I gave you fair warning. Here and elsewhere.

Yeah, plea bargains and parole when it's a violent crime should be done away with. I hear about stories all the time in the news where someone has been arrested a ridiculous amount of times but yet here they are, committing yet another crime. I always wonder to myself, why wasn't this person in JAIL?

 

The point remains that if even three seconds is considered an unconstitutional infringement, the argument could reasonably and logically be made that a great many laws are equally unconstitutional infringements.

Legality of metal knuckles depends upon which jurisdiction one is located. Some prohibit them, some do not.

See above.

The Heller ruling mentioned firearms in common use. Despite handguns being more popular than rifles or shotguns for personal defense, that does not in any way mean they are not in common use.

 

Then, we mostly agree with all points but, if the original language is to be paid attention to, then rifles are not protected. I think they are/should be, but that is not strictly consistent.

 

All side arms are protected. Good grief. When are you going to give it up? The reason why the Heller decision concentrated it's language on handguns is because that was the particular weapon which had been banned by the state.

 

Along with those things, better conditions for children is needed. Education of inmates, opportunities to go straight, less institutional racism, are needed.

WE already house more inmates proportionally, than any other country but one.

OUR children need help.

If you are going to LIBERALLY read the amendment, then STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM should not be your battle cry. Nor the letter of the law be your savior.

 

Learn how to raise your children then! My child is doing just fine, thanks.

 

He also ignores one of the 2nd amendment reasons for existence, TO FIGHT AGAINST A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT which requires military GRADE weapons not prohibited by the 1934 laws.

 

The ignorant refuse to understand that 3 second, or even a 1 second delay can mean death

 

No agreement has been reached in this discussion.

 

Absolute BS. The founders wanted the civilian population to be sufficiently armed to insure there would be no tyranny of government

 

I agree with you on second amendment rights; I just did not like the way the message was delivered. Those kind of comments do not help our side.

 

The original language said arms and did not preclude ANY type of arms. Reading the founders intention behind their creating the 2nd amendment was to ensure that arms suitable to defeat a tyrannical government.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

 

SIDEARMS.

 

What about them?

 

I was told that SIDEARMS, were what was not to be infringed.

 

Oh please ! Tell me your are NOT serious !

 

Right here in river city. And there was no dispute when I was told. I trust you guys.

 

Your evidence for this is?

 

yup, look at my infringe thread

 

So all references to "arms" in our constitution only means sidearms even though battles were mainly fought with long guns. Is that what you contend?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

 

I was told that very specifically. You guys have never lied to me before. You were there, I think.

 

What I meant by "sidearms" was a weapon that you can carry on your person.

You should also probably read this entire link. I think it would be very educational. There are some excerpts from the federalist papers in there too that you will probably find informative, and will help you better understand what was the goal of the founders and the writers of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights in regard to the 2A.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.