Wait a minute. . .

[VashdeStampedo!]

The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to own household weapons. I'll explain.

Amendment IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's just saying that the Government mut issue a warrant to search your house, and that you can deny anyone access to your stuff.

Amendment II:
"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."

That ensures the right to use arms to keep the country free (as in members of the Army an Natonal Guard).

I can see how this could be seen as the right to own weapons for whatever reason, but if it's read in it's entirety, it really doesn't.

Keep in mind that I don't want to outlaw guns, I just felt I should post this.

[Cronic]

Greater minds than yours have given this issue much more thought...

Get over yourself.

[Daarkseid]

Doesn't matter how you interpret the 2nd Amendment. John Ashcroft came out last year and declared that the 2nd Amendment does ensure the rights of citizens to own and keep arms. Of course, maybe in the future we'll have a liberal attorny general who will reverse Ashcroft's declaration, although I hope this does not happen.

My father very recently inherited a 1925 smith and wesson .38 special thats in near mint condition. Its a beautiful weapon.

[firebug]

a militia is not a governmental organization. in fact, it is an organization of free citizens, oked by the government to keep it's own areas safe from attack. i'm pretty sure the government doesn't like many militias nowadays, but they were a necessary thing back in the early days of this nation. ;)
so what it's saying is: you're allowed to have guns, and form militias as long as it follows our rules.

[VashdeStampedo!]

DC, don't bother responding. Your posts serves no purpose. It's obvious you didn't even read the entirety of my post.

It only gives you the right to form militias to keep the country free.

[stormwatcheagle]

Originally posted by VashdeStampedo!
Amendment II:
"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."



Argue as much as you want, when it's all said and done, it's in the Constution.

[VashdeStampedo!]

Again, I don't oppose guns. I have no reason to argue it.

[blew_flame]

the right to bear arms is a seperate clause in the amendment. therefore... they do give us the right...

[VashdeStampedo!]

Each Amendment has only one purpose. That's why, even if many are added at once, they are all seperate. The entire Amendment is summarized i the first line of each one. That's why the right to bar arms isn't under protecting one's home; that'snot what they mean.

[Ich]

Ughh... The Fourth is protecting you against search and seizure.

The Second says you have the right to bear arms.

"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."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
it acknowledges that we need one
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
[b]The government says we can keep and bear arms. Dyslexic are maybe you, but it seems pretty clear to me.

Stop wasting my time with this garbage. You can interpert separation of church and state the liberal way, as the government must go running if someone even mentions god and we should raise a generation full of atheist hedonists. Or, you can interpert it like our founding fathers and say that the government can't force anyone to be of a certain religion. It's all a matter of perspective.

[VashdeStampedo!]

It's not liberals who distort seperation of church and state, it's atheists.

And you obviously don't know what dyslexia is, judging by how you misuse the term.

If you knew anything about grammar and paragraph structure at that time, you'd know what I mean. That's all one point, not seperate.

[TheGeepster]

"Separation of Church and State" isn't even in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. What is in the Bill of Rights is "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The Separation of Church & State is found in Jefferson's personal writings, and the context is arguing that the State needs to stay out of the Church.

And note that every other one of the first ten amendments (Those passed along with the Constitution that unified the 13 states.) is an individual freedom. So, too, does the 2nd amendment apply to private citizens, even if the reason to to gather together and defend itself from an attack.

[VashdeStampedo!]

Originally posted by TheGeepster
"Separation of Church and State" isn't even in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. What is in the Bill of Rights is "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The Separation of Church & State is found in Jefferson's personal writings, and the context is arguing that the State needs to stay out of the Church.
He's right. Completely. I think there's mention of it in the Declaration, but I'm not sure.

EDIT:
Geepster, I think your sig is going to grow until it consumes the whole board.
And again, Geepster keeps it professional, even when others around him seem near flaming. That's a damn good example for other members.

[TheGeepster]

Thanks for the compliment Vash. I do my best.

Oh, and I'll try to keep my sig size down. I just finished the ZC quest in it, and so that info should vanish.

[Dracula]

You know what I think of the 2nd ammendment? America's original "homeland security"... :shrug: