2nd Amendment Poll [Archive]

Terminals

08-10-2009, 01:56 PM

markamoore

08-10-2009, 02:06 PM

Do you think the 2nd amendment,

"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."

is your "permit" to carry concealed?

:doorag:

JMO, Permit to keep & carry, YES! But "not necessarily" concealed.
Don't guess it mattered one way or the other, concealed or not back in the day when it was written. Just guessing:dontknow:

LasPulgas

08-10-2009, 02:10 PM

Yes, just like Ted Nugent says. And Like G. Gordon Liddy says, "Some laws shouldn't be obeyed under any circumstances". And I might add to that "some laws shouldn't be enforced in the jury box under any circumstances". :yikes:

Terminals

08-10-2009, 02:12 PM

I believe it is my permit to carry concealed.

In discussing this with some friends, some of which have
jumped through the legal hoops to get a CCP,
it occurred to me that other people had not even thought about it.

So my poll is asking only about concealed carry.

:doorag:

Ghost-Flame

08-10-2009, 02:31 PM

aardvark

08-10-2009, 02:38 PM

I voted that I don't care. I don't own a gun. I have thought ablout getting one for target and sport... not for self defense. Too many accidents for me to feel comfortable carrying or having unlocked and loaded around the house.

I suppose that once you get a gun and get into it you have more of an opinion. I'm okay with people who carry guns and know how to use em...

It used to be American Citizen's right to own and sell another human being (white, black, Indian, Mexican, Spanish) garaunteed by the constituion and even the church was behind that one. The constitution wasn't the only test of the validity of the law though. It was changed by an ammendment to the constituion. The second ammendment was definitly needed 250 years ago. Things change.

The thugs will always have guns:dontknow:.
I just don't know where I stand with this one.

I put my faith in Jesus Christ and let the chips fall where He want em to.

Good luck with that when your getting carjacked at the local mall,and some scumbag thinks your families life aint worth squat....

I put my faith in God to give me the ability to pull the trigger at the correct moment..

as far as the "right" to carry a concealed weapon...better judged by 12 ,than carried by six...

Voimakas

08-10-2009, 03:57 PM

Really does make you wonder why one of them lib'rul New England states has the best system for concealed carry: Vermont.

DrRadar

08-10-2009, 04:24 PM

Do you think the 2nd amendment,

"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."

is your "permit" to carry concealed?

:doorag:
What about " shall not be infringed." is unclear?:dontknow:

I carry.
I'll protect myself, my family and my neighbors from those that would do them harm.

What if they wanted to do away with the 1,3,4 or 5th amendements? Or make them less relevant.

Even Jesus told his followers to buy a sword, 2 if they could. (Luke 22, read the whole thing to get relevance)

FLCracker

08-10-2009, 04:28 PM

Really does make you wonder why one of them lib'rul New England states has the best system for concealed carry: Vermont.

And their crime rate is one of the lowest in the nation... funny how that works out.......

markamoore

08-10-2009, 04:46 PM

Good luck with that when your getting carjacked at the local mall,and some scumbag thinks your families life aint worth squat....

I put my faith in God to give me the ability to pull the trigger at the correct moment..

as far as the "right" to carry a concealed weapon...better judged by 12 ,than carried by six...

:thumbup:I couldn't agree more!

Ghost-Flame
Once you and yours are gone because of some drug induced, no-workin, low life, peckerwood with NO life puts you down for whatever he thinks you "might" have in your pockets, there ain't no going back to shoulda, coulda and woulda!

Unless you are the one that penned the following:
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil, for I am the meanest (insert you here) in the Valley, might be a good time to get some "Shootin Irons" and practice up!
With our justice system giving the criminals more rights than the victims. It ain't gonna self correct any time soon and you ain't gonna reason with an unreasonable, unrepentant, ungodly, cowardly, brainless, chemical induced maniac that don't even care for their own life, little alone yours!

Bottom Line:
It's better to have it and not need it, than it is to need it and not have it!!!!!!!!! :thumbup:

aardvark

08-10-2009, 04:56 PM

http://dgilber2.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/gun_free_zone.jpg

http://lonelymachines.org/images/posters/liberty.jpg

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n171/nyleather/TheMotivationPoster-1.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/112/368844351_5c389b5c0b.jpg

aardvark

08-10-2009, 05:03 PM

http://images-3.redbubble.net/img/art/size:large/view:main/2632359-2-2nd-amendment-badge.jpg

KenzX

08-10-2009, 05:09 PM

I don't believe that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow concealed carry of small weapons, but to allow citizens to own arms in case it was necessary to form a militia. That IMO would apply to long guns, weapons of the day for militia.

I own a handgun, and I carry it when we travel, or when there are circumstances that I feel warrant it...like, when I owned a small business, I would carry it when I was closing at night and was carrying the cash to my car. And of course, I have it ready for home defense. Otherwise, I don't go about armed.

