• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Discussion: The Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
ha...again, I have seen no pending legislation or any indication that lawful gun owners are in jeopardy of losing anything

I know there is a small small movement here in CT to take another look at carry laws
 
I don't really see too much of a problem with this except now the line to by-pass the line is going to be longer.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R35920100628

By a 5-4 vote and splitting along conservative and liberal lines, the nation's highest court extended its landmark 2008 ruling that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns to all the cities and states for the first time.
The right to bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, previously applied to just federal laws and federal enclaves, like Washington D.C., where the court struck down a similar handgun ban in its 2008 ruling.
Gun rights have been one of the country's most divisive social, political and legal issues. Some 90 million people in the United States have an estimated 200 million guns.
The United States is estimated to have the world's highest civilian gun ownership rate. Gun deaths average about 80 a day, 34 of them homicides, according to U.S. government statistics.
The ruling, issued on the last day of the Supreme Court's term, was a victory for four Chicago-area residents, two gun rights groups and the politically powerful National Rifle Association.
It was a defeat for Chicago, which defended its law as a reasonable exercise of local power to protect public safety. The law and a similar handgun ban in suburban Oak Park, Illinois, were the nation's most restrictive gun control measures.
"We hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states," Justice Samuel Alito concluded for the court majority in the 45-page ruling.
 
This part is worth quoting:

Burns' bill would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons having passed the training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force.

The pastor or head of the religious institution must announce verbally or in weekly newsletters or bulletins that there will be individuals armed on the property as members of [t]he security force. Those chosen have to undergo eight hours of tactical training each year.

So someone can't just decide to bring his 12 gauge shotgun to church one Sunday morning. He'd have to have a concealed carry, pass a background check, and undergo additional training each year. I would think the security force wouldn't just select anyone who volunteers either.
 
Whoa....just sounds weird a law stating that you can take your gun to church. Makes my Quaker ancestors roll over in their graves.
 
didn't the Quakers used to beat people who fell asleep in church??
 
True, but I love the fact that they believe that your relationship with God is between you and God, you don't need clergy to help you, its your experience, no one else. And their strong belief that there is good in everyone. They don't need a book to tell them how to live, they don't need someone telling them how they should believe, it is a personal thing. I could probably be a very content member of this church, but my disdain for any kind of organized religion, and my extreme amount of reality that I live with, would probably make it pretty hard for me. But there are certainly parts of these people's lifestyle that truly intrigue me, and I respect them.
 
Yeah, but the no make up...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


no...
 
Whoa....just sounds weird a law stating that you can take your gun to church. Makes my Quaker ancestors roll over in their graves.

Yes, because, as we all know, nothing has had a longer history of peace and tolerance than religious institutions.
 
Well, actually Quakers do have quite the history of peace and tolerance. My ancestors walked with the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears and refused to ride in wagons, because they felt they were being treated harshly and unfair by the government. Just an example, I'm proud of that...
 
Wasn't the second amendment's primary purpose to arm civilian militias in case of another British invasion? Sorry to the "red dawn" fetishists, but it doesn't look like the conventional enemy-nation-invading-the-American-mainland scenario is in the cards.

I think hunting for sport is a pretty malicious and crass past-time and justified by those who have zero empathy for the animals they snuff out, but okay I understand we all have different needs. A .22. rifle is all you need for that.

Why shouldn't semi-automatic and automatic weapons or extra-capacity magazines be outlawed? What rights do they protect? The right to shoot something multiple times? Please.:whatever:
 
As I've said before: I don't like guns. I don't want to be near guns. But I won't get all pissy if someone responsible wants to own one.

That said, I think it's a bit too easy for the average person to get one, but I feel the same way about driver's licenses.
 
People who want a gun have every right to buy them (though I understand desired limits for hand guns and semi automatic weapons).

They just need to pass certain backround checks first. That is what needs to be improved.
 
Right now it is up to the States to regulate those type of firearms. In California and New Jersey there are assault weapons bans, but there are several state that don't. That being said, though, the Federal Government does have the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 that govern the sale and transfer of firearms.
 
I've never understood the fascination people have with guns. I have fired some rifles before on a target practice, but never handguns. Personally... I don't mind if you have weapons for hunting and eating your prey... that seems perfectly logical to me. I believe the police should also have access to guns should they require them, but I've never believed that it was necessary for the average homeowner to have a gun.
 
I've never understood the fascination people have with guns. I have fired some rifles before on a target practice, but never handguns. Personally... I don't mind if you have weapons for hunting and eating your prey... that seems perfectly logical to me. I believe the police should also have access to guns should they require them, but I've never believed that it was necessary for the average homeowner to have a gun.

What about to protect your home and family?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,263
Messages
22,074,607
Members
45,875
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"