[Spiffav8]

Originally Posted by garickman

Thanks for the response Curtis. In regards to the discussion we are having about your initial response to SuperSport, I am afraid as gentlemen we will have to agree to disagree. I can admire someone who sticks to what they believe.

The reason I ask if you read the Constitution is because in post 55 in your response to me, you stated that if SuperSport supports the Constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked attacked by people who don't understand it. After seeing your response on the second amendment it appears that it is you that doesn't understand.

The second amendment states "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"

When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.

On June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in regards to D.C vs. Heller. The Court affirmed an individual right to possess a firearm without respect to whether the bearer is a militia member, and that these arms can only be possessed for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Heller also confirmed that your 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute or unlimited. Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned.

Many people (it appears yourself included) wrongly believe in the insurrection theory of the second amendment. Under this view, the second amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms against self defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government. When the government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect" or take up arms against it.

I'm sure as one who understands the Constitution so well you can agree that the Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitutions meaning. You might not like that but that is the way it is. In 1951, Dennis vs. The United States, The Supreme Court issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. In their rejection they wrote the following. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

Agree to Disagree it is then.

The constitution is always under attack and it seems that everyone is always trying to redefine or change it. I agree that it is often misunderstood and/or interpreted. To bad our schools don't do a better job of teaching this subject (and many others). Anyways......to understand what the founding fathers real intent was, one has to try and get inside their head. Thankfully they left behind some writing to help explain their thoughts. I'll admit, it's been a long time and I've never taken a constitutional law course, but I think the Federalist Papers (? on title) give us some pretty good insight. While I personally don't agree with the belief that the 2nd amendment isn't to guard against a tyrannical government, I do agree that it isn't limitless. What if a tyrannical government suddenly said, no more elections and would we really need a legal ruling on that one?

You mention D.C. Vs Heller: Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned. I agree. However we are not seeing that. People from one state have no right to tell those of another what or how their laws should be written. Yet that's what we are facing.

A federal registry (of any type) takes away the rights of "a free state". How is that fair or just. People who make statements like Supersports (and he pretty much said everything except I'll get you and your little dog too and call me a racist) feel they need to control everyone. Laws enacted with good intent are fine, but when they fail you can't simply point the finger at your neighbor and scream it's their fault, which is what some states and a lot of people are doing these days. I really don't think the good people of California (or any other state) are to blame for the problems in the city of Chicago. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own actions. People like to assign blame and hold someone responsible more so than actually work to resolve an issue these days.

It's sad to think that our founding fathers with all their differences where able to sit down and come up with our Constitution, yet we, the more modern man, can't even come up with a simple straight forward approach on how to resolve ILLEGAL guns and the crimes committed with them. Balance is there somewhere if we care to really find it.

A bigger, better and much more useful debate would be on how to handle criminal organizations, gangs and thugs, etc. Right now we have law abiding people attacking each other, threatening and making demands in order to curb criminal behavior. That really doesn't make any sense what so ever now does it?

I have to say thank you for one of the best posts I have seen on this site in a long time. It is appreciated. We may differ on our views, but you have my respect.