Quote :

"The government best be paying for this education and competency tests, elsewise you are effectively preventing the poor from exercising a constitutional right."

Quote :

"hen you effectively deny the poor their right to bear arms and you further introduce another hurdle and meathod of political interference."

are you dillusional. While trying to shrink gov't you are now going to enlarge it by creating a gov't sponsored gun training school
and providing guns to lower class people that can not afford it.

The key word here is Right. you have the right to undergo the proper training and paperwork if you want to carry a concealed handgun.
If you can not afford it then that is your own problem; get a job and make some $$$ if you want to buy your semi-automatic AK-47.

BTW I guess I should file a lawsuit against Dick's Sporting Goods since I lack $300 for a rifle they are thus suppressing me from my right to bear arms

The Bill of Rights also gives me Freedom of Press through the 1st amendment. This does not mean that they have to provide me with paper, ink, and a printing press if I want to get my message out. If I am poor then I might not be able to fully utilize my Freedom of Press.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 2:29 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 2:33 PM. Reason : a]

12/13/2007 2:27:01 PM

Quote :

"So join the fucking Militia National Guard if you want to train and practice with your M4. "

So you need to be a government employee to exercise your constitutional rights? From this point on, you must now also be a member of congress to petition the government.

Quote :

"No shit, but according to aaronburro platform this is unconstitutional and the gov't should have NO say on who,what, and where when it comes to guns."

The government should have no say on law abiding citizens. Convicted felons have already chosen to operate outside the bounds of society. Although there is room for discussion here as it's reasonable to argue that if you have freed a felon, they have repaid their debt to society and deserve the same rights as any free man, but that is a discussion for another day.

Quote :

"I supported the woman's use of force and never advocated banning pistols or concealed armement. I just found it absurd that some people think that their should be absolutly no regulation to gun control. "

There should be minimal regulation, just like there is minimal regulation on free speech. But what we have now is beyond reasonable.

Quote :

"Yeah maybe in the same sense that the writer's of Back to the Future thought we'd all be using flying cars by 2015. "

They may not have goten the date right, but they envisioned it, just like Jules Verne envisioned space travel. Are you saying that just because they couldn't have guessed the date at which it would occur, that the founding fathers could not have envisioned an automatic weapon?

Quote :

"Kinda like a untrained person spraying his Tec-9 all over Hillsbourgh when a criminal tries to mug him?? I mean EarthDogg clearly states he does not approve of requiring any kinda of regulation to ensure proper training and licensing "

An untrained person is just as dangerous with semi-automatic as he is with an automatic. Besides, how do you propose they get their training if they can't buy and use the gun in the first place.

Quote :

"are you dillusional. While trying to shrink gov't you are now going to enlarge it by creating a gov't sponsored gun training school and providing guns to lower class people that can not afford it. "

Nope. Look it's real simple. If the government is going to restrict law abiding citizens from purchasing weapons until they prove competency, it is the government's responsibility to provide for people to prove that without regard to their ability to pay. It's the result of the government interfering with your rights.

However, I never said ANYTHING about the government providing guns to poor people. Their inability to afford to exercise their right as a result of natural occurances is different from the government artificialy raising the costs of exercising that right.

Quote :

"The key word here is Right. you have the right to undergo the proper training and paperwork if you want to carry a concealed handgun."

Wrong. You have a right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Quote :

"If you can not afford it then that is your own problem; get a job and make some $$$ if you want to buy your semi-automatic AK-47."

Right, but paying for government mandated training and competency tests are considerably different. I know you're not this dense.

Quote :

"BTW I guess I should file a lawsuit against Dick's Sporting Goods since I lack $300 for a rifle they are thus suppressing me from my right to bear arms "

Nope. No private entity is required to provide you the ability to exercise your rights. The government on the other hand is obligated not to interfere with your rights.

Quote :

"The Bill of Rights also gives me Freedom of Press through the 1st amendment. This does not mean that they have to provide me with paper, ink, and a printing press if I want to get my message out. If I am poor then I might not be able to fully utilize my Freedom of Press."

Again, you aren't reading what I'm saying. If the government mandated that before you could own a printing press you had to prove basic literacy and prove you had never writen "subversive" material, you would rightfuly demand that the government pay for such literacy training and testing and most likely rightfuly raise a fit over the "subversive" material cause.

