to all of you dopes who thin the 2nd amendment gives *states* rights. could you please back that up with ANY type of proof?

You liberal kids don't have a clue. keep on dodging the fact that the bill of rights are rights guaranteed to the people. not the government, not the states, and not the militia.

The states don't have the right of free speech, the states don't have the protection against unreasonable searches, etc. etc.
you kids may not *Like* the 2nd amendment but pretending its something it isn't just makes you look like a light wieght.
:thumbsup

"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."


i think its a little interesting how people are so willing to play semantics while ignoring the time, the context and the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

it was not written to give Inbred Jed an assault rifle with amour piercing bullets to go coon huntin from his cabin in UncleDad, Kentucky.

it was written with the intent of guaranteeing people the right to protect themselves because there was not an adequate military/police force to do so.

I dont think it can be successfully argued today, that Jed represents a "well organized militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

Funny how the liberal wants to pretend that all the gun owners in america are "jeds"


Do you also think jed should have free speech? after all, there's no need for it today.

Back up your argument with something more than "jed"

uhm.....

1) i would hardly consider myself to be Liberal.
2) i apologize to all members of your family, both male and female named "Jed"

Thank you, KK.

um yeah, so much for any facts coming from you.

what role do "facts" play?

There are no facts. its only about interpretation, precedence, opinion and legal opinion. the Amendment itself is vague and ambiguous at best. if there were not a fact, this conversation would not happen and the 9th Circuit Court would not be working towards yet another ruling that will be overturned and laughed at by the free world.

I am sure you have a real great handle on the Constitution of The United States as well as a legal precedence that has been set on this issue and are more than qualified to spend days on end presenting your "facts" to counter my "facts" in some bizzare circle jerk-like contest of wills.

i however, am not. Unlike you, i dont have the time to spend the entire day here masturbating my keyboard, to both fill my time and help me to console myself in the otherwise emptyness of my existence, by creating a false sense of purpose in my miserable life.

that about sums up your argument alright.

Fact: the bill of rights was written toguarantee rights to individuals. Not states, governments or militia.

(look it up squirrelly)

Isn't it obvious? The bill of rights grants the right to well regulated militia. At the time, militas were organized, regulated and trained by the State.

Its not a fact. Its a personal opinion that you hope people will accept as a fact if you only repeat it like it was true enough times. Again, that is exactly what you whine about liberals doing.

In reality both sides are interpreting the document. It not a matter of fact finding, its a matter of historical context.

The Bill of Rights is not entitled "The Bill of Personal, Individual, Non-States Rights", no matter how much you want it to be.

:thumbsup

Come to think of it, something else none of you Constitutional geniuses seem to understand is this: The fact the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the individual right to own weaponry does not mean that all guns should be, or would be, banned.

The Constitution doesn't explicity give you the right to own an automobile, but no one is going to take away your cars.

If you want to win the argument for legal gun ownership, you'll have to do it with reasoning and statistics which show that private gun ownership is.. in the balance of things.. beneficial to society. When you try to win by spouting off ill concieved opinions about the Constitution like they were immutable laws of the universe, you just make yourselves look like asses. In fact, trying to win using those tactics just makes you look like you're doing it because you can't produce a reasonable argument that private gun ownership is beneficial to modern society.

I don't think all guns should be banned, but I'm not going to try and justify my opinions by pretending this or that old document gives me an immutable, god given right to arm myself to the teeth.

Reading comprehension goes a long way.

The only thing that was said was that if the second amendment didn't give the right for individual citizens to bear arms (as was ruled by the 9th) then that was a power relegated to the states.

Ever read the 10th amendment???

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

How's that for proof???

If I die of something natural.. whatever, but theres no need to die cause some fuckbag decides you should.

What kind of person needs a killing device in order to live his life the way he wants to? And what kind of person thinks that their right to be able to kill is more important than the rights of others not to die. For me, in the end, that is why I think gun rights are stupid.

One that want's to prevent criminals who can by guns on every fucking street corner from killing them.

A criminal.

Heh....

... and I can't wait for someone to argue the 10th admendment.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

*sigh*

you made an assumption that i am really liberal and attacking right wing gun nuts. in fact, i am really very in the middle, come from a family of professional guides in Alaska and have owned more rifles, pistols and assualt rifles than most people on this board put together.

i dont think that the 2nd Amendment grants me the right to do anything except Join a militia (as defined by US Law) and own a weapon that is directly related to that specific need.

fact:

the 2nd Amendment uses the word "right"

fact:

NRA and similar wackos maintain that the 2nd Amendment grants them this "right to bear arms" and repeadly misquote the 2nd Amendment by leaving out the words "well regulated militia"

fact:

"Militia" is defined in US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13, Section 311"

there are two types of militias. "organized" where specifically is mentioned, the National Guard and Naval Militia and unorganized militias which is everyone not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia

to say that "Jed" has the right to his assault rifle on the basis that the 2nd Amendment gives him that right... then you have to successfully argue that 2 coon dogs and his sister/wife compose an "organized militia" as defined by the US Government.

the 2nd Amendment does not say anything in there about your right to be a jerk off radical, with assault weapons and amour piercing bullets stashed under your floor in your little cabin in Northern Idaho because you are afraid of your own government. in fact, it does not mention your right to own amour piercing bullets, tanks, fighter planes, nuclear weapons or ICBM's.

the only test i am aware of as far as what weapon "may be" protected came with the case Miller vs United States where the judge decided that the gun he had (a sawed off shotgun) had no legitimate use in a militia and therefore was not in fact protected by the 2nd Amendment