Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller



 
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old July 24th, 2009, 5:09 pm
monster_mom's Avatar
monster_mom  Female.gif monster_mom is offline
Curse Breaker
 
Joined: 4431 days
Location: Elmo's World
Age: 50
Posts: 7,344
Re: 111th US Congress: Version 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redhart View Post
Personally, I don't see safety restrictions, increased registration/permit laws as a violation of a 2nd amendment right. I see them as safegards to protect the public as much as possible from accidental shootings, guns in the hands of the mentally unstable or criminal elements. I agree with Chris...lines must be drawn somewhere.
You do realize that you're contradicting yourself. You said that we need to draw line somewhere to keep guns out of the hands of unstable or criminal elements. I agree with that 100% but fail to see how further restrictions on the right to have a gun will accomplish that objective. More than 80% of all gun related violence involves a gun obtained illegally. Passing laws which make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy or own a gun won't reduce criminals access to or use of guns during crimes at all.

If the objective is to reduce the illegal sale and use of guns then we need to address that issue, not make it harder for legal sales to happen.


__________________
We don't belong to the government, the government belongs to us - - Mitt Romney


Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years? - - Paul Ryan
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old July 24th, 2009, 5:13 pm
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5460 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,280
Re: 111th US Congress: Version 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_mom View Post
Would you prefer stupid, dumb, idiotic?
Criminally negligent. Which is what they would be under law here (along with a slew of other offences).

Quote:
Keeping a loaded gun under a bed in a home with a toddler is stupid and irresponsible.
Again different places different laws. Anyone holding a licence here has to store the gun in a locked safe, unloaded. I have a friend who part owns a gun store and refuses to keep weapons in the house.

Quote:
You must think very poorly of Americans.
Not all.

Quote:
More children die of accidental drownings in backyard pools than of gun related accidents every year, yet I don't see anyone calling for laws restricting pools. I don't see anyone calling for laws requiring parents who have a pool to have alarms installed or mandating covers that can bear the weight of a child be installed and that the pool be closed whenever the adults aren't present.
Again, differences. Here pool owners are required by law to fence a pool and install self-locking childproof gates.

Quote:
A drunk driver behind the wheel of a car has no place in society. A guy operating a city bus while texting has no role in society. Yet each of these individuals is behaving in an irresponsible manner. Just like parents who keep a loaded gun under a bed in a home with a toddler are behaving in an irresponsible manner.
The difference being that these things have legal consequences.

In deference to Chris that's all folks.

Now, as far as Congress itself goes, the Democrats are doing a fine job of handing the majority over to the GOP in 2010.

Obama really should take advantage of his position and start siccing Rahm Emmanuel on the party's recalcitrants, especially the freshmen who got where they are on Obama's coattails.


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
  #23  
Old July 24th, 2009, 5:56 pm
Redhart's Avatar
Redhart  Female.gif Redhart is offline
Ultimate Dog Lover
 
Joined: 4417 days
Location: The Land of Shake n' Bake
Posts: 3,003
Re: 111th US Congress: Version 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_mom View Post
You do realize that you're contradicting yourself. You said that we need to draw line somewhere to keep guns out of the hands of unstable or criminal elements. I agree with that 100% but fail to see how further restrictions on the right to have a gun will accomplish that objective. More than 80% of all gun related violence involves a gun obtained illegally. Passing laws which make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy or own a gun won't reduce criminals access to or use of guns during crimes at all.

If the objective is to reduce the illegal sale and use of guns then we need to address that issue, not make it harder for legal sales to happen.
Not seeing this as a contradiction. I'm not anti-gun. I live out in the country, enjoy hunting on occasion and have seen how mountain lions and packs of coyotes can threaten both family and livestock up here. Where I live, the need for many is very real and I would never deprive them of their defense or ability to put food on the table (in the form of wild game) to feed their families.

This being said, guns ARE a dangerous tool and there are many that have shown they do not take the responsibility of having such an instrument very seriously at times.

