Yahoo.com: Mayor Daley lays out strict gun rules for Chicago

[killerbee99]

Pretty restrictive in my opinion, but if his constituents voted for him on this platform of gun control, oh well......



CHICAGO – With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.
The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.
Daley announced his ordinance at a park on the city's South Side three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live. The City Council is expected to vote on it Friday.
"As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.
The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :
• Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
• Require residents in home with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

click link for rest of article.......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_chicago_gun_ban

[Destino]

Why not just demand that hand guns be buried in the backyard in a treasure chest that can only be opened during a full moon?

... oh wait that would mean you'd be outside the confines of your home with the gun while burying it. My mistake.

stupid law.

[Teller]

Ridiculous. And then some.

[sacase]

dumb, I am sure their will be challenges. The new law is stupid, it targets people who would be responsible gun owners in the first place. Criminals already ignore gun laws, so this means nothing to them. Delay is a complete tool.

[ardowling]

This moron is just too stupid to get it:mad:

[visionary]

Delay is a complete tool.

Poor Tom.

:silly:


But yeah, the law seems pretty overboard.

[Hubbs]

dumb, I am sure their will be challenges. The new law is stupid, it targets people who would be responsible gun owners in the first place. Criminals already ignore gun laws, so this means nothing to them. Delay is a complete tool.

You clearly don't get it. The kind of people who aren't afraid of the consequences of killing someone are actually very afraid of a minor sentence for carrying a gun in the wrong place. It's science.

[Popeman38]

Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.So, if you are not allowed to possess a gun outside your home how are you supposed to get to a range? How do you transport a gun? And how in the hell does he think it will be legal to provide a list of gun owners to the police, emergency workers and firefighters?

[#98QBKiller]

Wow what an idiot. He's just throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks. With the SC's ruling, I doubt much of it sticks in the long run.

[Hubbs]

So, if you are not allowed to possess a gun outside your home how are you supposed to get to a range? How do you transport a gun? And how in the hell does he think it will be legal to provide a list of gun owners to the police, emergency workers and firefighters?

This reminds me of that story that came out a few weeks ago about a state (I believe it was PA) outlawing unregistered firearms in public parks, only to later realize that it had just banned police officers from carrying their guns into public parks because the state didn't actually have a firearm registry. Every single gun there (including every legal gun) is technically "unregistered." :doh:

[MisterPinstripe]

If this passes watch the crimes in Chicago skyrocket.

Its actually not a bad idea to have people take a class, I think that is something that should be put into place everywhere for people buying a gun for the first time.

[Hubbs]

Its actually not a bad idea to have people take a class, I think that is something that should be put into place everywhere for people buying a gun for the first time.

Agreed. Deadly weapons deserve the proper respect. If you have to spend X hours learning how to safely drive a car, then it's hard to say you shouldn't have to spend any time learning how to safely handle a gun.

[#98QBKiller]

If this passes watch the crimes in Chicago skyrocket.

Its actually not a bad idea to have people take a class, I think that is something that should be put into place everywhere for people buying a gun for the first time.


Agreed. Deadly weapons deserve the proper respect. If you have to spend X hours learning how to safely drive a car, then it's hard to say you shouldn't have to spend any time learning how to safely handle a gun.

I agree 100 percent.

[Popeman38]

Its actually not a bad idea to have people take a class, I think that is something that should be put into place everywhere for people buying a gun for the first time.I have no issue with making people take classes and spend X hours on a range actually handling the weapon.

HOWEVER, I vehemently disagree with compiling a list of gun owners and distro-ing to all public safety employees.

[The Evil Genius]

Why would crime skyrocket if the city is going from a total handgun ban to no ban with strict rules?

[MisterPinstripe]

I have no issue with making people take classes and spend X hours on a range actually handling the weapon.

HOWEVER, I vehemently disagree with compiling a list of gun owners and distro-ing to all public safety employees.

Definitely agree.


Why would crime skyrocket if the city is going from a total handgun ban to no ban with strict rules?

