Brundlesflies
Posts: 591
Joined: 30/9/2005 From: ..telepod one to telepod two
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: darthbane quote:
ORIGINAL: Timon quote:
ORIGINAL: Chief If the argument is for a home owner to be able to protect his property, surely they won't need more than say 6 bullets for their revolver? I'm sorry, but that's never been the argument. From what I understand, the pro-gun lobby worship the Second Amendment, but it clearly 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." If that's the case, then all gun owners in the US should be trained, kept on record and in essence be a reserve army. As Toby in the West Wing says: "Not three rednecks in a Dodge pickup." I honestly have no idea where this 'Guns = Freedom' comes from. Surely it should be 'You want a gun - you're in the army reserves'. I totally agree with this. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State I'm not a legal expert by any means, but as I see it, if a gun owner in America is not signed up to a regulated authority/group such as the army reserve, or when the "security of a free state" isn't under a defined threat, then that person is not in compliance with the 2nd amendment? It does seem that people who are pro gun are misinterpreting this amendment. Unfortunately... quote:
In 2008 the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home Twonks
_____________________________
"The Daily Mail isn't technically a newspaper, more a serialised Necronomicon." C. Brooker My DVD's
|