PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     The Second Amendment

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"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."

If the second amendment is to be considered out dated, all of the first ten amendment are out dated. Including the first one, the one that gives me the privilege of posting this article. They would all no longer be relevant. You can not exclude some but include others as it suites you.

(Edited by SilverStar 1/6/2007 at 11:23 PM).


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:22 PM on January 6, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"A well regulated Militia..."  

Isn't regulation what we are discussing?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:48 PM on January 7, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, we are discussing the right of the individual to protect themselves from nut jobs that want to kill, rape, pillage, and destroy! You can not use reason on a nut job.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:17 PM on January 7, 2007 | IP
thewolf

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

fortunately since the recent DC court ruling has happened the right to own shall not be infringed...has now been referred to as a .... person or an individuals right... over the word people.

militias are a totally different meaning in this context....
emeyers....what is your interpretation of the militia anyway?

the second amendment is not just about hunting...it has a variety of purposes and it has allowed people to defend themselves, protect their homes and families, fend off criminals, and will be used if needed to fend off and stop any potential invasion or poetntial tyranical goverment such as what is begining to happen here now...

Once you surrender that right...you might as well stick your cowardly head in the dark place and suffocate... (not you specifically).

no person in this land should ever surrender that right for without it as the strength...all other amendments fail and fall...



-------
my guns have killed no one...so they must be broken...

Never surrender your right to own to a moron in DC
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 10:05 AM on March 23, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm, emeyers isn't here, but I'll try and answer it for him since I think we tend to think the same...

militia - a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

don't forget the part about "well regulated" - to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:01 PM on March 23, 2007 | IP
thewolf

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:01 PM on March 23, 2007 :
Hmmm, emeyers isn't here, but I'll try and answer it for him since I think we tend to think the same...

militia - a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

don't forget the part about "well regulated" - to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.





Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Presser v State of Illinois [116 U.S. 252 (1886)]

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms
constituted the reserved military force or reserve militia of the
United States as well as of the States, and in view of this
prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general
powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision
in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and
bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful
resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people
from performing their duty to the General Government."  [id at 265]

US v Miller [307 U.S. 174 (1939)]

"The signification attributed to the term "militia" appears from
the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the
colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators.
These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. . .
And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the
kind in common use at the time." [id at 179]

As I usually do, I have reproduced the sections in a format
as closely approximating the original law books as possible.
Content, including punctuation, capitalization, line and word
breaks is exact.  I have not included the revision history or
other notes.  These sections are referred to as 10 USC 311,
10 USC 312, and 32 USC 313.
United States Code (USC)

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

 (a) The militia of the United States consists
of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age
and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have
made a declaration of intention to become, citi-
zens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are commissioned of-
ficers of the National Guard.
 (b) The classes of the militia are--
   (1) the organized militia, which consists of
 the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
 and
   (2) the unorganized militia, which consists
 of the members of the militia who are not
 members of the National Guard or the Naval
 Militia

Section 312. Militia duty: exemptions

 (a) The following persons are exempt from
militia duty:
   (1) The Vice President.
   (2) The judicial and executive officers of
 the United States, the several States and Ter-
 ritories, Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone.
   (3) Members of the armed forces, except
 members who are not on active duty.
   (4) Customhouse clerks.
   (5) Persons employed by the United States
 in the transmission of mail.
   (6) Workers employed in armories, arse-
 nals, and naval shipyards of the United
 States.
   (7) Pilots on navigable waters.
   (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen
 of, or a merchant in, the United States.

 (b) A person who claims exemption because
of religious belief is exempt from militia duty
in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious
holding of that belief is established under such
regulations as the President may prescribe.
However, such a person is not exempt from mi-
litia duty that the President determines to be
noncombatant.

TITLE 32--NATIONAL GUARD

Section 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

 (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in
the National Guard, a person must be at least
17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years
of age and a former member of the Regular
Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or
Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reen-
listment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
 (b) To be eligible for appointment as an offi-
cer of the National Guard, a person must--
   (1) be a citizen of the United States; and
   (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.


There are the definitions now determine which is the militia under legal law... you are only partly right.


-------
my guns have killed no one...so they must be broken...

