"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Gah, the fearsome spork!

Curse the UN, and their ban on sporks in warfare!

Also; fun fact - this shooting occurred, like so many others, in a 'gun free zone' and we see once again it only disarms the victims.

CR

Quote:

---

Also; fun fact - this shooting occurred, like so many others, in a 'gun free zone' and we see once again it only disarms the victims.

---

A strange use of words there Rabbit ,"fun fact"..... is that a "fact" that isn't a fact ?
Since two of the victims were armed they were not only disarmed victims were they .:oops:

Oh yes there were police, just like police are allowed to be in pretty much every gun free zone.

And of course the man was going after the mayor and the city council members, not the police.

CR

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Aren't the police one form of the well regulated militia? It is about the security of a free State not the Federal Nation... so it could apply from anything from a (well regulated) individual to a State Guard. Compare the functions of what militia used to do (protecting against marauders to warfare) and one would think that Police cover one portion of the spectrum of the duties of a militia.

Eeeeh, it's pointless to talk about gun control in the U.S.A., just completely pointless. There are more weapons in the hands of adults than there are adults. From a practical perspective, putting the genie back in the bottle is just impossible. And from a political perspective it ain't gonna happen. Everybody who has spearheaded gun control efforts has been hounded out of office.

The people have spoken. Whether it makes any sense or not, we're going to be an armed nation. Wishing it were otherwise is kind of like wishing the wind wouldn't blow.

I say we turn our efforts to spork control.

Listen, I'm not opposed to regulation of firearms - I believe that those with criminal records or mental illnesses should be filtered out of the runnings if the state believes that it is necessary

Apart from that, I believe that everyone else should carry or have heat on hand at all times (except when under the influence).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Aren't the police one form of the well regulated militia?

---

No.

CR

You had better have a better argument then 'No' a bit limp.

Well regulated, check.

For the security of a free state, a bit obvious but, like yeah check.

Non-Federal, check.

People (capitalised would mean the population as a whole, while lowercase would mean people in general). Capitalised, check, lowercase well believe it or not Police are people to so check.

Because of Adam Smith and economic specialisation aren't Police just the logical economic professionalism of one of the areas that militia performed. Aren't you just arguing against capitalism? As the US went from an emerging economy into a powerhouse the roles done by generalists became increasingly professionalized. For instance you wouldn't go to your hairdresser to get your teeth removed nowadays.

I'd sure as heck hope there is a significant difference between a military force designed to prevent invasion by force of the state and a group of peace officers who solve crimes.

The militia was never for solving or preventing crime and was the group of all adult males ages 18-50ish as well.

Just because they both serve to help the state doesn't mean they're the same. :rolleyes:

CR

The second clause is not dependent on the first. It's an independent clause- if you can't remember back to grammar school, just google for it. :wink:

I thought we were all operating from the common understanding that the intention of the 2A was as an individual right. We've certainly had enough threads on the issue- are we going to re-tread it again? Isn't there a fresh attack that the gun grabbers can use?

I'm not arguing against it being an individual right, I'm saying that it is probably more inclusive then just that of the individual.

BTW since there is no "and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet" it means that the clauses are not definitively independent.

If it was stated "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, so the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You might be on to something, however even being independent clauses they would still refer to each other. As it stands it would be probably be considered a prepositional phrase... but then again I'm a geek and me gramma not so good.

A very good essay on what the 2nd amendment means:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...damendment.pdf
Specifically in relation to the lawsuit brought against the Washington DC handgun ban.

CR

Interesting it strengthens the idea that the militias were supposed to be well regulated (and organised) as opposed to just all the citizens being armed. It seems they wanted both as well armed citizens by themselves would not be coordinated enough to throw down a Federal army.

Quote:

---

NOAH WEBSTER, AN EXAMINATION INTO THE LEADING
PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PROPOSED
BY THE LATE CONVENTION HELD AT PHILADELPHIA 43
(1787). In the Massachusetts Convention, Theodore
Sedgwick asked delegates whether they imagined
that a standing army “could subdue a nation of
freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who
have arms in their hands?” 2 ELLIOT’S DEBATES 97; in
Virginia, a delegate argued it would prevent an
establishment of religion: “The extent of the country
is very great. The multiplicity of sects is very great
likewise. The people are not to be disarmed of their
weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” 3
ELLIOT’S DEBATES 645-46.
The Federalist mantra reached its greatest
development in Madison’s FEDERALIST NO. 46, where
the Father of the Constitution (and of the Second
Amendment) considered the benefits both of universal
citizen armament, and of the militia system. He
begins by calculating that a standing army could not
exceed 25,000-30,000 men, who would be opposed by
500,000 militia under State control. He then distinguishes
between citizen armament (“the advantage of
being armed”) and the militia system:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which
the Americans possess over the people of almost
every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people
are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier
against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable
than any which a simple government
of any form can admit of.