I do believe in God, and in a perfect world and if I was a perfect man, I would "go the extra mile" with any man who sought to compel me. However, neither is the case, sad to say, and I take reasonable precautions...and "Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition."

mojoguy

08-10-2009, 05:10 PM

http://www.marylandshallissue.org/images/decision.jpg

Scooter Geezer

08-10-2009, 06:03 PM

On May 1, 1982 the city of Kennesaw, Georgia, NW of Atlanta, passed an ordinance [Sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. Gary Kleck, a criminologist and gun-control critic attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law. More Info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia)

But, one needs to understand how the Founding Fathers lived and thought when they wrote the Second Amendment. It was different from today. I recommend visiting Colonial Williamsburg (Old Town Williamsburg) (http://www.history.org/) and asking the historians there to explain the meaning. You'll probably be surprised.

Voimakas

08-10-2009, 06:08 PM

And their crime rate is one of the lowest in the nation... funny how that works out.......

Yep. I'm all for Vermont concealed carry throughout the nation. :thumbup:

HondaPartsGuy

08-10-2009, 06:21 PM

Do you think the 2nd amendment,

"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."

is your "permit" to carry concealed?

:doorag:

I don't know if thats what the original intention was , nor do I know if it would hold up in court ? But when its so easy to just go get a permit and be totally legal , why risk it ?

LasPulgas

08-10-2009, 06:36 PM

But when its so easy to just go get a permit and be totally legal , why risk it ?

Speak for yourself AZ boy ;)

HondaPartsGuy

08-10-2009, 06:51 PM

Speak for yourself AZ boy ;)

No CCW permits in CA ?

LasPulgas

08-10-2009, 06:53 PM

No CCW permits in CA ?

I can't tell if you're joking.....

But just in case, no. With very very few exceptions, only for cops and politicians and people really close to cops and politicians. Diane Feinstein has one.:roll: She got it right after Harvey Milk got killed and then went to work trying to make sure nobody else could get one (or own a gun at all).

HondaPartsGuy

08-10-2009, 07:21 PM

I can't tell if you're joking.....

But just in case, no. With very very few exceptions, only for cops and politicians and people really close to cops and politicians. Diane Feinstein has one.:roll: She got it right after Harvey Milk got killed and then went to work trying to make sure nobody else could get one (or own a gun at all).

I was not joking , just seriously didn't know.nojoke We travel to the Imperial sand dunes in the cooler months and I know that when we cross the border into Ca. that you have to have your ammo in a seperate compartment then the weapon itself but I had no idea they didn't allow CCW.

Living with (surface of the sun) heat for 5 months out of the year does have some advantages i guess.

OvErKiLL{N99}

08-10-2009, 07:38 PM

wayne

08-10-2009, 07:41 PM

I carry when traveling thru. CA. :thumbup:

CA. gun law really work dont they?

High crime rate, and the most gangs

Ghost-Flame

08-10-2009, 07:49 PM

I get it . If you are scared carry a gun. I don't have aproblem with that.

But, being afraid doesn't have much to do with what the second ammendment says about arming the militia.

crew

08-10-2009, 07:52 PM

Too bad Ted Nugent didn't want to shoot guns in Vietnam....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUbGLVvfB7Y

I really miss Keith Moon ...

... and Dr. Thompson ...

http://media.economist.com/images/20050226/0905OB.jpg

The "real deal" ...

What you see is what you get ....

This thread is brought to you by First Amendment to the United States Constitution ...

But ...

opinions vary ...

all blessings ...

crew

:crew:

OvErKiLL{N99}

08-10-2009, 08:36 PM

yep he was himself and you couldn't sway him
http://cobwebsandstrange.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/keith_moon21.jpg

also he was nuts

http://www.vivarchive.org.uk/desktops/viv_keithmoon_desktop.jpg

http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/inspirations/PicturesOfLilyKit.jpg

i miss them all crew

crew

08-10-2009, 08:48 PM

yep he was himself and you couldn't sway him
http://cobwebsandstrange.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/keith_moon21.jpg

i miss them all crew

... for me ...

Keith was the the epitome and ideal example of rock n' roll drumming ...

%@<k Ringo :!: ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijRh-Qpv2gM

... :roll::roll::roll: you want to watch this to the end :lol::lol::lol: even with the horrible TV make-up ...

Great stuff ...

... but ...

There are no "good old days" ...

The neat thing about a certain kind of "art" is that, if it is "good stuff" it can transcend time ...

Forever young ...

Everybody's got brains ...

but ...

opinions vary ...

all blessings ...

crew

:crew:

LasPulgas

08-10-2009, 09:14 PM

But, being afraid doesn't have much to do with what the second ammendment says about arming the militia.

Personally I don't think the 2nd amendment is about arming the militias. The 2nd amendment is the only disjointed almost puzzling sentence in the constitution. It starts off talking about one thing (Militia) and ends up talking about something else (RKBA). It's also the only portion of the original constitution not specifically addressed in the federalist or anti federalist papers. Deliberately confusing :dontknow:

Regardless, it was written by and for revolutionaries who overthrew their government by force of arms and who considered ownership and use of arms not only a duty but as natural as the the God given right to the pursuit of happiness. That's my take and I'm stickin' with it.

