TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The Supreme Court to hear Second Amendment case.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Supreme Court to hear Second Amendment case.

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Now I know I linked out to an opinion piece from the NY Times, but I'd still like to see some opinions on this. From what I was able to find the Supreme Court hasn't heard a Second Amendment case since 1939. Depending on how this goes we could see a big change on how the states are able to regulate the guns their citizens own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/op...ml?ref=opinion
post #2 of 17
Thomas Jefferson said: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. " and also "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. "

John Adams said: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense. "

George Washington said: "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. "

James Madison said: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

I think it's quite clear how the founders interpreted the second ammendment to apply.
post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Thomas Jefferson said: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. " and also "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. "

John Adams said: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense. "

George Washington said: "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. "

James Madison said: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

I think it's quite clear how the founders interpreted the second ammendment to apply.
I'm playing devils advocate here, but the founding fathers were talking about muskets not AK47 assault rifles.
post #4 of 17
Quite true.

I wouldn't have any problem banning those types of weapons, but the right to bear firearms for all citizens is clearly what they had in mind. I think it would be unconstitutional to take it away; perhaps even unconstitutional to make it so much of a hassle that it discourages almost every one from owning even hunting rifles.

But just from the standpoint of making it more relevant to modern society, people don't need AK-47's, RPG's, bazookas, etc. These are weapons whose ONLY use is to wage war.

But weapons for sport and defense -- I'm fine with that, and I think it's constitutional.
post #5 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
I'm playing devils advocate here, but the founding fathers were talking about muskets not AK47 assault rifles.
I have to agree to some extent. I'm for gun ownership, I have a couple myself. But that was written at a time when armies and citizens were armed alike. A group of citizens with 1950's design SKS's, deer rifles and their Buffalo Bill commemorative Winchesters and what little ammo they can carry wouldn't even make it up to the level of "annoyance" for a modern army.
post #6 of 17
Thread Starter 
I'm also pro-gun ownership, but I also believe that there should be some limits placed on who is able to own a gun.
post #7 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
I'm also pro-gun ownership, but I also believe that there should be some limits placed on who is able to own a gun.
There are limits. Unfortunately, roughly 85% of the people that use guns illegally are people that were not legally allowed to have them in the first place.
post #8 of 17
Limits on who? Yes, I agree. And we have those, for the most part.

Limits on what firearms they can own? Nope.

Yes, they had muskets instead of M16s or AR15s (the civilian equivalent, without the capability to switch to automatic fire). Both were military weapons.

As for AKs, well it didn't do too well for the Russians. Those are spray and pray firearms - put out a lot of bullets and hope you hit something because accuracy is not they strong point. We beat them in that capacity with M14, M16 and even the M1-Garand.

I read something that said that the Second Amendment was based on the "antiquated" notion that the population would be able to protect against a rogue government that would defy and overrule the Constitution. It was basically put in place to be a fourth check and balance. I don't see anything antiquated about that notion. Especially when we see an example of a ruler who is making his own county's constitution obscolete so he can maintain power (Vasquez, not Bush ).

Can we, the population take the miltary? Well, we may not have airplanes and tanks, but the heart of the military is the infantry. And even with hunting and self-defense weapons we could put up a hell of a good fight. And that's not counting the number in the military who would go against a rogue leader intent on harming the civilian population.
post #9 of 17
Hmmm, being a Canadian and all..I wish for there to remain no guns here

I can't beleive people just walk around with them over there
post #10 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouts mom View Post
Hmmm, being a Canadian and all..I wish for there to remain no guns here

I can't beleive people just walk around with them over there
It is kind of odd from an outsider looking in.
post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post

I read something that said that the Second Amendment was based on the "antiquated" notion that the population would be able to protect against a rogue government that would defy and overrule the Constitution. It was basically put in place to be a fourth check and balance. I don't see anything antiquated about that notion. Especially when we see an example of a ruler who is making his own county's constitution obscolete so he can maintain power (Vasquez, not Bush ).

Can we, the population take the miltary? Well, we may not have airplanes and tanks, but the heart of the military is the infantry. And even with hunting and self-defense weapons we could put up a hell of a good fight. And that's not counting the number in the military who would go against a rogue leader intent on harming the civilian population.
The notion is not antiquated, but the capability is. A person that bought a tin of surplus military ammunition (700-1250 rounds) thinks that they have a lot of ammunition. If you make no direct engagements and do lots of running away, that much ammo might last you a few days. By that time, ammo manufacturers would have been federalized and under guard, there would be none on the shelf at K-mart, and they would be reduced to stealing or scrounging from the military. What weapons they would get would not have the sights set to them, and target practice would make lots of noise and use ammo they didn't have to spare. After the 1st couple of days, their military surplus night vision goggles would need batteries, they will need oil for weapons and equipment, and whatever methods of communication they were using would most likely be discovered and monitored; that is, if they still had batteries for them.

Wounded would need shelter, transports, medicines, dressings, skilled surgeons and support staff. Where would that come from? Even a rebel army has to eat. Where would they get food. Even if someone not fighting helped them, large purchases of food and over average usage of water is something that would be monitored. Replacing shoes even...walk into town and buy some? Not hardly. There are a couple bajillion more things to having an army, but I think that makes the point.

It's a wonderful notion, but not at all realistic in the 21st century.
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
I read something that said that the Second Amendment was based on the "antiquated" notion that the population would be able to protect against a rogue government that would defy and overrule the Constitution. It was basically put in place to be a fourth check and balance.
See my above founders' quotes. I think it's quite clear they thought an armed citizenry was a check against the return of tyranny.

Here's something to consider: in the event the citizens needed to arise again against the government, would the armed forces fire on their fellow citizens? Who may include their friends, neighbors, even their own family members?
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Thomas Jefferson said: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. " and also "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. "

John Adams said: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense. "

George Washington said: "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. "

James Madison said: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

I think it's quite clear how the founders interpreted the second ammendment to apply.

and that about covers it.
along with they can take my guns why they pry them from cold dead hands
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
. Especially when we see an example of a ruler who is making his own county's constitution obscolete so he can maintain power (Vasquez, not Bush ).
.
Errm if you look it up, Bush and congress passed a bill that enables a sitting presdent to suspend elections during war time.
post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
people don't need AK-47's, RPG's, bazookas, etc. These are weapons whose ONLY use is to wage war.
.
dont need a ak-47 anyway, i would much perfer my ww2 garand, or my match rife
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
Errm if you look it up, Bush and congress passed a bill that enables a sitting presdent to suspend elections during war time.
No s##t?!?!? I didn't know that!! How come I didn't know that? Didn't the news media ever pick up on that? Or didn't they think it newsworthy?

I think that makes a comment I made in another thread about Bush suspending elections not at all the hyperbole I intended it to be at the time.
post #17 of 17
Executive Orders HSPD-20 and NSPD-51 gives the presdent the right to suspend elections in the case of a national emergency (defined by whatever sitting presdents calls a national emergency)

so they should tell me again, why i should turn over my guns?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The Supreme Court to hear Second Amendment case.