A question: Suppose I go to Washington and take my legally-purchased rifle with me. I roll up to Congress and try to enter the building to see American democracy in action, with my gun. Will they let me in? If not, does this not breach my Constitutional right to bear arms? If I wave the Bill of Rights at the security guards, will it help them change their minds, do you think? It would surely be hypocritical NOT to let people bear their arms in the centres of US power. After all, it's a fundamental freedom we all ought to defend, right? Worse than that, it would actually be unconstitutional. I'm sure the Supreme Court would understand. They'd certainly let me in to watch the Court in action, with my gun. Wouldn't they?
James R , the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. just might see it your way, and if you were not threatening anyone, what would be the problem? But then a rifle is considered a offensive weapon dot defensive. WorldNetDaily: Court dumps D.C. gun ban Court dumps D.C. gun ban Federal appeals judges' opinion declares 2nd Amendment ... The judges also ruled unconstitutional the city's requirement that ... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54627
in california.. it used to be legal to bear arms. as long as your not threatining anyone... but... the stupid, black panthers... used it... and carried guns around everyday... they even went into the california congress with their guns... in A non-threathening manner to discuss politics... but it terrorised everyone.... they didnt break the law. but because of those dumb shits..... THEY CHANGED THE LAW. now... because of the black panthers... i cant carry a rifle in the street. -MT
James, there are many laws which go against the ideals of the Constitution. The more striking one is the freedom of expression. Our Constitutional freedoms are limited in many ways that are considered dangerous or a detriment to society in general. The idea is to limit those limitations as much as possible. The key worda there are "as much as possible". I'm sure that they'd understand, but they'd also understand that we aren't mature enough to be permitted the ideals of full freedoms. There are crazy people out there, James! Look at your own rules for this forum, James. You believe strongly in the freedom of speech, yet you ban people and lock threads all the time. You should take a lesson from your own actions to see that things can get out of control. Which is exactly why you can't walk around the capital buildings with a rifle on your shoulder. Baron Max
I don't know the laws of Washington, but you most likely wouldn't even be able to take your rifle there as with most state laws only firearms dealers can transfer guns across state lines so you'll have to pony up some cash beforehand to the tax man. - N
Neildo, no that is incorrect, as personnel fire arms you can take them any were that you move, they are personnel property, the only time that a dealer is involved is if you purchase a fire arm in another state, it must be shipped to a dealer, and a form 4477 must be filled out, and a back ground check conducted, and cleared before you can take possession of the weapon. As for JamesR his being from a foreign country he would have to get permission to bring the rifle into the country, he would have to inform the government of the reason that he was bringing the weapon into the country, and if he was cleared then he would be allowed to do so.
You must be a foreigner. This question has been debated ad nauseum among ourselves. The controversy has yet to be resolved. It hinges on the definitions of "regulated" and "militia." The idea in the back of the minds of all the Framers was the recent memory of needing a "militia" to hold a tyrannical government at bay. The government that replaced it began to grow too big for its britches 74 years ago under President Franklin Roosevelt, and it has never stopped. In many ways its behavior is already tyrannical. So the same idea can't help but spring into the minds of many of today's Americans. Many people argue the issue much more specifically: Of what purpose are handguns to a milita? And their opponents respond, if a legitimate purpose of said militia is indeed to hold a tyrannical government at bay, small arms will be a good practical defense against the police and the National Guard when they go house-to-house searching for homosexuals with wedding rings and pantries stocked with trans-fatty acids. Yes, and a side effect of prohibiting the bearing of arms is the right to live under a despotic goverment. As I have posted on another thread, I would rather live in America with its guns, and put up with the less-than-one-percent chance that my death will be by gunfire instead of a painful and degrading case of cancer, rather than live in China with its unarmed populace and its unfettered despotic bureaucrats. As I said, the controversy is all about handguns. No one seriously suggests restricting the right to own shotguns and rifles. It is illegal to possess a handgun in Washington DC and that means it's illegal to transport one into the city. But as for legal long-barreled weapons, here in the DC metro area, you don't have to drive 90 minutes to cross two state boundaries. So there's very little regulation of what you carry across one of them. You could drive in a circle from Pennsylvania through New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, DC, Virginia and West Virginia, then back into Pennsylvania for dinner, althought it would be a rather late dinner. Nobody's going to care what you have in your trunk ("boot").
If you're wanting to see 2nd Amendment-protected American Democracy in action just point that rifle of yours in my general direction. You'll get the same response Washington would get by pointing its at me, Strawman. I'm still trying to imagine why you imagine your opinions should hold any sway over how we Americans conduct ourselves within our own borders. I guess leftie Aussies have such small lives in comparison that you need to live vicariously through others of greater means and options.
Of course you do. You see a need to impose on someone else something for which there is no obvious need. You fail to appreciate there exists a range of remedies that counter your need to impose.
Yeah, I just realized that after reading the thread again. I had California laws in mind since I'm a resident and we still have our own stupid little assault weapons ban so most firearms that people own elsewhere aren't allowed to bring em here without a special permit, heh. - N
I know. The plan was to open that particular poisoned can of worms and retreat to a safe distance. Whereas many other people - foreigners, mainly Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - argue that the idea of taking up arms against your own democratically-elected government is ludicrous, a fantasy cherished only by your country's most deranged looney-tunes. If you seriously think that the population of America is capable of downing its pizzas, hauling itself off its couches and marching on Washington you need your head examining, frankly. How any of you can think that this 200-year-old provision can have any relevance whatsoever in the modern age is beyond me. You all need to take a reality-check, swallow hard and then ditch the thing before it does you any more harm. It's practically useless and is merely an excuse for your poorest and most disenfranchised to slaughter each other in the streets. You really are completely and utterly insane, every last one you, aren't you.
Yeah, you mean all those outdated freedom provisions? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