Never surrender your right to own to a moron in DC
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 10:46 PM on March 23, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, taking into account the entire phrase "well regulated militia" the definition I gave is the only logical conclusion.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:52 PM on March 23, 2007 | IP
thewolf

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

look at the rest of the article and information and learn what the differences are.... you aren't american are you? I am assuming that..


-------
my guns have killed no one...so they must be broken...

Never surrender your right to own to a moron in DC
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 10:59 PM on March 23, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again... read the phrase "well regulated militia" in the very amendment that you are using to "prove" your point and explain to me how that can possibly relate to ALL people 17 to 45....

P.S. Yes, I'm an American (if you were from here, you'd realized the word is capitalized) and a veteran.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:02 PM on March 23, 2007 | IP
thewolf

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am retired army and a combat vet and you are really pathetic in you interp of what the law and definitions say... so with out anything to debate here all I am doing is boosting your post count...

im done


-------
my guns have killed no one...so they must be broken...

Never surrender your right to own to a moron in DC
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:21 PM on March 24, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not interpreting the law.  The law says "well regulated militia".  It says exactly what it means.  No interpretation needed.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:45 PM on March 24, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The first part of the amendment, part you like so much refurse to the government's right to maintain a well regulated millitia. now try to get past the first part and look at the second part. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:12 PM on March 28, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not following your sentence... is that supposed to be "refuse"?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:18 PM on March 28, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 09:45 AM on March 24, 2007 :
I'm not interpreting the law.  The law says "well regulated militia".  It says exactly what it means.  No interpretation needed.

Why do you question a 200 year old common sense law for people to own any gun they choose.


 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 8:26 PM on March 28, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who is questioning it?  I take it at its face value.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:06 PM on March 28, 2007 | IP
MisplacedTexan

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Second Amendment does mention "A well-regulated milita..." but the presence of this phrase does not eliminate the following, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  You cannot logically argue that the phrase "the people" in the Second Amendment means something different from "the right of the people to peacably assemble..." and other uses of the phrase "the people."  The founding fathers were intelligent men.  If they meant for the amendment to protect a states right to maintain a militia, why wouldn't they say "The states have a right to a militia."  Every amendment in the bill of rights applies to individuals, including the second.  Only the Tenth mentions the rights of "the states" as well as "the people."  Clearly the phrases "the states" and "the people" do not carry the same meaning.  The people have rights (or freedoms, though I believe that the right to self defense is natural), and the states have powers.  The Second applies to "the right of the people."  After all, Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.” Patrick Henry said, “The great object is, that every man be armed.” Richard Henry Lee wrote, “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” Thomas Paine noted, “[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.”

In response to the idea that it applies only to a militia, the Prominent Federalist Tench Coxe asked, “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?. . . Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”  (Sword is of course metaphorical.)

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 3:59 PM on March 30, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First, I never said the presence of the phrase eliminated the second part.  I'm simply stating that the presence of the second part doesn't eliminate the phrase and that the phrase is quite self-explanatory.

Second, when did Congress vote to disarm the American population (felons, notwithstanding)?  I don't watch C-SPAN everyday, but I'm pretty sure I would've heard about that.

Lastly, if you wish to use Thomas Jefferson's quote exactly as you've stated it then every felon who is no longer in jail  MUST be given the right to purchase weapons again.

Ok, not lastly, I do applaud you on the use of the word "freedoms" verses "rights".  I think way too many people treat the freedoms afforded us by our goverment as their "God given rights" (although many probably don't believe in God) instead of the freedoms that they are.  I think if more people were paying attention to the "freedom" they'd have as citizens of other countries they'd actually get off their butts once in awhile in this country.  I'm tired of people sitting around sucking up welfare checks, complaining about things they didn't bother to get up and vote on, and crying about how we are treating ILLEGAL aliens (most Americans have absolutely NO problems with legal aliens, regardless of their race or ethnicity).

End side rant.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:44 AM on March 31, 2007 | IP
MisplacedTexan

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Amen to the side rant.

By definition, a felon is no longer a free man.  As he has infringed upon others rights/freedoms, he has given up his own.  I, and I think most other Americans, are not willing to let a convicted (much less an at large) felon legallly aquire a firearm.

