The Second Amendment

[darin]

Some states should be able to allow guns on planes? What possible sense does that make? Let's say Georgia were to allow that, nearly every passenger who chose to fly Delta would then potentially be exposed to some nut with a gun on a plane sitting next to them , and worse because once in you're inside security you're not checked again once you get to the airport in say Branson, MO.

Your specific example is beyond the scope of my point.

That situation so obviously calls for a solution at the federal level that it boggles the mind that you would even suggest that states should be able to do as they please.

...except the constitution doesn't provide the powers of the Feds to do so. Your opinion/evaluation of the situation nothwitstanding.

"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"

Yes, I see the difference, in one I just flat stated that common sense backs up my opinion, in the other you inferred it. Unless of course you are affirming that you aren't using common sense when you state an opinion?

No - your idea of common sense backs up your opinion. Frankly, every opinion you have is irrefutably correct so it makes honest debate difficult.

And yes, it is common sense that a minigun only has one reason to exist and there is no rational reason for wanting one other than that ONE reason. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

Oh, and I NEVER invalidate the opinions of others. NEVER. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and the right to voice that opinion, likewise I have the right to ridicule that opinion. See the difference?

Funny you telling others what they need. What if somebody proclaimed You don't NEED your claimed 100? acres and all that livestock. You don't NEED the truck you drive or the guns you have. What else do you not NEED?

It's not about sharing opinions, its about your percieved demand to dominate others' opinions as a form of Machismo? maybe? I'm saying you may wanna consider your approach.

[logroller]

...except the constitution doesn't provide the powers of the Feds to do so. Your opinion/evaluation of the situation nothwitstanding.

Doesnt it though?

.To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I'm thinking this confers the Congressional power to provide for a 'well regulated militia'

[darin]

Doesnt it though?

I'm thinking this confers the Congressional power to provide for a 'well regulated militia'

I read that as the states maintain it. I'll read it closer and reply back after a bit.

[logroller]

I read that as the states maintain it. I'll read it closer and reply back after a bit.

I think you're right; but the beginning seems to give federal authority over significant aspects of how militias are regulated.

[ConHog]

I think you're right; but the beginning seems to give federal authority over significant aspects of how militias are regulated.

My feeling as well. I doubt the federal government would likely kindly upon Texas deciding to build and man an aircraft carrier , for instance - and IMO they would have the authority to stop it.

[Kathianne]

I think you're right; but the beginning seems to give federal authority over significant aspects of how militias are regulated.

I don't see the Federal government having zip to do with this. However, I'll concede the right of federal government to regulate what will and will not be allowed on mass transit across state lines, which includes obviously, air travel.

Even if the Federal government lacked the power, (like possible in 2012), the airlines as private businesses would have the right. I can't see them wanting guns in the cabin.

[Little-Acorn]

I don't see the Federal government having zip to do with this. However, I'll concede the right of federal government to regulate what will and will not be allowed on mass transit across state lines, which includes obviously, air travel.

That "right" (I assume you meant "power", since governments don't have rights, only people do) was subsequently modified by the 2nd amendment. Once the 2nd was ratified, the Commerce Clause basically said "Congress shall have to power to regulate commerce between the states except where the right to keep and bear arms is concerned".

Certain government officials I can think of, would do well to take note of this... something they haven't been doing much of recently.

Even if the Federal government lacked the power, (like possible in 2012),

It's more than possible. It's required.

the airlines as private businesses would have the right. I can't see them wanting guns in the cabin.

Absolutely true. The airlines don't have the power to take away your gun. But they do have the right to refuse entrance to their planes to anyone they want to, for any reason. And if the want to refuse you on grounds that you're carrrying a gun, they can. That would be foolish, but not illegal.

And BTW, they have the right to refuse to let you aboard because you're carrying, even if they just let someone else who is also carrying, aboard. Contrary to popular belief, they do NOT have to treat everyone equally when it comes to the airlines' own property (the planes).

And if you see an airline that refuses to let anyone on board who is carrying, you can find an airline that does let you board with your gun. Preferably one that simultaneously refuses entry to a sweating, nervous-looking, shifty-eyed person, even one who is not obviously carrying. And if they wind up refusing an inordinate number of suspicious-appearing Middle-eastern looking persons, that's too damned bad. They should publicize that fact, and see if a whole lot of other people DO want to fly with them as a result.