[GUN] 2nd Ammendment Continues To Prove Its Worth

[FlyingBeagle]

The national law is 18 for a long gun, 21 for a handgun. State laws always apply, but I've never heard of any other age for purchasing firearms. Some states restrict the sale of specific types and models, but as far as I know, that has more to do with "assault weapons" than with handguns. Check government websites and ask the store owners.
Also, if you're interested in getting a carry permit, I would wait till youre commissioned, change your state of residence to TN, FL, or TX (no income tax) and then get your permit issued from one of those states. They all have reciprocity agreements that work all across the south. I don't know how the IL permit compares, but I'm sure it'd be more strict.
That also brings up another interesting thing I've noticed. When you go to buy ammo when under 21, the clerk is not supposed to sell you rounds for handguns, however if you tell the theyre for a rifle, they have to sell it to you (22 rifles, .45 carbines, etc). Just interesting how the law works.

 

[NozeMan]

Well the amendment is there for a reason...take a gander at the countries that have banned guns all together...their crime rates soared...I think a better rationale is....is a robber going to come into your home knowing you have a firearm ready to meet him with lead at the door? Now think about it the other way...is that same robber going to come into your home knowing that you DONT have a weapon in the house? That lady didn't have any problems with looters and rapists while she sat on the porch, did she? Oh a little off subject, I turn the big 21 tomorrow and I was wondering, does that mean I can purchase a handgun now? I'm from IL but Im not sure if its a national or state law concerning age.

Gotta get your Firearm Owner's ID from the state of Illinois. I'm from IL too and turned 21 in July. Go to the Illinois State Police website and print off the form for the ID and send it in. Plan on it taking about month to process. You need this to do ANYTHING gun related in IL.

 

[Fly Navy]

Ok, I'll ask it again. Do you really think we should be allowed to have firearms simply because there's a constitutional amendment that may or may not guarantee that freedom?

Ok, I think I may get what you're... getting at.

I think we should be allowed to have firearms because it is your God given right, not the State's given right, to defend your life, you property, and your loved ones. The State can only take this away, it does not grant it. You were granted this as a human being when you were born, just like any other animal has the right (if you wish to say it as such) to preserve its life. The Constitutional Amendment is there to guarantee that the government can not take this away from its citizens. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as have been seen in the past years. Once again, it is the State taking the right away. So, to answer, no, a piece of paper and an ideal is not the only reason to be allowed to have firearms. It has to do with self preservation, whether it be from animals, bad guys, or bad government. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting.

 

[nfo2b]

Steve, do you not feel that the example given at the beginning of this thread is but one (of many, I might add) situations justifying the existence and present day relevance of the second amendment?
As Fly emphasized, it's not a right based solely on the existence of a written amendment, but rather a natural right based upon our need for self-preservation in the face of oppression, whether that oppression be criminal, governmental, or natural. So the amendment is not the source of that right, it is the guarantee of the right.

 

[Fly Navy]

So the amendment is not the source of that right, it is the guarantee of the right.

Well said.

 

[jamnww]

Ok, I'll ask it again. Do you really think we should be allowed to have firearms simply because there's a constitutional amendment that may or may not guarantee that freedom?

As everyone else stated on here the right is guarenteed by the 2nd Amendment but not the source of it. Every person has the natural right to provide for their own defense against anything that may come be it government, people, or animals. Is that the distinction you were going for or are you anti-guns?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Ok, I think I may get what you're... getting at.

I think we should be allowed to have firearms because it is your God given right, not the State's given right, to defend your life, you property, and your loved ones. The State can only take this away, it does not grant it. You were granted this as a human being when you were born, just like any other animal has the right (if you wish to say it as such) to preserve its life. The Constitutional Amendment is there to guarantee that the government can not take this away from its citizens. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as have been seen in the past years. Once again, it is the State taking the right away. So, to answer, no, a piece of paper and an ideal is not the only reason to be allowed to have firearms. It has to do with self preservation, whether it be from animals, bad guys, or bad government. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting.

Yes, this what I wanted people to see and understand.

It is always interesting to have a debate/discussion about civil liberties. Interesting....to me at least, because people will argue their view on the subject often citing the Consitituion or the Bill of Rights as the fundamental source of those rights. However, you must ask yourself why the Bill of Rights wasn't included in the Constitution, if preserving those liberties was of critical importance to the Framers. There are many possible reasons, but for the sake of brevity, the primary reason was that the Framers didn't think outlining specific rights and liberties was needed or necessary. Some even thought doing so could be outright dangerous. Remember, the purpose of the Constitution was to enumerate only certain powers to the federal government. The Framers felt that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights might imply powers to the government not specifically enumerated. Additionally, the they were afraid that by attempting to formulate a bill of rights, it would somehow give the impression that the Constitution was the source of specific liberties and freedoms, thereby discouting other rights and freedom not expressly put forth.

I think we all agree that we have a right to privacy, but yet nowhere in the Constitution is this explicitly stated. One oft forgotten amendments in the Bill of Rights is the Ninth Amendment which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Steve, do you not feel that the example given at the beginning of this thread is but one (of many, I might add) situations justifying the existence and present day relevance of the second amendment?