:firstplace:

roughrider

08-10-2009, 11:30 PM

In Alaska it is legal to carry concealed or not.
This story took place (was written by a neighbor) about 1 1/2 miles from my house a couple of days a go. I have pictures, but they are a pain to load. sb

Friends,
Have I got a story for you guys!
King season is over, and since i had a day off before silvers start, i thought i would go for a walk! this occurred at 11:16 am this morning (Sunday), just 2/10 of a mile from my house, ON OUR ROAD while walking my dogs (trying to get in shape for hunting season, ironically!) for the record, this is in a residential area-not back in the woods, no bowhunting, no stealth occurring...
I heard a twig snap, and looked back...full on charge-a huge brownie, ears back, head low and motorin' full speed! Came with zero warning; no woof, no popping of the teeth, no standing up, nothing like what you think or see on TV! It charged from less than 20 yards and was on me in about one-second! Totally surreal-I just started shooting in the general direction, and praise God that my second shot (or was it my third?) Rolled him at 5 feet and he skidded to a stop 10 feet BEYOND where I was shooting from-I actually sidestepped him and fell over backwards on the last shot, and his momentum carried him to a stop past where I fired my first shot!
It was a prehistoric old boar-no teeth, no fat-weighed between 900-1000 lbs and took five men to DRAG it onto a tilt-bed trailer! Big bear-its paw measured out at about a 9 1/2 footer!
never-ever-thought "it" would happen to me! its always some other smuck, right? well, no bull- i am still high on adrenaline, with my gut in a knot. feels like i did 10000 crunches without stopping! almost puked for an hour after, had the burps and couldn't even stand up as the troopers conducted their investigation! totally wiped me out-cant even put that feeling into words, by far the most emotion i have ever felt at once!
No doubt that God was with me, as I brought my Ruger .454 Casull (and some "hot" 350 grain solids) just for the heck of it, and managed to draw and snap shoot (pointed, never even aimed!) from the hip! Total luck shot!
All I can say is Praise God for my safety and for choosing to leave the wife and kids at home on this walk!

Evi|grin

08-11-2009, 12:34 AM

I dont think it directly addressed this point at all. It didnt matter how you carried it.

I cant find a original quote that directly states anything besides references to deter theft (muggers) (several members) and the "PISTOL as well as the rifle" from another quote. (Washington)

Pistols back then would normally be semi concealed by "upper class". Long coats typically covered pistols easily in more civilized/populated areas. Your run of the mill citizen was probably more likely to carry more exposed because of the type of weapon that suited his needs, such as hunting and defense.

Since it isnt regulated by the 2nd, technically it would be enough of a permit. Plus there are enough quotes to imply what firearms are intended to be used for regardless of how you carry/conceal them.

States though do have certain rights so on a federal level it would be a tough call LEGALLY. My opinion is YES, if you can legally buy a pistol you can carry it concealed. Having to get a special CCW permit after the purchase is kind of stupid. It should be included with the legal purchase.

OvErKiLL{N99}

08-11-2009, 12:37 AM

In Alaska it is legal to carry concealed or not.
This story took place about 1 1/2 miles from my house a couple of days a go. I have pictures, but they are a pain to load. sb

Friends,
Have I got a story for you guys!
King season is over, and since i had a day off before silvers start, i thought i would go for a walk! this occurred at 11:16 am this morning (Sunday), just 2/10 of a mile from my house, ON OUR ROAD while walking my dogs (trying to get in shape for hunting season, ironically!) for the record, this is in a residential area-not back in the woods, no bowhunting, no stealth occurring...
I heard a twig snap, and looked back...full on charge-a huge brownie, ears back, head low and motorin' full speed! Came with zero warning; no woof, no popping of the teeth, no standing up, nothing like what you think or see on TV! It charged from less than 20 yards and was on me in about one-second! Totally surreal-I just started shooting in the general direction, and praise God that my second shot (or was it my third?) Rolled him at 5 feet and he skidded to a stop 10 feet BEYOND where I was shooting from-I actually sidestepped him and fell over backwards on the last shot, and his momentum carried him to a stop past where I fired my first shot!
It was a prehistoric old boar-no teeth, no fat-weighed between 900-1000 lbs and took five men to DRAG it onto a tilt-bed trailer! Big bear-its paw measured out at about a 9 1/2 footer!
never-ever-thought "it" would happen to me! its always some other smuck, right? well, no bull- i am still high on adrenaline, with my gut in a knot. feels like i did 10000 crunches without stopping! almost puked for an hour after, had the burps and couldn't even stand up as the troopers conducted their investigation! totally wiped me out-cant even put that feeling into words, by far the most emotion i have ever felt at once!
No doubt that God was with me, as I brought my Ruger .454 Casull (and some "hot" 350 grain solids) just for the heck of it, and managed to draw and snap shoot (pointed, never even aimed!) from the hip! Total luck shot!
All I can say is Praise God for my safety and for choosing to leave the wife and kids at home on this walk!

thank God for quick reflects and a awesome handcannon!!:thumbup:

ED winegarner

08-11-2009, 01:52 AM

:thumbup:I couldn't agree more!

