Police officers view on Semi-auto guns

[RayH]

Ray, if you read all of the Wikipedia, can you give us a Readers Digest version. Do they think we keep our guns or not?

Its a long read that requires that some parts be read several times to understand the legal mumbo jumbo so I didnt read every word. In the end, it doesnt say. All it does is basically give you 100 different interpretations and let you decide.

 

[Bill Barrett]

I see, thanks for the reply Ray. I'll see if I can get through it tomorrow

 

[TrippleT]

I agree with Catman1 the constitution says what it says. Words have meanings and you have to torture them pretty hard to get the meanings that some come up with. Now I have a good friend who is a lawyer, but a lot of lawyers can really mess up a lot of things.
That is why when there was a lawyers convention some terrorists took over the thing and said that if their demands were not met they would release a lawyer ever hour.

 

[cp1969]

All I can say is what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" don't they understand.

That should say it all folks! The Founding Fathers knew what we needed and put together an outstanding Constitution. Don't allow the gun control freaks to interpret it their way. It is simple and straight forward. It says what it means and means what it says. Period.

The only problem is, that isn't what the amendment says in its entirety. The whole thing goes like this:

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.

That first part is what screws it up. If they'd left it off, the meaning couldn't hardly be interpreted but one way.

Someone should have, before the writers died, pulled them aside and asked, "What the ???? did you mean to say?

 

[Sigarms]

A news story that I thought related to this subject, per the AP

Fact is, if your pro gun, the story justifies your position and you agree with it. If your "anti gun", its a legal system run amuck that makes no sence at times. The sad truth is gun ownership is a lot like topics such as abortion, it's personal and feelings run high and chances are you will not change your position no matter what.

I also found this story interesting because I worked in D.C for a short time, and may of been one of the few times I intentially (sp?) broke the law (crossing the street illegally) I might add, I will NEVER forget the feeling I had when I got lost on the metro and ended up in New Carrollton. That never happened again.

As quoted from the AP story


"A long-standing ban on handguns in Washington, DC, is being overturned by a federal appeals court. The court is rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to militias.
A lower-court judge had told six DC residents three years ago that they don't have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

In Friday's two-to-one decision, the judge held that the Second Amendment doesn't just apply to militia service, or to people with "intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The Supreme Court has never settled the issue of individual gun ownership, a right that is endorsed by the Bush administration. If the high court takes this case, it will be the first one dealing with the scope of the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years.

 

[Bill Barrett]

The only problem is, that isn't what the amendment says in its entirety. The whole thing goes like this:

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.

That first part is what screws it up. If they'd left it off, the meaning couldn't hardly be interpreted but one way.

Someone should have, before the writers died, pulled them aside and asked, "What the ???? did you mean to say?

This is semantics again, but the intent of well regulated, back in the day, was not regulated by authority but was a weapon that was in good working order, ready to go, and was sighted in. The militia part throws me a curve, I like to believe it means the people organizing themselves. Any thoughts ?

 

[Bill Barrett]

A news story that I thought related to this subject, per the AP

Fact is, if your pro gun, the story justifies your position and you agree with it. If your "anti gun", its a legal system run amuck that makes no sence at times. The sad truth is gun ownership is a lot like topics such as abortion, it's personal and feelings run high and chances are you will not change your position no matter what.

I also found this story interesting because I worked in D.C for a short time, and may of been one of the few times I intentially (sp?) broke the law (crossing the street illegally)

As quoted from the AP story


"A long-standing ban on handguns in Washington, DC, is being overturned by a federal appeals court. The court is rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to militias.
A lower-court judge had told six DC residents three years ago that they don't have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

In Friday's two-to-one decision, the judge held that the Second Amendment doesn't just apply to militia service, or to people with "intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The Supreme Court has never settled the issue of individual gun ownership, a right that is endorsed by the Bush administration. If the high court takes this case, it will be the first one dealing with the scope of the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years.

Good post, hey Sig do I see you over in Glock Talk at times?

 

[Sigarms]

Good post, hey Sig do I see you over in Glock Talk at times?

With a name like Sigarms

I do happen to have a G20 thought and love it!

To answer your question, yes, at times, but not as much since getting married and priorities changing (diversion of monetary funds).

 

[TrippleT]

I don't think there is any mystery to the 2nd amendment. In the times when it was drawn up every male from about 17 up, and able bodied, constituted the militia. In other words the PEOPLE were the militia and for that reason the right to keep and bear arms was a necessity.
I can assure you there are idiots who will abuse this right. And, I can assure you if we did not have it, the government would abuse US! That is my take on it. Everyone is entitled their opinion. My opinion is we have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Catman1]

You have it exactly right TrippleT. Everyone owned guns back then and if you want to know what the Founding Fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment, all you have to do is read their writings.

The Founders all speak on their thoughts about their beliefs on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and why they did what they did. They don't teach that stuff anymore in schools because it would go against their beliefs (teachers and administrators liberal attitudes). Come to think of it they don't teach much in school anymore except "self esteem".

The other day my wife gave $10 to a salesclerk for a $8.57 purchase and she had to use a calculator to figure out how much change to give back!

By the way, 30 years ago it was legal to carry guns on planes. You never had a hijacking until they banned guns on planes. When every body carried guns, very few committed gun crimes.