Municipalities can`t ban people from owning handguns, court rules - Page 3

tlarkin · 01-24-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jashoffa

The real cracks in the system is more on the Mental health side. We all know there is some debate over that but at the criminal level it would be very difficult for a convicted criminal with feloney convictions to walk into a store and purchase a gun. Of course it doesn't fix private sales problems but then nothing will.

Thanks for sharing. Mental health will always be a huge issue. Working IT for living I am very familiar with HIPPA, which basically comes down to confidential medical information. I can't tell you how many doctors violate this, and its a serious violation. If you have a hard drive fail, it is your responsibility to physically destroy it, yes smash it with a hammer, drill the platter, burn it with thermite, whatever, it is your responsibility to destroy any failed drives. That way no data can be extracted from them. You know how many doctor's and people in the medical field actually know what a hard drive is, let alone what it looks like? Not as many as you would think.

Also, I am all for personal privacy. So, I think its a good thing they can't check our medical history when owning a gun.

Also, to touch up on what Troy said to me earlier about people who may at one point done something wrong but paid their dues and have become "reabilitated" should they still be flagged in the system as a possible danger?

I noticed some odd questions on the form I filled out, like if I ever used drugs ever, and if I ever denounced my citizenship. I just found those questions odd. How would me ever doing drugs a few times in my life affect anything I do, or accurately describe what type of person I am? Do they count alcohol and tobacco as well, because those are drugs, along with caffeine.

troy2000 · 01-24-2008, 10:21 PM

If I remember right, they ask if you're addicted to any drugs, not simply if you've ever used them. That would legally put you into the mentally impaired category...especially if you were so far gone you actually answered, "yes.:

tlarkin · 01-30-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddbecca

The Second Amendment wasn't about providing the government with an army, it was for providing protections against the government!

The police, the military and the National Guard are all enrolled, employed and paid by the government, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. They're the lapdogs and thugs of the government and have no obligation to protect you or anyone else, their only job is to protect against threats to the government and its various organizations.

Not to flog a dead horse, but I would like to point out some facts since I think that the 2nd Amendment is the most misunderstood and argued about thing. First off, yes it was all about bearing arms for a militia because the US had no army at the time. Here is a direct quote from the actual bill of rights.

Quote:

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.

Also, in 1901 Teddy Roosevelt passed the Militia Act, which despite its name, was all about abolishing the militias in replace of the National Guard, which would have strict rules and regulations of their duties during times of war.

So, as you can see the 2nd amendment in a very logical sense is out dated completely. We no longer have any state militias, we have the National Guard, which a few years later was also made reserves for the Armed forces of our government.

Now, like I said before I am not against gun owner ship at all, as long as you are mentally fit to own a gun. I honestly don't even care if ex convicts own guns as long as they have done their time and are now productive members of society, like I said, I can be very liberal on this subject. Gun control will never work, because when the government outlaws anytihng it never works. Look at the war on drugs which is completely pointless and a waste of money. They should just legalize them and regulate them. That would cut down legal issues and not bog down our court system, and not fill up prisons with drug users, but instead actual criminals that deserve it. This would also cut down on all drug related crime. It could be taxed and the tax money could go to good use, and even offer rehabilitation to those who have addictive personalities. Holland does this and they have pretty much no drug related crimes.

So, just to reiterate my stance. I am not for gun bans or gun control, but I think the 2nd amendment is way out of date and should be redone with more modern views. Obviously hand guns and assault rifles didn't really exist like they do today when this was written.

Troy-

I agree with you about rights versus a privilege I just could never explain my view quite right I don't think. I was trying to say that it should be treated that way from a responsibility point of view. People get all up in arms about the government banning smoking in states, well smoking isn't a right so they can do that. I agree with you on that point 100%. Sorry for the confusion, I just wasn't explaining myself properly. It happens. I tend to have a few smokes when I drink and if they banned smoking I would probably just totally quit smoking, which would be great for me health wise. Even though I hardly smoke at all.

What should change in my personal view? Nothing really. I think people should have the right to own as many guns as they want, and of any sort which are not fully automatic, or military grade (ordinance, demolition, incendiary, etc), or anything similar. I think a standard background check should be done at a federal level. That way, there is no state not communicating with another state properly issue. I mean there is no safe way to completely 100% control guns. So, the more you try to police it the more money it will cost the government and the tax payers. I think our tax money should go to something better like education. I think if everyone was more properly educated we could possibly reduce violent crimes as a whole, which would reduce gun related crimes as well. I don't think gun control is the answer in the same manner I don't think conceal and carry is the answer.

Sorry for the long post.

ezearln · 01-30-2008, 02:39 PM

tlarkin, sorry wrong incorrect and false pardner... At the time of it's drafting the Bill of Rights was written in what was to them plain language and the term Militia had nothing to do with the Continental Army whatsoever (which FYI did indeed exist at the time the Constituiton and Bill of Rights were drafted 1787-1791 who the heck do you think did the fighting in 1776??). The term Militia as used then meant ALL Free white males between 18-60 years of age, as our nation has evolved that definition has expanded to mean everyone of either gender and age. The one thing our founding fathers understood quite well was tyranny as well as the defense against it being an armed citizentry and to ensure our ability to defend against tyranny and oppression our founding fathers felt the right to keep and bear arms second only to the freedom of speech and as many have falsely argued that the second amendment to our constituition only allows for the arming of organized military groups of the federal or state government it was made quite plain in letters between the drafters of the Bill of Rights that it was absolutely INTENDED as an INDIVIDUAL right to each citizen. Such has been recognized by the Supreme court! In so far as there being no states Militias anymore who told you that lie? The Militia Act had little to nothing to do with abolishing States Militias (duly authorized and maintained by the state) as it did with the creation of a federally organized, uniformly trained and equipped guard made available to the states yet under ultimately FEDERAL control, oh yes the Governors may us them in time of crisis but the President is whom they finally answer to!

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.

Please note the language, punctuation and phrasing of the second ammendment and also note that inconvienient little phrase within it which should to anyone with any knowledge at all about the documents which are the Foundation of this nation dispels any argument as to the intent of the ammendment, yeah that's the one! "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Ammendment is as essential and valid today as the day it was written and as important a safeguard against tyranny as ever as it was intended to be, it hasn't a lick to do with "arms particularly suited for sporting purposes" (ie:hunting, target shooting etc) as some would like the uninformed to believe, but has everythhing to do with a armed and vigilant citizentry able to refuse to succumb to tyranny and oppression.

tlarkin · 01-30-2008, 03:06 PM

This is where they brought forth this right, it was originally from England the country they were trying to separate from.

Quote:

The concept of a universal militia, consisting of all free white men bearing their own arms, that lies at the heart of the Second Amendment, originated in England.[11] The requirement that subjects bear arms, serve military duty[12][13][14][15], dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense (see Assize of Arms). At that time, it was customary for a soldier to purchase, maintain, keep, and bring their own armor and weapon for military service. This was of such importance that Crown officials gave periodic inspections to guarantee a properly armed militia.

So, if you want to discuss origin that is where it came from. They carried it over here when they came here.

It was also written at a time when we didn't own (or haven't stolen yet) all the land that makes up USA, so there could still be outside threats. These days, we don't have outside threats in our own country, unless you want to bear arms for immigration...

Now, to agree with your side, some say that it was put in there because England took that right away from protestants during a revolution and left them defenseless. So, if the constitution were amended to state that you were allowed to keep and bear arms against the US government incase of any type of tyrannical act, then yes I would agree with you. However, I do not see where it states any of that. However that is not in our bill of rights, it is in England's bill of rights. see this

Bill of Rights 1689 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler did the same thing, took away the public's guns then took over germany with his army. That should be stated in our bill of rights and then I think people might shut up and move on about it.

