Gun Control Debate - Burleson, TX

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Burleson, TX.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Burleson opposes
Oppose
 
11
Support
 
1

Vote now in Burleson:

anonmous

Fort Worth, TX

#1 Sep 25, 2010
over my dead body
Patrick

Joshua, TX

#2 Sep 30, 2010
The Second Amendment. Enough said.
AVJO

Whitehall, PA

#3 Oct 1, 2010
Not just NO, Hell NO
Carole

Forney, TX

#4 Nov 7, 2010
Patrick wrote:
The Second Amendment. Enough said.
The Second Amendment is all in how you interpret it, Patrick.
Steven mcwilliams

Fort Worth, TX

#5 Jul 27, 2011
If u take guns away from good law abiding people only the bad people will have them
Law

Omaha, NE

#6 Jul 27, 2011
Carole wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Amendment is all in how you interpret it, Patrick.
No Carole, it's how SCOTUS interprets it.
Burlesongal

Arlington, TX

#7 Aug 22, 2011
Law wrote:
<quoted text>No Carole, it's how SCOTUS interprets it.
Please excuse my ignorance but I am not familiar with the term Scotus. What is it?
Law

Omaha, NE

#8 Aug 23, 2011
Burlesongal wrote:
<quoted text>Please excuse my ignorance but I am not familiar with the term Scotus. What is it?
Supreme Court of the United States.
Burlesongal

Grand Prairie, TX

#9 Aug 24, 2011
You are correct, Law. I meant to say that SCOTUS is the interpreter of the 2nd Amendment. And since the justices are mostly to the right,gun control advocates can probably quit worrying so much about their "rights."
For now, anyway.
Law

Omaha, NE

#10 Aug 24, 2011
Burlesongal wrote:
You are correct, Law. I meant to say that SCOTUS is the interpreter of the 2nd Amendment. And since the justices are mostly to the right,gun control advocates can probably quit worrying so much about their "rights."
For now, anyway.
It shouldn't have to come down to a left-right decision either. The words are clear and the writings of the founding fathers at the time of ratification make it clear what their intent was for including the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
Burlesongal

Fort Worth, TX

#11 Aug 24, 2011
Law wrote:
<quoted text>It shouldn't have to come down to a left-right decision either. The words are clear and the writings of the founding fathers at the time of ratification make it clear what their intent was for including the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
I disagree with you that the framers of the Constitution were that exact; I feel that they planned the document to be flexible enough that it will withstand changes in society that the founding fathers could never have foreseen. Therefore, it will always be a function of SCOTUS to interpret it.
There is a pending case before the Supreme Court, Parker vs. the District of Columbia, which should clarify whether the right to bear arms is restricted based on whether the arms are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia.
It is the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment that is up for interpretation.
Law

Omaha, NE

#12 Aug 24, 2011
Burlesongal wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree with you that the framers of the Constitution were that exact;
How could their words leave any doubt?
Burlesongal wrote:
I feel that they planned the document to be flexible enough that it will withstand changes in society that the founding fathers could never have foreseen. Therefore, it will always be a function of SCOTUS to interpret it.
You're confusing interpretation with the amending process. Using your analogy, you believe that the Supreme Court could rule that free speech (specifically the right to petition government for redress of grievances) is no longer a protected form of free speech as affirmed in the First Amendment a legitimate standing... and you'd be okay with that ruling.
Burlesongal wrote:
There is a pending case before the Supreme Court, Parker vs. the District of Columbia, which should clarify whether the right to bear arms is restricted based on whether the arms are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia.
Are you serious? Really? Parker vs. the District of Columbia was ruled on in March of 2007. You really need to brush up on your history.
Burlesongal wrote:
It is the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment that is up for interpretation.
And Code 10 clears up who the militia is. The right to keep and bear arms is not affirmed for the militia but for "the people".
Bill

Brighton, CO

#13 Aug 27, 2011
Law wrote:
<quoted text>
How could their words leave any doubt?
<quoted text>
You're confusing interpretation with the amending process. Using your analogy, you believe that the Supreme Court could rule that free speech (specifically the right to petition government for redress of grievances) is no longer a protected form of free speech as affirmed in the First Amendment a legitimate standing... and you'd be okay with that ruling.
<quoted text>
Are you serious? Really? Parker vs. the District of Columbia was ruled on in March of 2007. You really need to brush up on your history.
<quoted text>And Code 10 clears up who the militia is. The right to keep and bear arms is not affirmed for the militia but for "the people".
Very good Mr. Law,

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Burleson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) 5 hr Test fart 639
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) 9 hr Frank Pharts 819
Debate: Marijuana - Granbury, TX (Aug '10) Sat hmm 29
Iris Show - Johnson County - April 18 Apr 17 Carol G 1
Review: Eckhardt Patricia C CPA (Apr '13) Apr 16 muddpuppy77 3
Iris Show - Johnson County - Sat. April 18 Apr 16 CarolGrn 1
News Former Cowboy Way Church pastor arrested a 3rd ... Feb '15 hoss 1

Related Topics

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]