While many rural children are raised in families who teach them the proper safety and handling of such guns, purchase them with all licenses and registrations, and store them properly...there are a great many other people who have no clue what they are doing. They see guns as a "macho status" tool to buy respect, believe it will chase away paranoia or the demons that haunt them or have more malicious intentions in the way of committing crimes.

While I want to continue to see the 2nd amendment remain intact, I do not believe that free reign with weapons is a good thing in today's society. I do NOT want to see our country to become the wild-wild west again. I get the feeling some do.

"Reasonable" lines do need to be drawn. Yes, we have a right to bear arms. Does that mean we should have the right to own and shoot home bazookas? Howitzers? Atomic weapons? ....If the government owns atomic weapons..is it reasonable that the citizenry should as well in case we ever have to form a militia to defend from our own government? Might this be..."too far"? We draw lines all the time...we just quibble about the placement to the left and right of the line, is all.

Lines are drawn all the time. Anything can be taken to excess.

For instance, I did not care for the bill that would allow concealed weapons to cross state lines. I think it goes too far in the area of disrespecting state sovereignty in this case. I do understand the need, but think there might be a better way for those who are responsible to be able to work this out...like a way to easily permit oneself, from their own state, to states they wish to visit with their concealed weapon (perhaps reduced permitting rates for adding on states, simple instruction on each state's rules, etc).

Just because it is a "gun law"...doesn't make it anti gun. Sometimes it's pro-safety or other's rights (like a state's right to have their own laws upheld).

I do not see safety laws as anti-gun in most cases, either.

And, you are correct that most many criminals don't 'buy' guns legally, anyway--many are stolen or purchased on black markets. Obviously, these things need to be dealt in other ways. But, many safety laws do help educate gun owners & families and make accidents less likely, while screening for those who probably shouldn't have a gun (like someone with documented mental illness that makes them a possible threat to others).


__________________
The Bad Girls of Hogwarts!
NEVER underestimate an old witch!



"Angels fly because they take themselves lightly."
  #24  
Old July 24th, 2009, 6:02 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4285 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Moved the gun rights discussion to this thread. Carry on :indy:.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
  #25  
Old July 24th, 2009, 6:30 pm
Voldemorts8thHorcrux's Avatar
Voldemorts8thHorcrux  Female.gif Voldemorts8thHorcrux is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 4559 days
Location: just took over world,on throne
Age: 23
Posts: 5,710
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

1. Do you agree or disagree with the SCOTUS ruling? Why?
I definitely agree, Second Amendment is quite clear about the right to bear arms.I can't really say i like the idea of people being able to carry guns, not really because i don't think that they're not responsible, but a gunfight is probably one of the easiest ways to accidentally hurt innocent bystanders but people deserve the right to a gun, definitely

3. The Court seemed to think that some restrictions on firearms were permissible under the Second Amendment, leaving it to future cases to flesh out the specifics. What do you predict will be the outcome?
Well obviously there should be some restrictions. For example, a pistol is fine, but would i want someone carrying a machine gun down the street? probably not

4. What do you predict the practical real-world consequences of this case will be?

Hard to say, but i doubt a gun ban would stop criminals anyways


__________________


Official Member of the Jacq Triumvirate

My Deviantart Account

Voldemort Feels Pretty, My animated music video for "I feel Pretty" Featuring LORD VOLDEMORT!

My original story: Teeter Totter (Has absolutely nothing to do with playgrounds)


  #26  
Old July 24th, 2009, 9:53 pm
FlamingRed  Undisclosed.gif FlamingRed is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3822 days
Posts: 51
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

The way I see it, the "right to bear arms" means the right to bear arms. Simple. Our Founding Fathers saw fit to give us the ability to carry a weapon if we want.

I think logo/slogan t-shirts are tacky, but in this case the one that says "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" is spot-on. To restrict gun rights because a few idiots use them incorrectly or fail to teach their children about the potential dangers of guns, is really unfortunate for the section of society that owns/bears their weapons in accordance with the law.

However, if one region or state feels it necessary to make restrictions due to crime rates and such, it should be up to local and state governments, not the US government, and the details of the restrictions should be explicitly and publicly documented and understood.