Ghost-Flame
Once you and yours are gone because of some drug induced, no-workin, low life, peckerwood with NO life puts you down for whatever he thinks you "might" have in your pockets, there ain't no going back to shoulda, coulda and woulda!

Unless you are the one that penned the following:
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil, for I am the meanest (insert you here) in the Valley, might be a good time to get some "Shootin Irons" and practice up!
With our justice system giving the criminals more rights than the victims. It ain't gonna self correct any time soon and you ain't gonna reason with an unreasonable, unrepentant, ungodly, cowardly, brainless, chemical induced maniac that don't even care for their own life, little alone yours!

Bottom Line:
It's better to have it and not need it, than it is to need it and not have it!!!!!!!!! :thumbup:
:agree::agree::agree:

RoadDawg

08-11-2009, 04:52 PM

Do you think the 2nd amendment,

"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."

is your "permit" to carry concealed?

:doorag:

You left out a very important choice in your poll

o YES AND NO...

You see the 2nd does cover the right to own/keep and BEAR arms. But it does NOT say...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep, bear, and wear concealed arms shall not be infringed."

So I must say that I have to go with the Framer's intent, and say NO to the concealed carry provision that your question attempts to add. I must stay with the original intent of the Framers and take it as they wrote it...

"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."

I happen to like the idea of a well armed citizenry because it keeps away all types of ill minded evil people and their designs on MY freedom... However I do not think it is necessary for those citizens to carry concealed. I would prefer that the original intent were the allowed rule of the day... For HONEST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS EVERYWHERE!nojoke I believe that areas where open carry is the law are safer and less prone to criminal acts than those where carry is forbidden.

8)

RoadDawg

08-11-2009, 04:59 PM

Rayno

08-11-2009, 06:22 PM

Good storyNuff said, I'd say the bears version would be slightly different.

cmgoldstein

08-11-2009, 06:42 PM

The wording is, as pointed out above, not specific with respect to concealed or not. I agree that the intent is to allow us, as citizens, to have firearms in order to protect ourselves and the country if necessary. As for the finer point of giving us the right to carry concealed, I don't think it addresses that issue, therefore it would fall under later law.
However, I think we should all be allowed to carry unconcealed. Imagine if we all had our weapons right there on our hips, for all the bad guys to see! That's a deterent I can live with!

KD3NE

08-11-2009, 06:48 PM

Can the Second Amendment really address " concealed carry ", consider the time it was written.

Consider the types of firearms they had at the time.

When everyone carries openly, only a fool would carry concealed .... the concealing clothing may slow down access.

At the time the Second Amendment was written, was there concern for " concealed carry. "

I pretty much consider the Second Amendment a license to carry, openly .... the whole 'concealed carry' issue came on the scene much later.

I'd just like to get back the right to OPENLY CARRY to all citizens, in all states .... even to those convicted of some crimes ( everyone should have the equal right to defend themselves and their homes ) !!!!!!!!!

( When I lived in Texas, we were allowed open carry under specific circumstances .... this state Maryland sucks as it is run by communists who want to disarm the people )

.

KenzX

08-11-2009, 07:00 PM

The Second Amendment reads: “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.” These words have generated considerable controversy as part of the broader debate over gun control. Proponents of stricter controls generally contend that the amendment was meant to protect the collective right of states to maintain militia units. Their opponents respond that the amendment was intended to protect an individual right, noting that in the eighteenth century the militia was composed of the entire free white male population, who were expected to muster bearing their own arms.

This lively debate notwithstanding, the Supreme Court has only considered Second Amendment claims in a handful of cases. One reason is that for much of American history there were few regulations concerning firearms ownership. The settlers of colonial America were heirs to the English tradition of distrust of standing armies and professional police forces as dangerous to individual liberty. The English tradition of relying on the armed yeomanry both to enforce laws and protect the realm from external enemies was reinforced in the colonial era. The need to defend settlements against Native Americans and the armies of other European powers led to the deputization of the entire white population. Colonial statutes required all white men, with few exceptions, to both keep arms and bear them in militia formations. The American Revolution strengthened the traditional suspicion of standing armies and reinforced the view that militias composed of armed citizenry were the best way to guarantee both security and liberty.

Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was an attempt to answer the objections of anti‐Federalists who charged that the new Constitution would be used to deprive the people of rights traditionally considered among the rights of Englishmen. Statements by the amendment's principal author, James Madison, indicate that he saw the amendment as protecting the arms of the population at large.

The antebellum era brought no Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court. The few firearms regulations that existed were primarily statutes in the slave states prohibiting African‐Americans from possessing firearms. Some antebellum state statutes prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons, but those laws were not the subject of Supreme Court scrutiny. The Court's holding in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights only limited federal action effectively precluded Supreme Court review of state restrictions. Although the Court did not rule on the amendment before the Civil War, statements by Justice Joseph Story and Chief Justice Roger Taney expressed the then‐prevailing view. Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) offered the opinion that the right to keep and bear arms provided a “strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers” (pp. 746–747). Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) listed the right to own and carry arms as one of the rights of citizenship.

