The NY Times has a far better understanding of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence than you, apparently. Do you accept the government’s right to restrict access to any arms? What about nukes? What about automatic weapons? What about arms on airplanes?

It surprises me that conservatives, many of whom pretend to believe in strict construction of the constitution, allow for the second amendment to include weapons far beyond the 18th Century technical capabilities.

Nobody needs a nuke, that is an irrelevant point. The right to bear arms doesn’t include the right to possess an instrument that by it’s nature is a danger to a neighborhood, or the community, were it to accidentally explode, or leak radiation, etc.

It does include conventional weapons that can be used for self-defense against criminal gangs or invading military, or against our own government should it become too tyrannical. That was the whole point of the Second Amendment.

Take away the peoples right to bear arms, then the people become totally dependant on, and subservient to, the government, which is what the Pro-gun control crowd really wants.

How about a bazooka? Can I have a bazooka? Or a rocket launcher?

Thanks for allowing me the automatic weapons. That’s not what the Supreme Court says, but I like the way you think.

The Supreme Court also said a private business has the right to confiscate private property. They’ve said a lot of shit I don’t agree with. A lot of people seem to get pissed off at them. For example, I remember a time when certain people got really riled when they stopped the Florida recount vote in 2000.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

Like to skip that part, eh? I guess because it shoots to hell the idea that the founding fathers wanted everyone to have guns just to, well, keep guns. Tell you what, I’ll fight for the second amendment when I see you on the front lines calling for the standing military to be stood down except for a small dedicated officer and NCO cadre.

And I like most Americans will fight for the Second Amendment with our votes at the polls. I promise you we will win every time. Get fucking used to it.

And I am not skipping a damned thing. A “well regulated militia” requires that the people in it have their own weapons to bring to the battle. A “well regulated militia” is us, the American citizens. If we are called to duty, then it is expected that we might have to travel some distance, right? And that we might have to leave our families, our loved ones, at home, right? So while we are away, they are going to be in need of protection as well, right? So they are going to need guns, and while we are on route, we are going to need guns, right? Right.

But hey, that’s fine, you bunch of nuts come right out of the woodwork with your shit, just like I knew you would after the election. The great Democratic victory that you mistakenly think provided you with the “mandate” for this horseshit may well prove to be the shortest Democratic Congress on record.

And up until the time this shit is settled, which will be after any Democrat stupid enough to take this position gets their asses handed to them-again-I offer you my hearty recommendation to the Green Party.

PK – settle yourself down, my man. No need to be so nasty.

Alright, so you disagree with the Supreme Court. Why haven’t you led the revolution yet? If they’re preventing you from getting the kind of weapons we need to overthrow our government, isn’t it time to take up arms and preserve our liberty?

And does your answer mean I get a bazooka? You dodged that question, it seems.

I dodged it because it’s irrelevant. When somebody buys a weapon, it’s generally understood that he or she has some experience and skill with said weapon, or this is easily attainable. The weapon a person has in their homes is generally consdiered one viable for self-defense, which a bazooka is not, any more than you would park a tank in your driveway or garage, or set a cannon in your front yard and suppose that would be an effective deterrant.

Things like that would be relegated to an armory where they could be properly stored and maintained,and safeguarded.

And I never said anything about leading a revolution. Hopefully, things will not detriorate to that level where such an event becomes necessary.

All I said was the Supreme Court is full of shit on this issue, as they are on so many others.

But I want to thank you for admitting straight out that you are in favor and a proponent of the US becomming a police state.

Did I say that, PK? I don’t think I did. Maybe the voices in your head said I did, though.

Please show me where, in the Constitution, all that stuff about experience and skill with weapons, and maintenance, and all that other stuff is found. Because it doesn’t show up in my copy of the Constitution. Are you just making all that stuff up?

You had better listen to the voices in your own head and stop worrying about the ones in mine. Anytime somebody expresses a position in favor of gun control, at least past a certain point, is whether they know it or not expressing what amounts to a belief in a police state. What the hell else can it be when private citizens don’t have the right to bear arms, and the only people that have them are in fact the police?

As far as what is spelled out in the constitution, some things are implicit. How many people do you know that have the skill and knowledge necessary to operate a bazooka or tank, for example? If you don’t have the requisite skill, what the hell use could you possibly have for something like this?

By the way, I have a question that should settle this dispute, though I doubt it will. If the founding fathers didn’t mean for private citizens to be allowed to have guns, why the hell did they allow them to have them?

I could certainly handle a bazooka, and a rocket launcher. Can I have them? Do you support rocket launchers in citizens’ hands?

Did the founding fathers have let us have rocket launchers? Did they restrict the right to bear arms to those who knew how to load a musket properly?

There weren’t many weapons in those days the average citizen couldn’t reasonably be expected to be able to learn to operate. One exception I can think of might be a cannon. You would have seen none of these in peoples yards at the time, as there would have been no need for them, they would have been impractical, nor would the average private citizen have been prepared to adequately safeguard such a weapon from theft or vandalism.

Just like there is no need now for a private citizen to own a bazooka, a nuke, a trident submarine, or an RPG launcher. Many of these things like I said would pose a community hazard, would be impossible to properly safeguard, or, in the case of a home invasion, would be useless or impractical.

Again-if the founding fathers meant for private citizens not to be allowed to bear arms, why then did they not put a stop to them owning their own weapons.

Waiting-probably in vain-for your answer.

Have I argued that American citizens have no right to possess arms? I haven’t – so your question makes no sense to me. The founding fathers did allow for private ownership of weapons.

But the interesting part comes when we introduce the well-regulated part – what restrictions do you accept? I’m sincerely interested in what limits you are willing to accept. It sounds like you are willing to refuse ownership of anything that won’t help you out in a home invasion situation. That’s surprising to me.

Logically, if the point of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny, we need to have sufficient weapons to take on the military, don’t we? I’d sure like a basement full of SAMs if it somes to that.

There comes a point where you have to take into consideration community safety. Also, extravagant weapons like I said are useless if you don’t have the requisite expertise to use them, or, even more importantly, an adequate means of storing and safeguarding them.

This business about the government being so much more heavily armed than we are is irrelevant. The government is not going to nuke us. Therefore, a private citizen would have no need of nukes. If the government were to become tyrannical, they can still only exercise that power up to a point, and small arms fire, and any other weapons that an individual private citizen can logically be expected to own, operate, and safeguard, would be more than sufficient.

Any kind of weapon that would be considered of a highly explosive nature, or long range capability, would be better stored and safeguarded in an armory. An armory run by the state, by the way, not a bunch of private citizens of some unlicensed self-described “militia”. That is not what I am proposing.

But a private citizen still has the right to own weapons that he can reasonably be expected to use and maintain safely, in the case of a foreign invasion, the activities of criminal gangs (which is in it’s own right a kind of “warfare”) or, yes, against the potential of our own government becomming tyrannical and overbearing.

It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than citizens being allowed no arms at all, which if I read you right I am glad to see you seem to agree with.

Interesting debate. I checked and there are over 83 million acres in the National Park system, 4.3 million of which are under private ownership. That’s a lot of land. I also found that hunting is allowed in some of the national parks. I think the keyword in the bill is “concealed” weapon. I’m not knowledgable enough about weapons to know what is considered concealed. Is a rifle in a trunk of a car considered concealed?

Is there some movement to restrict weapons in national parks? I wonder what prompted Allen to sponsor the bill (which by the way I can’t find a reference to on his website).

Just curious.

Dianne-I don’t pretend to know about this, but I’m just guessing here that when it comes to land that is owned and managed by the federal government, such as national parks, they pretty much are in their rightful prerogatives to apply whatever laws they want to conerning firearms. But again, I don’t know for sure. Technically, it doesn’t matter, as any challenge to any such laws or regulations would have to be overturned, or upheld if challenged, by the courts.

“Take away the peoples right to bear arms, then the people become totally dependant on, and subservient to, the government, which is what the Pro-gun control crowd really wants. ”

How so? There are plenty of respectable people who live out their lives without ever feeling the need for a gun holster on their self or a rifle at home. And who’s to say that the pro-gun-control crowd “really wants” a dependency on the government? I’m not pro-guns myself, but it’s quite a stretch to conclude that their aim is to schemingly play the people into the government’s hands.

The nuke/bazooka argument is ludicrous, but what’s interesting about your response is that you claim that they cause a communal hazard, justifying the indiscretion with its illegality. But don’t guns have negative implications on society? Aren’t there those who are killed by guns in an otherwise peaceful residential neighborhood, accidental or otherwise? I myself wouldn’t be ecstatic about living next door to someone knowing that there is an effing rifle in their home.

My stance is that of eliminating guns altogether…a completely idealistic and impossible policy that I don’t intend on forcing upon the public, admittedly. But it’s simple logic that the illegality of guns would do very little to prevent violent crime. Those who want to buy a gun could and would do so, regardless of law. Hell, if their intent is to KILL someone, obviously an illegal act, why would the illegality of the purchase of the firearm itself be a problem for them? Hence, the only people who are put off by gun-control laws are those that are law-abiding people who honestly just want to protect themselves. Not to mention that there would still be an enormous black market, which would pull buyers into that black market, along with dangerous drug dealers, smugglers, and some generally … unsafe people.

I agree with your general stance, it’s just that your claims are a bit questionable.

i think this tells alot of what nytimes belive about the 2nd amendment and i want to say thanks for letting me put this in my report i’ll use it wisely XD