I don’t need an example to justify my right to have firearms or explain what my reasons are. It really matters not whether I feel I need to have firearms to protect my family or property. I’m saying this in general application, not directed at you.

As everyone else stated on here the right is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment but not the source of it.

Well, I personally don’t think the Second Amendment does that. To me, the language of the Second Amendment means something altogether different than what most people think it says….which is commonly phrased in such as manner as “I have the right to bear arms ‘cause the 2nd Amendment says I do.” Wrong. Read the language. I do however believe I have the right to have firearms, but not because the 2nd Amendment says so.

Every person has the natural right to provide for their own defense against anything that may come be it government, people, or animals. Is that the distinction you were going for or are you anti-guns?

You’re making the mistake of trying to figure out my line of thought before I even lay it out there.

 

[Fly Navy]

It is always interesting to have a debate/discussion about civil liberties. Interesting....to me at least, because people will argue their view on the subject often citing the Consitituion or the Bill of Rights as the fundamental source of those rights. However, you must ask yourself why the Bill of Rights wasn't included in the Constitution, if preserving those liberties was of critical importance to the Framers. There are many possible reasons, but for the sake of brevity, the primary reason was that the Framers didn't think outlining specific rights and liberties was needed or necessary. Some even thought doing so could be outright dangerous. Remember, the purpose of the Constitution was to enumerate only certain powers to the federal government. The Framers felt that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights might imply powers to the government not specifically enumerated. Additionally, the they were afraid that by attempting to formulate a bill of rights, it would somehow give the impression that the Constitution was the source of specific liberties and freedoms, thereby discouting other rights and freedom not expressly put forth.

They were very smart men.

You’re making the mistake of trying to figure out my line of thought before I even lay it out there.

This is true. Steve can be quite deceiving when he puts forward what seems to be his personal position... but then you suddenly realize that it isn't so.

 

[nfo2b]

You’re making the mistake of trying to figure out my line of thought before I even lay it out there.

In all fairness, Steve, you were fishing for this. In seeking to stimulate a deeper consideration of the 2nd amendment rights, you were, in effect, attempting to get us to try to figure out your perspective. This is evidenced by the fact that you posed your question twice, without change.
Anyways, I agree with your perspective to some extent, however, I do believe that the 2nd amendement does, in fact and word, guarantee our natural right to "keep and bear arms." No, you don't need to justify your right to own firearms, but that doesn't change the fact that this right, regardless of what reason each individual has for claiming that right, is protected from being infringemed upon by the government.
Some argue about it's irrelevance in modern day, citing the "well regulated" militia phrase as evidence that the amendment was included during a time when America lied on the edge of a wild dangerous frontier, thus necessitating the ownership of arms by private citizens for their own protection against the dangers lurking on that frontier. However, after the militia clause, the statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," is distinct. It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms." This indicates that in addition to the right of the states to form a militia for defense, the people also have the right to "keep and bear arms" for their own safety.
The subject of what we need protection against is often a topic of debate in 2nd amendment arguments, however the scenario given by the OP is a perfect example.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

In all fairness, Steve, you were fishing for this. In seeking to stimulate a deeper consideration of the 2nd amendment rights, you were, in effect, attempting to get us to try to figure out your perspective. This is evidenced by the fact that you posed your question twice, without change.

I asked the question twice because it didn't get answered the first time. I had to be careful in my wording of the question so as to not bias the answers in any particular way. But more importantly to me was to have people actually think about what the source of their freedoms are. Getting people to figure out my perspective was not my objective.

 

[jamnww]

I asked the question twice because it didn't get answered the first time. I had to be careful in my wording of the question so as to not bias the answers in any particular way. But more importantly to me was to have people actually think about what the source of their freedoms are. Getting people to figure out my perspective was not my objective.

Ok, reading your responses and reading those of others I can honestly say I don't see any major differences in the major thoughts...interesting why they set up the bill of rights seperate but still seems along the same thought process discussed earlier. I guessed about your possible intentions because you made none clear. I did something similar earlier under a different SN and got chewed on for it, but se la vi (sp?)

 

[A4sForever]

I'm not a big fan of "Wikipedia" ... but some of you guys are struggling over the background of the Constitution vs. the Bill of Rights .... and some of you are wrong. Dead wrong. A suggestion for some beginning "basic" understanding of those documents might be the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

The last one ... the Federalist Papers ... every American should read them. Most haven't .... Bring me more limes ....

 

[jamnww]

I'm not a big fan of "Wikipedia" ... but some of you guys are struggling over the background of the Constitution vs. the Bill of Rights .... and some of you are wrong. Dead wrong. A suggestion for some beginning "basic" understanding of those documents might be the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

The last one ... the Federalist Papers ... every American should read them. Most haven't .... Bring me more limes ....

They just don't teach it in schools like they used to...

 

[Steve Wilkins]

... but some of you guys are struggling over the background of the Constitution vs. the Bill of Rights .... and some of you are wrong. Dead wrong.

What's the discrepancy?

 

[nfo2b]

... but some of you guys are struggling over the background of the Constitution vs. the Bill of Rights .... and some of you are wrong. Dead wrong.

Specifics?