The first phrase of the Second is simply an explanatory clause, while the second phrase is the enacting clause.  It does not grant Americans "the right to keep and bear arms" but it simply recongnizes that the right is natural, and this Amendment guarantees that the right/freedom "shall not be infringed."  

I am going to take the liberty of posting Patriot's Second Amendment Defense.

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. 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 a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'


As well as...

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:16 PM on March 31, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The right is not granted by the amendment

I guess that will keep people from refering to the Second Amendment when quoting their right to bear arms.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:31 PM on April 1, 2007 | IP
MisplacedTexan

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have clearly taken that quote out of context.  Nor did you provided a logical counterargument to my evidence.

The Second takes into account that the "right to keep and bear arms" is natural, not granted by a government, but humans are born into this right, and many's rights are taken from them.  The Second recognizes that the basic human right to own firearms "shall not be infringed."
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:26 PM on April 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't take it out of context.  That is the entire quote as you presented it.  If it is out of context, then you placed it that way.

IF the right to "bear arms" is natural, how can it apply to guns?  If it is natural, it has always existed, and guns are (historically) rather new in the scheme of things.  If it refers to our ability to keep and bear any weapon, how then can we limit it (i.e. I should have the right to keep a nuclear weapon, if this is a natural right)?  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:07 AM on April 3, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


what does nuclear weapons have to do with this?
The second amendment is so clear in what it meant and you still cant understand it.
why dont you leave it alone and go out and play a game or something.

(Edited by admin 4/3/2007 at 1:16 PM).
 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 1:12 PM on April 3, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The second amendment is so clear in what it meant and you still cant understand it.


I've been saying that since the beginning of this argument.  Why do you keep twisting it to mean what you want it to mean?  Read it VERBATIM.  That is EXACTLY what it means.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:51 AM on April 4, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Triple OG for life fool
 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 4:19 PM on April 5, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That was erudite of you.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:35 AM on April 6, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

can I call you a ignorant?
 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 1:28 PM on April 7, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You could, but you'd sound pretty stupid.

First, since ignorant starts with a vowel sound you'd have to use the word "an", not "a".

Second, you don't use "a" or "an" in front of an adjective.

Third, why would you be asking me "can"?  Perhaps you meant "may".


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:13 PM on April 7, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a guncontrol debate. So please stick to gun control.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:10 PM on April 10, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just answering a specific question that was posed to me.  Unlike some around here, I'm not afraid to answer questions.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:04 AM on April 11, 2007 | IP
tortoise1956

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To EMyers;

It was with great interest that I started to read your posts. I had hoped that you were actually willing to argue the meaning of the second amendment. However, it soon became clear that you were simply posting monotonous drivel in order to annoy others.

The second amendment is a recognition of the natural right of a free people to keep and bear arms, arms signifying weapons. It is not tied to militia membership. It is not a collective right, but rather an individual right, just like "the people" that are discussed in other amendments.

The recognition of this right predates the American colonies. We were simply the first nation to not only accept its existence, but work to protect it and other individual rights. that is the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

As for regulation, I will probably piss off some people when I say that in my opinion, the second amendment does not prevent reasonable regulation of gun ownership. The rub is in defining what is reasonable...It does however make it clear that the government does not have the authority under the constitution to prevent Americans from being able to own any weapons at all.

If you are truly interested in debating, feel free to answer. Be aware that if you just repeat the same inane responses as above, I will exercise my God-given right to free speech by ignoring you.


-------
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:45 PM on April 19, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) I'd answer if there was actually a question, which there wasn't.

2) excercise free SPEECH by not saying anything?  I think you may have watched Dead Poet's Society one too many times.  

3) I have never, once, argued for the banning of weapons.  I haven't even argued for the banning of handguns.  I've argued that I, for one, am not so scared of my own shadow that I feel the need to own one "for protection".  And I see absolutely no reason why a law abiding citizen would be scared to register their guns (conspiracy theorists notwithstanding).  I've argued that you can't take the bits and pieces of the 2nd amendment that you like (these can usually be noticed by people who quote it and then CAP the words that they like while ignoring the rest).  My position is more along the lines of nuclear disarmament.  At some point you just have way too many (never have met someone who could shoot 3 rifles at the same time).  And if some person thinks I'm a hook just because I don't have a gun in my house, they'll be sorely mistaken.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:14 AM on April 20, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.