__________________


Proud member of
  #27  
Old July 24th, 2009, 10:22 pm
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5561 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 69
Posts: 28,609
Re: 111th US Congress: Version 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redhart View Post
Actually...we have laws here that require pool safety features like a secure fence around pools with a locking gate. This law was specifically asked for and passed to curb accidental drownings of children.
Same in my state. We have an inground, full-sized pool and cabana that is fully secured, even to the point of installed motion detectors that alert us if anyone is snooping around the fence, looking for a way to get inside. It also calls the police. A forced entry would be the poolside equivalent of "all hell breaking loose."

Quote:
Personally, I don't see safety restrictions, increased registration/permit laws as a violation of a 2nd amendment right. I see them as safegards to protect the public as much as possible from accidental shootings, guns in the hands of the mentally unstable or criminal elements. I agree with Chris...lines must be drawn somewhere.
I would not be pleased to be walking through Yellowstone with my grandkids and wondering which of my fellow tourists is packing a gun. Yet Congress has passed legislation to allow just that.

We have five dead police officers, one dead security officer, one dead Army soldier, one doctor, and a couple of dozen children and their parents - all of them shot to death by individuals who had previously been considered "law-abiding citizens" and responsible gun owners. So you'll forgive me if I don't buy that bit.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #28  
Old July 25th, 2009, 3:34 am
PLIMPY's Avatar
PLIMPY  Female.gif PLIMPY is offline
Sixth Year
 
Joined: 5293 days
Location: Florida
Age: 34
Posts: 1,238
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_mom View Post
My understanding of the bill is that it would allow people who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon carry that weapon into other states with similar laws rather then requiring them to get a permit in every state they visit. So, if a person has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Virginia they couldn't bring the gun into DC where local laws prohibit concealed weapons, but they could carry the weapon into West Virginian without getting a West Virginia permit because both West Virginia and Virginia have similar laws allowing concealed weapons.
I also understood that the bill would prohibit "permit shopping" and would require that people only get permits in the state in which they reside. So, in the example above, a person who lives in DC would not be able to get a permit from VA.
There are already independent reciprocal agreements in place between most states with similar concealed weapons laws. My state, the state of Florida, has a reciprocity agreement with 32 other states. So, while may not infringe upon the situation in Washington DC (or Illinois or Wisconsin) since they do not authorize concealed weapons permits, there are 11 states that do, but that do not recognize any reciprocity agreements: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island. If those states chose to have reciprocity agreements they could, but as it stands now, each states gets to decide for itself which state has a similar enough process so as to accept their concealed weapons permits for visitors to their state. Virginia and West Virginia have an agreement in place (assuming that you have a resident concealed weapons permit from Virginia, not a non-resident permit, which the state apparently offers), so the situation as described in the example can and likely does take place on a daily basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redhart View Post
While I want to continue to see the 2nd amendment remain intact, I do not believe that free reign with weapons is a good thing in today's society. I do NOT want to see our country to become the wild-wild west again. I get the feeling some do.
Speaking of which, two states, Tennessee and Arizona, recently expanded their concealed weapons laws to expressly allow people to carry weapons into bars. Apparently both laws specify that they are not allowed to drink, but it seems upholding that law makes some restaurant owners nervous. NY Times Blog discussing the new laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingRed View Post
The way I see it, the "right to bear arms" means the right to bear arms. Simple. Our Founding Fathers saw fit to give us the ability to carry a weapon if we want.
But that isnít exactly what the amendment says, if that is what the amendment said, then I agree it would be simple. What it says is ďA 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.Ē That isn't quite the same, and I honestly do not agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. And even if I did, I would support amending the Constitution to lessen these rights, but alas that would be so politically unpopular as to be impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wab View Post
Again different places different laws. Anyone holding a licence here has to store the gun in a locked safe, unloaded. I have a friend who part owns a gun store and refuses to keep weapons in the house.
My state actually doesnít required gun owners to be licensed. I think the only requirements to own a firearm are that you be 18 and not have been convicted of a felony (or have a domestic violence injunction or have been determined to be a danger to yourself and/or others). We also do not require guns to be registered, in fact, gun registration is expressly against the law as no portion of state government is allowed to keep a list of gun owners (or they face a fine of up to $50 million according to statute).


