SHOWDOWN: Supreme Court could decide constitutionality of gun ownership... - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-13-2007, 09:27 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
torontomichael's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2007
Vehicle: 2008 e 350 4matic wagon
Location: Toronto area
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Gun ownership.Well diff nations decide on diff rules for their people. As a non-American I understand why the US Constitution allowed for personal ownership of weapons because when written (1770's?) the American colonies/New Nation had the UK (world's best equipped army,largest successful navy) on their coasts and along the Canadian border. Of COURSE you want your people armed to protect against such a formidable adversary. But now in '07, as a Canadian I sometimes feel we should just say "America...lay down your arms. We will not invade you". Humor aside, numerous aspects of USA gun laws are no longer appropriate to the modern era. I'd like to think most Americans have no need of supporting gun laws which, when they are abused, have shocking consequences. The incredible number deaths of INNOCENTS in the USA due to liberal gun "freedoms" should not be part of the cost of liberty. Not in America,not anywhere. Surely America will not change for the worse by reigning in non-sensical patchworks of gun laws? If America would change for the worse, I ask 'how so?" For those gun supporters who feel that to amend gun laws would be an affront to the nations' founders, I humbly suggest that if those founders could see today how their laws to protect the people have gone terribly awry, they would be utterly saddened.
torontomichael is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-13-2007, 09:32 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
If the US Constitution was really implemented in this country the rightwingnuts would freak out. Imagine, the COTUS says Congress shall make NO law regarding the establishment of religion. Therefore, when Congress mandated "in God we trust" be placed on our money, they violated the COTUS. Same with their stupid "pledge". And Bush's wiretaps? What an obvious buttfuck to the COTUS. And this new extended war making power of the President? Clearly a moron waging war is why the check and balance is there, as Paul says, we violate the COTUS everyday we allow this shithead to wage his own war.

The 2nd Amendment is so vague as to be open to interpretation. I believe it gives those who would be available soldiers to a national militia the right to bear arms in a regulated fashion. I would like to see those regulations be the same as for those required to own a car, with the gun registered with a true National Militia, who would issue a license to the gun owner and require him to present proof of insurance in order to obtain it.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #13 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-13-2007, 09:35 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by torontomichael View Post
Gun ownership.Well diff nations decide on diff rules for their people. As a non-American I understand why the US Constitution allowed for personal ownership of weapons because when written (1770's?) the American colonies/New Nation had the UK (world's best equipped army,largest successful navy) on their coasts and along the Canadian border. Of COURSE you want your people armed to protect against such a formidable adversary. But now in '07, as a Canadian I sometimes feel we should just say "America...lay down your arms. We will not invade you". Humor aside, numerous aspects of USA gun laws are no longer appropriate to the modern era. I'd like to think most Americans have no need of supporting gun laws which, when they are abused, have shocking consequences. The incredible number deaths of INNOCENTS in the USA due to liberal gun "freedoms" should not be part of the cost of liberty. Not in America,not anywhere. Surely America will not change for the worse by reigning in non-sensical patchworks of gun laws? If America would change for the worse, I ask 'how so?" For those gun supporters who feel that to amend gun laws would be an affront to the nations' founders, I humbly suggest that if those founders could see today how their laws to protect the people have gone terribly awry, they would be utterly saddened.
Defense was only one purpose. Anyone who has read Jefferson or Hamilton knows they clearly intended that the right to bear arms was for the purpose of arming the citizens for revolution if that became necessary.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #14 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-13-2007, 07:01 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,506
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by torontomichael View Post
Gun ownership.Well diff nations decide on diff rules for their people. As a non-American I understand why the US Constitution allowed for personal ownership of weapons because when written (1770's?) the American colonies/New Nation had the UK (world's best equipped army,largest successful navy) on their coasts and along the Canadian border. Of COURSE you want your people armed to protect against such a formidable adversary. But now in '07, as a Canadian I sometimes feel we should just say "America...lay down your arms. We will not invade you". Humor aside, numerous aspects of USA gun laws are no longer appropriate to the modern era. I'd like to think most Americans have no need of supporting gun laws which, when they are abused, have shocking consequences. The incredible number deaths of INNOCENTS in the USA due to liberal gun "freedoms" should not be part of the cost of liberty. Not in America,not anywhere. Surely America will not change for the worse by reigning in non-sensical patchworks of gun laws? If America would change for the worse, I ask 'how so?" For those gun supporters who feel that to amend gun laws would be an affront to the nations' founders, I humbly suggest that if those founders could see today how their laws to protect the people have gone terribly awry, they would be utterly saddened.
I think the founders meant what they said, and were very wise to put a method of revision in the COTUS since they didn't know the future. As FTL has pointed out, defending ourselves, whether it be from Canadian invasion or from tyranny was the intent. If those are no longer valid concerns, or if, as Jim has pointed out so eloquently many times, we are concerned about what arms we might be bearing these days, we should make an appropriate revision to the document rather than ignore it.


Last edited by edfreeman; 11-13-2007 at 07:03 PM.
edfreeman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    The other recent Supreme Court ruling and your money bgoin Off-Topic 0 07-07-2007 05:33 PM
    President Bush prepares for possible Supreme Court vacancy Jayhawk Off-Topic 12 06-04-2007 01:41 PM
    Bush decides he wants a nutcase instead of a crony on the Supreme Court FeelTheLove Off-Topic 59 11-03-2005 10:07 AM
    Mann Coulter doesn't like new Supreme Court nominee, so he must be OK FeelTheLove Off-Topic 9 07-20-2005 07:13 PM
    Very significant ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court GeeS Off-Topic 11 02-02-2005 10:24 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome