Author: Sorting Last Post on Top ↓ Message:
BRIDIE5 Posts: 8,121
2/27/13 10:36 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
My question would be how will we then get around DC? Cuz i ain't gettin' on the metro with a whole bunch of pistol packin' mamas..you KNOW what happens to bystanders doncha?

Edited by: BRIDIE5 at: 2/27/2013 (10:36)
 current weight: 141.5 
 
150.5
146.625
142.75
138.875
135
COACHPENNY's Photo COACHPENNY Posts: 10,392
2/27/13 10:18 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Yes, that's probably true. Common sense just goes right out the window concerning conceal/carry as well.

Here in Illinois our law against conceal/carry has to be revised to conform with the recent Supreme Court rulings. The NRA lobbyists are pushing for conceal/carry to be allowed on mass transit. emoticon

articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-
23
/news/ct-met-public-transit-conceal-R>carry-20130223_1_transit-agencies-tr
an
sit-system-mass-transit


Arkansas is on it's way to passing laws that will allow teachers, etc. to carry concealed weapons on colleges campuses. emoticon

www.campussafetymagazine.com/Channel
/U
niversity-Security/News/2013/02/26/AR>rk-Senate-Passes-Bill-to-Allow-Conce
al
ed-Carry-at-Colleges.aspx


And in Kansas a bill is under consideration to allow guns to be carried into public building such as government offices if those buildings to not provide "adequate security measures such as metal detectors and security personal." emoticon

www.kckansan.com/2013/02/duel-begins
-o
ver-concealed-carry-in.html








“A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones who need the advice.”

Bill Cosby


 Pounds lost: 5.5 
 
0
5
10
15
20
BRIDIE5 Posts: 8,121
2/27/13 9:07 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Just perhaps, just maybe. they are all up in arms about the background checks cuz they know they wouldn't pass one? Many of the frothing at the mouth conspiracy theorists are a tad tweaked ya know.

 current weight: 141.5 
 
150.5
146.625
142.75
138.875
135
CEELEE53's Photo CEELEE53 Posts: 4,785
2/26/13 11:54 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
The "crazy trail," huh? With plenty of stops along the way to sample the koolaid :-)

Myrea...there is no convincing these people that background checks do not equal the nazis knocking down their doors and taking their guns and ammo. They compare Obama to Hitler for simply wanting the same laws in place that we had up to 2005, nevermind the facts.

And, by not minding the facts, make up any damn theory they want to...fabricate lies and peddle them as truth. The koolaid drinkers never bother to think for themselves.

"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country."
Franklin D. Roosevelt



 Pounds lost: 33.4 
 
0
15.2
30.4
45.6
60.8
COACHPENNY's Photo COACHPENNY Posts: 10,392
2/23/13 6:01 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Some people aren't old enough to remember Hitler...they are just espousing crazy conspiracy propaganda they've picked up along the crazy trail.



“A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones who need the advice.”

Bill Cosby


 Pounds lost: 5.5 
 
0
5
10
15
20
SHIRLEY721's Photo SHIRLEY721 SparkPoints: (101,925)
Fitness Minutes: (126,025)
Posts: 15,361
2/23/13 3:09 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
The only weapons I would approve of are revolvers,shotguns and repeating rifles.People don't need assualt rifles and gernades or bazookas or cannons.People (some of them)are afraid the government will try to control everything like Hitler did.You can't erase peoples memories of WWI IJust because you vote for someone you don't have to approve of everything they do.Abortion I'll never approve of either the exception being if the Mother's life is endangered..Yes,I did vote for Obama.. emoticon

 current weight: 180.0 
 
201
188.25
175.5
162.75
150
WILLAMLC's Photo WILLAMLC Posts: 40,230
2/23/13 11:54 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Myrea, my answer would be nothing. Limiting what kind of weaponry one can have does not infringe the right of bear arms… I don’t see how a person can need assault rifles, bazookas or grenades for personal safety.
Of course, the whole problem rests on the republicans that cry “the sky is fallen” for every move Obama makes.
On the other hand, we can take Shirley’s suggestion and let anybody have any kind of weapon they want and just assume that mass murders is just a side effect, and an acceptable side effect of such policy. And I do mean this. Everything has a cost, and the cost of having the “freedom’ of anybody buying any weapon is people getting killed.


Whatever the mind can conceive and believe you will achieve. Salt-N-Pepa

Co-Leader Brazil Team

Leader Eco-Friendly Sparkers


 current weight: 184.0 
 
184
178
172
166
160
COACHPENNY's Photo COACHPENNY Posts: 10,392
2/11/13 11:16 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I suppose some would argue that the phrase..."shall not be infringed" means that laws regulating the types of arms legally available would be an infringement. I would argue that..."well regulated" means that every Tom, Dick and Harriet gun owner, should be regulated by laws that keep the general population safe.

After reading various articles that have to do with the meaning of the words contained in the Amendments to the Constitution, my conclusion is that the Amendment were not written to weaken the power of the central government to enact laws for the benefit of the country as a whole.

The Federalists, who favored a strong central government outmaneuvered the
Anti-Federalists, who favored non central governance.

Excerpts from the Chicago-Kent Law Review:

****************************************

II. THE CONSTITUTION, THE MILITIA, AND THE NATIONAL ARMY

"The framers in Philadelphia gave Congress and the president shared responsibility for the ultimate control of the militia. They also gave state governments important responsibilities and powers in organizing and training militias, while at the same time taking ultimate authority from the states.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress power to "declare War,"[41] "to raise and support Armies,"[42] to "maintain a Navy,"[43] to make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,"[44] to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,"[45] and "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia."[46] Furthermore, Article I declares that the states may not "keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace."[47] Article II makes the president of the United States the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" and "of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."[48] These provisions also contain two important limitations. Congress can only appropriate money for the military for two years,[49] and the states retain the power to appoint all militia officers and to train the militia, provided this training complies with "the discipline prescribed by Congress."[50]

Taken together, these provisions contemplated two levels of military protection for the new nation: (1) a national army created and governed solely by Congress and ultimately under the authority of the president in his capacity as commander in chief, and (2) a system of state militias, essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to "federalization" at the command of the president. Part of that regulation included the idea that the national government had the power¾and the obligation¾to provide arms for the local militias.[51] As Rufus King [Page 205] explained at the Convention, "arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the militia themselves, the State Governments, or the National Treasury."[52] Thus, the defense of the United States would rely on both the state militias and the standing army."..........

"Clearly, supporters of the Constitution, who thoroughly dominated Congress in 1789 when the Bill of Rights was written, had no intention of undoing their handiwork with a series of debilitating amendments that would weaken the national government. They emphatically rejected attempts to undermine the power of the government to control weapons of war and to suppress a revolution. For example, they rejected a New Hampshire suggestion for an amendment to prohibit the creation of a standing army "in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress."[128] Though the New York Antifederalists would have banned standing armies altogether,[129] the First Congress would not accept such a limitation. It refused to compel the nation to wait until the rebellion had actually started before it could organize an army and step in to disarm another Daniel Shays.[130]"

****************************************
***********

www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChic
ag
o.htm


It a long article, but worth the read if you want to take the time.

Edited by: COACHPENNY at: 2/11/2013 (11:17)


“A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones who need the advice.”

Bill Cosby


 Pounds lost: 5.5 
 
0
5
10
15
20
SHIRLEY721's Photo SHIRLEY721 SparkPoints: (101,925)
Fitness Minutes: (126,025)
Posts: 15,361
2/11/13 10:46 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
emoticon I think personally that it would probably be alright if the government doesn't go further with it.Most of my family are gun owners not assualt fifles but revolvers,shotguns and repeating rifles.Some hunt a little rabbits ,quail etc.Most of the time just target practice.A lot of people think it may be something like Hitler and other facists did to Germany before WWII.Fear of our rights as citizens being taken away is a consideration.A lot of people are full of fear.How does one stop fear?

 current weight: 180.0 
 
201
188.25
175.5
162.75
150
MYREALANA's Photo MYREALANA SparkPoints: (28,850)
Fitness Minutes: (21,920)
Posts: 3,722
2/11/13 10:18 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
"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."
------------
What part of that law prevents Congress from passing laws as to the types of guns, ammunition and accessories that can be bought, sold, manufactured or imported in the US?

I'm not talking about passing laws about what people are allowed to own. No law that touches individual ownership of a weapon. To my reading, the amendment only applies to an individual's right to own and carry weapons. It does not say that anyone has the right to make or transfer ownership of weapons or ammunition.

Congress should be able to pass a constitutional law that forbids the manufacture, import or sale of weapons of the "assault rifle" variety, clips of excessive size, and armor piercing or other types of ammunition, without coming against the 2nd amendment at all, as long as the law never touches on individual right to own such a weapon - if they obtained it before the ban, or somehow obtained it legally without buying, selling or importing it after the ban.

--Myrea

"If you can't do something smart, do something right." --
Shepherd Book


Page: 1 of (1)  

Report Innappropriate Post

Other The Soapbox - discuss and debate your issues! General Team Discussion Forum Posts

Topics: Last Post:
A Share I Couldn't Find in the MSN 2/11/2014 4:47:59 PM
Is it a movie? 2/22/2014 7:58:30 AM
Shirley asked about the shutdown and ACA.. 11/6/2013 6:35:36 PM
The reason we spend so much on healthcare. 12/19/2013 9:20:16 PM
The YUK Factor 6/9/2013 12:39:06 AM

Thread URL: http://www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/team_messageboard_thread.asp?board=0x5082x52076745

Review our Community Guidelines