I am pro-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.
I am pro-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.
I am anti-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.
I am anti-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.
I cannot see that this is nothing more than a tax on bullets. It is unconstitutional to have a tax specifically on books. It would therefore follow that it would be unconstitutional to have a tax on bullets. Meaning, if the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are considered equal to one another, then any restriction that could be placed on one an equal restriction could be placed on another. Thus you want to limit guns or its ammo you are also advocating a restriction to the First Amendment's Rights or free exercise of religion, the right of free speech or the Press, and the ability for us to petition the government for Grievances.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFcVwDw4YLE"]YouTube - Gun control or Bullet Control - Chris Rock[/ame]
"A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"
While I don't favor gun control, just like much of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is subject to interpretation and is certainly not as "crystal clear" as you would claim.
Also, the types of weapons available today could not have been contemplated in any shape/form by the original writers of the Constitution so the types of "arms" they referred to is also subject to interpretation.
"A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"
Sorry but I had to post this.
Edit: Dammit Disney beat me to it.
Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.
To argue otherwise would be at odds with how an English sentence is constructed.
The right is to the people. The right is that of keeping and bearing arms. The right is not to be infringed at all.
As for the meaning of "arms"--it means weapons, be they swords, or tactical nukes, or anything in between.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
"...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Mmmmmm, I know whose side I'm on...
Reverend_Hellh0und posted this in another thread about 2nd amendment rights, it pretty much states the obvious about the 2nd amendment.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related"]YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment[/ame]
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed seems pretty crystal clear to me.While I don't favor gun control, just like much of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is subject to interpretation and is certainly not as "crystal clear" as you would claim.
So buy that logic since they didn't have porn magazines, tv, radio and computers athe government can regulate what you say one those since the founding forefathers couldn't have contemplated those things?Also, the types of weapons available today could not have been contemplated in any shape/form by the original writers of the Constitution so the types of "arms" they referred to is also subject to interpretation.
Last edited by jamesrage; 04-14-09 at 10:22 PM.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius