"individuals had no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment"

[Nija]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021206/ap_on_re_us/assault_weapons_1



SAN FRANCISCO(AP) - A federal appeals court unanimously upheld California's ban on assault weapons Thursday, saying individuals had no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

"The historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) decision.



...

So individuals weren't intended to be able to protect themseleves under the 2nd amendement. Ok, thanks Judge. :rolleyes:

[TofuNinja]

I thought the Second Amendment allowed me to wear tank tops in public....:cool:

[apmiller]

Originally posted by TofuNinja
I thought the Second Amendment allowed me to wear tank tops in public....:cool:

Only if it isn't a concealed tank top...you can be loaded while wearing the tank top but you have to have your safety on at all times.

[Grimm]

What a load of crap. The 2nd Ammendment was specificaly intended so that US Citizens could not be deprived of the right to deffend themselves. The colonies were tired of being oppressed by an overbearing government. They did not want their decendants to have to suffer the same later on. So they wanted us armed. No government is able to dominate a heavily armed populace. Ask yourself, why does our government want us unarmed? Firearms may be used in crimes, but those crimes would be commited anyway. There is no justifiable reason to take our arms away other than to dominate us. Our govenment is supposed to obey us... why are we cowtowing to them instead?

[Butch]

The second amendment was not meant for individuals to defend themselves as individuals. It was meant to allow individuals to help defend their country as a part of a militia. Without the individuals, there can be no country. However, now we have a professional military that can manage the protection of the country.

[Speedfreak]

Who needs the right to bear arms? That is what the police is for. Everyone knows that they can get to your house faster then a killer in your house can get to your bedroom.

[Butch]

Originally posted by Speedfreak
Who needs the right to bear arms? That is what the police is for. Everyone knows that they can get to your house faster then a killer in your house can get to your bedroom.

Yeah yeah . . . no need for the sarcasm tags . . . point is, the second amendment was meant to the ensure the continuity of the country, not the continuity of every individual within the country. If one person dies, because someone breaks into their home, the country continues. Sorry if you think that's harsh, but it's reality.

Either way, what % of gun owners actually have to use their weapons for the purpose of self-defense? Just as everyone says it's a fantasy to think we could have a country with NO guns . . . none in the hands of criminals and none in the hands of law abiding citizens, it's an equal fantasy to think everyone wants their guns because they feel they will actually need to use them for self-defense. They want guns for whatever small feeling of self-empowerment they derive from holding something that can kill most living things on the planet.

The second amendment has been interpreted the wrong way for a long time . . . and just as with anything else, momentum is tough to turn . . . but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be turned.

[jujubees]

Originally posted by TofuNinja
I thought the Second Amendment allowed me to wear tank tops in public....:cool: Cute! :heh:

[Cantacuzene]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there Butch. The 2nd amendment does indeed allow the citizens to form militias AS WELL AS own firearms. Also, you cit ethe existence of a professional army as a reason why we dont need militias. News flash: professional armies are controlled by the federal government and militias are mobilized by each state. There is a big difference.

The founding fathers did not intend for us to have a standing professional army, as they saw a standing professional army as the number one threat to our personal freedom.

Someone said the militia was intended to protect us from foreign foes, and that is true, BUT, it was also made to protect us from the federal government. The fact that the militia was a state run organization was so that the federal government couldnt infringe upon the states.

However, many states no longer run a serious militias thus increasing the necesity of individual americans to own firearms. I personally do not trust the government. If you do thats fine, but don't play innocent when the books start burning and a minority group is rounded up and sent to death camps.

[sbp]

Hey its the loony 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/pics/bleh.gif


Originally posted by Butch
Yeah yeah . . . no need for the sarcasm tags . . . point is, the second amendment was meant to the ensure the continuity of the country, not the continuity of every individual within the country. If one person dies, because someone breaks into their home, the country continues. Sorry if you think that's harsh, but it's reality.

Either way, what % of gun owners actually have to use their weapons for the purpose of self-defense? Just as everyone says it's a fantasy to think we could have a country with NO guns . . . none in the hands of criminals and none in the hands of law abiding citizens, it's an equal fantasy to think everyone wants their guns because they feel they will actually need to use them for self-defense. They want guns for whatever small feeling of self-empowerment they derive from holding something that can kill most living things on the planet.As you know amigo, guns aren't just for self-defense. Guns can be used for *gasp* hunting, sport and be collected.