I misread the article.

[Thiebear]

So not only is Daley acting a fool over the SCOTUS decision, he's also changing home ownership definitions?

So in Chicago you have to put the knocker and the number on the screen door of the porch to be able to count that as part of your home? What is the difference between the rarely used dining room and the garage?

As stated up above: The first TRuely smart law would be to institute safety classes you must take and pass.
incrementalism says to start them as free, then add marksmanship on top of that selling other safety devices/etc.
If you don't take the classes you can't keep the guns outside a safe.

[aREDSKIN]

Well this is Chicago, historically and demonstrably, one of the most corrupt cities in the US.
This will be challenged and thrown out too IMO.

[heyholetsgogrant]

I knew this would happen, basically they are finding ways to skirt the SCOTUS decision. Someone will sue and the SCOTUS will have to make another decision, then Chicago will find ways to skirt it the decision again...rinse and repeat. We need clearer gun laws in this country.

[ardowling]

Ok now here is an elected official who gets it:

http://www.co.jackson.wi.us/html/district%20attorney/Documents/McDonald%20vs.%20City%20of%20Chicago.pdf

To bad that sorry **** Daley and the people of Chicago don't have this kind of common sense leadership.

[Painkiller]

When are people going to finally get that Gun Control does not work? Those that would use a gun for criminal activity don't give a **** what the laws are with guns. All gun laws do, is give the criminals another law to break.

This is not debatable, it's common sense.

[Painkiller]

I knew this would happen, basically they are finding ways to skirt the SCOTUS decision. Someone will sue and the SCOTUS will have to make another decision, then Chicago will find ways to skirt it the decision again...rinse and repeat. We need clearer gun laws in this country.


All we need is the one we already have. The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"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"

Yes it really is that simple.

[ardowling]

All we need is the one we already have. The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"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"

Yes it really is that simple.

Yea you would think so but here is a part of Beyers dissent that Sotomeyor signed off on:
“I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As ‘Fundamental’ Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.”

Scary

[Painkiller]

Yea you would think so but here is a part of Beyers dissent that Sotomeyor signed off on:
“I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As ‘Fundamental’ Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.”

Scary

Well for me it seems the intent of the founding fathers was quite simple, and obvious in that passage. Obviously, we don't have "militias" anymore, now there is only the "people." "the right of the PEOPLE (i.e. citizens) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Free people own guns. Slaves don't. The founding fathers recognized that the only way to keep the government by the people, and for the people, was to keep the government's power in check. That holds as true today, as it did in their time. To be banning guns, and restricting gun rights, is like restricting swimming pools, because sometimes accidents happen and people drown.

Edit: I will add that "bear arms" to me also meant, open/concealed carry. I.E. not that you can't have your weapon anywhere but your home. As if that is the only place it would ever be needed.

[HailGreen28]

Yea you would think so but here is a part of Beyers dissent that Sotomeyor signed off on:
“I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As ‘Fundamental’ Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.”

ScaryReally. You have an explicit statement: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I don't know how you get from that, to "well I don't think the people have a right to keep and bear arms for X" (where X is legal activity). :doh:

[Teller]

Free people own guns. Slaves don't. The founding fathers recognized that the only way to keep the government by the people, and for the people, was to keep the government's power in check. That holds as true today, as it did in their time. To be banning guns, and restricting gun rights, is like restricting swimming pools, because sometimes accidents happen and people drown.

[/thread]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[ardowling]

Well for me it seems the intent of the founding fathers was quite simple, and obvious in that passage. Obviously, we don't have "militias" anymore, now there is only the "people." "the right of the PEOPLE (i.e. citizens) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Free people own guns. Slaves don't. The founding fathers recognized that the only way to keep the government by the people, and for the people, was to keep the government's power in check. That holds as true today, as it did in their time. To be banning guns, and restricting gun rights, is like restricting swimming pools, because sometimes accidents happen and people drown.

Edit: I will add that "bear arms" to me also meant, open/concealed carry. I.E. not that you can't have your weapon anywhere but your home. As if that is the only place it would ever be needed.

Agree 100%.:D

[ardowling]

Really. You have an explicit statement: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I don't know how you get from that, to "well I don't think the people have a right to keep and bear arms for X" (where X is legal activity). :doh:

Uh, not sure what side you think I fall on the argument but I'll give you a hint it is NOT with the city of Chicago or any anti gun bunch. I was just pointing out how lost the 4 Justices who dissented are.

[SkinsHokieFan]

"The city wants to put as many hurdles and as much red tape in the way of someone who just wants to exercise their constitutional right to have a gun," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist with the National Rifle Association in Illinois.

Vandermyde would not say when lawsuits might be filed. But he said the ordinance would be attacked on a number of fronts -- including requiring prospective gun owners to pay $15 for each firearm registered, $100 every three years for a Chicago Firearms Permit, not to mention the cost of the required training -- saying they all add up to discrimination against the poor.

"How are some people in some of the poorer neighborhoods who merely want to have firearms for self-defense supposed to afford to get through all this red tape?" he asked.


This sounds very much like a "poll tax"

Pay a large amount of money to exercise your constitutional right.

[SkinsHokieFan]

When are people going to finally get that Gun Control does not work? Those that would use a gun for criminal activity don't give a **** what the laws are with guns. All gun laws do, is give the criminals another law to break.

This is not debatable, it's common sense.

All gun control accomplishes is preventing law abiding, low income minorities from owning guns.

Thats what Delay and the Democrats are trying to accomplish here with these draconian rules, and I hope Chicago gets its ass kicked in court and heavily fined for this BS

[Burgold]

I'm for gun control. Strict gun control. Even to me this sounds kinda dumb.

[Destino]

All we need is the one we already have. The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"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"

Yes it really is that simple.

What about the "well regulated militia" part? Ignoring it by underlining the rest seems disingenuous to me and that seems to constantly be the case. Keep in mind I'm very much pro-gun rights (refer to the first post I have in this thread). Individuals keeping fire arms with no training of any sort for reasons of their own choosing doesn't seem to be close to "well regulated militia" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the national guard appears to be far closer to what the founding fathers were talking about. Think about it, it's controlled by the states and they have the organization command structure and firepower to actually stand a chance.

[Teller]

What about the "well regulated militia" part? Ignoring it by underlining the rest seems disingenuous to me and that seems to constantly be the case. Keep in mind I'm very much pro-gun rights (refer to the first post I have in this thread). Individuals keeping fire arms with no training of any sort for reasons of their own choosing doesn't seem to be close to "well regulated militia" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the national guard appears to be far closer to what the founding fathers were talking about. Think about it, it's controlled by the states and they have the organization command structure and firepower to actually stand a chance.

Thing is, it doesn't say "For the purpose of having a well-regulated militia...."

Roberts, writing the majority opinion in the DC decision basically viewed the clauses as wholly separate.

Now, I'm not sure I buy that. But I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.

[Burgold]

To me, the militia part is a big deal b/c back in the day if you were being attacked by the Brits or indians or outlaws what you needed wasn't you and your musket going out like the Lone Ranger or Rambo, you needed minute men, a posse, a band of the community that would work together to defend the home... a militia... and the idea was that we have a right to come together to defend ourselves from internal and external threats esp. in a time and a place where getting an answer to a call for help might take weeks or months.

Now, embedded within that if the minute man or the posse idea was to work, you and I had to have guns... otherwise, we couldn't band together to defend ourselves from tyranny or a common enemy. So, clearly the individual was expected to have the ability to have a weapon.

But I put a bunch o' emphasis on the militia part because I believe the guiding idea was that the community had to be able to protect itself and that the individual had the right to defend his home and property was embedded with that. I don't think our founding fathers envisioned a world with everyone walking around with six shooters strapped to their hips. Although many of them did enjoy a good duel.