12/13/2007 3:02:51 PM

you and GoldenViper should just move to your own island where he can have his socialist libertarian classless society and you can have your no regulation government keeping you from possessing your armory.


So should bars not wanting to infringe on individual's right to bear arms ban patrons from bringing their guns into the bar?

I can see it now drunk Steelers fan unleashes hellfire of bullets after the loss to the Pats on Sunday. Luckily Billy Bob also visiting the bar was able to stop the shooter with his MP5 but unfortunately with the spray of fire during the emotionally charged setting ended up killing 4 more people.

12/13/2007 3:27:31 PM

Quote :

"you and GoldenViper should just move to your own island where he can have his socialist libertarian classless society and you can have your no regulation government keeping you from possessing your armory. "

Did I say no regulation? Find me a single place in this thread where I said no regulation at all.

Quote :

"So should bars not wanting to infringe on individual's right to bear arms ban patrons from bringing their guns into the bar? "

Private property can do what they want, and it's the responsibility of the gun owner to choose whether they allow themselves to be disarmed by a private property owner.

Quote :

"I can see it now drunk Steelers fan unleashes hellfire of bullets after the loss to the Pats on Sunday. Luckily Billy Bob also visiting the bar was able to stop the shooter with his MP5 but unfortunately with the spray of fire during the emotionally charged setting ended up killing 4 more people."

Because that happens all the time now doesn't it? Man that last NRA rally ended in a massacre. And you should have been there for that hunting club killing spree when the deer got away.

12/13/2007 3:39:45 PM

I just laugh that all the issues in this country like "dey tuk errr jerbs' immigation, the economy, and the war in Iraq some rednecks are more worried out "kant be tukin err guns!!! yeee haww"

12/13/2007 4:31:32 PM

I'll say this, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee individual gun ownership.

12/13/2007 4:53:12 PM

then what, pray tell, does it guarantee?

12/13/2007 5:00:13 PM

It guarantees the right of the people to own guns

12/13/2007 5:04:59 PM

The 2nd amendment also doesn't prevent individual states from banning guns.

in NRA v San Francisco the NRA successfully repealed a law in San Francisco banning hand guns on the grounds that it intruded on the state's authority through the 10th amendment to regulate gun possessing for law abiding citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#_note-16

No one except Scuba Steve is advocating a ban on firearms. However, if you can not see the need for some rules/regulations on gun ownership then you are an idiot. I do concede that the issue should be handled on the state level.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 5:25 PM. Reason : a]

12/13/2007 5:20:39 PM

Quote :

"It guarantees the right of the people to own guns"

And the people are?

Quote :

"The 2nd amendment also doesn't prevent individual states from banning guns. "

True, but the 14th does, which is also why states can't establish their own state religion.

12/13/2007 6:26:47 PM

The people are a group. Whenever the constitution referred to individual rights, it used the singular. When it referred to a group or collective, it used people.

12/13/2007 6:39:42 PM

Quote :

"The problem at Columbine was the Klebold and Harris had guns, not that a teacher didn't. For all your drolling about saying it was the people and not the guns, Columbine would have turned out much differently had it been with clubs or knives."

Actually, the problem at Columbine is that police ignored clear warning signs of the attack twice before the attack. but thanks for trying. But tell me, if someone other than those two kids had had guns there, do you think the situation might have turned out differently? hmm....

Quote :

"Clearly George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were thinking ahead."

Actually, they were. They had just finished throwing off the yoke of England. They knew that the only way to preserve freedom was to have an armed populace that could actually resist an oppressive government. If all they wanted to do was make sure citizens could hunt, then they wouldn't have opened the door for citizens to own cannons and such, things that were the "WMDs" of their day. Why, then, would you assume that the 2nd amendment wouldn't apply to weapons of war today?

Quote :

"burro can you at least admit we've come up with some pretty sick shit since the constitution. Why shouldnt we have cruise missles on the house as well? Where does it end?"

I just addressed that.

Quote :

"For example. Say you shot the kid shooting people at the mall. I turn the corner and see you shooting the kid. Now I shoot you. Justice? I go to jail? What do you do in that situation?"

Or what if someone saw a dog that was about to pick up a gun with its teeth and shot the dog but then some other person saw that person with a gun and shot him but then some other dog saw that person shooting a dog? We can play "what if" all we want, but it is useless. Tell me, do you think the current state of affairs where citizens are helpless to defend themselves and the police are useless as being a good situation? You only further such an idea by restricting gun ownership.

