i see the total opposite, if dc doesnt make it a ridiculously large pain in the ass to get a gun, crime will go down. criminals aren't the people who are effected by gun bans, only responsible citizens who want to protect themsleves. why do you think dc has such a high crime rate already, the ban was in place.

think about it...

Everyone, please.

You cannot simultaneously fight for and against freedom. The right to defend ones self is just as important if not more so than the right to freedom of speech.

Arms and speech are powers that are placed in the hands of people for a reason. As such, it is the duty of the people to act responsibly.

"Learning to speak is like learning to shoot."
-Avital Ronell

The Congress of course could always take it upon themselves to rewrite the admendment but they won't.

There is no real debate about the intent of the Second Amendment. The people who oppose the right to bear arms attempt to obscure the obvious meaning of the amendment and the well stated intent of the framers. If you disagree with the right to bear arms then you should support a new amendment to the Constitution which takes away the right to bear arms. That is the only legal way to change the situation.

Here's the ENITE 2nd amendment. Pretty fucking clear to me. No subsections. No ifs or buts. No exceptions.

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.

If the USA outlawed handguns, there would be thousands of less murders and deaths per year.

However.. You have a lot of people, so who cares!

There are lawsuits because many people who oppose the right to bear arms are making every effort to override the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution. There is a system for changing the Constitution but the gun control proponents know that they lack the popular support to ever repeal the Second Amendment.

Sam's club can refuse to allow weapons on their property. Legally, anyone with a weapon can be asked to leave, except law enforcement officers who have special rights. And, in general, anyone with a weapon who refuses to leave can legally be forced to leave.

Check your eyes. Here is what is does NOT say.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militias to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The words "the people" means all people within the jurisdication of the United States. It does not mean only some people such as only soldiers or only police or only citizens or only white people or only adults.

It is scary to think that the 2nd amendment in no way allows for banning of ownership of WMD by "the people" ... but it's true.

Here is what it says:

1. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Here is what it implies:

1. In order to achieve a well regulated milita, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
2. There is no ban on private militias.

Perhaps today it is not necessary to allow private ownership of arms in order to achieve a well regulated militia. Still, the authors of the 2nd amendment decided it was a good idea and it was passed into law. it can be repealed but the 2nd amendment has never been changed even though many people try to subvert it.

Your clearity is in conflict with the clearity of the Court...so whose clearity is important and which of you determines what the law of the land is? I know the answer so my question is rhetorical.

I know how the amendment reads, but it is how it is INTERPRETED. That is the key


the first amendment says
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

but a woman is arrested for wearing a Fuck Bush shirt. It clearly states she has the right to free speech. Why is she arrested?


There is no Black or White - this is my point!

it seems obvious to me the intent isn't to permit one-man "armies" from taking up a fight against the entire nation in opposition to their lone views, but rather to insure that a small government could not impose its will upon on a significantly larger population who are in agreement that what their government is doing, is wrong, and wrong enough that it's worth fighting for.

as for your question about the types of arms, there is not a military in the world that is capable of fighting a well armed civilian population of our number, and it is very likely that many of the individuals in the military would refuse to take arms or go 'awol' if asked to fight in some type of civil war in which popular opinion was overwhelmingly against the government.

the second amendment is a very simple, elegant solution to deter any form of truly tyrannical government from ever coming to pass.

btw this is the actual amendment ratified by the states: "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."

previously posted amendment was the one approved by congress and senate but now what went out to the states. there's definitely enough wiggle room to try and argue that the amendment applies only to militia. its actually scary the vote was 5-4, no 8-1 or 9-0. thats a dam close vote if you ask me.

Excellent...A+...for you.

Here is what it does NOT say.

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed."

"If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militias to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless a well regulated milita provides security"

"The people only have a right to keep and bear arms if a well regulated milita is unavailable to secure a free state."

"The only people who have an uninfringable right to keep and bear arms are members of well regulated militas"

"Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

That's the third SC decision I totally agree with in the past 10 days. Habeas corpus re-instated, the inflationary use of the death penalty pushed back, and now the right to bear arms being partially restored. I am slowly beginning to re-gain my trust in this system.

These judges are not half as bad as people think they are.

Jenny, your avatar might ruffle some feathers here, since playboy might as well own this place.. Might wanna check with eric or ice. I have no problems with it, but just a heads up

Why would it? It hasn't in many years.

But then, I was going to get rid of it anyway, I actually already have a new one.

See, a new avatar. I was actually going to use this one

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/3686/avat2aj9.jpg

but was afraid the Chinese would sue me for clamping their chopsticks on to my nipples.

What do you mean by "partially" restored? BTW...would be nice if the revisted Eminent Domain.

the people are the militia. period.

Even if the founding fathers meant "standing army" when they said "militia," the last part still reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's right there in black & white. Until you can prove that the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/National Guard are no longer necessary for our security, the last part of that amendment still stands.

Go fix me a sandwich and blow this fat dick.:winkwink:

fuck that shit

The decisions still leaves many loopholes for States and communities to prevent people from exercising their civil liberties.

I see it like this: We as Americans got this Constitution and we can't just pick and chose which part of it we like. Gun advocates tries to reduce the Constitution to the 2nd, pornographers try to reduce it to the 1st, and the government tries to reduce it to nothing, as we have seen in the past years.

I want a big bad bomb!

"and now the right to bear arms being partially restored."

It has always been the law of the land and was reaffirmed in todays decision thus nothing for the Court to restore. There are certain cities that will now have to restore the right.

Wow that's a very important ruling. And a good one in my opinion

I agree also they wrote that so if the government got stupid the people could rise up again and replace it. But when they wrote it was muskets against muskets. I would interesting if we could know what they really meant.

Saying if you can't own weapons of MASS destruction your rights are being infringed is a little crazy. You really think people should own WMDs? There has to be a limit somewhere.

Revisions need to be made and new laws put in place as times change. When this shit was written they didn't have WMDs. They didn't know how shit would be here in 2008. They didn't even have an internet to do their whining on...