I am not saying that I want to take away anyone's right nor should the government I am stating that it is just out dated. Our language and our country has changed a lot over the last 200 years. As we evolve everything else should in my opinion.

ezearln · 01-30-2008, 03:29 PM

Sigh well you almost get it tlarkin, fact is the Second Ammendment guarantees the INDIVIDUALS right to keep and bear arms, and it does indeed STATE and I quote
being necessary to the security of a free State it is to be noted that We the People ARE the friggin State! Not the Government, not the senate, nor Congess nor the President, but We the People! Another thing I'd like to point out to you is every Document leading up to the creation of this nation has everything to do with refuting and denying tyranny and oppression From the Declaration of Indepedence, the Constituition and the Bill of Rights to our system of checks and balances and separation of powers all written designed and intended to prevent or resist tyranny in any form. And if we haven't any outside threats what would you call 9/11? The murder of Civilians along the Mexican border? The infiltration of our schools and research service industries by agents of foreign goverments?

tlarkin · 01-30-2008, 03:44 PM

No I try to get both sides I do, and I understand the conservative and liberal stand points and have read arguments for both sides. Both sides do have good arguments.

The reason it is so debated is because its not very clear exactly what it is meant, where in other bill of rights it clearly states what it is for. I think they if made a clear and cut definition of it then it would no longer be a subject for debate. Hence, is why I think it is out dated.

Also, how would owning guns in your home prevent something like 9/11? I am just curious to see how it would ever make a difference. What happened was very wrong and it should never happen to anyone. We are sort of new at terrorist acts but it happens on a daily basis in other countries and has happened over 100s of years in others. I don't think the right to bear arms would defend against a terrorist act. Frighteningly there is not much you can do against those kinds of attacks.

The right to bear arms would allow you to defend yourself in your home if someone were to attack you on your personal property in self defense. You are not allowed to take guns out in public (depending on state) and even if you can conceal and carry what is it going to do against a bomb? Not to mention even if you can conceal and carry there are still plenty of places that have banned guns. Business, public properties, government facilities, etc.

I see what was meant by the right to bear arms, however with our nation I think it needs to be redefined or it will forever be debated. In my mind it should be a non issue and we should focus on other issues that would help us as a country, not tie up years of debate whether or not owning a gun.

I am not disagreeing with you, nor do I want to live in a police state where Government agencies are allowed guns and no one else is. It seems to me if that would happen it would be abused quite a bit. I am merely suggesting the 2nd amendment be rewritten to address these concerns directly and to make it clear why we have the right to bear arms. Then I don't think anyone would want to argue.

Of course this all kind of goes back to education. If people were aware that many acts of tyranny start with not allowing your citizens to have the ability to defend them self, then maybe more people would understand that is what the right is for.

Also, on a side note, there is no way the army that we had during the time it was written defend our entire country. So, that is where the whole militia thing comes from, and at its origins that was one of the reasons citizens had the right to bear arms. Because they made up what we could call the National Guard today.

I don't want to get off on the wrong foot or argue in circles, and I think that I am probably in a minority when it comes to this forum with my views and logic. I do not fear change but a lot of people do, and a lot of people would fear changing a 200 year old document, which was never perfect in the first place, hence our amendments. I am all for changing it if it would end pointless ridiculous debates and allow our government and tax dollars go to something that would better our country, like education.

cetmedog · 01-30-2008, 04:47 PM

Guns in your home could not have prevented 911, but people bearing arms on the planes could have. If the hijackers did have bombs, which they did not, a dead hand cant push a button (in my opinion, a 9mm carried by just one of the passengers would have been better than all the passengers with the plastic sporks that they had).
Your thing about rewriting the 2nd sounds like your a lawyer trying to drum up more work. Thats just what we need to do, add more words to something that does not need it. Lets muck up the 2nd with more words to make it a shadow of what it once was, clear and to the point.
Lets next argue over the stop light. Does red clearly mean stop or shall we define it more so. It might mean stop, or slow down, or asks your passenger what he or she thinks, only in the case of reddish red color that shall ye stop too be defined by section 4 paragraph 7 of what red means, of the newly defined stop sign code, witch will be defined by a lawyer asking what shade of red it was due to to the new bi laws of what a red light is, also to define what is is. Sounds kind of complicated now, instead of just stop car wait till its green, then go.
By the time we pay everybody to redefine everything for you the legal hours alone could pay for 20 years of the education your asking for. SOMEBODY THINK OF THE TREES WE'LL KILL DOING THE PAPER WORK! Forgot to add that in for ya
Aint broke, dont infringe it.

tlarkin · 01-30-2008, 04:59 PM

only hole i see in your argument is idiots with guns on a plane piercing the hull and breaking cabin pressure. Not good for anyone, then you put whatever they may crash into at risk.

The 2nd amendment as it stands will be debated till the end of the earth unless we modify it reflect the rights it truly stands for today. Over government has changed a ton, so we should change with it. I am not saying taking anyone's rights away, but word it in a sense where it applies today.

mym1a · 01-30-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddbecca

The National Guard was also confiscating guns, and the National Guard is the reserve army. Therefore both the military and police were committing unconstitutional acts on American soil against American citizens, simply because that's what they were told to do.

I'm not anti-military, or anti-police. However I refuse to tolerate for even one second the belief that citizens don't need to be armed since we have a real army and uniformed police officers. Those officers and soldiers are government issue and they will never, never, never be there to protect your or anyone else and keep you safe from harm, because it's not their job to do so. The job of the police is to enforce the laws, the job of the military is to protect the country from invasion, nothing else! Civilian protection is nowhere in any job description. You're on your own, accept it as fact!

During katrina I doubt the national guard was federalized by the president? but was activated by that states governor!!!

cetmedog · 01-30-2008, 05:03 PM

You lose cabin pressure so what, mask falls from the ceiling. Plane goes to lower altitude, happy day. Fact a bullet hole will not break up a plane.
Since you know whats up, what does "is" mean?

tlarkin · 01-30-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cetmedog

You lose cabin pressure so what, mask falls from the ceiling. Plane goes to lower altitude, happy day. Fact a bullet hole will not break up a plane.
Since you know whats up, what does "is" mean?

Yes but there have been documented cases of a plane losing cabin pressure and everyone freezing to death and the military had to shoot the plane down before it crashed.

You are trading one risk for another, and that was only referring to one bullet hole. Now imagine if there are many, or lone and behold something vital to the mechanics of the plane gets damaged, then you have even more troubles.

Change has to start somewhere and it is a process, it doesn't happen over night. Once we decide to start progressing instead of living over the past and arguing something that is very vague in the written form, then maybe we can move along into better things. Better health care, education, foreign policy, economics, labor laws, etc.

If we start now maybe the next generation would benefit from it, but then again no one really gives a crap about the next generation or the future.

Not sure how to answer you last sentence...

ezearln · 01-30-2008, 05:13 PM

mym1a whether federalized or not the National Guard is bound by law and the very oath they swore to uphold to obey Federal and State laws as well as their obligation to refuse to obey what in essence was an "Unlawful" order! and as I recall actual "Martial Law" was never asserted or declared Oh yeah BTW Governors haven't the authority to declare martial law only the President may do that oppsies and then only for periods of 72 hours each after the initial declaration each extension must be affirmed by the Congress and Senate!

cetmedog · 01-30-2008, 05:46 PM

Fine, fine we'll all stay in our homes as not to risk anything. We should stop driving, smoking, walking and eating meat witch all kill more people than guns.
There are documented cases of everything odd, so what. Exercise experts die of heart attacks, everything has risks. People have killed more people with knives than guns, lets see if we can regulate our kitchen knives more. You may get carpal tunnel arguing with me, are you going to risk it?
The 2nd was written by statesmen, scientists, and others far smarter than todays generation that had a president ask what is is and another that can barely form a sentence. That's what that last question was. You want more words for a generation that is failing in education and cant understand anyway, much less the difference between guns (check out the other thread on the college kid with the pot and gun story at Purdue).
Stay with your education argument and when people are a touch smarter this argument will fix its self with smarter people than us. They will understand the Constitution and why we need the 2nd the way it is, every word it already has period.

tlarkin · 01-30-2008, 06:06 PM

We can just agree to disagree at this point. Nothing will change unless we make the change ourselves. Sitting and waiting for future generations with our current system will not happen. Our dollar is now worth less than a Canadian dollar, our education is not even close from the best and we are ranked 37th in the world for health care. Costa Rica is ranked higher than us for health care.

