election

[Bill Metts 0]

End diatribe.

[Cheesemind 0]

I have only been reading this topic for about 10 minutes or so, but if you are looking at gun policies for any reason need to actually read the second amendment and take it into the context in which it was wrtten. Number one, it is the only amendment that actually limits the right of the people an not the government. The only other amendment that took that kind of approach was reappealed after 13 years of activity, that was prohibition. It does NOT give everyone the right to own a firearm, it only gives those who have a reason or the proper training a right to own a firearm; i.e. the freestanding militia that has evolved into today's military, police, LICENSED firearms carriers etc... Number two it has been grossly manipulated and distorted over the years so that all any one remembers about it is the "The right of the people to keep and bear arms part." Everyone forgets the part that states " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Making it unconstitional to have a regular army of people who do not volunteer. Which is why an involuntary mandatory service obligation in the military can not take place in this country with out the congress passing a current draft bill. And yes I would know something about the subject I have a Bachelor's Degree emphasizing in Constitutional Interpretation. I did want to go to law school AND was actually accepted to Vanderbilt University but I am also lazy and want to fly helicopters for Task Force 160th.

You're wrong. The fact that you think you know something because you have University education on the subject further makes me believe the Universities have been infiltrated by communists in order to fulfill the communist manifesto(look it up) and secretly destroy the United States from within. But seriously, history has proven that every tyrant has disarmed the citizenry right before annihilating them (germany, russia, cambodia, etc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...es_Constitution

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).[1] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are "Arms" that may not be banned by the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), also striking down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

Edited November 5, 2008 by Cheesemind

[Cheesemind 0]

Heh, was reading the 2nd link for the court case and ran into this:

Because of the controversial nature of the case, it garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of those groups filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[10]

A majority of the members of Congress[11] signed the brief authored by Stephen P. Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.[12] Vice President Dick Cheney joined in this brief, acting in his role as President of the United States Senate, and breaking with the George W. Bush administration's official position.[11] Republican candidate for President and Arizona Senator John McCain also signed the brief. Democratic candidate and Illinois Senator Barack Obama did not.[13]

[christobear 0]

here's the thing with gun laws that would deny people the right to own them:

the law-abiding people (those using them for personal defense and sport) would give up their guns and not illegally buy new ones

however, the criminals would not give up their guns, buy more on the black market, and crim would either remain constant, or increase in violence

the criminals wouldnt have to worry about citizens owning guns, but we would still have to worry about the criminals

[Bigmike 0]

I can't believe some of the chit I'm reading on here!!!!

You know! nobody will know how ignorent yourazz is unless

you start typing

The world is not coming to an end!!! Believe that!!!

[Bill Metts 0]

I have only been reading this topic for about 10 minutes or so, but if you are looking at gun policies for any reason need to actually read the second amendment and take it into the context in which it was wrtten. Number one, it is the only amendment that actually limits the right of the people an not the government. The only other amendment that took that kind of approach was reappealed after 13 years of activity, that was prohibition. It does NOT give everyone the right to own a firearm, it only gives those who have a reason or the proper training a right to own a firearm; i.e. the freestanding militia that has evolved into today's military, police, LICENSED firearms carriers etc... Number two it has been grossly manipulated and distorted over the years so that all any one remembers about it is the "The right of the people to keep and bear arms part." Everyone forgets the part that states " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Making it unconstitional to have a regular army of people who do not volunteer. Which is why an involuntary mandatory service obligation in the military can not take place in this country with out the congress passing a current draft bill. And yes I would know something about the subject I have a Bachelor's Degree emphasizing in Constitutional Interpretation. I did want to go to law school AND was actually accepted to Vanderbilt University but I am also lazy and want to fly helicopters for Task Force 160th.