Quote :

"However, like obtaining a drivers license i see no problem with ensuring people are educated in use of firearms and are not predisposed to committing gun violence."

So, what happens when the gov't decides that people with certain opinions are all of a sudden "predisposed to committing gun violence?" Don't think it can happen? Remember the recent plan in LA to track all Muslims because they were "susceptible to violent extremism?" Trust me buddy, it can happen.

Quote :

"One idea is to work through the insurance industry."

FUCK NO. Requiring insurance to own a weapon is a huge infringement upon the right to bear arms.

Quote :

"So join the fucking Militia National Guard if you want to train and practice with your M4."

Brilliant idea. Make the only way to use such a gun to be that you have to be a tool of the government. What a great way to ensure freedom

Quote :

"and providing guns to lower class people that can not afford it."

no one was talking about giving guns to people. If you can't afford a gun, you don't get it. the person, however, was talking about giving the EDUCATION CLASSES out for free. big difference.

Quote :

"The people are a group. Whenever the constitution referred to individual rights, it used the singular. When it referred to a group or collective, it used people."

And how are you going to talk about all of the individuals in America without using a plural word? Furthermore, I'd say it is hard to say what the Constitution means by a word if it does not explicitly say what it means. I know that such inferences are common in law, but I would say that its main use has been to deprive people of their rights, rather than uphold rights.

But, if you want to play that game, to what "group" of people does the right belong? Where can I go to see "the People's" tanks and such? The Army? Oh yeah, that's the GOVERNMENT'S tanks. Since the Constitution already says that we can have an army, it makes no sense for the 2nd Amendment to then say "Hey, the Army can have guns," wouldn't you think? If, instead, you think "the People" refers to the states, then why the hell didn't the Constitution say "States?" It has clearly done so in other cases, so why not here? Really, though, this "group" issue is a much bigger thread of conversation than belongs here, so feel free to make another thread about it.

12/13/2007 7:17:12 PM

^^ Really now?

So do all of these only apply to the people as a whole and not to any one individual?

Quote :

"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. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 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. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. "

All of these are the rights of the people as a whole but not any one individual. You can be prevented from voting because of your race as long as a group of people are not?

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 7:21 PM. Reason : ^]

12/13/2007 7:20:30 PM

git-er-dun guys



hopefully this will be my child. In case my kid is at a future columbine incident school; I will feel safe knowing that by practicing his 2nd amendment rights he'll be packing heat and ready to take action protecting himself and classmates.

12/13/2007 7:32:27 PM

I get the feeling your kid will look more like this:

12/13/2007 7:38:56 PM

The Bill of rights, partly, was based on the 1788 Virginia Convention's proposed Bill of Rights.

This is how they phrased the Second Amendment:

Quote :

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state."

The Framers were trying to make sure the new Constitution wouldn't allow gov't tyranny from descending upon the people. They wanted as many people as possible armed and ready to fight back if this situation ever occurred.

Many have lost sight of this fact and concentrate the discussion on preventing crime. But one could assume that if the Framers wanted the bulk of the people armed to protect themselves against a criminal gov't, they wouldn't have had a problem with us being armed to protect ourselves from individual criminals.

12/13/2007 7:44:06 PM

where can i sign up for a M1 Abrams tank



surely George Bush would respect my 2nd amendment right and let me put a tank in the garage. I gotta be on the alert in case i decide teh gov't has gotten to powerful so i can rebel.

12/13/2007 7:46:38 PM

where can you sign up to get a brain and stop trolling this thread?

12/13/2007 7:49:01 PM

Quote :

"Many have lost sight of this fact and concentrate the discussion on preventing crime. But one could assume that if the Framers wanted the bulk of the people armed to protect themselves against a criminal gov't,"

are you planning on overthrowing the gov't any time soon???

otherwise your point is invalid.
All we have to do is look over at Iraq to see what life is like with NO gun regulations.

12/13/2007 7:52:41 PM

ummm. are you really suggesting that his point is only valid if he wants to overthrow the government? What he is saying is that an armed populace keeps the government in check. geez

12/13/2007 7:54:51 PM

Quote :

"All we have to do is look over at Iraq to see what life is like with NO gun regulations."

And take a glance back to the concentration camps of a society that had total gun control over the populace.

12/13/2007 7:59:26 PM

?????????????????????????


like in africa where the guerrilla groups run around shooting members of the rival tribes.

I'm done arguing luckily 99.9% of the rest of the country also thinks it'd be stupid for the gov't (fed or state or local) to provide absolutely no regulation or control over firearms in the US. Screw democracy if the State of Raleigh decides to make licenses mandatory for concealed handguns. They are destroying your 2nd amendment right.

Why not rally fellow militiamen together and vote legislators into congress to eliminate any form of gun control since it is so horrible and oppressive.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 8:07 PM. Reason : l]

12/13/2007 8:03:53 PM

or like in North Korea where everyone worships the Dear Leader cause he has all the guns?

Quote :

"I'm done arguing"

No, you stopped arguing a long time ago. You've been trolling ever since.

Quote :

"luckily 99.9% of the rest of the country also thinks it'd be stupid for the gov't (fed or state or local) to provide absolutely no regulation or control over firearms in the US. "

And wasn't it great when 99.9% of the voting population thought it was a good idea to keep the darkies from being able to read?

Quote :

"Why not rally fellow militiamen together and vote legislators into congress to eliminate any form of gun control since it is so horrible and oppressive."

Well, considering that the militia has pretty much been outlawed (convenient, isn't it?), I don't see how you could really "rally the militiamen" anyway...

12/13/2007 8:08:25 PM

you have guns here!!! whats the fucking problem. when it comes to gun laws we are the most relaxed countries in the developed world. are you guys really that upset you can't have an open bolt Tec-9 or have to fill out a permit to own a gun and passing a background check.

12/13/2007 8:10:32 PM

They have voting booths in North Korea! Are you really all that upset that the polls only have one candidate for each position? geez!

12/13/2007 8:11:43 PM

People also forget about the words "well regulated"

The fact remains that the writers of the constitution used their words wisely and in instances where rights were held as a collective amongst the people, they used the word people and when it was an individual right they used words such as person.

12/13/2007 8:24:29 PM

If you want to get that picky, they probably also knew their grammar well, and the "millitia clause" is not a restrictive clause.

Also, is the right to free speech an individual right?

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 8:36 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/13/2007 8:36:17 PM

That comma nigga is important.

but to your question of freedom of speech, let's see what the document says, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...."

There is no mention of person or people when it pertains to freedom of speech. So no your intended analogy does not fly.

Also, since U.S. v. Miller, the 2nd Amendment has been read as a collective right. So your argument isn't with me, but with legal scholars.

12/13/2007 8:49:21 PM

yes. legal scholars who have an important interest in disarming the populace...

12/13/2007 8:52:52 PM

Legal scholars who know more about the law and constitution than you.

12/13/2007 8:53:59 PM

but still, legal scholars who have a vested interest in disarming the populace.

seriously, though. Where are "the People's" tanks? I'm still waiting on that answer...

12/13/2007 8:54:47 PM

So if the people of NC got together and democratically decided they were against teachers having guns at school, you guys would protest b.c its violating their 2nd amendment. I guess guns take precedence over democracy.

12/13/2007 9:13:07 PM

Quote :

"democratically decided they were against teachers having guns "

You shouldn't be able to vote away someone's individual rights. It's called "the tyranny of the mob"

If I have an automatic machine pistol and am not hurting anyone with it...what's it to you?

An armed populace makes gov't officials nervous...and that pleases me to no end.

12/13/2007 9:52:22 PM

You're right, that comma is important, let's see what some linguists have to say about that comma:

http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm

Quote :

"The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

Or if that is too biased for you, perhaps the US Department of Justice could illuminate on this for us:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Quote :

"This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it. "

12/13/2007 9:53:17 PM

Quote :

"An armed populace makes gov't officials nervous...and that pleases me to no end."

hell yeah dude, we gotta be ready for La Revolutiona

12/13/2007 10:37:53 PM

^^Still doesn't address the fact that the people are a collective. No point in denying it.

12/14/2007 12:49:48 AM

and you still haven't told me where The People's tanks are. That's all I want to know, man. And, can we go ahead and deny you your right to vote, while we are at it?

12/14/2007 8:21:52 AM

Ain't gunna be tukin errr guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

12/14/2007 12:13:11 PM