lookin good there mike...charlie

How ambiguous is this: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech?" I would wager that the 1st A has generated far more litigation than the 2nd A.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights have been litigated for 200+ years. That is one of the responsibilities of the Federal Courts. Anyone who doesn't understand that probably failed Civics 101 in high school. Mr. Day has made the point that the 2nd is no more clear than any other provision of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

This discussion can go on and on here, just as it has for a couple of hundred years in the courts. It is senseless to argue what has already been argued over and over again. If you want to make a difference then pick a side and do something about it. It is called voting, and encouraging others to do the same.
I have no intention of turning this into a political discussion and will not mention any political parties or politicians. That being said, if you generally look at things with a liberal mindset, then you might well consider abortion a women's right to control her own body rather than an unborn childs right to a life. Or you may feel that the financially better off should be required to redistribute the fruits of their labor to support those who choose not to try to excel. And you might also think that a gun, any gun, is a savage device that has no place in a civilized society and that the constitution of the United States is a living document that needs to evolve to represent what you and others that think like you feel is the new and better way, and it is the job of the government to make sure that the change takes place.
Conversely, if you are a more conservative thinker, then you may feel that the founding fathers, though they lived in a different time, knew that they were offering a guideline to a better life for all, then and in the future. Regardless of how they spoke it or wrote it, you can get the drift of what they were trying to accomplish for the people, not the government. A person who has a conservative mindset may understand that there is a lot more at stake than the right to own firearms or protected speech, but those are two things that if lost, would give the government full power over the people. The same thing that happened to Russia, China, Germany, and other repressive countries /regimes in the past. If you think conservatively, then you might cherish what America stands for and how that came to be. It was not by constant change to be like the rest of the world but rather by sticking to a plan that was established by a people that had experienced repression from a government and chose to do something about it.
So pick a side, one that best represents your own mindset, and campaign and vote for the ones who will shape the future to meet your ideals.
It could be a long and hard process but it takes us as citizens to promote and accomplish it.

Ah, yes. It's all because of Liberals. Ironically, it was Ronald Reagan, the Patron Saint of Republicans, who when governor of California, who signed the law banning concealed carry. He also signed the first assault weapon. Here is a little history to ponder.

Back in 1967, says Jacob Sullum at Reason, "the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California. The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan." As the bill's conservative sponsor, Don Mulford (R), argued in 1989, "openly carrying a gun is an 'act of violence or near violence,'" Sullum noted. "Apparently Reagan and the NRA agreed." The Mulford Act is still on the books in California, America's most populous state.

The NRA fondly cites the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as "the most sweeping rollback of gun control laws in history." And while it did in fact roll back some of the provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act, it also contained a provision — banning the sale of machine guns and other fully automatic weapons to civilians — that came back to haunt the NRA. Robert Spitzer, an expert on gun law, tells NPR that it was "a precedent that would open the door for restricting civilian access to semiautomatic, assault-style weapons." Congress did just that in 1994, thanks — very plausibly — to Ronald Reagan.

I am just glad I got to live where and when I have so far, as George Purtill pointed out society changes over time. It seems to me that as a society loses it's morals it also loses it's rights as they walk hand in hand. So to paraphrase on old cliche, shoot 'em while you got 'em.

Also if you care about your right to own and enjoy a firearm, realize there is only so much you can do; choose where you live, write letters to the editor, donate a few bucks to the NRA. The rest is political theater.

Gentlemen,

The .pdf attachment is a long, well written document with references noted which identifies "How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution".

This gives more background than is commonalty known as to why a tyrannical British government of the time feared American colonists having access to firearms, especially those of local militias. That's right, organized local militias, not a national or even state guard force.

Go ahead, give this a good read and tell us what you think.

PS: Great job for most everyone on keeping this thread focused on the issue, not of politics. Yes, that is a difficult thing to do. Thanks all!

Mark

thanks Mark-

many people seem to have a hard time understanding when I try to tell them that the American revolution was a political ARGUMENT up until the point where the government embarked on a concerted mission to disarm the population, and that led the argument to become a shooting war

Yes, when British regulars fired into a group of dissenting colonists.






.

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?

i guess I question the term 'literal interpretation" since i only see a single plain language meaning

but yes, based on the experience of the population at that time -can it mean any thing else?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

the text in its entirety


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html