You're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...es_Constitution

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).[1] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are "Arms" that may not be banned by the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), also striking down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

No, I am not and you must be below 90 IQ points. I actually studied the constitution with REAL PHD holding professors of LAW and all of them had actually practiced law. 4 out of 6 of them agree with me, the 2 that did not said that I was the first person to actually make them consider changing their views on the subject and still use my model to help their students to this day. The court cases you site do not address the portion of my arguement that deals with the CONTEXT of the amendment in the time with which it was written. During the American Revolution, MOST men considered it their duty to serve. Only the very wealthy could even afford to own a firearm because of a lack of mass production. So only people of wealth or those who served in a state militia are those who would ever even touch a firearm. The "right to self defense" that the Heller case uses comes from a prepostorous notion that most are going to be the victim of a home invasion. That is why it does not cover a conceal and carry element, which in most states you need a LICENSE to perform legally. READ the case law before you go citing "facts" that is called research. Although the men that came together to write the Constitution were forward thinkers and some of the most intelligent of their day, even they could never have forseen the day when a home invasion crime would have been viewed as a common happening, even though it is not actually very common at all even today. Also since MOST men served in a state militia as volunteers they were not about to try to over run that state by means of force or martial law because it would jeopardize that which they about to fight for... a new FORM of government not just a new nation. Hence the CONTEXT portion of my arguement. In no court case you can sight will you find an opinion handed down by a ruling magistrate or body of magistrates that addresses the CONTEXT in which the law WAS written. You will only find opinions that address a modern interpretation of the literal writing. A magistrate is better known as a judge. The magistrate hands down rulings that are also referred to as opinions. The law that was drafted as in response to this ruling is a terrible piece of legislation that states the person must feel as if their life is in imminent and immediate danger (added to circumvent the ruling overturning the unloaded disassembled portion that was struck down) to even have the weapon in a functioning capacity. That you even cite the ruling or the law is laughable. Wikipedia to back your arguement is even more preposterous. I also own many weapons including handguns and rifles (two of which I doubt you will ever even see in person) so I can appreciate the percieved "right to bear arms" style of logic. However I am trained (I have spent literally years of my life firing weapons of every type) and hold a license. To issue a firearm to someone without such training is an egregious oversite and misinterpretation of the amendment. Nowhere in the second amendment does it even imply to the "right" of self defense. Try again.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Fi-150man

[Bill Metts 0]

Heh, was reading the 2nd link for the court case and ran into this:

Because of the controversial nature of the case, it garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of those groups filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[10]

A majority of the members of Congress[11] signed the brief authored by Stephen P. Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.[12] Vice President Dick Cheney joined in this brief, acting in his role as President of the United States Senate, and breaking with the George W. Bush administration's official position.[11] Republican candidate for President and Arizona Senator John McCain also signed the brief. Democratic candidate and Illinois Senator Barack Obama did not.[13]

This brief you speak also does not have a LISCENSURE clause. Which is why Obama did not sign it. It is also not relevant and arbitrary.

[Duran 387]

Heh, was reading the 2nd link for the court case and ran into this:

Because of the controversial nature of the case, it garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of those groups filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[10]

A majority of the members of Congress[11] signed the brief authored by Stephen P. Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.[12] Vice President Dick Cheney joined in this brief, acting in his role as President of the United States Senate, and breaking with the George W. Bush administration's official position.[11] Republican candidate for President and Arizona Senator John McCain also signed the brief. Democratic candidate and Illinois Senator Barack Obama did not.[13]

This brief you speak also does not have a LISCENSURE clause. Which is why Obama did not sign it. It is also not relevant and arbitrary.

Damn, you left half of us in the dust with that speil!

[Cheesemind 0]

I have only been reading this topic for about 10 minutes or so, but if you are looking at gun policies for any reason need to actually read the second amendment and take it into the context in which it was wrtten. Number one, it is the only amendment that actually limits the right of the people an not the government. The only other amendment that took that kind of approach was reappealed after 13 years of activity, that was prohibition. It does NOT give everyone the right to own a firearm, it only gives those who have a reason or the proper training a right to own a firearm; i.e. the freestanding militia that has evolved into today's military, police, LICENSED firearms carriers etc... Number two it has been grossly manipulated and distorted over the years so that all any one remembers about it is the "The right of the people to keep and bear arms part." Everyone forgets the part that states " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Making it unconstitional to have a regular army of people who do not volunteer. Which is why an involuntary mandatory service obligation in the military can not take place in this country with out the congress passing a current draft bill. And yes I would know something about the subject I have a Bachelor's Degree emphasizing in Constitutional Interpretation. I did want to go to law school AND was actually accepted to Vanderbilt University but I am also lazy and want to fly helicopters for Task Force 160th.