The second amendment has been interpreted the wrong way for a long time . . . and just as with anything else, momentum is tough to turn . . . but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be turned. Indeed it has and this so-called court has its head up its rear end. Wonder if folks would go along with the interpretation that the first and other amendments are a collective not individual right.

If any other amendment had been chipped away like the 2nd amendment has, there would be an uproar.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by sbp
If any other amendment had been chipped away like the 2nd amendment has, there would be an uproar.

::cough::patriot act::cough::

[Leon]

I fart in Judge Stephen Reinhardt's general direction.

[CynJon]

Originally posted by Leon
I fart in Judge Stephen Reinhardt's general direction.

Then I shall taunt him a second time-a...

[bachviet]

Bunch of Democrats! Go Republicans and I want to get the MP5 but it's illegal now!

[i6s1]

Originally posted by Butch
The second amendment was not meant for individuals to defend themselves as individuals. It was meant to allow individuals to help defend their country as a part of a militia. Without the individuals, there can be no country. However, now we have a professional military that can manage the protection of the country.

Throughout the constution, "Rights" are only given to individuals, "Powers" are given to the governments. Any part that uses the word Rights applies to people.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by bachviet
Bunch of Democrats! Go Republicans and I want to get the MP5 but it's illegal now!

I'm a democrat and I like guns more than you do. So please change your assumptions.

As far as getting an mp5, why bring a knife to a gun fight? Youldnt you be happier with an mp7 (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/start.html?pg=6) ?

[bachviet]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I'm a democrat and I like guns more than you do. So please change your assumptions.

As far as getting an mp5, why bring a knife to a gun fight? Youldnt you be happier with an mp7 (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/start.html?pg=6) ?
I could barely afford the MP5 so MP7 is out of the picture! I'm happy with either the MP5 or the new military M4 (shorter version of M16A2 with collapseable buttstock and shorter nozzle).

[Grimm]

Cantacuzene and I agree on this. There is very little we do agree on. This is probably about the 4th time in 1000 posts.

The second amendment has the same intent as the first. To protect us from falling under an oppressive regime.

The gulability of the American people can only be attributed to lazyness. The eagerness that they have for swallowing the pap fed to them by the press and government sickens me. Any argument that uses "for the safety of our childern" as the primary reason should be immediately disregarded. The only way to realy keep our children safe is to keep them free.

The United States does not have some magical power protecting it from falling into a totalitarian regime. Only eternal vigilance protects us. We don't need to be watching the terrorists, they really can do very little damage. We need to keep a close eye on our government and stop letting them run unchecked. Anyone who thinks what happened in Germany in the 1930's can't happen here is deluding themselves. No one though it could happen in Germany either.

The simple truth is, we aren't watching our government, and the people running it are not being held accountable for their actions.

[CynJon]

Originally posted by Grimm
Anyone who thinks what happened in Germany in the 1930's can't happen here is deluding themselves. No one though it could happen in Germany either.

or Great Britain.


or Australia.


They both stood idly by while their governments slowly stripped away the rights of the gun owners. It all starts with small victories like the Brady Bill, waiting periods, "background checks" :rolleyes: , etc. We have to keep these idiots out of office. I don't agree with everything the NRA does, but American gun owners need to support SOME organization that is working to protect our second amendment rights. It's gun owners with their heads stuck in the sand that are helping the cause of the liberal left (not to include gun-totin' Canta...:D )

[johnnymk]

:stupid:

[Capricornholio]

Originally posted by Grimm
Cantacuzene and I agree on this. There is very little we do agree on. This is probably about the 4th time in 1000 posts.

The second amendment has the same intent as the first. To protect us from falling under an oppressive regime.

The gulability of the American people can only be attributed to lazyness. The eagerness that they have for swallowing the pap fed to them by the press and government sickens me. Any argument that uses "for the safety of our childern" as the primary reason should be immediately disregarded. The only way to realy keep our children safe is to keep them free.

The United States does not have some magical power protecting it from falling into a totalitarian regime. Only eternal vigilance protects us. We don't need to be watching the terrorists, they really can do very little damage. We need to keep a close eye on our government and stop letting them run unchecked. Anyone who thinks what happened in Germany in the 1930's can't happen here is deluding themselves. No one though it could happen in Germany either.

