Print

[Wong Hung Lo]

Just think about the children. They could accidentely bayonet a friend or there could be school bayonetings or drive by bayonetings.

Please think of the children. You know that We The People doesn't mean the citizens. It means the government. So the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means only the government can have arms.

Now that is established who The People are. What's all this freedom of the press and freedom of speech hoggwash that the citizens think they have?  

[Baner]

...

[Jreb892]

Don't forget about the flash suppressors! OMG the streets will flow with blood!

[rocky_2197]

Sorry for jumping in on this thread, but I have to disagree with the some of your statments Wong Hung Lo.  Not that I am for or against the assult weapons band.
But "We the people" is every individual citizen.  We have the right to bear arms to protect our selves.  The government has the right to bear arms in the form of a military to protect the boarders and our way of life.  But it is the citizens of the US that have and shall have the right to bear arms.

As for the freedom of speach and and press.  Are you not saying what you think right now.  If you didn't have the freedom to do that you wouldn't be able to say ignorent things like that.

[Jreb892]

QUOTE

Sorry for jumping in on this thread, but I have to disagree with the some of your statments Wong Hung Lo. Not that I am for or against the assult weapons band. But "We the people" is every individual citizen. We have the right to bear arms to protect our selves. The government has the right to bear arms in the form of a military to protect the boarders and our way of life. But it is the citizens of the US that have and shall have the right to bear arms. As for the freedom of speach and and press. Are you not saying what you think right now. If you didn't have the freedom to do that you wouldn't be able to say ignorent things like that.

are you joking?

[Maximumbeing]

That's an amazing prowess for catching sarcasm you've got Rocky, then again, you haven't said anything smart anywhere else either.

So I should have seen it coming.

[thomes08]

...wow

[nemt]

QUOTE

The second amendment says "the people" shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you take "the people" here to mean the same as it clearly does in the fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments, the supreme court has made it clear this refers to individual citizens. Additionally, the second amendment falls right in the middle of the bill of rights, so am I supposed to just assume that stuck in the middle of all these constitutionally protected individual rights is one that grants powers to government to keep a militia? I doubt it. The Bill of Rights was written to grant rights to individuals, which are so fundamental they may not be infringed upon by the government. If the founding fathers intended the second amendment to grant powers to the government, and not to individuals, they sure put it in a funny place.

[thomes08]

i'm against this kind of gun owning but i agree that "we the people" means everyone, not just the government.  Although when that was written times were completely different to the point where in my opinion it should be changed.  No one needs an assault riffle to defend themselves.  People need assault riffles to show them off or do what their name says, ASSAULT.  

summary
1.)  I hate to say it but i agree with nemt and the other people who say "we the people" means exactly that.

2.)  Times have changed and so should the whole assault riffle thing, nothing good can come from it.


thomes08

[The unProfessional]

I guess my only frustration with the right to bear arms is..

QUOTE

well regulated militia

... isn't defined by a guy with a collection of assault rifles in his living room.  But nonetheless, I love shooting for recreation.  Not hunting, but targets... lots of fun.  I think handguns will always be more threatening to our safety than assault rifles.  Or for that matter, rocket launchers and tanks (weapons you cannot conceal).

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (hardcoregamer @ Sep 14 2004, 06:41 PM)

so am I supposed to just assume that stuck in the middle of all these constitutionally protected individual rights is one that grants powers to government to keep a militia? Amendment II 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 well regulated militia....NON govt affilieated private citizens creat the militia. The actual reason for the militia is to keep the govt and military in check, to be a threat to said enteties. You cannot be a threat to the govt, or military with muzzel loaders, sticks, rocks, and single shot long guns. Amendment II ensures that amendment I and III are not ignored by the elected officials.

hasnt anyone figured it out yet


you can give me all this bullshit that you need assault weapons just in case you want to change the government, or something drastic in the government happens (something bad)

but your forgetting, the military is the government, and the military has nukes, fighters, bombers, missiles, assault weapons, tanks, trucks, etc


so, whats a glock or a AK47 that all you gun loving people think you need going to do against any of the above?

please, enlighten me

[thomes08]

Weell raptor you obviously don't know what the real life is like.  Usually at least once a year a huge mob of people surround you and want to kill you.  They all have brass knuckles on and the only way to stop them is to get out the assault riffle that the governemt protects you to have an mow the angry mob down before they come at you, in self defense.


MORON!

thomes08

[hardcoregamer]

Pay attention dousche bags. I was quoting a previous post, the individual was making it sound like the govt was in charge of the militia, or creats the militia. It does not, a militia is a private civilian group.

[Wong Hung Lo]

QUOTE (thomes08 @ Sep 14 2004, 06:29 PM)

i'm against this kind of gun owning but i agree that "we the people" means everyone, not just the government.  Although when that was written times were completely different to the point where in my opinion it should be changed.  No one needs an assault riffle to defend themselves.  People need assault riffles to show them off or do what their name says, ASSAULT.  summary 1.)  I hate to say it but i agree with nemt and the other people who say "we the people" means exactly that. 2.)  Times have changed and so should the whole assault riffle thing, nothing good can come from it. thomes08

Yes times have changed. When the constitution was written there was only printing presses and the town crier yelling in the streets.  Now we have teletype, phones, radio, tv, newswire and the internet.

Those things didn't exist when our founding fathers sat down and wrote the constitution. Using the gungrabbers way of thinking (like when they say that only muskets existed back then and that the founding fathers didn't mean arms and only meant muskets). Our founding fathers only meant freedom of speech and press to be only for printing presses and the town crier that existed then. Not all this new technology.

[nemt]

You're right, and while we're at it, now that we have all these new weapons, why do we have to live by that archaic amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment?