Goobieman

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

Open the Debate Politics Forums - Powered by vBulletin home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Click Search to look for information on the Internet.



HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Explorer

__________________
Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.
- Hillary Clinton
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/14843.html

shuamort

The thought process behind the 2nd amendment was to make sure that the government was afraid of its citizens and not the other way around. England had attempted to disarm the colonies to keep it under check. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure that the government never gained so much control over the citizens that it stopped working in their best interests.

Given that, the 2nd amendment is written so the citizens can have enough arms to defend themselves against their government.

So, if you're going to take a strict constitutional review of the 2nd amendment, it should be none.

Now, for the sake of argument, you take the first amendment which states that congress can't abridge the freedom of speech. Altruistic in nature, however, we've found it should be limited as the old yarn about "crying fire in a crowded theater" has shown. The intent of the 1st amendment didn't take these incidents into consideration, but the incidents have shown flaws in the bill of rights.

My answer is that strictly reading the 2nd Amendment, the answer would be none, using judgment and wisdom build up with previous cases, the answer would be limiting gun ownership a bit to exclude things like nuclear arms and the like.

Goobieman

The issue is what -firearms- are protected, as was put forth in the OP.
This was on purpose, to exclude unnecessary and meaningless dicussion regarding the individual posession of nuclear weapons.

niftydrifty

The "search" function is really cool.

__________________

Goobieman

So, were you going to add a response to the poll, or...?

shuamort

And I answered the OP, but I felt it necessary to include an addendum to my answer to make sure it was thorough. Questions like these are far from black and white and failure to elaborate can cause confusion.

niftydrifty

I already did.

shuamort

That thread started in 2005 and its last post was over a year ago. I see the reason and need for a new thread in light of the reason SCOTUS decision on the matter.

Lachean

I don't see how the fact that private businesses can restrict your behavior on their premises constitutes a "flaw in the bill of rights."

The first Amendment means that the government cannot excise words out of your vocabulary, but a business owner certainly can if you wish to remain on the premises and conduct business.

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

Goobieman

I don't see your choices reflected in the poll attached to the OP...?