Horror in Utah! OCer handcuffed, detained, and cited.

[Kutnupe14]

Actually, as I wrote above in the first part of post #68, per the literal interpretation of the 2A, you should be able to walk around with them even if you do intend to do harm to others. If you never actually do that harm... let's say you change your mind... who have you hurt? No one at all.

+1 Exactly. A lot of people fail to realize that private citizens were in possession of military grade material, like canon/warships, at the onset of our nations history. So in theory, there should be no prohibition against anything.

Now comes the tricky part. Would the sounding fathers be okay with private citizens in possession of a weapon they could not possibly conceived of, say a tactical nuclear warhead? I would say probably not.

IMHO, a Constitutional Convention to address this, as well as immigration, states rights, and a number of current issues, is long overdue.

 

[indytechnerd]

I'm afraid a convention would not be beneficial to gun owners. I think that "shall not be infringed" would disappear and probably be replaced by something even more vague and nebulous. Imagine if you will....

"Being sometimes necessary to the acquisition of food and the occasional sporting use; the right of the people to keep small arms, small caliber rifles and shotguns, in their domiciles shall not be unduly restricted."

I'd like to see something similar to this...

"Being necessary to the freedom and safety of the state, themselves, and their possessions, as well as a host of sporting and recreational uses not defined herein, the individual citizens of this republic, independent of military service, must take on the responsibility of keeping and bearing of arms."

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm afraid a convention would not be beneficial to gun owners. I think that "shall not be infringed" would disappear and probably be replaced by something even more vague and nebulous. Imagine if you will....

"Being sometimes necessary to the acquisition of food and the occasional sporting use; the right of the people to keep small arms, small caliber rifles and shotguns, in their domiciles shall not be unduly restricted."

I'd like to see something similar to this...

"Being necessary to the freedom and safety of the state, themselves, and their possessions, as well as a host of sporting and recreational uses not defined herein, the individual citizens of this republic, independent of military service, must take on the responsibility of keeping and bearing of arms."

Duly noted. That's an excellent point. It would be on the citizen to make sure our rights are maintained.

 

[stormryder]

While reading The road to Damascus by John Ringo and Linda Evans, I came across this version of the 2nd.-

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense and defense of the homeland shall NEVER be infringed, limited, recinded, interfered with, or prohibited by ANY decree of law, decision by court, or policy by the executive branch or any of its agencies. And this time we mean it!"

Don't think it gets any more plainer.

 

[shootersix]

now now everybody calm down....im sure all the charges will be dropped and he wont get in any trouble....once his secret identity gets reveled....IT"S GECKO45 protecting us from the evil terrorists that plague our malls!!!!

god bless you gecko45 and thank you for keeping the old navy store safe for all of america!

 

[redpitbull44]

Skipping all the fluff.

I think the guy was right in what he did. I feel like if more people exercised their right to carry a rifle, pistol, or shotgun like it was in the old days less crimes would be committed.

I also feel like we as civilians should be able to own whatever the military owns, up to and including machine guns, rocket launchers, hand grenades, grenade launchers, warships, attack choppers, fighter jets, tanks, submarines, etc, providing one can afford it.

There should be no regulation on weapons in general, only regulation on convicted felons, and the mentally handicapped owning them. That's as easy as nationally keeping track of them all, and having an easily accessible database at the disposal of shop owners and the general public alike.

 

[Sgt Rock]

Hmmmm, open carry, public place, legal LTCH, stopped by police, handcuffed, checked out & released because no laws were broken. Sounds vaguely familiar.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

+1 Exactly. A lot of people fail to realize that private citizens were in possession of military grade material, like canon/warships, at the onset of our nations history. So in theory, there should be no prohibition against anything.

Now comes the tricky part. Would the sounding fathers be okay with private citizens in possession of a weapon they could not possibly conceived of, say a tactical nuclear warhead? I would say probably not.

IMHO, a Constitutional Convention to address this, as well as immigration, states rights, and a number of current issues, is long overdue.

And why would you think the Founding Fathers would consider any sort of explosive in civilian hands off-limits? A tactical nuke device could be used for (and has been proposed for) civil engineering projects like building tunnels, excavating canals, constructing highway and railroad rights-of-way in mountainous areas, etc. As others have alluded to during this thread, a "weapon" is whatever device is used to deliberately cause injury or damage. You can be killed just as dead with a pencil as you can with a firearm or a knife or a bomb. Your intentions and your actions become the governors of what happens whenever you draw a firearm, or pick up a pencil, or get in your auto and put the keys in the ignition, not the possibilities inherent in the tool you happen to be using. That firearms are optimized for killing doesn't make them any more lethal or repugnant than automobiles - which, by the way, are responsible for many more deaths each year in this country than firearms.