[DjTj]

Thing is, it doesn't say "For the purpose of having a well-regulated militia...."

Roberts, writing the majority opinion in the DC decision basically viewed the clauses as wholly separate.

Now, I'm not sure I buy that. But I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.Didn't I try to answer this earlier this week?

http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=7610510&postcount=129

If you look at State Constitutions written at the same time, you can clearly see that there are two separate rights: A right (for the state) to form a militia, and a right (for individuals) to bear arms for self defense. The Second Amendment is addressing both.

The 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights only really claimed the group right:

XIII. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/270/

This is similar to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution:

Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm

The 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution recognized both the group right and the individual right:

XIII. That the people have a right bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

http://www.duq.edu/law/pa-constitution/constitutions/1776.cfm

There is nothing in these rights that talks about the right of individuals to arm themselves to overthrow the government; in fact, they seem really worried about the military overthrowing the civil government and actually wanted to limit their rights. The states are mostly concerned about the state's own right to have and arm its own militia, and Pennsylvania recognizes a separate individual right "for the defense of themselves."

The Second Amendment, when it was passed, was really about preserving this group right for the states to regulate their own militias, and there are really no limits on that, and I believe the states would have wanted to be able to raise an army sufficient to challenge the federal government if necessary (heck, they actually tried to do so in the next century).

The self-defense right mentioned by Pennsylvania is really the source of the individual Second Amendment right that the Supreme Court is now using to overturn these gun bans. It's not an individual right to arm yourself to overthrow the government; it's an individual right to defend yourself.

[Teller]

I gotcha this time, Teej. I must've gone to bed the other night before you finished your thesis the first time. :ols:

But in all seriousness, if you asked the founders if they wanted the government to fear the people, or the people to fear the government, I'd feel safe saying most would have chosen the former.

Obviously, today, we don't have to worry about quartering soldiers, nor a REAL threat of tyranny like our forefathers who fled King George did. But still, I think an armed populace helps remove any ideas of trying it.

What if Bush had done the worst? What if his administration was listening to every phone call we made? What if thought police started making arrests based on those calls? What if he declared that our new state religion was Southern Baptist? What if a nationwide state of martial law was declared for no good reason?

Realizing that this is a ridiculously far out scenario, but IF it happened, what would the founders have wanted us to do? IMO, it's simple. What they did.

[Teller]

Oh, and I'm sure I'm already on a watchlist somewhere. No need to delete the above post on my behalf. Thanks! :ols:

[HailGreen28]

Uh, not sure what side you think I fall on the argument but I'll give you a hint it is NOT with the city of Chicago or any anti gun bunch. I was just pointing out how lost the 4 Justices who dissented are.Just agreeing with you.

[Painkiller]

What about the "well regulated militia" part? Ignoring it by underlining the rest seems disingenuous to me and that seems to constantly be the case. Keep in mind I'm very much pro-gun rights (refer to the first post I have in this thread). Individuals keeping fire arms with no training of any sort for reasons of their own choosing doesn't seem to be close to "well regulated militia" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the national guard appears to be far closer to what the founding fathers were talking about. Think about it, it's controlled by the states and they have the organization command structure and firepower to actually stand a chance.

I think the "well regulated militia" part was relative to the time of the founding fathers, and that is only part of the statement. "Militias" were how the citizenry protected itself, common citizens that would form together for the common defense....but now we have the National Guard. What about the individuals right to self defense? It seems obvious to me, that the intent of the founding fathers with the 2nd amendment was that the "people" (all of our citizens) had the right to keep and bear firearms. If this is not the case, then why even state "the people" at all? Why not just end the amendment with "a well regulated militia." No, they took it a step further, and clearly defined who's rights would not be infringed. The "people's" rights. Does that mean some people, or this people, or rich people, or poor people. Does that mean only people that live here or there? No, it's means all the people. who live in this country.

