toldailytopic: Gun control. Should there be any limit to the type of gun or weapon th
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Hey there Nick.:wazzup:
"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. ”
Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation "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."
Those against private ownership would argue, 'the people of the state have the right to form a well regulated militia and in such cases those in the militia have the right to bear arms.
Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm was held up in two new Court cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), which separate the idea of weapons only in a militia from the concept of private ownership.
As it now stands, the second part has to the effect as it shall stand alone, meaning that it does not need the coupling with the first.
So, you got it! My point is still moot in most academic circles and yes, you may say that is purely academic.
You may call them 'perverts' :chuckle: it is a bit funny, yet these latest cases involve cities, Washington and Chicago, not my America. So, I am greatfulll for the Courts support, yet wish it had been more general in terms of strict applicability, as I could not care less what happens in those cities.
Here is a tidbit on the Second Amendment. Surly you do know I dislike it when anyone monkeys around with the original Bill of Rights.
nicholsmom
New member
I drive a truck, sir, so no trunk. I suppose this also means that I can't carry it in the truck fully loaded (one in the chamber and ready to fire) the way I keep my gun? :sigh:
I wouldn't pull a gun on an officer of the law, Nydhogg. We are a very traditional sort of family - Dad and Mom with all the kids (in booster seats as needed), packed up in the truck with all the camping gear - when we cross state lines. We are the last ones that a jack-booted thug would suspect of foul play, and giving no cause for a search is a great plan in the first place
To quote Allen Ladd in Shane, "I did not know there was any game in town."
Most of those people never hunt, have never lived off the land, they want guns to kill people, or not be killed, what a way of life! They have no conception of rural America, just as they would not know a 243 Winchester from a 260 Remington, but mention a 9 or a 2 2 and they know all about it.
nicholsmom
New member
Yep.
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
Well, I'm always up to date with the laws in each of the states that I drive through and Florida has reciprocity with all the Southern States that I drive in.
As for searches are concerned, I've only been asked once, the other times it never came up? Yes, I did consent to the search due to knowing that I was legal...the cop saw my cooler in the back seat and I guess was checking for alcohol, I consented and offered him a soft drink if he was thirsty, he didn't search any further, just looked in the windows and the cooler.
Never had an officer ask for my weapon or disarm me for any reason? When stopped, I keep my hands on the steering wheel where they are able to see them so that they know I'm not a threat (most states advise this for those with carry permits being stopped), it makes the officer feel better to be able to see your hands.
Cops get nervous at times and I can't say that I blame them, there are a lot of crazy people out there.
And besides I'm not a young looking urbanite and present myself in a professional manner without appearing nervous, that may arouse the officers suspicion. I think that if you smile and reply to the officers questions things go easier...the only thing I do offer is the fact that I am carrying (Florida requires this as well as most other states), simply because if the officer does ask you to dismount from your vehicle (May be wanting to administer the field sobriety test)and see's it or suspects it, he will become suspicious and nervous. I don't like it when people become nervous and they are carrying a weapon.
I've gotta say, NH is looking pretty good right now
Best state in the union! And the safest. Three years running, dude!:wazzup:
http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2010/040510-safest.htm
Interestingly they've managed to do that and continue to do so while keeping us armed. Shows just how much we threaten them.:think:
Had an interesting discussion with two former lifer Marines while in California about the whole gun issue. They're now in law enforcement and own several guns between them. Their take was an armed uprising of people who actually know how to use their weapons would take about a minute, minute and a half to put down by professionals who were trained to fight, organized, and well equipped.
Gun ownership is a right, don't mistake me, but they're a placebo where the sentiment of revolution is concerned.
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
"an armed uprising of people who actually know how to use their weapons would take about a minute, minute and a half to put down by professionals who were trained to fight"
Wasn't that what the British said?
Let's not forget that there are a whole lot of "Lifer Marines", Army, Air Force and Navy that are not in law enforcement and may just be wearing buckskin and peering out from behind them thar trees.
Where's that Indian smilie when you need it?
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
Never underestimate your opponent!
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
Yes they would, in a New York minute!
They fought foolishly in the open and didn't know the land. An invading army on those terms is at a severe disadvantage. They also were armed with weapons not particularly more advanced than their adversaries. No tanks, jets, helicopters, stinger missiles, etc.
A few, maybe. I'd bet most wouldn't fire on the flag they devoted their life to.
A much closer comparison and look how that turned out for them.
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
Training scenarios have been developed and are being practiced for putting down civil disturbances.
Specialized weapons have been designed and are being tested by the military, weapons that will assist in reducing the number of casualties without killing the opposition are being procured by Law Enforcement.
The most recent application of Martial Law that I can remember was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, I had to transit through there every two weeks during that period....believe me you don't want Martial Law coming to theaters near you!
Specialized weapons have been designed and are being tested by the military, weapons that will assist in reducing the number of casualties without killing the opposition are being procured by Law Enforcement.
The most recent application of Martial Law that I can remember was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, I had to transit through there every two weeks during that period....believe me you don't want Martial Law coming to theaters near you!
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
You are quite correct and would be needed if they thought that a total win was necessary.
Again, a true statement, but it would also depend on the individuals belief whether or not he was loosing that which he served, for both, those on active duty as well as former service members.
i think the class c ones should be restricted as they are. i mean who hunts with a tommy gun?
are you saying that if a state like Texas or Arizona wanted to break away and they had over a million citizens willing to fight, the army would put them down in a NY minute?
- Status