You're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...es_Constitution

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).[1] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are "Arms" that may not be banned by the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), also striking down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

No, I am not and you must be below 90 IQ points. I actually studied the constitution with REAL PHD holding professors of LAW and all of them had actually practiced law. 4 out of 6 of them agree with me, the 2 that did not said that I was the first person to actually make them consider changing their views on the subject and still use my model to help their students to this day. The court cases you site do not address the portion of my arguement that deals with the CONTEXT of the amendment in the time with which it was written. During the American Revolution, MOST men considered it their duty to serve. Only the very wealthy could even afford to own a firearm because of a lack of mass production. So only people of wealth or those who served in a state militia are those who would ever even touch a firearm. The "right to self defense" that the Heller case uses comes from a prepostorous notion that most are going to be the victim of a home invasion. That is why it does not cover a conceal and carry element, which in most states you need a LICENSE to perform legally. READ the case law before you go citing "facts" that is called research. Although the men that came together to write the Constitution were forward thinkers and some of the most intelligent of their day, even they could never have forseen the day when a home invasion crime would have been viewed as a common happening, even though it is not actually very common at all even today. Also since MOST men served in a state militia as volunteers they were not about to try to over run that state by means of force or martial law because it would jeopardize that which they about to fight for... a new FORM of government not just a new nation. Hence the CONTEXT portion of my arguement. In no court case you can sight will you find an opinion handed down by a ruling magistrate or body of magistrates that addresses the CONTEXT in which the law WAS written. You will only find opinions that address a modern interpretation of the literal writing. A magistrate is better known as a judge. The magistrate hands down rulings that are also referred to as opinions. The law that was drafted as in response to this ruling is a terrible piece of legislation that states the person must feel as if their life is in imminent and immediate danger (added to circumvent the ruling overturning the unloaded disassembled portion that was struck down) to even have the weapon in a functioning capacity. That you even cite the ruling or the law is laughable. Wikipedia to back your arguement is even more preposterous. I also own many weapons including handguns and rifles (two of which I doubt you will ever even see in person) so I can appreciate the percieved "right to bear arms" style of logic. However I am trained (I have spent literally years of my life firing weapons of every type) and hold a license. To issue a firearm to someone without such training is an egregious oversite and misinterpretation of the amendment. Nowhere in the second amendment does it even imply to the "right" of self defense. Try again.

So you're saying the Supreme Court is wrong? Because they say the right isn't just involving militias, and includes the right to self defense. You say wikipedia is laughable, but anyone can verify the case outside of wikipedia to find it accurate. To me, you saying 4 out of 6 professors agree with you on this topic, is laughable. Did you just recently go back to your professors to ask them? Or are you full of chit? BTW, your professors might hold PHD's but they're not on the supreme court. Nor the Circuit Court of Appeals who also agreed that the 2nd amendment didn't just include trained personnel.

I think you just want to toot your own horn. Because you're trained at using the weapon, only people of your elect should be able to own them. HAH. Don't hate all gun owners because alot of people are ignorant. Some of us merely own them to defend against home invasions. I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

[Bill Metts 0]

I have only been reading this topic for about 10 minutes or so, but if you are looking at gun policies for any reason need to actually read the second amendment and take it into the context in which it was wrtten. Number one, it is the only amendment that actually limits the right of the people an not the government. The only other amendment that took that kind of approach was reappealed after 13 years of activity, that was prohibition. It does NOT give everyone the right to own a firearm, it only gives those who have a reason or the proper training a right to own a firearm; i.e. the freestanding militia that has evolved into today's military, police, LICENSED firearms carriers etc... Number two it has been grossly manipulated and distorted over the years so that all any one remembers about it is the "The right of the people to keep and bear arms part." Everyone forgets the part that states " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Making it unconstitional to have a regular army of people who do not volunteer. Which is why an involuntary mandatory service obligation in the military can not take place in this country with out the congress passing a current draft bill. And yes I would know something about the subject I have a Bachelor's Degree emphasizing in Constitutional Interpretation. I did want to go to law school AND was actually accepted to Vanderbilt University but I am also lazy and want to fly helicopters for Task Force 160th.

You're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...es_Constitution

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).[1] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are "Arms" that may not be banned by the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), also striking down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

No, I am not and you must be below 90 IQ points. I actually studied the constitution with REAL PHD holding professors of LAW and all of them had actually practiced law. 4 out of 6 of them agree with me, the 2 that did not said that I was the first person to actually make them consider changing their views on the subject and still use my model to help their students to this day. The court cases you site do not address the portion of my arguement that deals with the CONTEXT of the amendment in the time with which it was written. During the American Revolution, MOST men considered it their duty to serve. Only the very wealthy could even afford to own a firearm because of a lack of mass production. So only people of wealth or those who served in a state militia are those who would ever even touch a firearm. The "right to self defense" that the Heller case uses comes from a prepostorous notion that most are going to be the victim of a home invasion. That is why it does not cover a conceal and carry element, which in most states you need a LICENSE to perform legally. READ the case law before you go citing "facts" that is called research. Although the men that came together to write the Constitution were forward thinkers and some of the most intelligent of their day, even they could never have forseen the day when a home invasion crime would have been viewed as a common happening, even though it is not actually very common at all even today. Also since MOST men served in a state militia as volunteers they were not about to try to over run that state by means of force or martial law because it would jeopardize that which they about to fight for... a new FORM of government not just a new nation. Hence the CONTEXT portion of my arguement. In no court case you can sight will you find an opinion handed down by a ruling magistrate or body of magistrates that addresses the CONTEXT in which the law WAS written. You will only find opinions that address a modern interpretation of the literal writing. A magistrate is better known as a judge. The magistrate hands down rulings that are also referred to as opinions. The law that was drafted as in response to this ruling is a terrible piece of legislation that states the person must feel as if their life is in imminent and immediate danger (added to circumvent the ruling overturning the unloaded disassembled portion that was struck down) to even have the weapon in a functioning capacity. That you even cite the ruling or the law is laughable. Wikipedia to back your arguement is even more preposterous. I also own many weapons including handguns and rifles (two of which I doubt you will ever even see in person) so I can appreciate the percieved "right to bear arms" style of logic. However I am trained (I have spent literally years of my life firing weapons of every type) and hold a license. To issue a firearm to someone without such training is an egregious oversite and misinterpretation of the amendment. Nowhere in the second amendment does it even imply to the "right" of self defense. Try again.

So you're saying the Supreme Court is wrong? Because they say the right isn't just involving militias, and includes the right to self defense. You say wikipedia is laughable, but anyone can verify the case outside of wikipedia to find it accurate. To me, you saying 4 out of 6 professors agree with you on this topic, is laughable. Did you just recently go back to your professors to ask them? Or are you full of chit? BTW, your professors might hold PHD's but they're not on the supreme court. Nor the Circuit Court of Appeals who also agreed that the 2nd amendment didn't just include trained personnel.

I think you just want to toot your own horn. Because you're trained at using the weapon, only people of your elect should be able to own them. HAH. Don't hate all gun owners because alot of people are ignorant. Some of us merely own them to defend against home invasions. I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

I was waiting for this. This is where you say there is no conspiracy theory and that I am a conspiracy theorist. As soon as someone pokes holes in your supposed logic you go crying that your view is not some conspiracy theory but all others are. Yes, I am telling you that the Supreme court does make incorrect rulings and bills that violate the Constitution are passed then repealed. That is the beauty of the Constitution. That mistakes can happen and be corrected BY THE PEOPLE is central to it's design; you know, checks and balances. There are still laws on the books that make it illegal to curse in public places (Michigan had one until recently) that clearly violates the freedom of speech because unless you curse at someone then it is not covered in the "fighting words" style of logic that has been handed down and now used. Due process violations were common practice until some of the later amendments. There are way to many examples to list. Yes, I do think that you need to training on any type of weapon should you choose to own one. I also think that those classes should be included in the price and purchase of the weapon. I do not hate gun owners, not even the ignorant ones, yourself excluded of course you could not ever be percieved as ignorant(sarcasm... you probably see it ). I just feel bad because they would rather own handguns than some type of education. Check and mate.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Fi-150man

[Bill Metts 0]

And if you think sooooooo clearly and orinally why are you using my catch phrases... awwww you left, did I make you think and hurt that big old brain of yours?