[Fergasun]

The right of individuals to bear arms is "necessary and proper" to form a well-regulated militia. Given that we enumerated a "necessary and proper" clause to Congress' article, makes me think that an individual right to bear arms is like that same clause. Of course I think that the right to bear arms can be regulated to some extent as the states see fit.

I don't believe that Federal gun laws should be Constitutional...

[DjTj]

I gotcha this time, Teej. I must've gone to bed the other night before you finished your thesis the first time. :ols:

But in all seriousness, if you asked the founders if they wanted the government to fear the people, or the people to fear the government, I'd feel safe saying most would have chosen the former.I don't think they thought of it in the same terms that you do, though. They wanted the federal government to fear the states, and they believed that the states represented the people. They didn't set up a direct democracy; they set up a republic.


Obviously, today, we don't have to worry about quartering soldiers, nor a REAL threat of tyranny like our forefathers who fled King George did. But still, I think an armed populace helps remove any ideas of trying it.I don't think the Founders saw armed individuals as the way to maintain the government's fear of the people. Honestly, a farmer with a musket wasn't a credible fear back then (as opposed to a modern day farmer with a truck full of fertilizer). The only real threat was the organized militia, and that was their defense against tyranny. As you can see from the State Constitutions, they didn't really think of the militia as some kind of independent entity but were actually very concerned with having that militia serve the people through some kind of representative government.


What if Bush had done the worst? What if his administration was listening to every phone call we made? What if thought police started making arrests based on those calls? What if he declared that our new state religion was Southern Baptist? What if a nationwide state of martial law was declared for no good reason?

Realizing that this is a ridiculously far out scenario, but IF it happened, what would the founders have wanted us to do? IMO, it's simple. What they did.And what did they do? Did they form para-military organizations outside of the state and run an insurgency? No, they acted through the duly elected representatives of their respective states, held a convention, and formed organized militias. The Second Amendment, and the respective rights enumerated in their State Constitutions, clearly preserved their right to do that.

[rincewind]

I gotcha this time, Teej. I must've gone to bed the other night before you finished your thesis the first time. :ols:

But in all seriousness, if you asked the founders if they wanted the government to fear the people, or the people to fear the government, I'd feel safe saying most would have chosen the former.




Seriously? Maybe you should ask those guys who fronted the Whiskey Rebellion.

[Thiebear]

Everything i read about the founding referenced the 'people' and the Gov't.
Not the States vs. the Fed...

[Hubbs]

Everything i read about the founding referenced the 'people' and the Gov't.
Not the States vs. the Fed...

Federalism is one of the most important pillars of our government's structure. Always has been. (It's usually been more important than it's become nowadays, but a couple very interesting Supreme Court cases could change that over the next few years.)

[HailGreen28]

Seriously? Maybe you should ask those guys who fronted the Whiskey Rebellion.Considering the founding fathers didn't amend the Constitution after that little fracas, (Jefferson eventually just repealed the tax), Honorary_hog's point still stands.

[rincewind]

Considering the founding fathers didn't amend the Constitution after that little fracas, (Jefferson eventually just repealed the tax), Honorary_hog's point still stands.


Huh? You don't think they used unnecessary force just to show who was boss? Hamilton was itching to use the army just to put the citizenry in their place.

[HailGreen28]

Huh? You don't think they used unnecessary force just to show who was boss? Hamilton was itching to use the army just to put the citizenry in their place.Considering the federals pardoned the only two "rebels" convicted, the tax in question was repealed, and Washington / Hamilton / Jefferson / Co. made no move to restrict people's 2nd amendment rights after this......

No, what honorary_hog said about the Founding Fathers wanting the people to have 2nd amendment rights, even when you had incidents like this, is valid.

And what do you have against Hamilton? Yes, he was a diehard Federalist, but would probably be considered a libertarian by today's standards (except maybe his stands for creditors).

[Burgold]

Interesting finding made in the Declaration of independents recently. Apparently, they discovered that where Jefferson wrote "citizens" he first chose the word "subjects" in at least one spot. Wouldn't that have changed the world.

