FINALLY!!!! a good decision

Just a simple every day civilian huh? He was gunned down by the top brass of the Japanese Mafia. Try again.

Define 'honest average joe'. What criteria do you set to determine that they are honest?

Your logic could be applied to many things. Should it be extremely easy for anyone to get a drivers license because its just a few bad apples that are wreckless?

I think we need a better job of background checks including but not limited to those declared mentally ill and dangerous.

Who is an ordinary citizen, right? By that, I mean not a member of the government, military, or police force who would be authorized to possess such a weapon. The fact that he's a criminal is pretty much the whole point of the story.... criminals get guns and commit crimes with them no matter how many gun-control laws exist.

Do you remember your driver's exam and road test? It IS extremely easy for all but the MOST incompetent to obtain licenses. One must only drive on any highway in this country for less than 10 minutes to observe that first-hand.

I'm not entirely opposed to that, either.... what drives me insane is things like HR1022 (calls for a ban on virtually all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns), HR1859 (bans all magazines larger than 10 rounds), and the yet-to-be-introduced bill from the esteemed Rep. Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, a bill banning all semi-automatic handguns.

And I didn't say that more guns per se, would make everything safer, but I will say that guns in the hands of the Good Guys will go a long way to help. And too many people who study these stats closer than I say that crime is reduced when good guys have guns to protect themselves. And I am for it. It is time to put down the uglies.

David: "As an American constitutional lawyer who has studied in the United States, I have observed that most Americans quote the second amendment to the constitution without knowing what it means or indeed, what it intended to achieve at the time it was created. Like any historical document, it needs to be considered in the context in which it was written. The 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." The purpose of this amendment, in my view and that of many scholars, was only to establish the legitimacy of a militia, whether standing or otherwise. To 'bear' arms as was intended in the amendment, means to carry arms for a military, or in this case a lawful militia regulated purpose. A hunter or recreational shooter does not 'bear arms'. To keep arms in this instance means that a militiaman could keep his rifle so as to be able to participate in a militia without the need for district armouries which could be destroyed or captured by an enemy and therefore eliminate the ability of the militia to arm themselves. How any American living in 2007, or even in the last

100 years, could try to interpret that this amendment justifies their right to carry and use firearms as individual citizens is a subject for debate. However, in my opinion it is preposterous. It was not what the authors of the constitution intended and I am amazed that American lawmakers continue to allow widespread misinterpretation to prevail."

People continually quote words of the 2nd Amendment, and invariably one side will leave out the beginning "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," and just give the rest of the sentence after the comma. You do that, don't you, Tom Lawrence?

David is one constitutional lawyer that needs to do more research.

Ha, research... this has been researched to death.

is enough research-overload for me. There's no one consistent interpretation of what the amendment says. In the hands of professional politicians, it's so flexible that it's meaningless.

I don't ignore it, no - but I do believe the 2nd protects an individual's right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms... and I have an ex-Attorney General and several current District Court judges that agree with me, as well as many states' Constitutions.

Who's on your team?

If you read the early versions of the 2nd amendment prior to passage and text of discussions at the time it becomes more clear what the intentions were during that time.

If you don't ignore the first part of the 2nd amendment then what does it mean to you and what is your historical reference to support it?

I believe it was all a mis-wording. It was intended that we have the right to arm bears.

And I think it was intended so that if the government became tyrannical, the populace would be armed and capable of overthrowing it. I believe that our forefathers knew that an armed populace would be the last line of defense against tyrants and their henchmen taking over.

I (me) think that was the intent, and all the rest that happened since the original writing has little to do with those actual ideas, and more to do with the perception that it was aimed at the rights of citizens re: weapon ownership.

Just my two pennies.

I could be wrong. I thought I was once, but was merely mistaken.

Steve

I disagree. That logic has been stated many times but without historical reference to back it up. If you read the early versions of the 2nd amendment and the discussions and writings from those involved at the time you may come to a different conclusion. Yes they wanted an armed populous for defense but I dont believe the main issue was from within.

Some reading for you:

Wikipedia is a users forum for the most part. However, it does make these points:

That King Henry I and II armed the populous for defense, but not from the tyranny of the king.

Madison wrote "that the State governments, with the people on their side", clearly his intention was not for arming people against their own government.

Again Madison wrote "united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence". Keyword here "United" with the government...not against it.

The anti-federalists are the ones that came up in part the argument you refer to. But they weren't the original author of the amendment.

>

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger." - James Madison

Clearly he was talking about State governments' well-regulated militias opposing a Federal gov't army.

If there was one original author, it apparently was some guy named James Madison... the same guy that explained it's about state militias.

Hey, it looks like the amendment's original author is on my team. Some guy named James Madison.

Yes but not because of a threat from the federal government. At the time the threat was from overseas and the federal and state governments were rather thinly based. A state militia was the only way individual states could provide a level of protection for themselves.

You need to read more of Madisons writings at the time. He was NOT an anti-federalist. The latter is who is on your team.

Now, back to my original point.

My statement was that I thought the second amendment was at least partially about keeping the citizenry armed as a means to protect itself against tyrannical government as much as from invaders or others against the republic.

Steve

You snipped Madison's quote.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger."

He's talking about the State militias being able to repel the danger of a Federal force.

It's explained the same way elsewhere on the wikipedia page too, with calculations that the militias would outnumber the federal forces. Both sides had the same rifles, strength would come through sheer numbers.

It's rather obsolete thinking today. "The People" don't have Apache helicopters.

I don't think there really was an original author. Madison "drafted" it, he probably had nice handwriting.

"Antifederalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly-defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached and James Madison drafted what ultimately would become the United States Bill of Rights and that was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789"

But you can see again that the purpose was to constrain the federal gov't.