Ass Hat
Home
News
Events
Bands
Labels
Venues
Pics
MP3s
Radio Show
Reviews
Releases
Buy$tuff
Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls
  
  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food
  
  New Thread
  New Poll
Miscellaneous
Links
E-mail
Search
End Ass Hat
login

New site? Maybe some day.
Posting Anonymously login: [Forgotten Password]
returntothepit >> discuss >> the 2nd by BSV on Jan 12,2013 4:18pm
Add To All Your Pages!
toggletoggle post by BSV at Jan 12,2013 4:18pm
"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."

FIRST OFF I'M PRO FIREARMS.
Yet, someone asked me a question the other night and I had no answer...."where does it say individual persons have the right to bear arms, when it clearly states it has to be a 'well regulated militia' as a 'right of the people' involved in or with the militia."?????
Maybe I'm reading into this too much or maybe the other person is but it bothered me. Are pro gun supporters misreading the amendment? Did antigun folk find a wicked loop hole? VICE VERSA?

On this note, is there a well regulated militia active in New England?



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Jan 12,2013 4:26pm
The supreme court in The District of Columbia vs Heller made it apply to a more modern definition.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Jan 12,2013 4:33pm
No need to be connected to a militia, I should say. Quite funny though, because I believe the ruling is only 5 years old.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Jan 12,2013 4:43pm
It's an individual right to bear arms, the Supreme Court has ruled on that. Relying on the argument that the second amendment only applied to militias was weak ground to stand on for those who advocated that approach. The wording of the amendment makes it pretty obvious, I think, as obviously the people can't have particular rights if none of them have those rights individually; the bigger questions in interpreting the wording has to do with what the Founders envisioned to be arms.



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Jan 12,2013 4:44pm
The people are us. It doesn't say we have to form a militia to own them. To me, the language implies that without arms, we can't form a militia so we can't be barred from having them in the case that we do need to form a militia.



toggletoggle post by KEVORD  at Jan 12,2013 4:49pm
The entire idea of the people having arms to form a militia is for the people to have equal power as their government.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Jan 12,2013 5:18pm
What it comes down to for me is basically that I want a gun, and I don't give half a fuck if it makes anyone unsafe, nor do I give 1/10 a fuck what the founding fathers said hundreds of years ago. What I do should not be anyone's business but mine. It's too bad some people misuse that simple basis of freedom, but hey, at least you get to shit in perfectly good drinking water every day (maybe more than once a day) while 1000's die of dehydration elsewhere in the world, right?

You people can sit around tossing quotes and biased 'facts' you read in the news back and forth all you want, but what it comes down to is this:
Either
1. You don't want people to have certain guns because you don't feel safe, and you don't care enough about owning one yourself that a ban would bother you at all.
or
2. You don't care enough about other people feeling safe to allow more restrictions to be put on your life.

It's a very ignorant sounding thing, because it's a very simple thing.



toggletoggle post by KEVORD  at Jan 12,2013 5:22pm
Freedom isn't free bro.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Jan 12,2013 5:23pm
Yea, in the most recent case, freedom cost us, what, 25-30 kids lives? I don't give a shit, I didn't know any of them. Give me another gun.



toggletoggle post by KEVORD  at Jan 12,2013 5:29pm
Our government drops bombs and kills way more kids then that every year. The entire thing is laughable.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Jan 12,2013 5:33pm edited Jan 12,2013 5:38pm



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Jan 12,2013 5:34pm
KEVORD said[orig][quote]
The entire idea of the people having to form a metal militia is for the people, through the mist and the madness, to try to get the message to you.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Jan 12,2013 5:35pm edited Jan 12,2013 5:36pm
As far as militia stuff in Massachusetts goes contact me through other methods for information.



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Jan 12,2013 10:02pm
It makes perfect sense that every American should have a pair of bear arms on their wall.



toggletoggle post by Hoser at Jan 13,2013 4:22am
Get yourself a gun, Rev. Otherwise I'll laugh at you when you post that there was an intruder in your your home and it caused you to screech like a woman and run away instead of protecting your shit.



toggletoggle post by arkmass at Jan 13,2013 11:45am
KEVORD said[orig][quote]
The entire idea of the people having arms to form a militia is for the people to have equal power as their government.


L O FUCKING L.



toggletoggle post by BSV at Jan 13,2013 11:53am
NITPICKY CRITICAL THINKING....
So, are you guys telling me that up until 5 years ago, Americans were legally NOT supposed own any guns?
Who in the hell can declare or define what sort of regulations a Militia would need or have to answer to in order to be regulated?



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Jan 13,2013 12:24pm edited Jan 13,2013 12:25pm
BSV said[orig][quote]
NITPICKY CRITICAL THINKING....
So, are you guys telling me that up until 5 years ago, Americans were legally NOT supposed own any guns

What?


Who in the hell can declare or define what sort of regulations a Militia would need or have to answer to in order to be regulated?


Did you read the links I posted?


Here is another:

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html



toggletoggle post by BSV at Jan 13,2013 12:33pm
No, I didn't read those links yet....
I'm just trying to wrap my head around what was gained from, The District of Columbia vs Heller ruling 5 years ago....just having a hard time understanding it, that's all.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Jan 13,2013 12:48pm edited Jan 13,2013 12:49pm
BSV said[orig][quote]
No, I didn't read those links yet....
I'm just trying to wrap my head around what was gained from, The District of Columbia vs Heller ruling 5 years ago....just having a hard time understanding it, that's all.


It was illegal for a citizen to own a handgun in Washington DC, the supreme court deemed this unconstitutional (rightfully so) so the law was changed.



toggletoggle post by BSV at Jan 13,2013 1:04pm
ok, that makes total sense. I thought I was reading it wrong. I always forget to include D.C. as a state compliments of their mystical electoral college.
Hey, are guns now legal in Puerto Rico?



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Jan 13,2013 1:42pm edited Jan 13,2013 1:44pm
BSV said[orig][quote]

Hey, are guns now legal in Puerto Rico?


Yes guns are legal in Puerto Rico but not the same as with States. The relationship between the Constitution and Puerto Rico is unfortunately grey, as with American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI ... on weed? at Jan 13,2013 2:18pm
Without arms, how would we hold guns?



Enter a Quick Response (advanced response>>)
Username: (enter in a fake name if you want, login, or new user)SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
Message:  b i u  add: url  image  video(?)show icons
remember:why are you saying that
[default homepage] [print][7:48:06am Mar 28,2024
load time 0.01222 secs/12 queries]
[search][refresh page]