Hand guns......

[Michele]

Two part question.

What do you think of the phrase: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

And.

This: Hand guns. Only for cops to carry or something that is a right for anyone who wants them?

[kingclick]

I agree with the first sentence. But a second sentence should follow....."Guns just make it easier for people to kill people."

And the second I would have to say anyone that meets certain requirements should be allowed to wear a gun.

[OnederWoman]

Agree completely with the first statement. And I agree with KL's statement about the second statement.

[Jory]

Agree completely with the first statement. And I agree with KL's statement about the second statement.

Ditto

[bRATmom]

first statement true

second statement.... does it matter... the criminal element will get the guns no matter what the law is anyways.

plus, on tonights news... is going to be a story on a cop... that has been charged with "drive by shootings" so much for those who protect and serve.
KSTP 5 MLPS MN for those who want to look it up.....

and if I am a law abiding citizen, who goes through training and such, why should I be denied the right to own a hand gun? They are fun to go target practicing with.

[MuddPrincess]

What do you think of the phrases:
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people?"
I agree 100%
Hand guns. Only for cops to carry or something that is a right for anyone who wants them
Hand guns are a tool/weapon against other humans, and I disagree with hunting other himans. Rifles are tools/weapons in hunting animals for food or sport, I think this makes a HUGE difference, and therefore believe that handguns should ONLY be carried by liscenced, and well trained people who need them regularly for the protection of themselves and others!

[Epicurus]

Second 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.

I believe this is an important amendment. In this country we have the right to protect ourselves from criminals, from the government (if necessary), from wild animals or any other threat that might require a fire arm.
Guns kill people but people control the guns. I have never heard of a gun alone killing anyone.
Anyone who does not have a criminal record should be legally allowed to own a gun IMO.
Collette

[RoyalLochnagar]

Hand guns are a tool/weapon against other humans, and I disagree with hunting other himans. Rifles are tools/weapons in hunting animals for food or sport, I think this makes a HUGE difference, and therefore believe that handguns should ONLY be carried by liscenced, and well trained people who need them regularly for the protection of themselves and others!
Handguns are not used solely against other human beings. Arizona, for example, has a season for hunting javelina with a handgun. (Which is really a lot of fun, by the by.)

[kingclick]

I believe this is an important amendment. In this country we have the right to protect ourselves from criminals, from the government (if necessary), from wild animals or any other threat that might require a fire arm.
Guns kill people but people control the guns. I have never heard of a gun alone killing anyone.
Anyone who does not have a criminal record should be legally allowed to own a gun IMO.
Collette
Collette,
I'm confused. Where in that amendment does it talk about "personal" ownership of guns? It's talking about a militia and a well regulated one at that. Not a bunch of "vigilantes" carrying guns.

I don't think the second Amendment really applies here. It's taking the intent of the amendment and twisting it to mean something else.

Again. I believe that we DO have a right to carry guns, but it's just not covered under the Second Amendment.

[bRATmom]

I'm confused. Where in that amendment does it talk about "personal" ownership of guns? It's talking about a militia and a well regulated one at that. Not a bunch of "vigilantes" carrying guns.


can I keep my handgun for my own personal protection till that "well regulated milita" comes to protect me?

flip side, who gets to decide who that well regulated milita is???? becouse if memory serves me, david koresh had a well organized milita of his own, that the govt was none to happy about.

who decides? who regulates? whats the criteria?

[Epicurus]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

It's right here. This part says it pretty clearly.

Collette

[kingclick]

It was written in context of a Militia. Thinking that it relates to PERSONAL use is off context.

That would be like me writing a law that says...

"In self defense, it is ok to kill another human being"

and then someone comes along and says..

it's ok to kill another human being"

King,
You clearly think it's ok to kill!

[Def.I.Nition]

Two part question.

What do you think of the phrase: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people?"


Well that would be like saying: Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Let's keep the nukes.

[kingclick]

Def,
And your point? You think that the US should just "get rid" of all their nukes while the rest of the world keeps them pointed at us?

[Def.I.Nition]

Def,
And your point? You think that the US should just "get rid" of all their nukes while the rest of the world keeps them pointed at us?

No. That is not my point.

[MuddPrincess]

What is a javelina???

[RoyalLochnagar]

What is a javelina???
A javelina is a wild pig. They're very hairy and sort of mean looking (think BIG tusks). Like all pigs, they are very smart, and thus not very easy to hunt.

[Epicurus]

I disagree KL. I see that as the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

Collette

[kingclick]

I disagree KL. I see that as the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

Collette
Yes, to keep a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. It's all one sentence. Basic grammar rules tells you that it is connected.

[Def.I.Nition]

Yes, to keep a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. It's all one sentence. Basic grammar rules tells you that it is connected.


For, perhaps, the first time, I agree with KL. The second admendment gives a very specific reason why we are allowed the right guranteed within it. The personal reasons given in this thread are reasonable excuses to own weapons but have nothing to do with the second amendment.