The aftermath of the Civil War brought a new dimension to the history of the amendment. The black Codes, enacted in Southern states immediately after the war, limited the civil rights of the newly freed slaves, including the right to own firearms. These codes helped spur the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. A number of the framers expressed the view that the new amendment would require the states to honor the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

Despite this, the Court continued to adhere to the holding in Barron. The two principal postbellum cases involving Second Amendment claims, United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and Presser v. Illinois (1886), tell us at least as much about the Court's early reaction to the Fourteenth Amendment as they do about the Second. In Cruikshank, the Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Joseph P. *Bradley, held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments did not give Congress the authority to legislate against private interference with the right to bear arms. The Court in Presser declared that the Second Amendment only protected individuals from federal not state infringement.

The Court thus entered the twentieth century adhering to the view that the Second Amendment only limited federal power. That view, coupled with the virtual absence of federal firearms regulation, left the Court with little to say on the topic. That changed with the violence generated during Prohibition. Responding to the increase in organized crime in the 1920s and 1930s, Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. The act, which provided for taxation and registration of automatic weapons and sawed‐off shotguns, generated the principal Second Amendment case, United States v. Miller (1939). The unanimous opinion, authored by Justice James C. McReynolds, noted that the Second Amendment did not protect the right of citizens to own firearms that were not ordinary militia weapons. As the defendant in Miller had been charged with possession of an unregistered sawed‐off shotgun, the Court noted that it had no evidence that such a weapon constituted ordinary militia equipment.

Since Miller, the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue. Lower federal courts have upheld firearms regulations against Second Amendment claims, sometimes applying the collective rights theory, at other times on the grounds that the amendment does not apply to the states. The Court has not reviewed these decisions. In the 1970s and 1980s a number of justices expressed support for the collective rights view in out‐of‐court statements or in dicta. More recently, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, also in dicta or in out‐of‐court statements, appear to have endorsed individual rights readings of the amendment. The right to possess arms has also been listed among the rights of American people in some privacy cases. None of these statements can be viewed as definitive evidence of the Court's position on the issue.

Despite the Court's institutional reticence, a vigorous debate rages in other forums. Since the 1980s the amendment has been the subject of a growing body of literature in law and history journals. This debate has influenced jurists in some lower federal courts. In United States v. Emerson (2001), the Fifth Circuit recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right while sustaining a federal statute restricting firearms possession in cases involving domestic violence. In 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft stated his view that the amendment protected an individual right while leaving broad room for firearms regulation.

It is not clear how much longer the Court can maintain its silence. Although overall restrictions on firearms ownership remain relatively slight, there are a number of fairly restrictive jurisdictions. The battle over gun control has also become a perennial feature of American political life. Widespread firearms ownership coupled with strong demands for stricter gun controls ensures that the debate over the Second Amendment will remain lively; it is a debate that the Supreme Court will ultimately be forced to enter.

R. J. Cottrol and R. T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro‐Americanist Reconsideration, Georgetown Law Journal 80 (1991): 309–361.
D. B. Kates, Jr., Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, Michigan Law Review 82 (1983): 204–273.
S. L. Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, Yale Law Journal 99 (1989): 637–659.
J. L. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo‐American Right (1994)

Note: United States v. Hall - On August 4, 2008, the Fourth Circuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circ uit) upheld as constitutional the prohibition of possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.

DrRadar

08-11-2009, 07:52 PM

"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."

Plain English: This english meaning was the application of the words in the time of the founding of our country and have not changed.
To "keep" means to own.(verb; have or retain posession of)
to "bear" means to carry about on one's person.(verb; to carry)

ref; Oxford Standard English Dictionary

Ex; You can bear an arm that another owns, but you cannot keep an arm owned by another legally.

Regulated did not most commonly mean "To control" as it does today.
It means ordered or up to a standard. Well Regulated mean to be up to a higher standard or order.
Militia is a group of armed citizens used for defense and protection of home and community.
An army is armed citizens under a governmental control.

I don't really give a rat's butt about someones often erroneous "legal" interpretation of a plain language statement.
These interpretations are based upon political or social beliefs, not the real meaning.

I can't honestly understand why so many "legal minds" believe the constitution has to be interpreted.
I often don't like the way someone exercises their rights, but I will fight to the death for them to keep and exercise their rights.

The Constitution was written so that the average literate American of the time could read and understand it.

Are we so stupid as a people that only persons with post graduate educations can understand it? (I think not,Even though I do hold post graduate degrees)
My 10 year old and I read through it and he understood what it means.
I listened to what he had to say and he made more sense than all the talking head experts.

The Constitution says what the Framer's meant and the Framer's meant what they said.

It's purest meaning is probably even more relevant today than when it was drafted and ratified.

Pointman762

08-11-2009, 11:04 PM

I voted that I don't care. I don't own a gun. I have thought ablout getting one for target and sport... not for self defense. Too many accidents for me to feel comfortable carrying or having unlocked and loaded around the house.

I suppose that once you get a gun and get into it you have more of an opinion. I'm okay with people who carry guns and know how to use em...

