<p>^^Most notably American Somoa…</p>
<p>Back during colonial times when the Constitution was written, people had the right to have guns becuase they were fearing an attack by the British, and the US milita had to be ready to fight. Nowadays, I’m not so sure that we should be able to have guns because of the escalating violence and incidents like school shootings…i.e. Virginia tech, Columbine.</p>
<p>Thomas Jefferson had it correct; the primary purpose of arms are to allow citizens to protect themselves from an oppressive government. So the question becomes, do you trust your government to safeguard and protect your civil rights?</p>
<p>Back in colonial times don’t forget that guns were required tools in order to eat (hunt) and protect oneself. This remained largely true up through at least the 19th century and in many areas into the 20th century. It remains true in some areas today. </p>
<p>It’s the people of today who’ve grown up in cities having never lived on a farm or ranch and who’ve never touched or been around firearms that tend to view the firearms themselves as the problem as opposed to the user.</p>
<p>Many kinds of drugs are illegal in the country yet middle schoolers and above seem to have no problems acquiring the drugs. I doubt that people determined to commit crimes will have any problem finding a weapon to use even if the weapon is illegal.</p>
<p>Think of the aftermaths of hurricanes Katrina, Charlie, Andrew…all had people protecting themselves and others with firearms when social order frayed. </p>
<p>It can happen again. The right to own firearms is as important today as when the right was articulated by the founders.</p>
<p>I agree with the right to own arms, but I also agree with background and waiting periods. I don’t believe an individual has a right to purchase a weapon without proving he is worthy of the responsibility of ownership. </p>
<p>I find it odd that the same people who welcome wiretaps, rebel at the thought of presenting your drivers license for a background check at a gun show. Which is more oppressive?</p>
<p>Since the 1800’s the courts have issued numerous decisions that have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not constitute an individual right to bear arms(Presser v. Illinois, US v. Cruikshank, US v. Miller, US v. Warin, US v. Johnson, US v. Nelsen, Cases v. US, US v. Hale, Quilici v Village of Morton Grove, US v. Oakes, et al) and all, when required, have recognized the well regulated militia language in the amendment.</p>
<p>As a result, any federal gun control regulation enacted to promote the general health and welfare would be upheld as constitutional if the legal precidents were validated.</p>
<p>Those claiming an individual right to own and bear arms are at odds with a long history of legal precident and choose to dance around the amendment’s opening condition. However the maintenance of a well regulated militia was a subject of considerable discussion in the years immediately following the Revolution and in the years leading up to the enactment of the Bill of Rights. If the nation had intended the second amendment to confer an individual right there would have been no reason to add the opening conditional language.</p>
<p>Background checks and waiting periods all seem like reasonable regulation to me.</p>
<p>Funny how you missed the U.S. 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit recent cases on A2. </p>
<p>See: Emerson v. US and Parker v. District of Columbia. </p>
<p>I’m sure you just overlooked them by accident.</p>
<p>But in a number of some cases, such as the horrific shooting at Virginia Tech, the shooter allegedly complied with the laws including the waiting period.</p>
<p>
No - the people are not dead because of the NRA or politicians - they’re dead because of a nutcase who decided to commit the act. Let’s lay the blame squarely where it belongs. If he had not been able to acquire the guns legally he likely would have just purchased them illegally or used some other means to commit his crimes.</p>
<p>^ I see this. It’s awful. The only thing I can think of is to allow people who have concealed carry permits onto campus. VT was a “gun-free” zone, ironically enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really - the opening “condition” is really a past gerund, implying that due to the need for a well regulated militia (which we must remember simply means all able-bodied citizens - even in the current 2007 US Code), the right of the PEOPLE (the meaning of which has not been debated for any of the other amendments) to have arms should not be infringed</p>
<p>I am personally against guns and don’t need one to feel safe or anything else…but my DH is an avid collector and owns many, ALL LEGALLY, and they are locked in our garage in a safe that only he knows the combo to.</p>
<p>We argue constantly about the gun issue and agree to disagree. However I don’t think banning or outlawing firearms will stop crime. There is always a rather hefty black market for all banned things.</p>
<p>I say the following as someone who has never owned, held or fired a gun and have no desire ever to do so:</p>
<p>I’m sorry to say that guns are here to stay pending some mass change in the American culture. You can argue all you want about about the Founding Fathers not envisioning the implications of the Second Amendment in modern society or the greater good of a gun-free culture. But coutnless scores are going to find a way to hang on their guns even if there is some mass ban enacted.</p>
<p>The genie is out of the bottle.</p>
<p>parent2noles, and you choose to ignore Silvera v. Lockyer.</p>
<p>The debate of collective vs individual rights is of recent vintage and, in the vernacular of conservatives, the push for individual rights is by activist judges.</p>
<p>Actually the best article about the current legal debate is in the following article. Obviously I come down on the side of collective right while you come down on the side of individual right interpretation. I guess we will have to rely on the Supreme Court to sort out the matter.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301508.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301508.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aside from the whole second amendment discussion…</p>
<p>How did the Supreme Court end up with the unique right to interpret the Constitution? This power is certainly NOT mentioned in the Constitution itself. As far as I can tell, it is a power that the Supreme Court granted to itself. Pretty interesting history.</p>
<p>Ok, Im informing everbody that this is a joke, so you wouldn’t be disapointed:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2utcuURGXw[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2utcuURGXw</a></p>
<p>Erin’s Mom and Dadguy~</p>
<p>Excellent points.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>saying theres no constitutional right to bullets is like saying theres no constitutional right to own toilet paper…its implied by the fact that you can have a gun…and you can have bullets to go in the gun.</p>
<p>Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think people should be allowed to go run around and get guns. You know…the founding fathers were smart…they made a constitution which can be CHANGED…there are 20 some odd amendments which add, and alter things which are in the constitution. Maybe if the only guns you could legally own were muskets which had to be hand loaded after each shot with gun powder and homemade bullets, then it would be okay for everyone to have one ;-).</p>
<p>Of course we could just do what Chris Rock suggests…each bullet cost $5000. That way if someone gets shot and killed…you know he deserved it.</p>
<p>Yep. The SCOTUS must address the conflict in the circuits. The 9th, however, remains the worst of all circuits for reversals, which is where Silvera originates. A typical “collective” interpretation of A2. </p>
<p>A cup of premium coffee says it’ll get reversed if they hear it. :)</p>
<p>I have to say, however, the push for A2 as an individual right is really not recent. It’s only recently that certain areas have grown repressive with regard to A2 rights that have generated a legal backlash. If you talk to the average American some 87% (?) think they have an individual right to lawfully own a firearm. </p>
<p>The SCOTUS has already said the term “the people” means the same thing in all the amendments. Some would have us believe “the people” in A2 means “the states”, but that’s silly. ;)</p>