some think that gun laws are unconstitutional
- Thread starter jmc
- Start date
Quote:
I'm English, not American. I have been expressing my personal views about gun control. Posters have focused, inevitably on a mainly American forum I guess, on the continuing debate in the US. I have been contributing my honest opinions and have no axe to grind for or against the US.
I don't think that I've expressed an extreme view or suggested that all guns be banned. However, I think that loose gun laws are as much a threat to law abiding citizens as they are a protection. I had hoped that views from other countries might be welcome.
They're welcome Thai. Most Americans realize there are other countries out there. People are just real sensitive about their guns here. The 2nd amendment is open to interpretation like everything in the Constitution. People are afraid it might be interpreted in a way they don't agree with. So the debate continues.
No. It. Is. Not. How many times do I have to explain this?! The Constitution is a strict, limiting document, as agreed UNANIMOUSLY by our Founders.
The Second Amendment is plain as daylight. Whatever the reasoning behind it, it very clearly says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The well-regulated militia part is irrelevant to this debate, merely being part of the reasoning behind it. It says the right shall not be infringed, so it MUST NOT BE INFRINGED! No "interpretation" involved. It's called "original intent," and it really ain't hard to figure that out. Some quick Googling will get you dozens of quotes.
If you MUST have an explanation for the reference to the militia, ask James Madison and Patrick Henry, or heck, most of the other Founders! The militia is, as explained VERY clearly by these great men, is the whole people. Anyone capable of bearing arms is the militia.
I'm English, not American. I have been expressing my personal views about gun control. Posters have focused, inevitably on a mainly American forum I guess, on the continuing debate in the US. I have been contributing my honest opinions and have no axe to grind for or against the US.
I don't think that I've expressed an extreme view or suggested that all guns be banned. However, I think that loose gun laws are as much a threat to law abiding citizens as they are a protection. I had hoped that views from other countries might be welcome.
They're welcome Thai. Most Americans realize there are other countries out there. People are just real sensitive about their guns here. The 2nd amendment is open to interpretation like everything in the Constitution. People are afraid it might be interpreted in a way they don't agree with. So the debate continues.
No. It. Is. Not. How many times do I have to explain this?! The Constitution is a strict, limiting document, as agreed UNANIMOUSLY by our Founders.
The Second Amendment is plain as daylight. Whatever the reasoning behind it, it very clearly says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The well-regulated militia part is irrelevant to this debate, merely being part of the reasoning behind it. It says the right shall not be infringed, so it MUST NOT BE INFRINGED! No "interpretation" involved. It's called "original intent," and it really ain't hard to figure that out. Some quick Googling will get you dozens of quotes.
If you MUST have an explanation for the reference to the militia, ask James Madison and Patrick Henry, or heck, most of the other Founders! The militia is, as explained VERY clearly by these great men, is the whole people. Anyone capable of bearing arms is the militia.
The 2nd amendment is open to interpretation like everything in the Constitution
It needs no "interpretation"
It's very plain English
It needs no "interpretation"
It's very plain English
There are many legal scholars who will strongly disagree that the language is clear, or that it is not open to interpretation. Yes, there are others that do agree, but m point is that your opinion does not carry legal weight. The mention of a militia, or even a statemednt of reasoning is very unique among the amendments. If you are a strict constitutionalist, you stand for the written words alone, not other things one or more of the founding fathers may have said or written. Do you really think the constitution calls for a new revolution every 20 or so years? Well, Jefferson wrote that he thought it would be a good idea. The founding fathers did not agree with each other on every matter, and some were at extreme odds about a number of issues.
Quote:
It needs no "interpretation"
It's very plain English
If it was very plain there would be no need for a Supreme Court. If I remember correctly that was something the founders threw in. Yes it is very clear when it is being interpreted the way you want it to be. When a decision comes down that disagrees with what you think then all the sudden the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench.
In my opinion you're wrong.
It needs no "interpretation"
It's very plain English
If it was very plain there would be no need for a Supreme Court. If I remember correctly that was something the founders threw in. Yes it is very clear when it is being interpreted the way you want it to be. When a decision comes down that disagrees with what you think then all the sudden the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench.
In my opinion you're wrong.
Quote:
Yes, but if you do any remote amount of study into the issue, you also realize that original intent carries legal weight as well. It was unanimous that the Second Amendment was meant to arm the general population. It is true that the Founders didn't agree on every issue, but they DID agree on the meaning of the Constitution. It is really not that difficult to check out the Federalist Papers.
Something tells me that the interpretations of James Madison (father of the Constitution) carry greater weight than some black-robed Supreme Court deity who thinks that his/her word is law.
There used to be a time when people generally ignored the Court. What was it that Jackson said? "He has issued his opinion; now let him enforce it."
By the way, we Constitutionalists rely on the written words and original intent. You people, on the other hand, insist on doing what Jefferson warned against and making it "a blank paper."
Yes, but if you do any remote amount of study into the issue, you also realize that original intent carries legal weight as well. It was unanimous that the Second Amendment was meant to arm the general population. It is true that the Founders didn't agree on every issue, but they DID agree on the meaning of the Constitution. It is really not that difficult to check out the Federalist Papers.
By the way, we Constitutionalists rely on the written words and original intent. You people, on the other hand, insist on doing what Jefferson warned against and making it "a blank paper."
Quote:
It needs no "interpretation"
It's very plain English
If it was very plain there would be no need for a Supreme Court. If I remember correctly that was something the founders threw in. Yes it is very clear when it is being interpreted the way you want it to be. When a decision comes down that disagrees with what you think then all the sudden the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench.
In my opinion you're wrong.
And in reality - not opinion - you're wrong. Paraphrasing one of the Founders, to separate the Constitution from its historical context is to render it worthless. The interpretation of the Constitution was originally to be left mainly to the States, not the almighty Supreme Court Injustices - note the extensive use of the "Principles of '98." Assuming, of course, you know what those are. If not, look up the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, then study the relevant history, particularly the use of the Principles by Northern States against slavery.
It needs no "interpretation"
It's very plain English
If it was very plain there would be no need for a Supreme Court. If I remember correctly that was something the founders threw in. Yes it is very clear when it is being interpreted the way you want it to be. When a decision comes down that disagrees with what you think then all the sudden the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench.
In my opinion you're wrong.
And in reality - not opinion - you're wrong. Paraphrasing one of the Founders, to separate the Constitution from its historical context is to render it worthless. The interpretation of the Constitution was originally to be left mainly to the States, not the almighty Supreme Court Injustices - note the extensive use of the "Principles of '98." Assuming, of course, you know what those are. If not, look up the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, then study the relevant history, particularly the use of the Principles by Northern States against slavery.
Also, when you do decide to go buy a gun, find one the feels comfortable in your hand. Everyone's hands are different; some bigger and some smaller. See how hard it is to pull the trigger on several empty (no ammo) in them. If it is a gun that you have to rack, will you have enough strength to rack it? Do not buy a gun just because someone else happens to favor that certain style. Also read up on the ones that you do like online to learn more about them. After purchasing a gun, get out there and practice at a gun range, as you will need to get used to how that gun fires. If the need were ever to arise in a situation that you might need to use it as a defense someday, you wouldn't want them to be able to say that you couldn't hit the broad side of a red barn!
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Chick with deformed wings. Need support please.
- Started by Hannah McQuillan
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
Over researched and made myself anxious about coccidiosis- Started by Echelontheory101
- Replies: 67
-
-
-
-