[rincewind]

Considering the federals pardoned the only two "rebels" convicted, the tax in question was repealed, and Washington / Hamilton / Jefferson / Co. made no move to restrict people's 2nd amendment rights after this......

No, what honorary_hog said about the Founding Fathers wanting the people to have 2nd amendment rights, even when you had incidents like this, is valid.

And what do you have against Hamilton? Yes, he was a diehard Federalist, but would probably be considered a libertarian by today's standards (except maybe his stands for creditors).



I think you're missing my point. He said they didn't want the people to fear the gov't, and I'm not so sure. I think they used the tax as a reason to rile up the people so they could have a show of force, thus making the fed even stronger (and setting a precident for federal taxation). I'm not starstruck by the founding fathers - I think for the most part they were a staunchly aristocratic group that had their own interests in mind much more than the people's.


I will also say that on the topic issue - I'm probably about as far left as you can go in my understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

[HailGreen28]

I think you're missing my point. He said they didn't want the people to fear the gov't, and I'm not so sure. I think they used the tax as a reason to rile up the people so they could have a show of force, thus making the fed even stronger (and setting a precident for federal taxation). I'm not starstruck by the founding fathers - I think for the most part they were a staunchly aristocratic group that had their own interests in mind much more than the people's.


I will also say that on the topic issue - I'm probably about as far left as you can go in my understanding of the 2nd Amendment.No, you've missed HH's point. Between the government fearing the people, and the people fearing the government, which would the Founding Father's have preferred?

<snip conspiracy theory>

Forget left/right. How about basic English comprehension? Say.... about a right of the people that shall not be infringed? Even counting practicalities for the public good, like not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or not allowing carried weapons into banks, why shouldn't the 2nd amendment be as highly valued and protected as the 1st?

[rincewind]

No, you've missed HH's point. Between the government fearing the people, and the people fearing the government, which would the Founding Father's have preferred?

People fearing the government.




<snip conspiracy theory>






Forget left/right. How about basic English comprehension? Say.... about a right of the people that shall not be infringed? Even counting practicalities for the public good, like not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or not allowing carried weapons into banks, why shouldn't the 2nd amendment be as highly valued and protected as the 1st?



Yeah, the difference is speech hasn't really changed. On the other hand, we have automatic weapons and a severe lack of a monarchical former ruler breathing down our neck. Like I said - don't think you can get farther left than me on the whole 2nd Amendment debate. You should also probably know (or, at least realize, by this point), I have NO problem altering the Constitution. Christ, the thing is over 200 years old - and, obviously, wasn't perfect when it was written.

[HailGreen28]

People fearing the government.Well, politicians do tend to want then government to have more power, when they themselves are in office. Even Jefferson, LOL.

But to ignore what the Founding Fathers wrote in figuring out what they thought. And ignoring the actual state of affairs in the US while they were alive. Where if the Federal government wanted a large army they had to recruit militia, States printed their one money, no IRS/FBI/BATF/etc., the people were actually armed as well as the army, hell the States being sovereign enitities with the right to secede until about 1865...

It's pretty obvious that while the Founding Fathers feared "mob rule", they feared an authoritative federal government even more. Even Washington and Adams.


Yeah, the difference is speech hasn't really changed. On the other hand, we have automatic weapons and a severe lack of a monarchical former ruler breathing down our neck. Like I said - don't think you can get farther left than me on the whole 2nd Amendment debate. You should also probably know (or, at least realize, by this point), I have NO problem altering the Constitution. Christ, the thing is over 200 years old - and, obviously, wasn't perfect when it was written.Yeah, hard to overlook what's written in plain English. And "automatic weapons" are nothing. You could classify a lot of common shotguns as semi-auto, LOL. Look around and you'll find plenty of tyranny on the local level, like "eminent domain" and Meigs Field. With the increase in bureaucracies,

I like the process of Amendments being hard to make but possible. I personally think we need a balanced budget amendment ASAP. But after 200 years, I think it should require massive political support to make a change into law.