Guns (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 14, 2024, 05:07:06 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Guns (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Guns  (Read 31245 times)
FLGOP
Rookie
**
Posts: 15


« on: January 25, 2004, 04:37:55 PM »

When the Supreme Court heard a case challenging copyright law (I believe it involved the Bono law) last year, it stated that a preamble does not confine what follows.  

The second amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Nowhere does it state that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  

Furthermore, the founders of this Republic were fairly consistant in their writings.  There is no reason to believe that "the people" of the second amendment are any different than those of the ninth, or the first, or the preamble to the Constitution, etc.

As for the case with criminals, these people were going to commit a crime regardless.  During the DC sniper shootings I wrote an article about gun control (groups.msn.com/UniversityofMiamiCollegeRepublicans) about this fact.  The younger shooter was 17 at the time.  The law states that one has to be 18.  The younger shooter was also supposed to have been deported.  The elder shooter was not supposed to have a gun because he had violated a restraining order, which is a felony.  They were supposed to inform the police that they were going to be transporting guns across the limits of Maryland.  To sum, those that use guns to kill people are not law abidding to begin with.

I would also like to ask all of you out there a question.  Would you rather take your chances stealing from a home that you know has a gun owner in it, or one without a gun owner?  Chances are most will chose the latter, as that presents the least likelihood of getting injured or killed.

Furthermore, this is a security issue as the DC Circuit Court has already ruled that the police are not responsible to protect every member of society as individuals.  Rather, there duty is to protect us as part of a whole, if they fail to protect us, but then get our killer, they have done thier job by protecting society as a whole.  I would also like to point out that a large part of police work is investigative, and that they can't investigate a crime before it happens.
Logged
FLGOP
Rookie
**
Posts: 15


« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2004, 09:00:45 PM »

OR, the criminals get guns and shoot you, but that's just a thought... Wink
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but many of them in the US already possess guns, many of which they are not supposed to have because it is against the law.  This returns to my premise that criminals who use guns are law breakers even before they use a gun to kill someone.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 12 queries.