Does The Constitution Grant The Right Of All Americans To Own And Carry firearms?

[Kyle E. Coyote]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

[Kyle E. Coyote]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

People say this shit all the time, but they have no idea what an assault weapon is, they're just spewing sound bites. An assault weapon has only been used in two crimes since 1934 in the USA, the Bank of LA shootout and a suicide. Only one person has been killed by an assault weapon since 1933; the man that committed suicide... a disgruntled cop.

And again, I'll refer you to the countless studies showing, conclusively, that no gun control measure has ever reduced the crime rates ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. So let those least enlightened amongst us try to ban guns with folding stocks, magazines holding 10+ rounds and bayonet lugs (seriously, when is the last time somebody was killed in a BAYONETTING?!), but it won't do a damn thing but piss us law-abiding citizens off.

By the way, this is the kind of retard trying to convince you that 'guns are bad', seen here supporting her proposed ban of guns with the ever-evil barrel shroud:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

What is a barrel shroud? A piece of wood or polymer that protects the shooter from getting burned. How will banning them reduce crime rates? It won't. Do you really think that somebody angry enough to murder someone will give a shit about a blister or two? Besides, most of the guns the idiot anti-gunners call assault weapons don't even HAVE BARREL SHOUDS!!!

So let's recap: Barrel shroud - prevents burns. Carolyn McCarthy's definition - "Uhhhh... that shoulder thing that... goes up." What McCarthy was referring to - a folding stock. Why she didn't do some fucking research before she wrote her lame ass piece of legislation - who the fuck knows.

[scampr]

The REAL question isn't what the constitution says. People try to twist the words and intent to whatever their particular desires are. The REAL question is how the constitutions of the United States and the several states are allowed to be modified by law or regulation.

The freedom of speech is spelled out:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And yet we find tons of limitations on free speech. And most people generally concur with the outcomes. Your freedom of speech does not allow you to have a billboard the size of a house in most places because someone decided that the community has a right to happiness as well and your individual right to commercial speech can be regulated for the greater good. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre unless there really is a fire. Another greater good.

So the real discussion of the second amendment is how should we limit the rights granted in the constitution?

Since we now have a standing Army does the intent of having armed state militias change? Since we no longer use muskets and single shot rifles that take a long time to load should we define ARMS? Since the private armies and warships that existed at the time of the Bill of Rights are so much different today how should we regulate them? The wealthy had their own ships which were pressed into federal service! It was a very different world the founding fathers lived in and they could not have imagined Columbine or the LA Bank robbery, Oklahoma City, or Waco TX. They came from a history where gun ownership of free men and their engagement in community policing was a DUTY not a right. Large police forces generally didn't exist. They came from a history where the Catholics had limited access to weaponry while the Protestants had freer reign. And they just fought a war against economic tyranny. They trusted themselves pretty well I think but they wanted to be sure that a federation of states could not fall into the hands of a despot for long without a coup. They probably did not foresee the War Between the States but they certainly would have imagined it possible. But one of the major outcomes of that war is that it began to unravel the federation and redesign the power structure. That marks the real beginning of an enormous power shift to the federal government.

The reality of the 2nd Amendment died with the northern victory. And you can argue that for many other sections of the constitution. It's just that no one got around to amending it. What we have seen since then is common law and statutory abrogation of the 2nd Amendment.

While the original question is interesting in that it challenges our knowledge of the actual words and the intent of the framers it doesn't really inform us on the debate we've had since 1934. (First MAJOR federal arms limitation law). What then is an allowable alteration of the constitution? What limits could a majority of the population concur with? [i.e. What is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater when we are talking about Arms?] As Randal may have alluded to above, rockets for all may be that equivalent. At the time of the bill of rights though private citizens/companies had warships with cannons That's as close to a rocket as they could get at the time.

[Randal Graves]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

I do know what an assault rifle is. Assault rifles are currently banned in the US. Correct? Maybe the reason there are only those two deaths is because they are banned.

With your belief in zero gun control policy please explain to me the value of a private citizen to be able to buy an assault rifle. What the fuck could you possibly need to own an AK for?

[scampr]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

I'm gonna regret this...

The value in a private citizen owning M-16 or an Ak-47 for instance is the same "value" as being able to go to a hooker, smoke weed, drive a race car...a million other things.

It's entertainment. It's fuckin fun to shoot many weapons. I'm not so keen on the ones that want to recoil your damn body to bits but I gotta tell ya, weapons training in the military is kick ass!!!

The question is, as always, what rights do we take away for the greater good? Someone decided your right to buy pussy was a bad idea. Someone decided that you taking peyote was a bad idea. Someone decided that your right to drive a Pinto 100 miles an hour on the highway was a bad idea. The premise of a free nation is that we limit as FEW rights as possible. Even if those rights are purely "the pursuit of happiness."

[Randal Graves]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

fucking Scampr fucking me up with logic. You make it hard for me continue you this argument when you do that shit.

[Kyle E. Coyote]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

.....

[Randal Graves]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

How many assault rifles were owned by private citizens before 1968? How many are owned now? Is it possible there is just an increase in the total # in the public increasing the crime caused by them?

Maybe banning all guns isn't the answer, but letting any person own any weapon they want isn't the answer either. Zero gun control allows a person to walk down the street with a bazooka. It's out there, but it's possible with no gun control.


This is a side topic, but do you think there should be gun control in Iraq? Or Darfur?

[Kyle E. Coyote]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

1) Actually, there's been significantly less true "assault weapons" floating around since 1968 now that you need a license to own them.

2) I hear ya. That's why I agree with the laws that make it very hard to obtain any explosives or explosive weaponry. Guns and knives are one thing, but with explosives it's an entirely different ball game.

3) No. The bottom line, IMO, is that if somebody wants a gun bad enough, they'll get it. To illustrate; my parents were strictly anti-gun, they hated the things, and forbid me to own them as a kid. I loved to shoot and knew we lived in a shady neighborhood so, unbeknownst to them, I bought a .45 calliber Glock at the ripe old age of 16. Though I never fired a shot outside of a firing range, I can say with confidence that the thing saved me from at least one beating/mugging on the streets of Detroit. My parents have no idea, to this day.

If I had mal-intent, I could have killed another, defenseless 16 year old, just because he followed the law and I did not.

The point I'm trying to make is this: If I, a 16 year old kid living in Michigan, can get a gun illegally, some thirtysomething Shiite terrorist that wants to go slaughter some Sunni women and children will sure as hell be able to scrounge up an AK and some ammo on the streets of Fallujah... no matter what we do.

Just my opinion.

[Kyle E. Coyote]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

.....