[Bill Metts 0]

If cheesemind replies the debate is over. I will not reply this is a waste of what could have been a good debate. I use logic and common sense, and if you are on a forum posting you are tooting your own horn. That would be the point of a forum.

[Cheesemind 0]

I have only been reading this topic for about 10 minutes or so, but if you are looking at gun policies for any reason need to actually read the second amendment and take it into the context in which it was wrtten. Number one, it is the only amendment that actually limits the right of the people an not the government. The only other amendment that took that kind of approach was reappealed after 13 years of activity, that was prohibition. It does NOT give everyone the right to own a firearm, it only gives those who have a reason or the proper training a right to own a firearm; i.e. the freestanding militia that has evolved into today's military, police, LICENSED firearms carriers etc... Number two it has been grossly manipulated and distorted over the years so that all any one remembers about it is the "The right of the people to keep and bear arms part." Everyone forgets the part that states " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Making it unconstitional to have a regular army of people who do not volunteer. Which is why an involuntary mandatory service obligation in the military can not take place in this country with out the congress passing a current draft bill. And yes I would know something about the subject I have a Bachelor's Degree emphasizing in Constitutional Interpretation. I did want to go to law school AND was actually accepted to Vanderbilt University but I am also lazy and want to fly helicopters for Task Force 160th.

You're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...es_Constitution

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).[1] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are "Arms" that may not be banned by the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), also striking down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

No, I am not and you must be below 90 IQ points. I actually studied the constitution with REAL PHD holding professors of LAW and all of them had actually practiced law. 4 out of 6 of them agree with me, the 2 that did not said that I was the first person to actually make them consider changing their views on the subject and still use my model to help their students to this day. The court cases you site do not address the portion of my arguement that deals with the CONTEXT of the amendment in the time with which it was written. During the American Revolution, MOST men considered it their duty to serve. Only the very wealthy could even afford to own a firearm because of a lack of mass production. So only people of wealth or those who served in a state militia are those who would ever even touch a firearm. The "right to self defense" that the Heller case uses comes from a prepostorous notion that most are going to be the victim of a home invasion. That is why it does not cover a conceal and carry element, which in most states you need a LICENSE to perform legally. READ the case law before you go citing "facts" that is called research. Although the men that came together to write the Constitution were forward thinkers and some of the most intelligent of their day, even they could never have forseen the day when a home invasion crime would have been viewed as a common happening, even though it is not actually very common at all even today. Also since MOST men served in a state militia as volunteers they were not about to try to over run that state by means of force or martial law because it would jeopardize that which they about to fight for... a new FORM of government not just a new nation. Hence the CONTEXT portion of my arguement. In no court case you can sight will you find an opinion handed down by a ruling magistrate or body of magistrates that addresses the CONTEXT in which the law WAS written. You will only find opinions that address a modern interpretation of the literal writing. A magistrate is better known as a judge. The magistrate hands down rulings that are also referred to as opinions. The law that was drafted as in response to this ruling is a terrible piece of legislation that states the person must feel as if their life is in imminent and immediate danger (added to circumvent the ruling overturning the unloaded disassembled portion that was struck down) to even have the weapon in a functioning capacity. That you even cite the ruling or the law is laughable. Wikipedia to back your arguement is even more preposterous. I also own many weapons including handguns and rifles (two of which I doubt you will ever even see in person) so I can appreciate the percieved "right to bear arms" style of logic. However I am trained (I have spent literally years of my life firing weapons of every type) and hold a license. To issue a firearm to someone without such training is an egregious oversite and misinterpretation of the amendment. Nowhere in the second amendment does it even imply to the "right" of self defense. Try again.

So you're saying the Supreme Court is wrong? Because they say the right isn't just involving militias, and includes the right to self defense. You say wikipedia is laughable, but anyone can verify the case outside of wikipedia to find it accurate. To me, you saying 4 out of 6 professors agree with you on this topic, is laughable. Did you just recently go back to your professors to ask them? Or are you full of chit? BTW, your professors might hold PHD's but they're not on the supreme court. Nor the Circuit Court of Appeals who also agreed that the 2nd amendment didn't just include trained personnel.

