly regulated regions of the world). The argument that the militia of the day used a musket is I think a poor one. Rights granted in the Bill of Rights have a tendency to expand overtime as times change (when these were passed Black people were property, women could not vote, gays would be felons) - there is no reason to argue that the right to bear arms would be stagnant to a particilar technology while the broadest definition of rights is applied to other rights.
Given the amount of back / forth that went on between the House and Senate over wording I think the phrase "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.
More recently the USSC has ruled that this right cannot be infringed, overturing a hand gun ban in Washington DC :
the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
This is particularly damning to the point about militia use and any doubt about the intent to allow private ownership of arms for self-defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
If you want to play the game of literal word-for-word interpretation without reading between the lines, how about accepting it at face value; the American people have the right to keep and bear arms, period. Don't like it? You don't have to buy a gun.
I think you're actually approaching the point: The more permits, and examinations and waiting periods and record checks the less likely the guns and the guys with the loose grasp on reality will come together.
However the idea that anyone would be made safer because of having more armed and amateur undercover vigilantes like George Zimmerman wandering about looking for a chance to open fire and be a hero, is lunacy of the highest order.
Still he only killed one guy. In the perverted landscape we're looking at, that's a good thing.
i took a quick read of the australian issue. as soon as i saw 'registry", i stopped. everyone is hoping this will be a zero-cost solution. if not, what are they willing to give up?
