Found this yesterday and signed. Also January 19th at 12pm is a pro-second amendment march on your state capitals. Be there or be square.
Make sure you and your buddies re-read the 2nd Amendment before you begin your march. "Right to bear arms" was meant only for a "well regulated militia", not for the right of a private citizen to own an assault rifle. Just sayin'.
Make sure you and your buddies re-read the 2nd Amendment before you begin your march. "Right to bear arms" was meant only for a "well regulated militia", not for the right of a private citizen to own an assault rifle. Just sayin'.
While I disagree with your statement in general as to what the 2nd amendment actually means, just what is the highest form a rifle do you consider to be legal before it becomes an "assault" rifle? The 2nd amendment does not address this.Make sure you and your buddies re-read the 2nd Amendment before you begin your march. "Right to bear arms" was meant only for a "well regulated militia", not for the right of a private citizen to own an assault rifle. Just sayin'.
somewhat one point I was trying to make.... I think we may differ in the direction on how far "fully disarm" should go but I cant completely disagree with you. When determining what stays and what goes though, my main goal is to make sure that all the "good" guys get as many weapons as they should want; yet also making sure that the "bad" guys have as few as possible.... not the other way aroundTruth be known, the Second Amendment does not in the least suggest that certain weapons cannot be banned, only that the government could not fully disarm the populace. Even Scalia understands that.
because governments have done it before and doing so in many places now. Its a distrust in government. Thats what the bill of rights were created for in the first place (protections for individuals against a government). The Constitution was put into place to restrict and outline what the federal government is permitted to do.... and outside of that scope should not be allowed (though it does anyway sometimes), which doesnt help the trust factorSo why do people think there is any Second Amendment threat? The government we elect can decide for the periods of their office what is and is not Constitutionally protected as far as arms control goes and the courts can play referee. I think alot of people are getting a real lesson in what their rights really are and are not.
All Scalia said is that there is room for gun control. That already happens. And of course he is but one voice. A lot depends on who the others around him are. The direction we seem to be heading as a country doesnt look great for gun rights at this time. When and where elected officials take it only adds or takes away the inherent distrust. I still stand by my beliefs though that I want to see more good guys with guns than bad. The current climate of banning guns will promote peace makes no sense to me. Its not about the guns, its about society and responsibility.Scalia must be a damn fascist.
He said more than gun control. He recognized the necessity of the government to ban certain weapons. Not only as a reaction to the times, but as a well set precedent.
He said more than gun control. He recognized the necessity of the government to ban certain weapons. Not only as a reaction to the times, but as a well set precedent.
So why do people think there is any Second Amendment threat? The government we elect can decide for the periods of their office what is and is not Constitutionally protected as far as arms control goes and the courts can play referee. I think alot of people are getting a real lesson in what their rights really are and are not.
Make sure you and your buddies re-read the 2nd Amendment before you begin your march. "Right to bear arms" was meant only for a "well regulated militia", not for the right of a private citizen to own an assault rifle. Just sayin'.