Stupid Guest Tricks

GaTechGal wrote:Automobile ownership is not a right enumerated in the Constitution.

Are you a member of a [font=sans-serif]well regulated militia?[/font]

hobie16 wrote:Are you a member of a [font=sans-serif]well regulated militia?[/font]

Yes, the Militia being comprised of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)

hobie16 wrote:Are you a member of a [font=sans-serif]well regulated militia?[/font]

It doesn't matter if I am or not because "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If you need a more detailed description of this amendment please see here: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#! ... -bear-arms

BRWombat wrote:"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

Send in the tuba platoon?

This is a job for Saxphone Euphonium Accordion Launeddas Team 6.

Uchiwa-daiko Snare Asstor! Uchiwa-daiko Snare Asstor! Uchiwa-daiko Snare Asstor!

BRWombat wrote:Yes, the Militia being comprised of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)

GaTechGal wrote:It doesn't matter if I am or not because "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If you need a more detailed description of this amendment please see here: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#! ... -bear-arms

Oh oh. Looks like United States v. Miller left out half of the population. How did that happen?

GaTechGal wrote:Automobile ownership is not a right enumerated in the Constitution.

Just a thought, what would you rather give up forever, your car or your gun?

Just a few quick thoughts:

Firearms are not cars, and cars are not firearms. The intended use of each is completely different. Also, while a car can be used, by intention or neglect, to harm or kill, a gun very rarely is use used for anything other than its intended purpose. True, there is some merit to the line of reasoning that says that if something unintended for use as a weapon can be so highly regulated, it makes sense that an actual weapon should have at least similar requirements. However, there is also practical examples of where highly restrictive legislation on gun ownership have been the forerunner to an overall oppressive government when the population cannot stand against it. While I don't think this likely to happen (due to our culture and history) in the United States, I don't think we can call it completely unjustified. Thus, a proper balance between the right and responsibilities of bearing arms needs to be maintained.

One other thing: I've often heard folks who try and say that freedom to bear arms should be more or less equated to freedom of speech. No, these are two different things, the misuse and the abuse of which tends to lead to two different results. If speech and firearms were exactly equal, then no-one really needs guns, because they can just use speech instead! :) Seriously, though, it is a case of comparing apples to oranges, and just because they are both protected by the Bill of Rights doesn't mean the same sort of legislation that works for one will work for all.

PatchOBlack wrote:However, there is also practical examples of where highly restrictive legislation on gun ownership...

Hawaii Gun Control

Without the second amendment the first amendment would not exist, nor any other constitutional rights. ;) What many forget is that the constitution was written to restrict government, not the people.

avengador1 wrote:Without the second amendment the first amendment would not exist, nor any other constitutional rights. ;) What many forget is that the constitution was written to restrict government, not the people.

{{Like}} {{Like}} {{Like}} Well said sir.