It used to be American Citizen's right to own and sell another human being (white, black, Indian, Mexican, Spanish) garaunteed by the constituion and even the church was behind that one. The constitution wasn't the only test of the validity of the law though. It was changed by an ammendment to the constituion. The second ammendment was definitly needed 250 years ago. Things change.

The thugs will always have guns:dontknow:.
I just don't know where I stand with this one.

I put my faith in Jesus Christ and let the chips fall where He want em to.

I appreciate a very open and honest post and only want to point out two quickies...

first slave ownership wasn't counted among the Bill of Rights which recognize God given rights, it doesn't grant those rights...

On the second point see Luke 22:

Luke 22:35. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luke 22:36. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

OvErKiLL{N99}

08-12-2009, 01:09 AM

Evi|grin

08-12-2009, 01:25 AM

there was weapon concealment in those days and before not as needed as today but it was done.

i carry for these mere facts, i'm white, straight and a republican so who else can i piss off today? nojoke

No doubt about it. I have a few old black powder replica Derringers to prove it. Not exactly tiny but the design makes the method of carry obvious and not exactly a common military type design for the time period.

Definitely not well suited for hunting either unless its a rattle snake at your foot. ;)

LasPulgas

08-12-2009, 01:26 AM

"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."

I think a little 6th grade english is in order here. As I've said before, as the above sentence is structured, it is a disjointed sentence. The different colored fonts help illustrate how one point has nothing to do with the other. ;)

Which begs the question: Do you think the framers of the constitution (all lawyers) wrote the whole thing in plain perfectly structured sentences that a child can understand only to blow it on the 2nd amendment? I don't think so which leads me to believe the two points are not connected. Which is the only conclusion that makes sense given the mindset of the framers.

I can't honestly understand why so many "legal minds" believe the constitution has to be interpreted.Oh come on, you're smarter than that. As I said above, a child can understand the constitution. That's why they don't teach it school any more and "legal minds" insist that it needs to be interpreted so that they can convince the gullible masses that it says something that it clearly does not.

Separation of church and state as part of the 1st amendment is a perfect example of how an obvious lie, when started by an authority figure like Earl Warren in the early 1960's and repeated enough, is believed as absolute fact. Here's the text of the 1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice how the words separation church and state don't exist nor is the concept even implied?? It takes years of schooling and interpreting to convince a child of that. Unless you just don't show 'em the constitution in the first place....

Most Americans wouldn't know what to do with the kind of freedom the founders enjoyed and don't deserve the few they have left anyway. Fu@king cattle.

Voimakas

08-12-2009, 03:08 AM

Separation of church and state as part of the 1st amendment is a perfect example of how an obvious lie, when started by an authority figure like Earl Warren in the early 1960's and repeated enough, is believed as absolute fact. Here's the text of the 1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice how the words separation church and state don't exist nor is the concept even implied?? It takes years of schooling and interpreting to convince a child of that. Unless you just don't show 'em the constitution in the first place....

Most Americans wouldn't know what to do with the kind of freedom the founders enjoyed and don't deserve the few they have left anyway. Fu@king cattle.

Actually, they were basing the separation of church and state doctrine on letters written by Jefferson and Madison.

Jefferson:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

Madison:
no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And from Wiki:

The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. (1879), where the court examined Jefferson's involvement with the amendment and concluded that his interpretation was "almost an authoritative declaration" of its meaning.

crew

08-12-2009, 09:07 AM

***

Most Americans wouldn't know what to do with the kind of freedom the founders enjoyed and don't deserve the few they have left anyway. Fu@king cattle.

Some do ...

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/9/1231493838800/Larry-Flynt-001.jpg

But you have to pay the price ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMjzxHzZnnI

opinions vary ...

all blessings ...

crew

:crew:

LasPulgas

08-12-2009, 09:49 AM

Actually, they were basing the separation of church and state doctrine on letters written by Jefferson and Madison.

Jefferson:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

Yeah that's the one out of context paragraph that Warren quoted from a letter Jefferson wrote to the pastor of the Danbury Baptist church wherein it's clear he was assuring the pastor that the 1st amendment referenced only congress and that the government would stay the hell out of church business and not vise versa. Just like the 1st amendment says.

Not that I like religion or churches, I have no use for organized religion at all. I was just making a point about how "legal minds" outright lie to distort and twist the meaning of a simple straightforward sentence with their "interpretations."

Apologies to the OP for this 1st amendment hijack. :oops:

Duug

08-12-2009, 09:59 AM

I think a little 6th grade english is in order here. As I've said before, as the above sentence is structured, it is a disjointed sentence. The different colored fonts help illustrate how one point has nothing to do with the other. ;)

Which begs the question: Do you think the framers of the constitution (all lawyers) wrote the whole thing in plain perfectly structured sentences that a child can understand only to blow it on the 2nd amendment? I don't think so which leads me to believe the two points are not connected. Which is the only conclusion that makes sense given the mindset of the framers.

You need to take a remedial Reading Comp class bro'. The 2nd amendment make perfect sense.

Voimakas

08-12-2009, 10:21 AM

Yeah that's the one out of context paragraph that Warren quoted from a letter Jefferson wrote to the pastor of the Danbury Baptist church wherein it's clear he was assuring the pastor that the 1st amendment referenced only congress and that the government would stay the hell out of church business and not vise versa. Just like the 1st amendment says.

Not that I like religion or churches, I have no use for organized religion at all. I was just making a point about how "legal minds" outright lie to distort and twist the meaning of a simple straightforward sentence with their "interpretations."

Apologies to the OP for this 1st amendment hijack. :oops:

I have the full text here:

Gentlemen, — The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Doesn't seem out of context to me.

dan3

08-12-2009, 11:41 AM

Hmmmmmmmm.........lemme see...........nope. The 2nd Amendment does not mention concealed carry. So it is not a right since it is not specifically mentioned as being one.

Duug

08-12-2009, 01:50 PM

Hmmmmmmmm.........lemme see...........nope. The 2nd Amendment does not mention concealed carry. So it is not a right since it is not specifically mentioned as being one.

Doesn't say you can carry ammunition either so I suppose by YOUR standard it's all moot anyway. :lol:

Voimakas

08-12-2009, 02:32 PM

Freedom of speech and press doesn't mention the internet either....

EVERYONE STOP TALKING!

aardvark

08-12-2009, 02:39 PM

Freedom of speech and press doesn't mention the internet either....

EVERYONE STOP TALKING!

make me......

http://transportfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/looking_down_barrel.jpg

Voimakas

08-12-2009, 02:41 PM

make me......

http://transportfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/looking_down_barrel.jpg

exactly.

KenzX

08-12-2009, 02:44 PM

Hmmmmmmmm.........lemme see...........nope. The 2nd Amendment does not mention concealed carry. So it is not a right since it is not specifically mentioned as being one.

Or you could make the assumption that since it is not prohibited, it is a right...in the same way that breathing is neither permitted nor prohibited by the constitution.

"Laws simply describe what we cannot do...why assume all is prohibited unless specifically permitted by law? One way is freedom, the other is bondage."

LasPulgas

08-12-2009, 03:16 PM

You need to take a remedial Reading Comp class bro'. The 2nd amendment make perfect sense.

So you're saying that RKBA is about arming the militia and not an individual right? :dontknow:

Duug

08-12-2009, 04:05 PM

So you're saying that RKBA is about arming the militia and not an individual right? :dontknow:

As it clearly states,...It allows for both.

LasPulgas

08-12-2009, 04:21 PM

As it clearly states,...It allows for both.

The point I'm making is that I think it's two completely separate and independent statements that in the end, allow for both but one is not dependent on the other.

RoadDawg

08-12-2009, 04:23 PM

WOW:yikes:... Talk about your "Caption Time"... I will go with "Can you hear me now?"

http://transportfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/looking_down_barrel.jpg
Sorry Ardy... I couldn't resist... great pic...

8)

Terminals

08-12-2009, 04:25 PM

make me......

http://transportfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/looking_down_barrel.jpg

Nice.

Its funny how when one is pointed at you,
the barrel looks SOOOO much BIGGER!

:doorag:

markamoore

08-12-2009, 04:30 PM

make me......

http://transportfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/looking_down_barrel.jpg

FREEZE mothersticker,
This is a f u c k u p
Give me your brains,
or I'll blow your money out!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for the hijack, couldn't help myself on this 1nojoke

Duug

08-12-2009, 05:27 PM

http://transportfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/looking_down_barrel.jpg
TALK TO THE GUN

crew

08-12-2009, 05:33 PM

WOW:yikes:... Talk about your "Caption Time"... I will go with "Can you hear me now?"

Sorry Ardy... I couldn't resist... great pic...

8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etl9kkIGaHo

:crew:

mojoguy

08-12-2009, 05:44 PM

FREEZE mothersticker,
This is a f u c k u p
Give me your brains,
or I'll blow your money out!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for the hijack, couldn't help myself on this 1nojoke

Thats funny man :lol:

dan3

08-12-2009, 07:47 PM

Or you could make the assumption that since it is not prohibited, it is a right...in the same way that breathing is neither permitted nor prohibited by the constitution.

"Laws simply describe what we cannot do...why assume all is prohibited unless specifically permitted by law? One way is freedom, the other is bondage."

Exactly what I was getting at Ken. It all depends on which judge, or group of judges feel about it. The interpretation of the constitution is either gonna be strict, or it is gonna be open to opinion. We have seen and heard opinions that say what I said about strict interpretation. We also see others who want to adapt the words to modern society.

Breathing? Puleeeeeze. ;)

The debate will continue. It is interesting.

Ghost-Flame

08-12-2009, 11:17 PM

I appreciate a very open and honest post and only want to point out two quickies...

first slave ownership wasn't counted among the Bill of Rights which recognize God given rights, it doesn't grant those rights...

On the second point see Luke 22:

Luke 22:35. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luke 22:36. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Maybe it is symantics and I am guilty of interpretation. but, it took the 13th ammendment to the constitution to gaurantee a right that was taken away by Common Law and States Rights here in America before December 6, 1865. I agree, slavery was not mandated by the consttution but, until the 13 ammendment it did nothing to disallow slavery and protect all the inhabitants of the USA for around 400 years... those here by their free will and those here by force.

