Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
1. Isn't the "right to bear arms" clause in the second amendment in reference to a well armed milita(National Guard)?
2. The point is that no one has a need for a handgun. The argument against this would be people need handguns for "self defense". How many handguns have been used for "self defense" as opposed to gun crimes commited with handguns? I would really like to know.
Originally posted by socialist1917Are we to be limited to only those things for which the government feels we have a need?
Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
1. Isn't the "right to bear arms" clause in the second amendment in reference to a well armed milita(National Guard)?
2. The point is ...[text shortened]... "self defense" as opposed to gun crimes commited with handguns? I would really like to know.
Originally posted by socialist1917It is generally argued that all rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights and not collective rights and that the operative part of the Second Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." However, of course, it is infringed up the kazoo. In the rest of your statement there is the implication that those who own/carry handguns are all the same, legal or illegal, criminal or law abiding. I'm sure the stats you want are available but they will be skewed by whatever source you get them from, pro-gun or anti-gun.
Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
1. Isn't the "right to bear arms" clause in the second amendment in reference to a well armed milita(National Guard)?
2. The point is ...[text shortened]... "self defense" as opposed to gun crimes commited with handguns? I would really like to know.
Originally posted by DelmerO.K. Where does the "well regulated militia" come in? I always thought that was a reference by the Founding Fathers for what today would be called a National Guard. The Bill of Rights also deals with states rights, as well. As to the statement "operative part", it is all up to opinion and viewpoint, as judged by our judicial system.
It is generally argued that all rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights and not collective rights and that the operative part of the Second Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." However, of course, it is infringed up the kazoo. In the rest of your statement there is the implication that those who own ...[text shortened]... are available but they will be skewed by whatever source you get them from, pro-gun or anti-gun.
What is the point of handguns? They exist solely to KILL people.
Originally posted by socialist1917So did the militia.
O.K. Where does the "well regulated militia" come in? I always thought that was a reference by the Founding Fathers for what today would be called a National Guard. The Bill of Rights also deals with states rights, as well. As to the statement "operative part", it is all up to opinion and viewpoint, as judged by our judicial system.
What is the point of handguns? They exist solely to KILL people.
Originally posted by socialist1917Our country is a collection of individuals. The most important thing to the Framers, the reason that society was formed in the first place was to protect individual, fundamental rights (see the Declaration of Independence). EVERY adult male was required to be in the militia in 1787 (except for various pacifist religious sect), so to say members of the militia can have arms in 1787 is to say everyone can have arms. The situation is completely different in 2005, the National Guard is NOT the equivalent of the militia (cuz everybody ain't in it).
That isn't the point. Our country must defend itself.
Why does everyone think that the only thing Handguns are for is to kill people?
I dont buy handguns for that reason, I use them for when Im in the mountians for protetion againts grizzlie bears, rattlesnakes etc, if the need arises, Every year out hear I hear stories about Grizzly bears charging, and they was saved by their handgun.
Just this last year me and a friend were camping out way in the mountians with horses, and we set up camp by the only water hole in miles, As we was getting ready to spend the night, we seen two huge grizzlie bears on an elk kill right by the watering hole. I would like to see an anti gun person water 10 horses at that water hole with no gun, I wouldnt do it myself without a gun, Luckily we was able to scare one off by shooting towards it, then the next day the other one wondered off just enough for us to slip by
Also Handguns are used for shooting compitions, tournaments, etc I so Hanguns isnt just to kill people as so many have said in this thread
Originally posted by socialist1917And in almost all states, perhaps all, the judicial systems have judged that individuals meeting certain criteria do have the right to keep and bear arms. If my handguns exist solely to kill people then I'd best call the authorities, give them the serial numbers and explain that those guns, which they checked, registered and have on file, never existed in the first place. No doubt this will involve me in a mountain of paperwork.
O.K. Where does the "well regulated militia" come in? I always thought that was a reference by the Founding Fathers for what today would be called a National Guard. The Bill of Rights also deals with states rights, as well. As to the statement "operative part", it is all up to opinion and viewpoint, as judged by our judicial system.
What is the point of handguns? They exist solely to KILL people.