Multiple Shooting reported at Texas A&M University (shooter taken into custody, at least 1 police officer dead)

[Buddhas Hand]

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text | 2nd Amendment Annotations

Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated

Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the

right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.

In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty

it blows me away that people in who live in a supposedly civilised society have to posess a gun to feel safe in their own home .

and it seems the second amendment has been perverted from what the authors originally intended {state militia's} to an individual owning anything up to a rocket launcher .

[Pouria]

because the "war on drugs" is such a success.. right?

[Pouria]

Clearly the only way to stop shootings is with more guns and more ammunition! YEE-HAW!!

[Electro Rock]

Well, the drugs are a bit different than guns. If they controlled guns as strictly as drugs, we wouldn't be seeing any average joe carrying a gun. Drugs are different than guns, so it is like comparing apples to oranges. At least there would be more merit to ban guns and strictly control access to it vs. drug control. If it works in Canada, why wouldn't it work in US?

[Buddhas Hand]

Flamethrowers

Holy crap, Really?

Yes. There are currently no federal laws governing or restricting the ownership of flame-throwing devices. Some states have laws restricting possession of flamethrowers, with violations only considered to be misdemeanors, but 40 states have absolutely no laws whatsoever concerning flamethrowers. Only in America would a device capable of launching rivers of fire at people be less regulated than marijuana.

Careful with that pot, it looks dangerous.

Where Can I Get One?

You can sometimes find professionally made flamethrowers being sold by private buyers online, some for as little as $300. Also, if you're unsure on how to use your new device, but you want the source of your advice to be batcrap insane, you could pick up Ragnar Benson's delightful read, Breath Of The Dragon: Homebuilt Flamethrowers, which we can only hope comes with a cellphone with the numbers 9 and 1 already dialed

[JeremyW]

I don't understand their argument for weapons and the stand-your-ground law.

When someone walks in your store and starts robbing you, just obey what he says.

The problem with the stand-your-ground law, is that most robbers aren't looking and neither are they prepared to take a life or die. If you notice, most just run when the store clerk pulls out a fire-arm. However, the stand-your-ground law justifies these store clerks murdering fleeing felons, who are just running to save their lives, what else do you expect them to do? These robbers can be rehabilitated and reimplemented in to our society; they had no intention of killing you and they haven't committed a crime that warrants capitol punishment (which alone is wrong imho.)

In the very rare event that the robber doesn't run for their lives, you've basically just created a shoot-out, which risks your own life. You could've just handed over the cash, and been in a much safer situation.

The Colorado shooting had tons of Americans trying to justify the carrying of concealed weapons; saying that had someone with a weapon been there, they could have stopped the shooting. I strongly disagree. It would create a more chaotic and dangerous situation.

How do the police know you're not the killer. How does everyone else know you're not the killer... It will create a 'x' way shoot-out between the killer, however many Americans carrying weapons trying to 'save the day' and the police over a bunch of fleeing citizens.

With that said, when was the last time an American saved the day with a concealed weapon?

[Electro Rock]

I don't understand their argument for weapons and the stand-your-ground law.

When someone walks in your store and starts robbing you, just obey what he says.

The problem with the stand-your-ground law, is that most robbers aren't looking and neither are they prepared to take a life or die. If you notice, most just run when the store clerk pulls out a fire-arm. However, the stand-your-ground law justifies these store clerks murdering fleeing felons, who are just running to save their lives, what else do you expect them to do? These robbers can be rehabilitated and reimplemented in to our society; they had no intention of killing you and they haven't committed a crime that warrants capitol punishment (which alone is wrong imho.)

In the very rare event that the robber doesn't run for their lives, you've basically just created a shoot-out, which risks your own life. You could've just handed over the cash, and been in a much safer situation.

The Colorado shooting had tons of Americans trying to justify the carrying of concealed weapons; saying that had someone with a weapon been there, they could have stopped the shooting. I strongly disagree. It would create a more chaotic and dangerous situation.

How do the police know you're not the killer. How does everyone else know you're not the killer... It will create a 'x' way shoot-out between the killer, however many Americans carrying weapons trying to 'save the day' and the police over a bunch of fleeing citizens.

With that said, when was the last time an American saved the day with a concealed weapon?

[Buddhas Hand]

A lot of robbers are killers, rapists and a bunch of other bad things, that just happen to steal a person's money afterwards, especially in the U.S. where "bloodthirstyness" often takes a front seat over economic gain. You can tell what a criminal's intent is and you don't want to leave your fate in their hands if at all possible.

People defend themselves daily with firearms in the U.S., both directly and by way of deterrent. An old aunt of mine in Phoenix shot a home invader and sent the others running while home alone, these were part of a nasty bunch from Mexico that liked to torture people for amusement as well as rob them, should she have dealt with them differently?

[Electro Rock]

what does it feel like to live in fear ?

[JeremyW]

A lot of robbers are killers, rapists and a bunch of other bad things, that just happen to steal a person's money afterwards, especially in the U.S. where "bloodthirstyness" often takes a front seat over economic gain. You can tell what a criminal's intent is and you don't want to leave your fate in their hands if at all possible.

People defend themselves daily with firearms in the U.S., both directly and by way of deterrent. An old aunt of mine in Phoenix shot a home invader and sent the others running while home alone, these were part of a nasty bunch from Mexico that liked to torture people for amusement as well as rob them, should she have dealt with them differently?