Guns and Gay Sex
Insty looks at reasonable regulation.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 18th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I think that the ruling in the case of “Aymette v. State” , should serve as the model for a national policy of “reasonable gun control”. IE. the second amendment protects the right to own any “ordinary” piece of military equipment, such as a rifle, pistol or machine gun, but not WMDs.
The right to carry in public however, is subject to state regulation. The current policy of requiring a CCW, with the associated training is a sound one, and should be implemented on a national basis, just like a driver’s license.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:48 am
WooHooo, more Rights being turned into privileges.
2A doesn’t specify man portable, or shoulder fired etc… The gentlemen who wrote the Amendment were very specific in their wording, not only of the 2A, but of all the rest. They specified “Arms”. Please remember that these were men who had not only rebelled against their lawful government, but who had dealt with a low level terror war for most of their lives. In fact, some areas in the fledgling nation were continuing to deal with a low level war of terror. While it is PC to discuss the horrible things that the white man did to the indigenous peoples, that wasn’t even cold comfort to the pioneers living on the frontiers of the nascent United States. The indigenous peoples, with the admitted collusion of the French at certain points in time, comitted various acts of terror against the pioneers.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Gregg wrote:
By that token, the framers also used the verb “to bear.” That implies man-portability, since you cannot individually bear a 4-pounder or a frigate (and this is an individual right we’re talking about, yes?).