Change needs to happen soon, and it should happen at the root of our system so everything else will fall in line. Our founding fathers even said it should be rewritten and not be an absolute.

mym1a · 01-30-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezearln

mym1a whether federalized or not the National Guard is bound by law and the very oath they swore to uphold to obey Federal and State laws as well as their obligation to refuse to obey what in essence was an "Unlawful" order! and as I recall actual "Martial Law" was never asserted or declared Oh yeah BTW Governors haven't the authority to declare martial law only the President may do that oppsies and then only for periods of 72 hours each after the initial declaration each extension must be affirmed by the Congress and Senate!

blame those that are responsible at the time of the incident!, the US Army had nothing to do with the confiscation of firearms! I don't believe the president had anything to do with the governor activating the National Guard ? I don't agree with what happened!,all im saying is blame those that are responsible ? to the best of my knowledg it was the police and national guard that did this! not the us army ? not this time

ezearln · 01-30-2008, 06:31 PM

mym1a That my friend is exactly what I said except you must understand that the National Guard IS a component of the Army and IS bound at all times and under all circumstance to OBEY and DEFEND the Constituition and laws of the United States Federalized or not and they are 24/7 Subject to the UCMJ MILITARY LAW.

mym1a · 01-30-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezearln

mym1a That my friend is exactly what I said except you must understand that the National Guard IS a component of the Army and IS bound at all times and under all circumstance to OBEY and DEFEND the Constituition and laws of the United States Federalized or not and they are 24/7 Subject to the UCMJ MILITARY LAW.

I see your point and yes they are sworn to uphold the constitution! are they willing ? are we willing?

cetmedog · 01-30-2008, 11:47 PM

tlarkin-AGREE TO DISAGREE?! Do you want to disagree that if kids were more educated, that they would not shoot each other for the argument that it is wrong with a gun, knife, or otherwise. Tell me we disagree that kids that understood why the 2nd was there to protect themselves and their property from ignorant others that would steal it for no reason. Tell me you disagree that a armed population would not stand up to a tyrannical government in any form or invaders as our forefathers have and other modern countries are currently. Tell me the 2nd is out of date due to MODERN times that are as unstable as they are? ARE YOU BLIND? Now a days we need it as much as ever. All you are telling me is the current youth are to dumb to understand and value the 2nd for what it is, freedom from all that would take freedom form us, foreign and domestic. By the way what does our dollar value have to do with the 2nd, or health care or are you pulling at what ever you can to change the 2nd.

tlarkin · 01-31-2008, 10:23 AM

cetmendog-

I meant to disagree on the subject matter of changing the 2nd amendment to reflect our modern society.

To answer your question, no, having the knowledge of the second amendment would not stop anyone from killing anyone. Educating them the right would not stop anyone from killing either.

I work for the government in education specifically for some years now. Kids are getting worse and worse each year as our education system is failing them. I don't think they really care to even learn about the government and no one even takes a class on government until their senior year. It has always been that way.

Back to my main point. The reason why the 2nd amendment is so heavily debated is because how vague it really is and how people interpret it differently. It is up the law makers and government to decide how to interpret it, and you should actually read both sides of the argument. Both have valid points. It will be argued (example this thread) till the end of the Earth unless we change it to reflect modern views and make it more clear why we have it. That is my point about the 2nd.

I'll also say this again, our founding father's meant for our constitution to change. They never ever meant for it to set it stone. No single government has lasted forever, that is a proven fact in history. Our government will have to change eventually. We have already amended our constitution 26 times, and we will do it more and more in the future to come. If you fail to see the logic in this, then I guess we are failing to communicate.

When I speak of education, I am talking a good over all general education. When people learn how screwed up humans have been, and are taught philosophy, math, reading, etc and excel at it they are way less likely to commit violent crimes. It will never eradicate it, but they are way less likely to do so.

