Um, I don't see that anywhere, it was meant to list a right that the people had, not a power of the govt.

Those who have commited crimes before is a different argument all together, they have given up their rights by committing the crime. I didn't say the govt has a say on some parts but not on others, I'm saying that the 2nd amendment does not list a power of the federal gov't and no where in the Constitution does it even imply that the federal gov't has the right to regulate guns.

I'd love to talk more, but I gotta get ready for school.

I think that there's an important fact no one has mentioned yet. Canada has roughly the same number of guns per capita as the US, but the number of gun related illnesses is in the range of 1/10th that of the US. Obviously, the mere possession of guns doesn't cause deaths. The main difference has to be in the people that own guns or in the environment they live in.

Gun related illness? I think you were looking for crime. And I would agree, we are in a poor environment, the main problem with guns is that people do not train their kids (or maybe even themselves) in the proper use of guns. I for one have never even touched a gun I didn't know how to load, unload, fire, and use the safety on. It keeps everything safe. And the rule is: "never point a gun at something you do not intend to kill."

The gun amendment is just that, an amendment to the constitution. This gives the right to the federal government to change amendments, an example of this in action being prohibition. I really dont believe that violent crime criminals should be considered a different issue because the laws and restrictions pertaining to them does not mean they have to have all their rights taken away because of their crime after they have served their sentence. Things like the mandatory wait period before buying a gun DO have reasons in them for why they exist. Its for the very basic reason to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, ie those who have committed a violent crime. They were created in order to allow this country to better enforce laws made which relate to criminals and their treatment.

This whole section and the case in question does not really give a full defining definition to what is impinging on rights and what isnt, but it provides a glimmer of illumination as to what possibly COULD be impinging on rights. The courts at this time have not really decided one way or another on what infringes the second amendment and what does not

Also in the original written constitution the amendment in question read as so:

There is supposed to be no comma after Arms as well as none after militia. While this might seem to be a small point, it also changes the definition of the whole amendment in question. Also please note that the right to bear arms is also contingent with the fact that it has to be justifiable as for use in a militia.

As long as the ability to keep and bear arms is not infringed on, I dont believe that there is a conflict of interest in the regulation of getting guns. When arguing about whether guns should be regulated or not, please keep in mind the context of the clause provided.

Furthermore lets explore the definition of well regulated as it was defined at the time of the constitution.
Laws created that make guns which have been modified from their original use and therefore become dangerous for the user illegal are not against the constitution, as the gun would not be functioning as it would have originally been expected to.

You cant reasonably argue that all legislation on guns and the possession and ability to have them at the national level is against the second amendment. To do so is to take parts out of the amendment and not consider the whole as it would have been defined at the time it was written and ratified.

The amendment implies nothing about guns being justifiable for people who are not well trained and versed in their usage, as somebody who is untrained yet still owns a gun and is still able and LEGAL to use that gun, would not be able to well contribute to a well-regulated militia as it was originally meant.

Ive seen many many people who are against gun laws ignore the part of the second amendment which says that"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, " which implies that the whole amendment is about the topic of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA and everything thereafter pertains to that fact. If the weapon in question is not something that would fit that part of the constitution, there is nothing wrong with the banning of that weapon.

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

This implies that it is to protect the states from tyranny of the federal gov't, b/c a militia would be state run. So in this day and age, could you fight against a tyrannical federal gov't which has assault rifles and rocket launchers with pistols and shotguns? I would think not. I'm sorry I didn't respond to all of your points, I really am not feeling too well right now, and don't have the patience to write out everything.

History
 

When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.

George Washington

Quote
 

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth.

George Washington

Ashlee...This dosn't make sense to me.
The amendments to the Constitution carry the same weight as the rest of the constitution. To change an amendment requires another amendment. Article 5 of the Constitution gives the Federal government the right to change amendments, not the gun amendment.

It also doesn't matter how it was suppose to be written, what matters is how it was actually written and accepted.


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~
I nitpick sometimes.
Accuracy is important.

This is an interesting point. In the past few minutes, I've looked at more than five different transcriptions of the Second Amendment, and only one of them had the wording (placement of the commas) the way you describe. This is the version I find most convincing, considering it's hosted by the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration. The wording you describe, Ashlee, does not make sense in proper English.

However, none of this changes the fact that the amendment in question implies the existence of a "well regulated Militia [sic]". I, for one, don't believe that there many "well regulated" militias, except for, perhaps, the National Guard.

I believe this amendment should be clarified and restated because of the fact that the time in which the concept of needing a "well regulated" militia for the protection of our homeland has passed.

Don't let them do it
 

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of firearms is the goal."
- Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, December 10th, 1993 [Associated Press]

So you trust people in Washington D.C. to protect you?

And anyways, the militia is not so much meant to protect the country but the states from the federal government. Read some more about your founding fathers and you'd see what they really thought.

I would much rather employ due process rather than a firearm. If the FBI (or another federal agency) were to raid your house, would you start shooting? Do you feel that any state in particular has been abused by the federal government?

True, as would most gun-owners. But, someone threatening your life sure doesn't want to employ due process, and then, a gun can be helpful for self-defense. Afterall, if a crimnal merely knows you have a gun, some confrontations can be avoided. I believe it was FDR who said "speak softly and carry a big stick."

Also, I believe you are missing the point. The second amendment gives us all a right to bear arms, and it gives us one reason (the well regulated militia) that we have that right. I for one don't believe that a well regulated militia is the ONLY reason we should have the right to bear arms, and I'm sure the framers didn't either. That being the case, just because you are of opinion that the justification clause (the well regulated millitia part) no longer holds, that is not a reason in and of itself to ban guns. I have yet to hear a logical reason why guns should not be allowed.

For now, I'll skip over the debate about wheater or not the second ammendment is an individual right or not, and even ignore the argument that the nullification of the justification clause should cause the nullification of the operative clause (the one that gives us the right to bear arms). Instead, I'll pose a question: Why do you believe guns should be banned? What reason can you give that would impel one to give up his liberty to bear arms?

Stephen

Here's some info to chew on while you debate this topic: Bowling for Colombine. Michael Moore created this whilstle blower movie that won numerous awards about America's obsession with, well, guns.

NOTE: This movie is not indorsed by Chiefdephi.com, Chief Delphi, Team 384, or Joseph M, nor does all the topics discussed are believed by them. Thank you.

http://www.mgm.com/ua/bowlingforcolumbine/

Just something to chew on.

Well, I just looked at the flash intro, and it looked like a bunch of liberal propoganda. I don't see how ANY of the info in it relates to the topic at hand. Yes, it gives you a few statistics on the amount of gun homocides in America. So what? Have we reached the point where a few dubiosly presented statistics are reason enough to abondon our liberties?

I know you gave your disclaimer, but I'm having trouble finding how any of that information is relevant to the banning of guns.

Stephen