ok, Hypothetical........ suppose you were in a situation where you are witnessing your wife getting raped and beaten, possibly killed by multiple attackers. Are you saying that you wouldnt at least wish you had a gun and could defend her? Statuetes in most states view this as an aggrivated assault and you would legally have a right to defend with lethal force. That's not me speaking.,.,. thats the law.
Perhaps one day we will see the consequences of such a large standing army. I am no crazy person, if the option to own an AA gun were open I probably wouldn't get one. Its the principle that I care about. Also the deterrent. A modern "well regulated militia" would need AA weapons anyway, to deal with such threats as aircraft. What else do you think the guys at Lexington and Concord were fighting for? The british were coming to take their weapons, so they used their weapons on the british. They died for those rights, you nor anyone else is taking the right to those weapons away. A "well regulated" militia would be a good thing. Also, most people have been trained in the use of weapons, by their dads or grandparent and so on. Its a tradition from the states. p.s. I never referenced Switzerland
Not all rights are inalienable. The general right to arms (any weapon that can be used to effect injury) is a natural right but we have certainly surrendered some aspects of it to government (the weapons of open warfare like I spoke of). I believe the right to arms as an auxiliary to the right to self defense is inalienable and fundamental and we will see the Circuits applying strict scrutiny for self defense. It seems ancillary arms rights like hunting are having intermediate scrutiny applied, Skoein in the 7th (if I remember correctly). As usual, the cases coming before the Circuits post Heller have come with flawed parties with a rights disability placed on them. It is difficult to come to a conclusion about what the protection sphere is for law-abiding people examining cases that deal with felons or domestic violence offenders. (the old question, what does Miller say about a shotgun with a barrel OVER 18 inches long?) I'm glad the gun rights side aren't clogging the courts up but I sure would like to see Burton v Sills challenged for Jersey's gun owners; I might move back . . .
Court cases aside, rights are inalienable, and therefore you cannot surrender them, you can give away property or duties, but you cannot give them or surrender them. BTW I was at our church for a family game night we have each 3rd friday, so I grabbed a Nerf gun and I decided to test the theory that a mass killing could not be accomplished with a gun with 10 rounds, or that it would take longer ect. This was semi- auto, 10 shot. Walked in to a room where people were just standing around talking. I pulled it up and bang bang bang. I then told them the reason for why I did this. Only one was hit in a location that would not have killed, with 8 that would have been dead, and that was not the only nerf gun I could have emptied on them. They were taken totally by surprise. More would have been dead by the time the police could have arrived. Except for the fact that after I emptied my gun a guy came up behind me and pretended to hit me in the neck with his hand, then joked and said I had been decapitated and couldn't shoot anymore. Turns out he carried a large knife on his person, had I been shooting and him been serious, I would have been dead and couldn't shoot anymore. Now this could simulate a real shooting. It wouldn't' have matters what gun laws there were, it would have happened just as I did with the nerf gun, and then I would have picked up another gun and killed some more if I were intent on it. A knife would have worked jut as well as people I shot at were women and pretty much defenseless (just as the children were in the most recent shooting). This may be rambling nonsense but I find it a funny scenario to try out. So while it was all fake and in jest I find the results interesting. So yeah, test the theory, pick up a nerf gun, and shoot some people
Actually you can, because unalienable rights come with the responsibility not to misuse them. That's why it's not unjust to execute a murderer.
Correct there, but that is not you actually surrendering them, it is the invasion of someone else's rights and thus your rights are no longer acknowledged.
dadoalex, The right to carry is the right to self defense. I carry a knife all the time - do I "premeditate" slicing up things. No I do not. I carry a flashlight all the time - do I "premeditate" shining it in your eyes. No. No one ever said the right to carry is a license to kill your absurd notions reflect your failure to deal with reality. Most states offer concealed carry permits - not one of them considers it anything other than a right to self defense. Take a class - educate yourself, or continue to argue for your current position.