Madison then sharpens the distinction. Citizen
armament is a guarantee of liberties; that is why the
monarchs of Europe cannot abide an armed people.
Alone, it might not sweep them and their armies from
power, but if they added to that a militia system, it
would be sufficient even for that task:
Notwithstanding the military establishments
in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
carried as far as the public resources will
bear, the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms. And it is not certain, that
with this aid alone they would not be able to
shake off their yokes. But were the people to
possess the additional advantages of local
governments chosen by themselves ... and of
officers appointed out of the militia, by these
governments, and attached both to them and
to the militia, it may be affirmed with the
greatest assurance, that the throne of every
tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned
in spite of the legions which surround
it.

---

This is the interesting part:
"which the Americans possess over the people of almost
every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people
are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier
against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable
than any which a simple government
of any form can admit of."

They wanted them armed, they also wanted them organised by (State/Local/Council/Town whatever 'subordinate government' (subgov) meant) Militia officers appointed by the subgov.

So I would say every American has the right to bear arms. To have that right bear fruit in its attended purpose of keeping the State Free (and hence its People) they should be organised in such a manner that they can defeat the higher up government. I assume this could mean that smaller local governments should be able to organise to beat their state government and state governments together beat the federal one.

Interesting that the only reason mentioned for taking away guns is individual rebellion against the state. So it would seem again that rebellion is meant to be organised. It also goes into the danger of having the poor supplied weapons by the Union (Federal) government that which can be given can easily be taken away. Each man was to supply their own weapon so that they would have no ties to the Union so that each State could remain free. I think pre-Union the states were more worried about maintaining control and not just swapping one tyrant in England for another in the Union.

[word geek]In terms of 2nd Amendment grammar, the first part of the sentence looks to me like an ablative absolute (a noun phrase rather than an entire clause). The grammatical construction is common in Latin, rare in English, which explains why it causes so much confusion to all of us native English speakers. The construction can show causation or just condition/context, another potential source of confusion (in other words, it could mean 'in this place where a well-regulated militia happens to be necessary, there is the individual right to bear arms,' or it could mean 'a well-regulated militia is necessary; therefore, there is the individual right to bear arms'). [/word geek]

Ajax

Face it folks - its well establish in the United States Courts that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. What that entails is open for discussion, and has been since the drafting of the orginal document. Two opposing parties with two completely different ideas and desire for a nation developed a compraise that was able to satistify both parties at the time, and the citizens of the nation over the last 220 years have not activitely sought to amend or repeal the amendment since its construction past an initial discussion.

Snooty sarcistic posts about the United State's 2nd Amendment that often come about after some tragic multiple killing by someone of questionable status does nothing to futher the discussion about gun control in the United States. Because frankly that type of arguement will never overcome the ingrained belief in the United States about the individual right to keep and bear arms that is guarnteed in the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is part of a group of amendments that were first put into the constitution because one group (wanting a strong central government) compraised with a second group -(who wanted a weak central government).

A short bit from Wikipedia which gives it a fairily accurate bit of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Initially drafted by James Madison in 1789, the Bill of Rights was written at a time when ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, threatened the Constitution's ratification. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215). The Bill was largely a response to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty.

The Bill of Rights plays a central role in American law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation. One of the original fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

The original document proposed by Congress to the states actually contained twelve "Articles" of proposed amendment. However, only the third through twelfth articles, corresponding to what became the First through Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, were ratified by the required number of states by 1791. The first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of members of the House of Representatives, never became part of the Constitution. The second Article, limiting the ability of Congress to increase the salaries of its members, was ratified two centuries later as the 27th Amendment. The term "Bill of Rights" has traditionally meant only the ten amendments that became part of the Constitution in 1791, and not the first two, which dealt with Congress itself rather than the rights of the people. That traditional usage has continued even since the ratification of the 27th Amendment.

---

Though delivered in a rather pointed manner, Goofball brings up an interesting point. At what point do we stop saying "bunch of nutters" and start saying "justified insurrection"? The original Revolution probably had only about a third of Americans on board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Though delivered in a rather pointed manner, Goofball brings up an interesting point. At what point do we stop saying "bunch of nutters" and start saying "justified insurrection"? The original Revolution probably had only about a third of Americans on board.

---

Probably determine just like the Revolution and the Civil War - when it becomes "popular" enough become a true bloody civil war.