01-24-2008, 10:21 PM	#42
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 9,475 Images: 9	If I remember right, they ask if you're addicted to any drugs, not simply if you've ever used them. That would legally put you into the mentally impaired category...especially if you were so far gone you actually answered, "yes.: __________________ If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. -Anatole France

01-30-2008, 02:39 PM	#44
ezearln Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Hill Country Posts: 3,175	tlarkin, sorry wrong incorrect and false pardner... At the time of it's drafting the Bill of Rights was written in what was to them plain language and the term Militia had nothing to do with the Continental Army whatsoever (which FYI did indeed exist at the time the Constituiton and Bill of Rights were drafted 1787-1791 who the heck do you think did the fighting in 1776??). The term Militia as used then meant ALL Free white males between 18-60 years of age, as our nation has evolved that definition has expanded to mean everyone of either gender and age. The one thing our founding fathers understood quite well was tyranny as well as the defense against it being an armed citizentry and to ensure our ability to defend against tyranny and oppression our founding fathers felt the right to keep and bear arms second only to the freedom of speech and as many have falsely argued that the second amendment to our constituition only allows for the arming of organized military groups of the federal or state government it was made quite plain in letters between the drafters of the Bill of Rights that it was absolutely INTENDED as an INDIVIDUAL right to each citizen. Such has been recognized by the Supreme court! In so far as there being no states Militias anymore who told you that lie? The Militia Act had little to nothing to do with abolishing States Militias (duly authorized and maintained by the state) as it did with the creation of a federally organized, uniformly trained and equipped guard made available to the states yet under ultimately FEDERAL control, oh yes the Governors may us them in time of crisis but the President is whom they finally answer to! 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. Please note the language, punctuation and phrasing of the second ammendment and also note that inconvienient little phrase within it which should to anyone with any knowledge at all about the documents which are the Foundation of this nation dispels any argument as to the intent of the ammendment, yeah that's the one! "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Ammendment is as essential and valid today as the day it was written and as important a safeguard against tyranny as ever as it was intended to be, it hasn't a lick to do with "arms particularly suited for sporting purposes" (ie:hunting, target shooting etc) as some would like the uninformed to believe, but has everythhing to do with a armed and vigilant citizentry able to refuse to succumb to tyranny and oppression. __________________ "You can have my Freedom when I'm done with it!"

01-30-2008, 03:29 PM	#46
ezearln Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Hill Country Posts: 3,175	Sigh well you almost get it tlarkin, fact is the Second Ammendment guarantees the INDIVIDUALS right to keep and bear arms, and it does indeed STATE and I quote being necessary to the security of a free State it is to be noted that We the People ARE the friggin State! Not the Government, not the senate, nor Congess nor the President, but We the People! Another thing I'd like to point out to you is every Document leading up to the creation of this nation has everything to do with refuting and denying tyranny and oppression From the Declaration of Indepedence, the Constituition and the Bill of Rights to our system of checks and balances and separation of powers all written designed and intended to prevent or resist tyranny in any form. And if we haven't any outside threats what would you call 9/11? The murder of Civilians along the Mexican border? The infiltration of our schools and research service industries by agents of foreign goverments? __________________ "You can have my Freedom when I'm done with it!"

01-30-2008, 04:47 PM	#48
cetmedog Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: 2 weeks from everywhere Posts: 129	Guns in your home could not have prevented 911, but people bearing arms on the planes could have. If the hijackers did have bombs, which they did not, a dead hand cant push a button (in my opinion, a 9mm carried by just one of the passengers would have been better than all the passengers with the plastic sporks that they had). Your thing about rewriting the 2nd sounds like your a lawyer trying to drum up more work. Thats just what we need to do, add more words to something that does not need it. Lets muck up the 2nd with more words to make it a shadow of what it once was, clear and to the point. Lets next argue over the stop light. Does red clearly mean stop or shall we define it more so. It might mean stop, or slow down, or asks your passenger what he or she thinks, only in the case of reddish red color that shall ye stop too be defined by section 4 paragraph 7 of what red means, of the newly defined stop sign code, witch will be defined by a lawyer asking what shade of red it was due to to the new bi laws of what a red light is, also to define what is is. Sounds kind of complicated now, instead of just stop car wait till its green, then go. By the time we pay everybody to redefine everything for you the legal hours alone could pay for 20 years of the education your asking for. SOMEBODY THINK OF THE TREES WE'LL KILL DOING THE PAPER WORK! Forgot to add that in for ya Aint broke, dont infringe it. Last edited by cetmedog; 01-30-2008 at 04:52 PM.

