Gun Control, Nuclear Proliferation, and Free Societies

[Johnathan Napalm]

Take the guns out of crooks and criminals hangs first, then we can all happily surrender our guns too. We don't need guns if criminals don't have guns.

 

[Nightingale]

but its virtually impossible to make sure the criminals don't have guns. they don't respect our laws, and our law enforcement can't be everywhere. if we had the power to stop guns from getting in the hands of crooks, we'd have the power to stop crime alltogether.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Then the citizens should be allowed to bear arms for self defence.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Don't quote me here, but I believe it is the state of Vermont where they have this "exile" law. If you commit a crime with a firearm, you are to be locked up in out of state prisons for 5 years. I forgot the details. But the "exile" clause strikes fear into the heart of criminals (not the hardcores, of course) b/c they will be cut off from visit by their homeboys, their families etc. By the time they got out, they found themselves outsiders. I read that gun crimes dropped significantly as a result. They have even captured unarmed robbers b/c these people did not want to be caught with a gun on them. LOL.

Sorry I don't remember the specific details of this method. I read it in an article in the Reader's Digest a while back.


But the bottom line is,all gun control measures should target ONLY criminals and not ordinary law abiding gun owners.

 

[M F]

The 2nd amendment to the US constitution protects the right of states to have militias, like the rest of the Bill of Rights it is intended to limit the power of the *federal* government, not the states.

All it takes is a basic grasp of the rules of the English language to understand that this statement is false.

"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
."

http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm

This is long, but if you want a detailed analysis of the Second Amendment, analyzed by English language rules, then this is essential reading. One of the formost experts of English usage explains in detail why this, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is not limited in any way by this, " A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State".
-edited because I forgot to add the link.

 

[Elfan]

"2nd Amenedment Sisters's Foundation Inc." might have a slightly biased view on the matter. ;-)

BTW if you are going to argue from a gramatical point of view please include all the commas:

"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. "

 

[M F]

You are right that the 2nd Amendment sisters may be a bit biased. But I don't believe that the Professor who gave this opinion was biased. I may be wrong. After reading several writings from the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, I don't believe I was wrong about the intention of the 2nd Amendment . If I can find links to these writings I will post them.
The problem with all of this is that each side will use information that seems biased when looked at by those on the other side of the argument.
I had not noticed the omission of the comma that you pointed out, thanks for the correction. I do not believe that it changes the meaning of the Amendment, though.