I think you just want to toot your own horn. Because you're trained at using the weapon, only people of your elect should be able to own them. HAH. Don't hate all gun owners because alot of people are ignorant. Some of us merely own them to defend against home invasions. I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

I was waiting for this. This is where you say there is no conspiracy theory and that I am a conspiracy theorist. As soon as someone pokes holes in your supposed logic you go crying that your view is not some conspiracy theory but all others are. Yes, I am telling you that the Supreme court does make incorrect rulings and bills that violate the Constitution are passed then repealed. That is the beauty of the Constitution. That mistakes can happen and be corrected BY THE PEOPLE is central to it's design; you know, checks and balances. There are still laws on the books that make it illegal to curse in public places (Michigan had one until recently) that clearly violates the freedom of speech because unless you curse at someone then it is not covered in the "fighting words" style of logic that has been handed down and now used. Due process violations were common practice until some of the later amendments. There are way to many examples to list. Yes, I do think that you need to training on any type of weapon should you choose to own one. I also think that those classes should be included in the price and purchase of the weapon. I do not hate gun owners, not even the ignorant ones, yourself excluded of course you could not ever be percieved as ignorant(sarcasm... you probably see it ). I just feel bad because they would rather own handguns than some type of education. Check and mate.

Wow you've lost it man. For one, I haven't seen you poke any holes in my logic, and assuming I would call you a conspiracy theorist over it is insane and rather stupid. As far as the Supreme Court making incorrect rulings, sure it's possible, but they can surely be trusted in judging the 2nd amendment over your professors.

You just want to toot your own horn.

And about my IQ, the last IQ test I've taken I got a 141. If someone shows me how to print screen from firefox I'll upload the image.

I don't see why it should matter, but you're not the first person to comment about my IQ in this thread so that's why I'm posting it. Alot of people think just because I have some beliefs that are contrary to public knowledge, it means I must be stupid. Many people have been ridiculed for telling the truth in a time when it was not popular to speak it, such as Galileo. I merely have done alot of research on the topic, and I feel it's my duty to inform my fellow Americans when that knowledge could very well help them in the future. It's probably the hero programming instilled in us since childhood, as me speaking out against the conspiracy might very well make me a target if what I believe is true, and therefore my best course of action in protecting myself would indeed be to be quiet about what I know. So in a sense, I'm sacrificing my life to tell people this information, because if what I'm saying is true, I could be killed (or called a terrorist) for it.

But since so many people think I'm an idiot for my beliefs, here's my last IQ test score, and I'd be happy to post the image or take another one to prove I'm "above average":

You have answered 35 questions out of 38 correctly. Your IQ is ~ 141.

If you want a verified IQ score, please try this tests:

IQTestClub.com - the most relaxed IQ Test in the world!

Emode's IQ Test

Free IQ Test!

A score below 70 indicates that you performed way below the population average.

A score between 70 and 84 means that your performance on this test was significantly below the population average.

A score between 85 and 99 would put you slightly below the population average, but it's in the normal range.

A score of 100 represents the population average.

A score between 101 and 115 puts you above population average but is in the normal range.

A score between 116 and 130 means that your IQ might be significantly above average.

Scores of 130 and above mean that you are brilliant.

As if it takes a high IQ to realize people have the right to defend themselves, from other citizens or the government.

If you'd like to take the test and post up your IQ, you can take it here:

http://www.allthetests.com/tests/iq-test.php3

BTW, IQ tests don't show all areas of intelligence, such as intuition, so it's not accurate in any way to judge intelligence. There are many people who are street savvy in ways that would put a professor in shame, or socially savvy in ways I consider intelligent, that those tests don't gauge. In other words, just because someone has a low IQ score doesn't mean they're not telling the truth. You merely have to consider it a possibility and research it to find the truth for yourself.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Cheesemind

[Cheesemind 0]

If cheesemind replies the debate is over. I will not reply this is a waste of what could have been a good debate. I use logic and common sense, and if you are on a forum posting you are tooting your own horn. That would be the point of a forum.

LOL, sorry man I left to take a friend home. I don't see what there is to debate about though, the Supreme Court has stated that the constitution framers were not just talking about the militia, and that we have a right to self defense. And anyone who reads either of our comments, they will see that it is YOU that is tooting their own horn. Other than my IQ test result (which has no bearing) I have not posted anything about myself to "toot my own horn", whereas you've bragged about your military experience and your degree in law. Ok we get it. Only people like you, who have trained in using weapons, should be allowed to protect themselves. I understand, you and only you are smart enough to be able to handle such complicated equipment. Checkmate, you win.

