« First « Previous Comments 18 - 57 of 1,443 Next » Last » Search these comments
As far as what the framer's meant with the Second Amendment, I would seek whether or not a private citizen was allowed to own a cannon in 1820. That would have been within the lifespan of the framers of the Constitution. If in fact a common folk could own a cannon or any other weapon circa 1820, then I would say "shall not be infringed" meant anyone could own any weapon.
Cannons were in legal private ownership in 1775 when the Revolutionary war broke out.
Not really, all the posts prove that.
Please requote where you were rallying for protecting children from dying in car crashes. I missed that post.
When the 2nd was written they both had access to the same equipment.
Where does it say in the 2nd that in 2018 government can decide what equipment the citizens can have? Can you please post that line in the constitution?
Does the Constitution specifically allow for "view" changes to it ?
It pretty much means everyone can have guns, weapons, etc...
So anyone should be able
Sniper saysWhat "extreme damage" are you talking about?
Deaths of school children.
Deaths of school children.
I wonder how many children died from AR-15's versus cars over these years? Anyone know?
Let's do everything possible to prevent child deaths from cars, cancer, flu, and mass shootings. How does that sound?
Our elected officials need to grow a pair and tell the NRA that they can go fuck themselves.
Great, so you're starting with the one that kills the LEAST amount first? Why is that?
anon_cf6c6 says
Great, so you're starting with the one that kills the LEAST amount first? Why is that?
Nope--not starting. Automobile safety has been regulated for a long, long time. We've made laws governing car seats, age/weight limits on front seat passengers, seat belts, crash test requirements, etc.
Great, so is that why car deaths have risen to record levels over 40,000 last year and 3 million were injured from all this NEW safety regulations?
Doesn't sound like government regulation and involvement is working very well.
How many ads with Dems run with High School kids asking why politicians can't stand up to the NRA and pass common sense legislation to eliminate school shootings.
It's a math thing, conservatives always seem to have trouble with math
Not these percentages again, some just haven't learned math.
In 1978 there were 73 million households, so 51% of 73 = 37 million were gun owners.
In 2016 there were 126 million households, so 36% of 126 = 45 million were gun owners.
Quick math question, which is larger, 37 million or 45 million?
What was that again about "right wing math"?
More households own guns NOW.
Fact, 3 times more people die to knives in the U.S than to rifles.
On the other hand, Jamal Jackson and Juan Jiminez would still have access to the same .25 Auto that's been making the rounds on the Chicago or San Juan black market
Not these percentages again, some just haven't learned math.
In 1978 there were 73 million households, so 51% of 73 = 37 million were gun owners.
In 2016 there were 126 million households, so 36% of 126 = 45 million were gun owners.
Quick math question, which is larger, 37 million or 45 million?
What was that again about "right wing math"?
More households own guns NOW.
Fact, 3 times more people die to knives in the U.S than to rifles.
« First « Previous Comments 18 - 57 of 1,443 Next » Last » Search these comments
"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."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.