Activism and Politics > Politics

All possession of guns illegal for citizens?

<< < (2/16) > >>

I will admit that with that part about Ann may have been tongue in Cheek, but when I saw the reference to Liberals I couldn’t resist throwing Ann in to see what would happen.  My apologies too any one I may have offended, but I honestly can’t promise not to stir the pot again some time in the future. 

In my state of Michigan we have a large body of citizens that have concealed pistol licenses I and spouse included.  This group of people has been studied very carefully to determine the affects of the law that allows any upstanding citizen, to apply for and get a concealed pistol license.  The studies have shown that the group as a whole, has not created any problems with their guns in the time (I am not real sure when the law was passed but I believe it is four years) that law has been in effect.. 

The interesting part of this process was that the Police and County clerk all know of my being transsexual and I still received the license with out problem or question.

PS: Good responses.



--- Quote from: Bill of Rights ---Second Amendment

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.

--- End quote ---

Just a moment. Does not the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights blatantly say I can have a gun if I wish? "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Isn't it quite against the governing laws of this nation to "make any possession of firearms illegal"

Anyway to answer the question I think each house should have a loaded fire arm (and the occupants skilled and knowledgeable on it's use and safety!) :P Lets go one more step and waive the occupants liability for shooting a trespasser into their house. (Not so much fun to rob someone when you get shot now is it? *chortle*) -- It would never work of course, but details :P


That's why I worded my response the way I did.  "The second ammendment, as it is presently defined, allows people to own firearms." 

The entire gun-control / right-to-bear-arms debate is a good one and I can see both sides of the issue.  All I was saying is how the Supreme Court has interpreted the ammendment at this time.  Some future court may change this position.  Until then, however, the interpretation is as it is...


jan c:
Caitlyn, the thread is by definition in the political realm. I am not trying to be real delicate here. It does not ignore the criminal element - to wit: "now as a practical matter this may not mean a whole hell of a lot." The citizenry should have the ability to defend itself against the criminal element AND AGAINST THE POLICE AS WELL, as in my experience these two are not necessarily actually different, they tend to overlap quite a bit. And my statement the 'po-lice are the only ones that may', means LEGALLY. The people of SF with registered handguns are expected to give it up. (I did neglect to point out there is apparently some difference between handguns and, say, hunting rifles, in the new legislation.)

Btw, and Noto Bene: our house was recently entered and an attempt at 'armed' robbery was made. I was able to foil the attempt with a butter knife, not kidding here (I guessed that the gun was either fake or not loaded), but my roommate was fairly terrorized by this event. So Kimberly I am with you.

Posted at: April 14, 2006, 12:09:37 PMIt is interesting to me that no one has anything to say re: "is this a clueless advancement of a police state?", which I'd hoped the most provocative part of the thread. [This ordinance is obviously unconstitutional, not too unusual these days to see this from either side of the political spectrum.]
Could be that no one else has seen that side of 'the law' at work. Remember that this nation was founded by a violent revolution.


I didn't want to get into a discussion about having an armed populace is a good way to keep the government from becoming a police state.  If the citizens are able to violently reform the government, the government is much more likely to be reformed through 'diplomatic means.'

BTW, I believe that what the present administration and Congress has done in the name of security is highly unconstitutional.  That is why I am voting against every incumbant that has supported the (un)Patriot Act and other such legislation.



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version