__________________


What happens to a plimpy that comes to the Breakfast Club?
Search Tutorial ~ Search Engine ~ Forum Rules ~ Ask the Staff
  #29  
Old July 25th, 2009, 4:33 am
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5460 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,280
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLIMPY View Post
Apparently both laws specify that they are not allowed to drink, but it seems upholding that law makes some restaurant owners nervous.
As you would be with drunken customers packing.

Quote:
My state actually doesn’t required gun owners to be licensed. I think the only requirements to own a firearm are that you be 18 and not have been convicted of a felony (or have a domestic violence injunction or have been determined to be a danger to yourself and/or others).
Which means anyone with a convincing fake identity can pick up weapons easily. Even terrorists.

ToL


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless

Last edited by Wab; July 25th, 2009 at 8:54 am.
  #30  
Old July 25th, 2009, 7:58 am
tommypman  Undisclosed.gif tommypman is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3532 days
Posts: 69
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

The second amendment clearly says that Americans have the right to possess and carry guns, and subsequent quotes from the founding fathers support that.

I suggest we hold on to this right, because if a government can find a way to get your guns, then they WILL take away all your other freedoms.


  #31  
Old July 25th, 2009, 3:25 pm
PLIMPY's Avatar
PLIMPY  Female.gif PLIMPY is offline
Sixth Year
 
Joined: 5293 days
Location: Florida
Age: 34
Posts: 1,238
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommypman View Post
I suggest we hold on to this right, because if a government can find a way to get your guns, then they WILL take away all your other freedoms.
I don't think it is the guns that keep the government from...taking us over? I'm not really sure what the fear is here. They have nuclear weapons and smart bombs and tanks and lots of guns. The government is already in power, what could they do with us? Are they going to put us all into internment camps? then what? Even if they could get to all of us (without guns I think Americans would still put up a heck of a fight), what would they possibly do with us? I think anything they could attempt to do would make it more difficult for them the situation now.

Law makers don't abide by freedoms granted in the Constitution because they are afraid of us physically (they take away one persons right to vote and you shoot? no, you file a law suit) but because they are afraid of us politically. Democracy is fairly well entrenched here and people don't need a gun to their head to abide by its rules. If we don't like someone, then we don't vote for them next time. If law makers pass a bill you don't like, you certainly aren't allowed to shoot them or threaten to shoot them, but you can lobby Congress, you can sign petitions (not only to show support, but many states allow you to put something on the ballot by that process), and if you feel it infringes on your civil liberties then you can take it to court. We have peaceful transitions of power not because of our guns, but in spite of our guns because of our strong liberal democracy (which we are considered because of things like freedom of speech, free press and the right to vote, those rights granted to us in the first amendment as are many other nations, some of which have far more restrictive gun laws than our own, including England which seems to still enjoy a thriving liberal democracy).


__________________


What happens to a plimpy that comes to the Breakfast Club?
Search Tutorial ~ Search Engine ~ Forum Rules ~ Ask the Staff

Last edited by PLIMPY; July 25th, 2009 at 3:41 pm.
  #32  
Old July 25th, 2009, 5:55 pm
tommypman  Undisclosed.gif tommypman is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3532 days
Posts: 69
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

First off, I suspect that in the event of a citizen uprising due to the removal of second amendment rights would be supported by a large section of the military, and so the weaponry of the citizens would possibly be quite as formidible as that of the governments.

And technically we do have freedom of speech, press, and the ability to vote. However how long do you think these rights would last if guns were removed?


  #33  
Old July 25th, 2009, 6:20 pm
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5460 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,280
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommypman View Post
And technically we do have freedom of speech, press, and the ability to vote. However how long do you think these rights would last if guns were removed?
Practically every advanced western democracy has managed to maintain all those rights while maintaining strict regulation of weapons.

