Oh lord...here we go....
This is a discussion on What is the limit of the right to keep and bear arms? within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by gunnerbob Seems many of you are thinking of yourselves here, under the mask of giving freedom to ...
Concerning women in politics. The only people who could vote were the people who have land. Which meant that the widows from the Revolutionary War could vote in the elections. Also if women were thought so little of them why did most of the Founding Fathers value their wife's opinions much. Look at George Washington and John Adams letters to their wives. Abigail Adams HIGHLY influenced John Adams policies.
Oh lord...here we go....
Second, you may wish to brush up on the Fith Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment
As our southern countries say: "Jesus Christo!". I knew a driver in the Marines that would take his unit out for drinks when they would get leave. This unit seemed to scrap and pick fights with each other more than most. Anyway, when they all were accounted for he would slap his unit coin down on the table basically calling coins on everyone else. One by one they all would slap their coins down and after all coins were shown he would remind them they are on the same team. They may not agree totally on everything but still had the same mission. It cost him to pay for all the drinks since everyone carried a coin, but it helped them survive and reminded them to work as a team, as a family. We all agree here that the gun laws as they stand are corrupt? Then keep that fight in mind. Bottoms up boys!!
??? Okay, good luck with that.
And, b/c the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about restricting arms use by peoples who are un-fit to operate them, we shouldn't restrict their ability to use them.
??? Okay, good luck with that too. I'm sure you can go find some really irresponsible people, give them a gun, and hope for the best. Yeah, you do that.
Even our great founding fathers didn't get everything right, that's what I said.
While I understand that they played politics, y'know, compromising and all... it doesn't make their decesion right. Having slaves for one, but then treating them as less than an entire human being is wrong. The treatment our founders gave women as a whole was also wrong, thinking they couldn't learn and process information to the level required to vote for, or run for office.... yeah, that's not cool either.
My point remains, even our spectacular founding fathers didn't have all the answers, and they weren't supermen. They were capable of making the same bad decisions we do now-a-days. They did.
I am absolutely amazed at the number of people here who seem to support giving weapons to people who may be un-fit to operate them without the greater chance of harming themselves or others.
Some of you guys are missing the important factor here. If you are going to exercise your right to own/operate firearms, you had better be able to do it responsibly, for nobody has the "right" to deny another their life, safety, and ability to enjoy their constitutional freedoms by causing them harm... by being un-fit to operate a firearm.
But, y'know what, you guys go ahead and pass out some weapons to people who shouldn't have them for reasons of inability to operate safely... and hope they don't do anything stupid.
I know I'm coming in late in the argument however...
The OP was, to me, a disguised question of where do we draw the line in the description of what an "arm" is and therefore does the 2A have limitations to what type of 'arm' is protected under the 2A.
Any restriction of access to an arm, through the requirement of training mandates, denial of ownership through additional taxes, or any other reasoning, regardless of what the arm is, is an infringement on the 2A.
The fact that the government has already set the guideline to what classification of weapons the citizen is "allowed" to own under the laws set forth by the government is a demonstration that they can and will restrict the citizens access to any and all firearms when they really want to push the issue as long as we let them.
And like it has already been stated above, the government has already imposed infringements on the 2A when it comes to full automatic weapons, suppressors and any device it considers a device of war. Sure it is possible to buy and M1 Abrams if you have the money but it will have the teeth pulled first. It will be demilitarized first so the citizen won't have an advantage in an encounter with the government.
This may sound like a silly argument but there is a growing cross section of the population that believe the government will use every stepping stone it can find to get to the complete eradication of private gun ownership. The first step is to redefine what we think the "arms" represents in the 2A.
In essence I think you're right here. Every "responsible" gun owner should seek proper training on any firearm they posses and that should also include the Ma-Duce or the Harrier Jump Jet(wouldn't THAT be cool?!). But to impose a restriction due to training levels is still a restriction.Some of you guys are missing the important factor here. If you are going to exercise your right to own/operate firearms, you had better be able to do it responsibly, for nobody has the "right" to deny another their life, safety, and ability to enjoy their constitutional freedoms by causing them harm... by being un-fit to operate a firearm.
But if I were to paraphrase your statement "for nobody has the "right" to deny another their life, safety, and ability to enjoy their constitutional freedoms by mandating weapon operations training."
I somewhat agree with your sentiments Bob. I really do want everyone around me to know why they are possessing a firearm a I sure as the devil want them to be able to safely operate it.But, y'know what, you guys go ahead and pass out some weapons to people who shouldn't have them for reasons of inability to operate safely... and hope they don't do anything stupid.
And there is a distinct difference between a responsible gun owner possessing a firearm and "pass out some weapons to people who shouldn't have them for reasons of inability to operate safely". But who should determine who it is that "is safe to operate" and who is not?
If we allow a government sanctioned mandate requiring specific training prior to the legal ownership of the weapons of discussion, how long will it be before the mandates are imposed on us to own that very special side arm that keeps you company every day?
Have a good one and be safe out there.
To not stand against injustice is to stand for it.
Don't confuse my personality and my attitude.
My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are.