So you're proud of registering yourself but opposed to registering guns? A silly stance but since I never mentioned CWP it is not relevant. I am discussing weapons designed to kill lots of people very quickly.
I would not. It is too bad the same reasoning does not apply to people who insist on owning killing machines because it's "cool." If you feel you need a weapon. A handgun, a rifle, a shotgun for personal defense in your home I am on your side. If you feel you need to carry a concealed weapon and are willing to undergo proper training I am on your side. If you feel you need a weapon capable of killing 50 people in 30 seconds and you need that weapon to take on the government then you are a loon and I oppose loonery in all its forms.
Once again. I am speaking about a particular class of weapons. In you hypothesis I do not need a weapon with a 100 round magazine. I only need such a weapon to kill lots of people. And I was trained on the use of both handguns and rifles in the military. And yes. If I ever pick one up again it will be with the specific intent to kill. Not to play. Not to threaten. To kill. to do otherwise is silly and childish.
YOU bought up why people were fighting. Nothing in the declaration speaks to gun ownership so, you're either ignorant of the content of the Declaration or you're just parroting NRA scare lines. AND The 2nd is specifically about militias and the need to defend the country. Not about hunting, Not about criminals. Defense of the nation. As I said. I do not object to ownership of these weapons in relation to membership in a well regulated militia and the duties that implies. Daddy training? Please. Look at the clowns on this board.
You need to look up Florida's SYG law. If you "feel" threatened you have free license to kill. That's the NRA position. If you are properly trained and licensed I do not object to concealed carry. I don't want you carrying in my kid's school. I don't want you carrying on an airplane. I don't want you carrying where they store chemicals and high explosives.
Only well regulated militias of the Individual people who keep and bear Arms are necessary to the security of a free State.
Everyone can read what you said so don't try to weasel out. You're out of gas, constantly reaching into the abyss for justification that doesn't exist in the real world. That or you have a socialist mindset with an accompanying agenda.
Carrying a concealed weapon has never been considered a fundamental right. A state has always possessed the power to regulate how arms are borne including the carry of a concealed weapon. If I desire to carry a concealed weapon I'll accept the rules and regulations of the state I intend to carry a concealed weapon. I am neither proud or happy or mad or ashamed to abide by those laws. I do oppose any gun / gun owner registration scheme. A primary purpose of the right to arms is make actionable the original right to rescind our consent to be governed. I think that right is better preserved if the government knows very, very little about who owns guns and what they own. Are you serious? You said: I only quoted the first sentence in my reply because I assumed you would maintain continuity in your argument. I guess I gave you too much credit in the intellectual integrity department. You made the comparison between "justified self defense shootings" (by who else but those legally carrying or those in their home or place of business with a legally owned firearm?) and the crimes of murder, attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. I replied with a statement to your "carry permit not a license to kill" and stats that show you are focusing your attention on the wrong segment of the population: Of course you refuse to address any point I make because you can't. You can't do anything but divert and misdirect and misrepresent what you have said. Do you realize that rifles, all rifles, represent under 4% of gun murders (average, 2007-2011 - FBI)? A hundred million are out there and rifles were responsible for 353 murders in 2011 . . .
Do you realize I'm not talking about all rifles or any specific rifle? I am speaking about any gun that can be configured to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading. This would not only include military styled semi-automatic rifles but high capacity magazines that can be to handguns as well. Do you realize that 60% of the US population happens to live in the 50 largest metro areas? And last but not least. Allow me to re-quote myself without failing to highlight the most important point. "Despite the efforts of the NRA a carry permit is not a license to kill and you are not the arbiter of whether your actions are justified." SYG laws, all pushed and supported by the NRA are specifically designed to relieve gun owners, particularly CWP holders of the responsibility for how they use their weapons. And, my point is true. For every justified self defense shooting there are dozens of shootings that are not.
