Skip to content

General Right to bear arms... God bless the little ones. General

You are in... Forums > General > General > Right to bear arms... God bless the little ones.

Got something to say?

Got something to say?

Go to most recent reply

aehewitt

Joined:

Jan 11

Posts: 8414

aehewitt says:

Right to bear arms... God bless the little ones.

Photo

[This Topic has been modified by the Author]

Reply to this Topic  
  • Posted 2 years ago (16 December 2012 13:54)

Post a message in General

Fields marked with an asterisk * are required

   

Please note. You cannot submit more than 4000 characters as a message.

Upload image(s) from your computer (up to 3 images)

  1.  
  2.  
  3.  

Terms of use

Use of our community areas and forums is subject to important terms of use. By joining our community and using the features you agree to be bound by these terms. See terms of use below. 

Cancel
James600zx

Joined:

Sep 07

Posts: 2827

James600zx says:

Access to guns.

It seems perverse to argue that filling society with guns is the answer. What's the worst that could have happened if this young man who argued with his mother hadn't had access to the arsenal of assault weapons she kept in the house?

They should start by requiring that automatic rifles be stored only at carefully regulated gun clubs, not at home, ie: incremental disarmament where an immediate ban wouldn't be accepted.

The founding fathers would kick themselves if they knew what the "right to bear arms" had led to.

Reply to this Topic
SlowLearner

Joined:

Feb 10

Posts: 1953

SlowLearner says:

"Original intent"

Constitutional scholars are always trying to work out the original intent of the founding fathers, when interpreting their constitution.   They clearly didn't intend everyone and their crazy uncle, idiot neighbour and their whacked out brooding kid to be armed to the teeth with weapons intended for heavy battle.

A flintlock musket, which was the gun from those days, required the operator to load the gun with black powder, then ram a lead ball down with a rod.   The flint striker has to hit finely ground powder which is added to the striking plate.

Assuming the gunpowder hasn't got damp, and the flint strikes and ignites the gunpowder successfully, the main powder charge will explode, hopefully not destroying the gun in the process.

Reloading would take at least a minute for a skilled operator, but doing so is dangerous - glowing embers might ignite the new charge being loaded.  It's much safer to wait a while.

The range was not good, neither was the accuracy. 

This is what well regulated militia members were to have access to,  it's very hard to imagine the Founders wanted everyone to have automatic, high-powered guns

[This Reply has been modified by the Author]

Reply to this Topic
ANichol

Joined:

Aug 02

Posts: 997

ANichol says:

Original intent

can be done by considering changes to the generally understood meaning of words ("Arms") rather than sticking with a strict interpretation.

Would the FF's have intended for an armed citizenry? Perhaps. Would they have preferred government to interceed in such things? Doubtful.

The problem with original intent, or strict readings is that they ignore the evolution of society. Original intent is a much fought over concept for the debate over school prayer in America - secular gov't vs "Christian country".

The US consitution is amendable, 27 times so far. The problem with amendment 2 is that it sits alongside fundamental protections for a liberal democracy (free speech, assembly, petition government, no torture, no unreasonable searches or siezures, due process).

Amend 2 may be problematic, but attacking the Bill of Rights is a loser for all sides. Similarly, Amendment 3 may be an outdated and pointless idea (no quartering soldiers in houses withou consent), but you ain't getting rid of that either.

Reply to this Topic
Boult

Joined:

Mar 07

Posts: 3215

Boult says:

Problem here

is that the waters get somewhat muddied by various interpretations.

My personal view is that gun law could probably be tightened up in America without damaging constitutional rights (licensing, where / how you keep them / regular safety training etc) .
as I understand it, there is no 'right to bear arms', more a well armed militia will ensure the freedom of the people from tyranny.
To turn it on it's head was it not a certain Mr. Hitler that observed that 'in order to conquer a nation, first you have to disarm it's citizens'.

Any government's  / tyrant's / dicator's biggest fear is an armed populace.

Face it - we've moved on and are semi comfortable with our gun laws.......but our governments (national or European) no longer fear the electorate....

Just thought I'd throw that one in there.....

I'll wander off now while someone works out how the blame can be pinned on Kam......:wink:

[This Reply has been modified by the Author]

Reply to this Topic
weasel64

Joined:

Mar 07

Posts: 3190

weasel64 says:

only in america ay ???

Ironically Kinder Surprise are banned in the USA because they pose a danger to small children.  Un-bloody-believable.

Reply to this Topic
aehewitt

Joined:

Jan 11

Posts: 8414

aehewitt says:

Weasle

Are Kinder eggs dangerous ???? :huh:

Reply to this Topic
preunit

Joined:

Dec 10

Posts: 11940

preunit says:

Only

with custard :biggrin:

Reply to this Topic
aehewitt

Joined:

Jan 11

Posts: 8414

aehewitt says:

.pmsl...

Ban em.... bloody Kinder eggs....:lol::lol::lol:

Reply to this Topic
weasel64

Joined:

Mar 07

Posts: 3190

weasel64 says:

also

i disagree with last line though , but they ARE part of the problem ????

2nd to last line " sum's it up " for me

Photo

Reply to this Topic
Blader2005

Joined:

Dec 08

Posts: 1545

Blader2005 says:

but Vulc...

it isnt available mail order!!!!  In store only!:blink:

 

while my thoughts are with the families of all the victims, I dont think that guns are the problem...... the problem is (as others have said) the morons that are allowed access to them...

a gun doesnt kill anyone.. the fool who weilds it does that!!

As Vulcanrider stated, his experience with US Marines summed it up.. they do not respect the power or lethality of what they are holding... I have fired guns, and used many variations from pistols, to semi automatics, to GPMG..  bit throughout i had respect for what i was doing..

maybe the U.S does need stricter controls.. again, why do you need a fully automatic tactical weapon for home defence?? you planning on gettin robbed by a Eastern Super power? even without training.. one shot would be enough to put off any would be attacker.. dont take away the right to bare arms, just control them more tightly.....

again, agreeing with others.. America as a society needs to be educated in the use of firearms, not just "given the right"...  

 

Reply to this Topic

Compare Insurance

Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy

Motorcycles for sale

 

It's only £13.99 to advertise your motorcycle on MCN

Sell your Motorcycle

Motorcycle pricing tool

New! Find used bike prices