And even if your fantasy of a seditious military were to come true, the foot soldiers don't have any control of the high level systems which could level a city in the blink of an eye.


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
  #34  
Old July 25th, 2009, 6:26 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4285 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Personally, I fail to see how banning certain types of weapons and banning weapons in certain types of places doesn't fit with the second amendment. I support being able to hunt, target shoot, and even to own handguns for self-protection. And I won't ever advocate taking that right away. But, I don't think that we need to allow assault rifles or extremely powerful forms of weapons when weapons with lesser power still work just fine. One still has the right to bear arms - just not every kind of arms.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
  #35  
Old July 25th, 2009, 6:29 pm
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5460 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,280
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Does that mean if I move to the US that I can't have a Cruise missile in the back yard?


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
  #36  
Old July 25th, 2009, 6:32 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4285 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wab View Post
Does that mean if I move to the US that I can't have a Cruise missile in the back yard?
Sorry, no.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
  #37  
Old July 25th, 2009, 6:50 pm
Redhart's Avatar
Redhart  Female.gif Redhart is offline
Ultimate Dog Lover
 
Joined: 4417 days
Location: The Land of Shake n' Bake
Posts: 3,003
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLIMPY View Post

Law makers don't abide by freedoms granted in the Constitution because they are afraid of us physically (they take away one persons right to vote and you shoot? no, you file a law suit) but because they are afraid of us politically. Democracy is fairly well entrenched here and people don't need a gun to their head to abide by its rules. If we don't like someone, then we don't vote for them next time. If law makers pass a bill you don't like, you certainly aren't allowed to shoot them or threaten to shoot them, but you can lobby Congress, you can sign petitions (not only to show support, but many states allow you to put something on the ballot by that process), and if you feel it infringes on your civil liberties then you can take it to court. We have peaceful transitions of power not because of our guns, but in spite of our guns because of our strong liberal democracy (which we are considered because of things like freedom of speech, free press and the right to vote, those rights granted to us in the first amendment as are many other nations, some of which have far more restrictive gun laws than our own, including England which seems to still enjoy a thriving liberal democracy).
Wow well said, Plimpy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommypman
First off, I suspect that in the event of a citizen uprising due to the removal of second amendment rights would be supported by a large section of the military, and so the weaponry of the citizens would possibly be quite as formidible as that of the governments.
I'm sorry--did I miss something? Has the 2nd amendment been repealed or something? From what I understand, the 2nd amendment and right to bear arms has been and is intact and I've heard nothing from this President's administration that would cause me to believe that this will change. I still can go hunting. My neighbor just chased a bear up the mountain with her gun (no, she didn't shoot it, just waved it at the critter to get him away) and sales seem to be fairly brisk from what I hear.

Geez Chris, spoil sport--I was about to take advantage of a really great deal on a couple of F-15s, too.


__________________
The Bad Girls of Hogwarts!
NEVER underestimate an old witch!



"Angels fly because they take themselves lightly."

Last edited by Redhart; July 25th, 2009 at 7:02 pm.
  #38  
Old July 25th, 2009, 6:57 pm
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5561 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 69
Posts: 28,609
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

I don't have much faith that people who build private arsenals are up to anything good. I think the DHS report, under both Bush and Obama, was spot-on with the dangers implicit in this arms race in the private sector.

ETA:

I forgot to quote Plimpy, but Red has already done so... so for a great post!


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #39  
Old July 25th, 2009, 7:13 pm
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5460 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,280
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Post-war US history has shown that the powers that be have more to fear (and they do) people willing to exercise their first amendment right than their second.

MLK, Malcolm X, Murrow, Cronkite, Arnett, Woodward and Bernstein and even Larry Flint have done more to change America for the good than Tim McVeigh and any number of militia men.


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
  #40  
Old July 25th, 2009, 7:37 pm
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5561 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 69
Posts: 28,609
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Isn't it also true, though, that the second amendment has wreaked havoc on some of the people on your list - and many more who aren't?


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
 
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 1:18 pm.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright © MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright © its respective owners.