[Epicurus]

Regarding the 2nd amendment, edited to say you are right, I am wrong :)

Collette

[bRATmom]

ok, we have the second ammendment.... again: who gets to decide who the "well regulated milita" is? what is the criteria for the "well regulated milita" who gets to regulate it?

[kingclick]

That would probably be up to the states to decide what is a well regulated militia.

I do want to make clear that I do feel that we as Americans have a basic right to own guns. And I support gun ownership and gun responsibility.

[Def.I.Nition]

ok, we have the second ammendment.... again: who gets to decide who the "well regulated milita" is? what is the criteria for the "well regulated milita" who gets to regulate it?

I think that the regulating of the militia comes from a combination of the federal and state government and to what extent that regulation goes (and stays within the limits of the US Constitution) the courts are here.

Any regulation that is too restrictive can be ruled unconstituional by the courts.

[karaokeguy]

Amendment II
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.

Let's take this piece at a time. "A well regulated Militia". Let's get a definition:

From Websters online:

Main Entry: mi·li·tia

Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service



So a militia is basically a citizen's army. So who would regulate such a militia?

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

Everywhere in the Constitution that refers to a "state" it refers to the several states. So the states would be the ones to regulate such a militia. So much for the comment regarding Koresh....


"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

At the time, many states required it's free citizens to own firearms so the state did not need to equip them with weapons when they were called on to serve in the state militia.



So if we take this amendment as a whole, it refers not to private ownership of firearms, but rather the right of STATES to raise and regulate STATE militias in lieu of a large, standing national army. And these STATE militias still exist. They're called the National Guard.

[Def.I.Nition]

Everywhere in the Constitution that refers to a "state" it refers to the several states. So the states would be the ones to regulate such a militia. So much for the comment regarding Koresh....


I think you stretch the meaning here. The state is the United States combined. The bill of rights was initially written as rights that we held against the national government not against the states, so it would be wrong to presume that the "state" they are talking about are the individual states of the union. The right was not against the states. It wasn't until the fourteenth amendment that the bill of rights became rights that we held against the individual states of the union.

Furthermore it is the Congress which regulates the Militia:

Article 1 section 8 clause 16 (powers of Congress): To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[karaokeguy]

I think you stretch the meaning here. The state is the United States combined.

Very well. Please state a single other instance where the Constitution refers to the union as a "state". Here's a hint. You won't find one.

It wasn't until the fourteenth amendment that the bill of rights became rights that we held against the individual states of the union.

True enough. But the Second Amendment doesn't hold a right against a state. It guarantees a right to the several states. I direct you to the Tenth Amendment:

"Amendment X

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. "

[Def.I.Nition]

"Amendment X

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. "

Yeh, exactly if a right is not defined by the constitution as a power of the federal government then the right either belongs to the people (9th amendement) or to the states (tenth amendment). But the regulating of the militia is already given to the Congress. Let me re-write it here incase you missed my addition to my last post:

Article 1 section 8 clause 16 (powers of Congress): To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That sounds awfully like Congress has the power to regulate the Militia.

[sarah]

being that i am not from the US i dont have much of an idea about your consitutional rights but i have always found the "right to bare arms " comical.
where my dh comes from not even the police officers carry firearm weapons

[karaokeguy]

You missed something.

...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, Italics added

"Part of them employed in the Service of the United States?" Sounds like the militias are on loan to the U. S. government. Now who would they be on loan from? The states, maybe?

[GracieMae]

What do you think of the phrase: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

And.

This: Hand guns. Only for cops to carry or something that is a right for anyone who wants them?

To the first question I agree. To the second question if only the police were the only ones with hand guns that would work. Unfortunatly it's easy to get a hand gun and even if everyone registers their guns the criminals won't so that still isn't a solution.

I'd rather have some protection against people who mean to harm my family if it comes to that.

[Def.I.Nition]

You missed something.



"Part of them employed in the Service of the United States?" Sounds like the militias are on loan to the U. S. government. Now who would they be on loan from? The states, maybe?

You are reading two independent clauses as though they are one. The first independent clause pertains to this argument specifically:

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"

The second part: "for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States," does not inhibit the Congress from organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia when the militia when they are not employed by the US. It only adds to how greatly the US government can govern the militias when they are employed by the US government.

[Beelzebub]

I agree with it.

However, I do not think the problem with the US is the amount of guns people own. It is the people themselves.


Canada has more guns per capita than the USA yet have nowhere near as many deaths related to guns.

The problem with US is the culture of fear that people are brought up on. The media, specifically main news stations show "fear stories" because it gains ratings. Therefore people believe they need guns to protect themselves. Some of the replies here show that.

Music and the hip-hop culture do not help by glorifying the use of guns and violent crime. To an impressionable teenager who emulates this "stars", buying a gun and throwing his weight around is a way to gain credit, just like his idol.