The simple truth is, we aren't watching our government, and the people running it are not being held accountable for their actions.

Very well done Grimm...here, here! :cheers:

PS...To quote George Carlin...."F*** the kids!"

[Cantacuzene]

As far as I see it, it isnt the liberal left who will bring to bear the totalitarian regime. They maymake new gun laws, but I don't think its because they want to have a dictator. I think they are largely innocent and naively think with more gun laws crime will go down. Its not true of course, but they think so. I don't think they are trying to intentionally hurt the american people but they are doing what they think is best.

A totalitarian regime will take over based on the ambition of one man. Bush doesn't have the intelligence or personal carisma or ambition to become a dictator, but the laws his administration is passing is paving the road nice and smooth for the man who does.

Like Grimm said, there is nothing magical that protects the united states from a dictatorship. Internal checks and balances arent good enough when all 3 branches want the same thing. The ability of the people to resist the government, by force if necesary is the last line of defense of our rights.

One thing I'd like to ask of my rightwingers that agree with me on this thread is that they look at threads where they dont seem to agree with me such as the Patriot Act and the rights of prisoners and things like that. Our right to carry a gun is involiate, but it is no more important than trial by jury, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment or freedom from illegal searches and seizures.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
One thing I'd like to ask of my rightwingers that agree with me on this thread is that they look at threads where they dont seem to agree with me such as the Patriot Act and the rights of prisoners and things like that. Our right to carry a gun is involiate, but it is no more important than trial by jury, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment or freedom from illegal searches and seizures.

Like I said earlier, we don't agree on most things.

The reason Amendments 1 and 2 are the first and second things listed there is because they are the most important. The single most important thing is freedom of speech. A close second is the right to have an armed populace. Without the 2nd, we can not have the first. And vice versa. Not that the other issues are not important, they are, it's just that they are not as fundimental. Without the first two amendments all others are useless. There is no way to be aware of breaches in rights nor do anything about it.

Cantacuzene, as to you protestations about the innocence of the "Liberal" party, I am not buying it. They are just as aware of the real issues as you and I, probably even more so. They are willing to sacrifice our freedoms for more political and financial power. Any member of either major political party that is not willing to "play the game" is quickly shuffled off the side and falls into obscurity.

[Capricornholio]

The reason Amendments 1 and 2 are the first and second things listed there is because they are the most important. The single most important thing is freedom of speech. A close second is the right to have an armed populace. Without the 2nd, we can not have the first. And vice versa.Not that the other issues are not important, they are, it's just that they are not as fundimental. Without the first two amendments all others are useless. There is no way to be aware of breaches in rights nor do anything about it.


That never even occured to me like that, but damn it that makes perfect sense. I'm a firm believer in our rights and it's like our forefathers were saying "Folks, written here are your rights. If your government infringes, we reserve the right for you and your countrymen to grab your musketts in order to protect them. It's the final check to all balances."

Great opinions voiced by everyone in this thread. :)

[Cantacuzene]

No, all the rights are equal. Inalienable is inalienable. There is no such thing as "more inalienable."

[Grimm]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
No, all the rights are equal. Inalienable is inalienable. There is no such thing as "more inalienable."

I think you missed my point. I was discussing the practical necessity for the rights. Without free speech and a right to keep arms there are no other rights. There is only slavery to a tyrany.

[yippiekiyeh]

This second amendment is pretty straight forward in its statement:

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.

Infringe \In*fringe"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Infringed; p. pr. &
vb. n. Infringing.] [L. infringere; pref. in- in + frangere
to break. See Fraction, and cf. Infract .]
1. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill
or obey; as, to infringe a law or contract..

So any laws that infringe on the second amendment are basically wrong and unconstitutional, and we have many, many laws go against the second amendment.

[Cantacuzene]

I think everyone would agree that some gun laws are necesary. You cant just sell guns to every 18 year old over the counter at your local convience store. The question is where does the line get drawn.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I think everyone would agree that some gun laws are necesary. You cant just sell guns to every 18 year old over the counter at your local convience store. The question is where does the line get drawn.
How about making your own Springfield rifle in High School metal shop being a graduation requirement?