Plain English isn't always so plain.:thumbup:

Again I will say, I don't care what anyone else does I have my own problems. And my right to carry a gun is not one of them.

But, if you want to have a gun I'm all for your right to do so.
In order to maintain an orderly militia I think it's a good idea for all guns to be permitted and recorded. and you can have all the guns you want... nothing wrong with a few rules to keep the outlyers civil. I don't see how that limits any one's right to own and carry their gun.

I am a skilled diplomat and negotiator. I have always been able to talk my way out of any situation where a bully thought they had an upper hand. I don't look for battles and they don't find me either.

Between my communication skills and the Holy Spirit I have been able to handle anything that has come my way so far.

If you pull a gun on me and kill me that is on you and judgement shall be swift and eternal.

If you are a soldier, a cop, a jewler, a check casher, a security person , a wilderness person etc You absolutly need a gun to protect yourself and your property. I personally have never had the need.

Someone said that why have it concealed why not just have them out on your belt? that's a better deterent than concealed. I like that idea.

Voimakas

08-13-2009, 12:37 AM

Maybe it is symantics and I am guilty of interpretation. but, it took the 13th ammendment to the constitution to gaurantee a right that was taken away by Common Law and States Rights here in America before December 6, 1865. I agree, slavery was not mandated by the consttution but, until the 13 ammendment it did nothing to disallow slavery and protect all the inhabitants of the USA for around 400 years... those here by their free will and those here by force.

Plain English isn't always so plain.:thumbup:

Again I will say, I don't care what anyone else does I have my own problems. And my right to carry a gun is not one of them.

But, if you want to have a gun I'm all for your right to do so.
In order to maintain an orderly militia I think it's a good idea for all guns to be permitted and recorded. and you can have all the guns you want... nothing wrong with a few rules to keep the outlyers civil. I don't see how that limits any one's right to own and carry their gun.

I am a skilled diplomat and negotiator. I have always been able to talk my way out of any situation where a bully thought they had an upper hand. I don't look for battles and they don't find me either.

Between my communication skills and the Holy Spirit I have been able to handle anything that has come my way so far.

If you pull a gun on me and kill me that is on you and judgement shall be swift and eternal.

If you are a soldier, a cop, a jewler, a check casher, a security person , a wilderness person etc You absolutly need a gun to protect yourself and your property. I personally have never had the need.

Someone said that why have it concealed why not just have them out on your belt? that's a better deterent than concealed. I like that idea.

Well, I conceal carry because open carry tells the bad guys that you have a gun. They can just shoot you in the back of the head and get you out of the way before you even know there's a problem.

Also, I disagree with your list of people who you think 'need' a gun to protect themselves. First of it, it's a right. Rights based on individual need aren't rights. Do you NEED free speech? Do you NEED your privacy? Some people would argue no. Secondly, I think everyone has the right to protect themselves.

crew

08-13-2009, 09:08 AM

Well, I conceal carry because open carry tells the bad guys that you have a gun. They can just shoot you in the back of the head and get you out of the way before you even know there's a problem.

Also, I disagree with your list of people who you think 'need' a gun to protect themselves. First of it, it's a right. Rights based on individual need aren't rights. Do you NEED free speech? Do you NEED your privacy? Some people would argue no. Secondly, I think everyone has the right to protect themselves.

I would go for personal proficiency, regular practice and expertise over trying to out guess the "bad guys" ...

I think the aspect of "responsibility" is getting lost in the emotional "need" discussion ...

But other than that ...

:thumbup:

:crew:

Voimakas

08-13-2009, 09:14 AM

I would go for personal proficiency, regular practice and expertise over trying to out guess the "bad guys" ...

I think the aspect of "responsibility" is getting lost in the emotional "need" discussion ...

But other than that ...

:thumbup:

:crew:

Hey, I'm all for firearm safety training. I'm an NRA certified instructor and volunteer for the 4H camp as an RSO/instructor when they hold classes (among other things.)

Responsible gun owners are the majority.

Kinda wondering what you mean by 'out guess the bad guy'........

Ghost-Flame

08-13-2009, 09:47 AM

I have an individual need to drive but, I don't have the right. I have a privlidge.

Just saying we live in a land of laws. The second ammendment isn't for anarchists.

Don't forget I want you to have your gun, carry it, stir your coffee with it at star bucks, tote it on your gun belt out in the open, scratch you head with it in public... I'm on your side, I just think a little regulation keeps us all safer.

As for the guy shooting you in the back of the head if you display your gun... He is vulnerable to the other guy that will shoot him in your defense... an eye for an eye... maybe this will help the population problem:dontknow:

By the way I take gun powder in my coffee.:D

Morgan Buchanan

08-13-2009, 11:24 AM

I put my faith in Jesus Christ and let the chips fall where He want em to.

God granted me the ability to choose to defend myself, and god granted Samuel Colt the ability to make it easier for me to defend myself.