01-30-2008, 05:13 PM	#53
ezearln Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Hill Country Posts: 3,175	mym1a whether federalized or not the National Guard is bound by law and the very oath they swore to uphold to obey Federal and State laws as well as their obligation to refuse to obey what in essence was an "Unlawful" order! and as I recall actual "Martial Law" was never asserted or declared Oh yeah BTW Governors haven't the authority to declare martial law only the President may do that oppsies and then only for periods of 72 hours each after the initial declaration each extension must be affirmed by the Congress and Senate! __________________ "You can have my Freedom when I'm done with it!"

01-30-2008, 03:44 PM	#47
tlarkin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,589	No I try to get both sides I do, and I understand the conservative and liberal stand points and have read arguments for both sides. Both sides do have good arguments. The reason it is so debated is because its not very clear exactly what it is meant, where in other bill of rights it clearly states what it is for. I think they if made a clear and cut definition of it then it would no longer be a subject for debate. Hence, is why I think it is out dated. Also, how would owning guns in your home prevent something like 9/11? I am just curious to see how it would ever make a difference. What happened was very wrong and it should never happen to anyone. We are sort of new at terrorist acts but it happens on a daily basis in other countries and has happened over 100s of years in others. I don't think the right to bear arms would defend against a terrorist act. Frighteningly there is not much you can do against those kinds of attacks. The right to bear arms would allow you to defend yourself in your home if someone were to attack you on your personal property in self defense. You are not allowed to take guns out in public (depending on state) and even if you can conceal and carry what is it going to do against a bomb? Not to mention even if you can conceal and carry there are still plenty of places that have banned guns. Business, public properties, government facilities, etc. I see what was meant by the right to bear arms, however with our nation I think it needs to be redefined or it will forever be debated. In my mind it should be a non issue and we should focus on other issues that would help us as a country, not tie up years of debate whether or not owning a gun. I am not disagreeing with you, nor do I want to live in a police state where Government agencies are allowed guns and no one else is. It seems to me if that would happen it would be abused quite a bit. I am merely suggesting the 2nd amendment be rewritten to address these concerns directly and to make it clear why we have the right to bear arms. Then I don't think anyone would want to argue. Of course this all kind of goes back to education. If people were aware that many acts of tyranny start with not allowing your citizens to have the ability to defend them self, then maybe more people would understand that is what the right is for. Also, on a side note, there is no way the army that we had during the time it was written defend our entire country. So, that is where the whole militia thing comes from, and at its origins that was one of the reasons citizens had the right to bear arms. Because they made up what we could call the National Guard today. I don't want to get off on the wrong foot or argue in circles, and I think that I am probably in a minority when it comes to this forum with my views and logic. I do not fear change but a lot of people do, and a lot of people would fear changing a 200 year old document, which was never perfect in the first place, hence our amendments. I am all for changing it if it would end pointless ridiculous debates and allow our government and tax dollars go to something that would better our country, like education.

01-30-2008, 04:59 PM	#49
tlarkin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,589	only hole i see in your argument is idiots with guns on a plane piercing the hull and breaking cabin pressure. Not good for anyone, then you put whatever they may crash into at risk. The 2nd amendment as it stands will be debated till the end of the earth unless we modify it reflect the rights it truly stands for today. Over government has changed a ton, so we should change with it. I am not saying taking anyone's rights away, but word it in a sense where it applies today.

01-30-2008, 05:03 PM	#51
cetmedog Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: 2 weeks from everywhere Posts: 129	You lose cabin pressure so what, mask falls from the ceiling. Plane goes to lower altitude, happy day. Fact a bullet hole will not break up a plane. Since you know whats up, what does "is" mean?

