DZJ 0 #26 April 24, 2007 Garlic? Outrageous! Black pepper and mustard, my friend. Anyhow, my thanks for all the replies, and the suggested reading. I'm sure I'll pipe up again if anything remains unclear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 April 24, 2007 QuoteGarlic? Outrageous! Black pepper and mustard, my friend. Anyhow, my thanks for all the replies, and the suggested reading. I'm sure I'll pipe up again if anything remains unclear. Hmm... that sounds good, too! Definitely check out that senate report link I posted before...they themselves admit it's an individual right...of course, you'll never see them say that on C-Span...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #28 April 24, 2007 In addition to the Bill of Rights' Second Amendment to the US Constitution and the right of the people to be armed, the vast majority of state constitutions include the right to keep and bear arms....and they do NOT mention having to belong to a state militia. This link www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/ is in regard to an excellent DVD that studies the history of the right to keep and bears arms...back to England in the middle ages and up to the present time. It draws heavily from the writings of the "founding fathers" of this country and it leaves no doubt of their intent in including this right which is not granted by the Constitution but affirmed by it. That right existed prior to the founding of the USA."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #29 April 24, 2007 How do state constitutions relate to the national Constitution? What happens if they were to conflict? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 April 24, 2007 QuoteHow do state constitutions relate to the national Constitution? What happens if they were to conflict? States can add rights, but they can't take away those in the Constitution. At least in theory. Bit of a fight brewing over gay marriage, medical pot. Many states have a clear right to privacy, whereas the one used for Roe vs Wade is somehow inferred. OTOH, the California one is a bit of a joke - legislation/initiatives that get into the state constitution are harder to repeal, so it's polluted with a lot of crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #31 April 24, 2007 QuoteHere ya go - a copy of the never-mentioned Senate Report on the Second Amendment... Dam, that is GOOD reading!!! And It is Right on the money"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #32 April 24, 2007 I have been wondering what, at the time, the intent was of the 2nd amendmend? Was it just to arm the people to protect themselves? Was it to be able to overthrow a rogue government? Another reason? A combination? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #33 April 24, 2007 Quote Garlic? Outrageous! Black pepper and mustard, my friend. Gentlemen! Please allow me to introduce on of my favorite and most frequent seasonings. I present to you, Nantucket Offshore's Prairie Rub! Check the ingredients. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 April 25, 2007 Nice - I'll have to try to find some of that.... of course, first I have to get a grill for the house...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #35 April 25, 2007 QuoteI have been wondering what, at the time, the intent was of the 2nd amendmend? Was it just to arm the people to protect themselves? Was it to be able to overthrow a rogue government? Another reason? A combination? From what I have read of the Federalist Papers, the author were very concerned about the government becoming too overbearing and powerful, and they felt that an armed populace would keep the government under control. Certainly defense of the country was important, but the papers seem to be pretty clear about keeping the gov in check. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #36 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteI have been wondering what, at the time, the intent was of the 2nd amendmend? Was it just to arm the people to protect themselves? Was it to be able to overthrow a rogue government? Another reason? A combination? From what I have read of the Federalist Papers, the author were very concerned about the government becoming too overbearing and powerful, and they felt that an armed populace would keep the government under control. Certainly defense of the country was important, but the papers seem to be pretty clear about keeping the gov in check. Well, clearly THAT hasn't worked.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #37 April 25, 2007 QuoteFrom what I have read of the Federalist Papers, the author were very concerned about the government becoming too overbearing and powerful, and they felt that an armed populace would keep the government under control. Certainly defense of the country was important, but the papers seem to be pretty clear about keeping the gov in check. If that is the case, then most if not all current gun laws need to be re-evaluated. I don't see any way for the general populace to control the government at this point. It is a complete and utter mismatch isn't it? What is the process when the intent of a constitional amendmend is no longer valid? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #38 April 25, 2007 Quote If that is the case, then most if not all current gun laws need to be re-evaluated. I don't see any way for the general populace to control the government at this point. It is a complete and utter mismatch isn't it? I've been saying that for years. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI have been wondering what, at the time, the intent was of the 2nd amendmend? Was it just to arm the people to protect themselves? Was it to be able to overthrow a rogue government? Another reason? A combination? From what I have read of the Federalist Papers, the author were very concerned about the government becoming too overbearing and powerful, and they felt that an armed populace would keep the government under control. Certainly defense of the country was important, but the papers seem to be pretty clear about keeping the gov in check. Well, clearly THAT hasn't worked. Once again I am glad the Constitution protects my rights from people who have the opinions you give here"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #40 April 25, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_PS90 I want one.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #41 April 25, 2007 >Once again I am glad the Constitution protects my rights from people >who have the opinions you give here . . . Not anymore, it doesn't. Your phone can be tapped for no reason. If they hear something scary in your call (say, something about guns) you can be arrested and held forever without charge if you are determined to be a risk to US security. And if you decide that's unfair, and you take out your gun to protect you against the people coming to arrest you? Well, let us know how that goes if it happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #42 April 25, 2007 Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_PS90 I like I want one. How about one of these? http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_468.aspx"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #43 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_PS90 I like I want one. How about one of these? http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_468.aspx Nah, I'd prefer the PS90, as its bullpup design really pisses off anti-protection rights nutjobs.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #44 April 25, 2007 Quote>Once again I am glad the Constitution protects my rights from people >who have the opinions you give here . . . Not anymore, it doesn't. Your phone can be tapped for no reason. bs If they hear something scary in your call (say, something about guns) you can be arrested and held forever without charge if you are determined to be a risk to US security. And if you decide that's unfair, and you take out your gun to protect you against the people coming to arrest you? Well, let us know how that goes if it happens. I like how you leave out single words that help make your case"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 April 25, 2007 Quote>Once again I am glad the Constitution protects my rights from people >who have the opinions you give here . . . Not anymore, it doesn't. Your phone can be tapped for no reason. If they hear something scary in your call (say, something about guns) you can be arrested and held forever without charge if you are determined to be a risk to US security. And if you decide that's unfair, and you take out your gun to protect you against the people coming to arrest you? Well, let us know how that goes if it happens. And yet, the libs are saying that there needs to be MORE invasions of privacy, since Cho had been psych-evaled...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #46 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuote>Once again I am glad the Constitution protects my rights from people >who have the opinions you give here . . . Not anymore, it doesn't. Your phone can be tapped for no reason. If they hear something scary in your call (say, something about guns) you can be arrested and held forever without charge if you are determined to be a risk to US security. And if you decide that's unfair, and you take out your gun to protect you against the people coming to arrest you? Well, let us know how that goes if it happens. And yet, the libs are saying that there needs to be MORE invasions of privacy, since Cho had been psych-evaled... They got good legs from jumping back and forth across the fense."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #47 April 25, 2007 Quote>Once again I am glad the Constitution protects my rights from people >who have the opinions you give here . . . Not anymore, it doesn't. Your phone can be tapped for no reason. If they hear something scary in your call (say, something about guns) you can be arrested and held forever without charge if you are determined to be a risk to US security. And if you decide that's unfair, and you take out your gun to protect you against the people coming to arrest you? Well, let us know how that goes if it happens. The people through their representatives have the ability to change that through legislation or an amendment to the constitution. If it is important enough to enough people, it can be done.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #48 April 25, 2007 QuoteWhat is the process when the intent of a constitutional amendment is no longer valid? A new amendment can clarify anything.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
