Random Thoughts (Page 3): I believe the U.S. constitution provides for, ie "allows", the formation and maintenance of a Militia but does not restrict weapons to only those in a...

rrforster12 Loc: Leesburg Florida

Remus wrote:

As an ignorant Brit doesn't your constitution only give the right to bear arms if you are in a militia?

I believe the U.S. constitution provides for, ie "allows", the formation and maintenance of a Militia but does not restrict weapons to only those in a Militia.
Banning of guns would be about as effective as banning drugs has been, but it would increase the price of existing guns by a factor of at least 10. What a bonanza that would be for the black market.
Then there is the specter of our ham-handed government trying to enforce such a ban. Imagine another govt organization like TSA running roughshod across the nation with a mandate to purge all guns from the population by force. The act of banning something does not translate to eliminating it, but the infrastructure the act would create would be far worse then the problems we now have. Just look at Mexico for a example of how gun control works.

DennisK Loc: Pickle City,Illinois

MT Shooter wrote:

quote=Mac br br First of all, our right to own ... (show quote)

Ok then, what if the first amendment was limited to quill and ink wells?

Remus Loc: Norfolk, UK

Gnslngr wrote:

Remus wrote:

As an ignorant Brit doesn't your constitution only give the right to bear arms if you are in a militia?

Yup. That's the only way a reasonable person can read the sentence, but no one said the Supreme Court of the United States was reasonable.

Or that they could read, for that matter. :thumbup:

I did a bit of research since my original question. In 2008 the Supreme Court said that a militia could only contain able-bodied males between certain ages (I didn't look up those ages). So, it seems to me that if you are female, not able-bodied or not in the age range then you can't be in a militia - and you 'have' to be in a militia to 'bear arms'. So women, children, old-uns and non-militia persons who own guns are breaking the law. Is this correct? Please note, I'm not trying to be either pro or anti guns here, just trying to find out what your law says on the matter.

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

MT Shooter wrote:

quote=Mac quote=MT Shooter quote=Mac br br Fi... (show quote)

Geez MT, wouldn't that idea disband the NRA completely since barrel rifling was not in muskets, or muzzle loaders? They'd have to form a new organization called the "NMA". It is an intriguing thought though, but I seriously doubt that congress would go for it.

adunivan Loc: San Antonio, TX

Remus wrote:

quote=Gnslngr quote=Remus As an ignorant Brit do... (show quote)

Here is what the second amendment says: 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.

It doesn't "say" only if you are in the militia. It does say of "the people". Would it not be reasonable to see that the militia being armed is necessary to defend the country. The people (the citizens of the country) have the right to be armed also???

Anthony Charles Loc: Santa Maria

Funny you should bring that idea up.
i SUGGESTED a similar idea but was lambasted by a member of this group as being a STUPID MORON .
I sincerely hope that you do not suffer the same indignity
that had to endure

Remus Loc: Norfolk, UK

Hi adunivan, the way I read the second amendment is that you have the right to bear arms because you are in a 'well regulated' militia (an unarmed militia would be pointless). I don't think 'The people' is meant to include those who are not in militias. That's the way it seems to me anyway but I can see how different interpretations could be put on it.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

You must remember at the time it was written the militia was the people (farmers, farm workers, shop owners).

Remus wrote:

Hi adunivan, the way I read the second amendment is that you have the right to bear arms because you are in a 'well regulated' militia (an unarmed militia would be pointless). I don't think 'The people' is meant to include those who are not in militias. That's the way it seems to me anyway but I can see how different interpretations could be put on it.

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

Brucej67 wrote:

You must remember at the time it was written the militia was the people (farmers, farm workers, shop owners).

Remus wrote:

Hi adunivan, the way I read the second amendment is that you have the right to bear arms because you are in a 'well regulated' militia (an unarmed militia would be pointless). I don't think 'The people' is meant to include those who are not in militias. That's the way it seems to me anyway but I can see how different interpretations could be put on it.

The US Constitution was ratified by the Continental Congress in 1787, long after the completion of the Revolutionary War. All of the member states signed this and at that time each state had it's own Malitia which was under the command of the legislative bodies of their origin states governing body. These Malitia were for the support and security of each individual state and it's citizens. At that time, only land or property owners were considered to be allowed to vote and thus, woman, slaves and the poor were disallowed to participate in local, state. or federal government.
Therefore, they were not uncontrolled mobs of individual citizens who banded togeather being armed, but voluntary members of what is now considered to be the National Guard.

DennisK Loc: Pickle City,Illinois

Remus wrote:

Hi adunivan, the way I read the second amendment is that you have the right to bear arms because you are in a 'well regulated' militia (an unarmed militia would be pointless). I don't think 'The people' is meant to include those who are not in militias. That's the way it seems to me anyway but I can see how different interpretations could be put on it.

It's an American thing. People from other countries probably don't get it; but I can understand why. A lot of people in THIS country don't get it.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

imntrt1 wrote:

quote=gphotography Marijuana kills? Since when? C... (show quote)

You can exchange alcohol for marijuana in your examples.
Once alcohol was legalized the turf wars ended. The same thing will happen when marijuana is legalized.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

It's the last sentence that bothers me. It also means that a criminal - or even a family member or visitor who goes off the rails - can obtain a gun much easier than the legal gun owner can.

Security of weapons seems the area that needs tightening up - and it wouldn't go against the first amendment.

Brucej67 wrote:

Each state has different laws, but there is a federal check when you purchase a weapon. A rifle can be purchased right away but a hand gun requires a 2 week waiting period. New Jersey requires you to have a gun carry permit to get a weapon and to get a carry permit you have to apply to your local police department fill out forms, be finger printed and get a background check from the federal government which takes a couple of weeks. After you have a carry permit and you go to a store to purchase a weapon you are required to fill out more forms, show the carry permit and then the sales person calls the state police who can accept or deny your right to purchase the weapon. What is not covered under the law is how you billet the weapon in your home. If the weapon is not secured properly anyone (including children or mentally unfit) can get the weapon and do harm.

Crwiwy wrote:

ted45 wrote:

quote=Crwiwy quote=ted45 quote=Sac-Jack I was t... (show quote)

That is one consolation - hopefully they check personal details as well as our banks do.

quote=ted45 quote=Crwiwy quote=ted45 quote=Sac... (show quote)

Each state has different laws, but there is a fede... (show quote)

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

Just a thought; taking into account store profit and sales tax - a criminal may be able to pick up a black market gun cheaper than a registered gun owner!

In the UK - it is the only way to obtain most guns.

Rich Maher Loc: Sonoma County, CA

MT Shooter wrote:

quote=Mac br br First of all, our right to own ... (show quote)

What an interesting observation.

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

Crwiwy wrote:
That is one consolation - hopefully they check personal details as well as our banks do.

Under the Privacy Act, even the FBI can't attain anyone's banking or medical records without a court order, so your proposal of thoroughness of any background check is mute. However, since the Patriot Act, Homeland Security can attain any and all records or install surveilance equipment on an individual without a court order. But this doesn't apply for attaining a background check for the purchase of a gun as long as proper ID is presented and whatever that state has for proper waiting period.