01-30-2008, 05:46 PM	#54
cetmedog Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: 2 weeks from everywhere Posts: 129	Fine, fine we'll all stay in our homes as not to risk anything. We should stop driving, smoking, walking and eating meat witch all kill more people than guns. There are documented cases of everything odd, so what. Exercise experts die of heart attacks, everything has risks. People have killed more people with knives than guns, lets see if we can regulate our kitchen knives more. You may get carpal tunnel arguing with me, are you going to risk it? The 2nd was written by statesmen, scientists, and others far smarter than todays generation that had a president ask what is is and another that can barely form a sentence. That's what that last question was. You want more words for a generation that is failing in education and cant understand anyway, much less the difference between guns (check out the other thread on the college kid with the pot and gun story at Purdue). Stay with your education argument and when people are a touch smarter this argument will fix its self with smarter people than us. They will understand the Constitution and why we need the 2nd the way it is, every word it already has period.

01-30-2008, 06:06 PM	#55
tlarkin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,589	We can just agree to disagree at this point. Nothing will change unless we make the change ourselves. Sitting and waiting for future generations with our current system will not happen. Our dollar is now worth less than a Canadian dollar, our education is not even close from the best and we are ranked 37th in the world for health care. Costa Rica is ranked higher than us for health care. Change needs to happen soon, and it should happen at the root of our system so everything else will fall in line. Our founding fathers even said it should be rewritten and not be an absolute.

01-30-2008, 06:31 PM	#57
ezearln Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Hill Country Posts: 3,175	mym1a That my friend is exactly what I said except you must understand that the National Guard IS a component of the Army and IS bound at all times and under all circumstance to OBEY and DEFEND the Constituition and laws of the United States Federalized or not and they are 24/7 Subject to the UCMJ MILITARY LAW. __________________ "You can have my Freedom when I'm done with it!"

01-30-2008, 11:47 PM	#59
cetmedog Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: 2 weeks from everywhere Posts: 129	tlarkin-AGREE TO DISAGREE?! Do you want to disagree that if kids were more educated, that they would not shoot each other for the argument that it is wrong with a gun, knife, or otherwise. Tell me we disagree that kids that understood why the 2nd was there to protect themselves and their property from ignorant others that would steal it for no reason. Tell me you disagree that a armed population would not stand up to a tyrannical government in any form or invaders as our forefathers have and other modern countries are currently. Tell me the 2nd is out of date due to MODERN times that are as unstable as they are? ARE YOU BLIND? Now a days we need it as much as ever. All you are telling me is the current youth are to dumb to understand and value the 2nd for what it is, freedom from all that would take freedom form us, foreign and domestic. By the way what does our dollar value have to do with the 2nd, or health care or are you pulling at what ever you can to change the 2nd. Last edited by cetmedog; 01-31-2008 at 12:04 AM.

01-31-2008, 10:23 AM	#60
tlarkin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,589	cetmendog- I meant to disagree on the subject matter of changing the 2nd amendment to reflect our modern society. To answer your question, no, having the knowledge of the second amendment would not stop anyone from killing anyone. Educating them the right would not stop anyone from killing either. I work for the government in education specifically for some years now. Kids are getting worse and worse each year as our education system is failing them. I don't think they really care to even learn about the government and no one even takes a class on government until their senior year. It has always been that way. Back to my main point. The reason why the 2nd amendment is so heavily debated is because how vague it really is and how people interpret it differently. It is up the law makers and government to decide how to interpret it, and you should actually read both sides of the argument. Both have valid points. It will be argued (example this thread) till the end of the Earth unless we change it to reflect modern views and make it more clear why we have it. That is my point about the 2nd. I'll also say this again, our founding father's meant for our constitution to change. They never ever meant for it to set it stone. No single government has lasted forever, that is a proven fact in history. Our government will have to change eventually. We have already amended our constitution 26 times, and we will do it more and more in the future to come. If you fail to see the logic in this, then I guess we are failing to communicate. When I speak of education, I am talking a good over all general education. When people learn how screwed up humans have been, and are taught philosophy, math, reading, etc and excel at it they are way less likely to commit violent crimes. It will never eradicate it, but they are way less likely to do so.