[mdexxxiv 1]

So much to write but I'll start off with this tidbit. Let's start with the forclosure crisis. The forclosure crisis was caused by consumers taking out loans that they had little chance of paying back. That was part of the problem. The other part is that consumers were offered these loans by the institutions when their financial standing was questionable. The banks know who is going to pay back and who isn't, so they know who to target (those with chitty credit who have valuable property)and know they can resell said property at profit. Customers didn't come up with this, the banks did. These loan arrangements are set up by the lenders to grab property. It makes sense if you're the bank.

The reason why I know this is that having been in the custom home biz out here I dealt with bankers, lawyers, investors, etc...all types of people involved in the process of buying and selling homes.

Some of these people have some phucked up ideas on the ways to enrich themselves at the expense of others that they are supposed to be looking out for.

There are predatory practices in place, like ARM's and reverse mortgages(fine print-who lives to pay it off? Over 65 only) and so on that are not good for homeowners and since it's so pervasive people accept these methods as standard practice allowing people to fall into traps they can't easily get out of.

As long as there is a mortgage on your house, you don't really own it. It's more like a rent to own arrangement. Who really owns your home? The bank, or rather the bank's investors and even then the mortgages are bought and sold in volume like stocks and securities on the open market so they can pretty much do what suits them in the event of a(n encouraged) default.

[Cheesemind 0]

So much to write but I'll start off with this tidbit. Let's start with the forclosure crisis. The forclosure crisis was caused by consumers taking out loans that they had little chance of paying back. That was part of the problem. The other part is that consumers were offered these loans by the institutions when their financial standing was questionable. The banks know who is going to pay back and who isn't, so they know who to target (those with chitty credit who have valuable property)and know they can resell said property at profit. Customers didn't come up with this, the banks did. These loan arrangements are set up by the lenders to grab property. It makes sense if you're the bank.

The reason why I know this is that having been in the custom home biz out here I dealt with bankers, lawyers, investors, etc...all types of people involved in the process of buying and selling homes.

Some of these people have some phucked up ideas on the ways to enrich themselves at the expense of others that they are supposed to be looking out for.

There are predatory practices in place, like ARM's and reverse mortgages(fine print-who lives to pay it off? Over 65 only) and so on that are not good for homeowners and since it's so pervasive people accept these methods as standard practice allowing people to fall into traps they can't easily get out of.

As long as there is a mortgage on your house, you don't really own it. It's more like a rent to own arrangement. Who really owns your home? The bank, or rather the bank's investors and even then the mortgages are bought and sold in volume like stocks and securities on the open market so they can pretty much do what suits them in the event of a(n encouraged) default.

Exactly, it is the very banks that caused this situation, because of predatory practices in order to benefit themselves at the cost of the consumer. The very banks we're bailing out (at interest) in order to prevent economic collapse. It is the banks that control the economy, not us, and the blame therefore shouldn't be placed on the people. Sure people could have not taken out those stupid loans, and run up their credit cards, but at the same time, people will do what they feel is necessary to survive and get by. But I believe the banks intentionally put us into this situation, because there isn't enough money in circulation to pay off the national debt, and therefore the only way they can get everything is to take the property as collateral. They do it illegally too, but it's too complicated for me to explain here, but a good explanation of it can be found in the movie Zeitgeist Addendum:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

[Cheesemind 0]

Omg, John McCain's concession speech only confirms my belief that he was a fall guy for this election. Obama was set up to win from the start.

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

Ok this topic went way off the rails and took a negative and political turn with some very ill-informed statements being made that I am not comfortable with here on SSA. A little less then half of the country did not vote for the winner, so there will be distention and frustration. I for one, voted for a 3rd party candidate as I was very unhappy with both choices offered by the two main parties. But at this point, the election is over, and we need to come together and get behind our leader to-be and give him, his cabinet and his congress a chance to achieve some of these massively generalized and sweeping changes they have promised. If after a good amount of time they fail and worsen the current state we are in, then we can start to see about a change from "change". So for now I am going to lock this topic as to reduce any further drama on this subject.