Public Service Message

[john fallon]

Let's rephrase slightly:


Someone walks through an unlocked door in your garage (or steals it while parked in your driveway, where you left it as you're unloading groceries or dog food or something)and takes your truck and within the hour takes that truck and runs it full speed through a fence at a school, killing and injuring several children.
Do you think that you have exercised due diligence for the care and custody of a lethal weapon ?

Even though a car and a gun do not normally fall in the same category. .............If I were you and a car owned by you were used in such a manner Sharon, I would be more worried about what your insurance co would do in your defence than what I think. See you in court

john.

[Dman]

John,

What do you not understand about "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"
Shall not be infringed? You tell me what that means. Twist it however you want, the words are very simple and easy to understand.

[john fallon]

John,

What do you not understand about "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"
Shall not be infringed? You tell me what that means. Twist it however you want, the words are very simple and easy to understand.

I guess what I don't understand is how the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "
can be taken out of the context of being used ia a sentence with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state" , and be given stand alone meanings to suit ones need in an argument .

Now before we go any farther with this, enlighten me on how this can logically be done. At a minimun include in your explaination the definition of and the role of this militia in the security of free states in 2012/13, take all the band width you need...........

john

[MooseGooser]

Well maybe YOU should take some time for research on the second ammendment and its meaning,, then you would have such a squewed interpretation of it..

There are many places to go for information.. Duke University did a wonderful study on your very question. Its easily searched on the net.

Hillsdale college offers a great course on the constitution. Its Free.. Very good also.


But to answere you question in simple Gooser terms. You said
Quote:

I guess what I don't understand is how the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "
can be taken out of the context of being used ia a sentence with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state" , and be given stand alone meanings to suit ones need in an argument .


The Bill of rights consider the states have individual rights. One of those rights is to have a well regulated militia. This militia consists of ordinary citizens to protect that FREE state from standing armies, or invasions. It most definatly didnt mean Police,, or Federal armies,, It meant STATE Militia, consisting of ordinary citizens.

The constitution GUARANTEES the right for Ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms, so as the state to have the ability to have that armed militia of ordinary citizenry for protection.... against standing armies,, and oppresive invasion.

The congress (government) has no authority to infringe upon that right .. (to keep and bear arms)
It is a very good form of preparedness..
Thats kinda it in a nutshell..

If you dont undersand it,, Educate yourself... Dont spew personal agenda interpretation to it..
If you dont like it,,, Follow law,, and write an ammendment to it... Or vote for people who try and circumvent it.....

As I have said earler in the thread,, many of these state gun controll laws have gone befor the supreme court,, and have been deemd unconstitutional..

The Chicago case was one of them Those people lived under oppresive gun legislation that severly inhibited that states right to form its OWN militia in case of emergency,,,, per the constitution.. It also inhibited the popluaces right to defend its own personal life and property..

I think Californias Gun laws are much the same..

Gooser

[luvmylabs23139]

I guess what I don't understand is how the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "
can be taken out of the context of being used ia a sentence with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state" , and be given stand alone meanings to suit ones need in an argument .

Now before we go any farther with this, enlighten me on how this can logically be done. At a minimun include in your explaination the definition of and the role of this militia in the security of free states in 2012/13, take all the band width you need...........

john

Throughout all of this you have been attempting to classify a break in to a household member gaining access to items in the house. That is just stupid. If a person lives in the house they can spend many hours trying to get a combination to access something while the general thief never has that time.

[Dman]

Thanks Gooser.

[2tall]

Anybody but me concerned at all about how many folks are posting on a public forum what kind and how many guns they have? Not only that, but they are telling where they keep them and about their security arrangements???? I think its great to discuss the laws and rights and to comment on what effect changes in them will have on us and our sports, but too much info here!

[43x]

When I was a young lad there were guns easily accessible to anyone in my house and my grandparents house. I grew up knowing if I touched one of those guns without permission I would get my eyes beat shut. So guess what..... I didn't touch those suckers.

That's the way it was at are house too. There where 6 kids in are family and we all grew up around guns and shooting. My dad let us know at a early age he would break your fingers if ya messed with the guns without him being there. He also told us you are allowed NO mistakes with a gun, I think this all went with family values

[GBUSMCR]

I think I have heard John's argument before as an effective way to get rid of all guns.

Oh yeah, I have also heard this same argument on negligent responsibility before as justification for holding family members financially responsible for actions of children (any age), siblings, parents, etc. I am not surprised by this argument given society today.

[charly_t]

Anybody but me concerned at all about how many folks are posting on a public forum what kind and how many guns they have? Not only that, but they are telling where they keep them and about their security arrangements???? I think its great to discuss the laws and rights and to comment on what effect changes in them will have on us and our sports, but too much info here!

Yes ! I been kinda surprised by this. I'm not giving anyone a list to work by.