Guns.. for the one millionth time

[jamess86607]

hello everyone
welcome to this forum.Here u find all your questions and get your answers.
right now i am unable to find your answer.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It doesn't say that, does it?

That's the thing about these amendments it seems that they were kept purposly vague at some points.

This one I do believe does support the right to bear arms, but the reasoning behind it would be in case a militia was needed. A well regulated militia at the time would have been made up of your farmers, indidividual who were not necessarily trained soldiers, but who would own a weapon.

It would be far easier and cheaper to have everyone be allowed to own a weapon (those who can afford it get it), then it would have been for the Federal Government or any type of government to have to provide it. It also made any mobilization of force far easier as there wasn't necessarily a standing army.

 

[CMike]

How is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" vague to you?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" vague to you?

That isn't vague, because that's not the entire 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.

This is where vagueness comes into play. What is a well regulated militia? What is the infringement, is it merely banning? Does regulating mean that the people must be regulated or the arms? So on and so forth.

The entire amendment is written in a way that opens up to much interpretation.

At least that is how I see it.

 

[CMike]

That isn't vague, because that's not the entire 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.

This is where vagueness comes into play. What is a well regulated militia? What is the infringement, is it merely banning? Does regulating mean that the people must be regulated or the arms? So on and so forth.

The entire amendment is written in a way that opens up to much interpretation.

At least that is how I see it.

The first part is the reason. The second part clearly states the law.

The reason can be interpreted anyway you want, however, the law is pretty clear.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Let freedom ring!

 

[CMike]

Here here

 

[DallasApple]

My apologies, I didn't realize that every person, in every state, must be licensed to own and register each and every firearm they own. I was going under the assumption that any homicidal maniac could buy a shotgun at Walmart any time they wanted, no questions asked. My bad.

Not to mention Craig's list..just sayin....

Wait a minute..how about i can sell my neighbor my gun in a garage sale?

Its loose..more technicality goes into selling a car than a gun.

 

[DallasApple]

My husband just sold a gun to a stranger on Craig's list..(and no we aren't gun dealers) it was a gun he bought off Craigs list and decided he didn't wan't anymore.I told him this is sick how do you know who they are? He said he ran an arrest check on them first.And he said he thoroughly wiped the gun down so his fingerprints aren't on it just in case its used in a crime in the future he cant be fingered for it.

And I don't think my husband is a complete nut..I think that is the laxodazy no big deal its "just a gun" its my right attitude shared by the majority around here.

His dad has like 14 guns..(mostly rifles)..My mother carried a gun my whole life..a high powered revolver with BIG bullets..she carried the damn thing in the glove compartment of the station wagon! My boss had a gun (a lady gun) she kept in the drawer with the extra pens and staplers!Like an office supply..

So I don't no..I have mixed emotions.

 

[DallasApple]

I will admit I do like to shoot.(not at people) ...it makes me feel powerful.Not to start a war but that is why I think its a "man " thing"..it gives you a false sense of power and boost your imaginary strength and gives you ego power.Like driving fast in a car.

I don't know for me? Shooting beer cans lined up on top of fence with a 22 gets boring after a while...

And no..I'm not going to shoot a deer.Im not that hungry.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The first part is the reason. The second part clearly states the law.

The reason can be interpreted anyway you want, however, the law is pretty clear.

If the law was pretty clear 200+ years later we wouldn't still have a debates about it.

In it's entirety the whole is the law. You can't just pick one part, say that this is what the law is, and ignore the entirety of what was written.

It would have been just as easy to say "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" but they give a reason for why that right should not be infringed, and that is for a well regulated milita which was deemed at the time necessary.

Do you find that a well regulated militia is necessary now?

 

[CMike]

I like to shoot because it is fun.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I like to shoot because it is fun.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I'm not against the owning of weapons, I just think that on a local level their should be some kind of organization/regulating done. I don't think it should be done by the federal government though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The first part is the reason. The second part clearly states the law.

The reason can be interpreted anyway you want, however, the law is pretty clear.

If it's as clear as you claim, why is it that the current interpretation only dates back to the 1960s?

 

[CMike]

If it's as clear as you claim, why is it that the current interpretation only dates back to the 1960s?

Because left wing Supreme Courts try to create law instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing which is interpreting law based on the intentions of the authors.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because left wing Supreme Courts try to create law instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing which is interpreting law based on the intentions of the authors.

So it's your position that the Supreme Court was "left wing" from when the Bill of Rights was passed until the 1960s, at which point it stopped being "left wing"?

Since this earlier interpretation dates back all the way to when the amendment was passed, I'm sure that if it didn't match the intent of the authors, they would have said something while they were still alive. Did they?