The Supreme Court said long, long ago and has re-re-reaffirmed ever since, that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." So, I don't understand why you think how you read the 2nd Amendment and the conditions and qualifications you invent from words that the right doesn't depend on, in opposition to SCOTUS, has any importance. I already know how this will go, but can you explain your justification? Doesn't matter anyway because I am very happy (and proud, thanks for asking) to tell you that you are completely wrong and inconsequential in any discussion of the right to arms or the 2nd Amendment. I suspect you recognize this, the statements you make only demonstrate profound frustration with yourself, thus the vitriolic projection. Nobody who is truly concerned about his fellow man could be so hateful and prejudiced. How about respecting other people and try being happy!
Is this the part of ethe decision to which you are referring... "The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.
The Militia of the United States cannot have any problem becoming well regulated; it may merely be a leadership "failure" among the several States of our Union.
I recognize some of those words but you have jumbled and removed words so I am not going to make a definitive statement that what you posted above is from the case I quoted. Yes, it was true then that the 2nd Amendment was a limit only on the federal government. That changed finally in 2010. The bolded part begins by just stating a universally accepted principle of out nation -- those citizens (just plain private citizens) capable of bearing arms are the general, reserve militia . . . Yeah, so what? Note, the court doesn't say that they are talking about those enrolled for they would be members of the select, active militia. You leave out "states" which shows a mingled dependence that the two governments have on the citizen; both the federal and state governments rely on the same citizens for security so neither government can act against the citizen's arms because that would deprive the other government of their rightful resource of an armed citizenry. You also removed words that you obviously don't understand but that doesn't mean they aren't important. Powers that "reside in the prerogative" are important . . . Here's why: The Constitution's fundamental principles and the Constitution's promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government creates powers beyond those expressly stated in the "general powers". Those powers allow the federal governemnt to enforce those fundamental principles and move against a state acting in an un-republican fashion . . . You know, something like disarming the citizens . . . Duhhhh! It never ends well for them when anti-gunner's bring up Cruikshank and Presser because the principles those cases discuss have been scrubbed from your consciousness. Tying to explain the Constitution and rights theory to a leftist anti-gunner is like trying to explain a milkshake to a primitive tribe deep in the jungle of Papua New Guinea. Howsabout you go back and post what you think supports you but without chopping and dicing and throwing some of it away?
Supreme Court justices are not chosen for their expertise as much as they are chosen for their politics. If you research back you will find that the worst Second Amendment decisions have come at the hands of anti-gun justices. Currently there are 4 anti-second amendment justices and two that can go either way. Under Obama you can be assured of not only anti-gun justices but also more socialist justices to add to the two already there. In 2008 Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Justice Scalia also held that the Second Amendment simply “codified a pre-existing right,” indicated by the words “shall not be infringed,” implying the right already existed. The Supreme Court’s rejection of Chicago’s handgun ban in McDonald v. City of Chicago also noted that; "Citizens must be permitted to use handguns for self-defense: Treaties Do Not Supersede The Second Amendment"! In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
dadoalex, I'll see what I can find on the Florida "SYG" law. I'm sure that what I "feel" is subject to judicial review. Don't you think? Yep I'm pretty sure! As one of MILLIONS of NRA members I can assure you that is NOT the NRA's position! NO WAY! That is what you think the NRA's position is... and you are sorely mistaken. As far as your objections to where I may carry my legally owned firearm... I'm sure you can see how well "gun free" school zones is working. A guaranteed "victim rich" environment wouldn't you say? I know when I was a kid we often took guns to school - to make a holster or sling in leathercraft, or during hunting season. No one ever thought of shooting up the school. It's not the gun. I can appreciate your fears about where people carry guns - but you are wrong. "Gun free zones" = victim rich zone, "explosive decompression" on an airplane caused by a bullet hole - that is a myth. Your fear about chemicals or high explosive - why are you in an area with chemicals and high explosives anyway - a gun in the area should be the LAST of your worries!
I believe it is more true, that Prohibition is not a States' right under our Constitutional form of government without that power being expressly delegated to our legislators.
