My idea of gun control is:
You control your gun, I'll control mine. KThnxBye.
Printable View
My idea of gun control is:
You control your gun, I'll control mine. KThnxBye.
Going Hunting is not Wrong, Netheir is going Trap Shooting or anything else,my god. It is quite fun sitting at a Window, waiting for a Rabbit/Grondhog to come out so you can shoot it dead with a .22 with a scope on it, like myself..
You do not see anything wrong in sitting at a window and killing rabbits/groundhogs just for the fun of it? :inquisitive:
You see, that's the kind of irresponsible behaviour that gets gun owners and hunters a bad name.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Really, what on earth do you get out of that?
You're 14 right ?Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
14 year olds are allowed to own guns and go hunting ?
awww man, c'mon, it's fun!Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
When I was a kid, like 20 something years ago, I used to tear flies' legs and/or wings, and then drown them and stuff... think about all the fun I could have had if I had had a gun, why, I could have sat at my window shooting puppies, and stray cats, and birds... fun, I tell you, fun!
I'm not quite sure on gun owning laws, though I believe kids can own guns, but can't buy them. And I don't of any age limit on hunting, though I'd imagine in most states it depends on what's being hunted, and the age minimum may be from 6-12. As it is, kids suffer the least hunting accidents of any age groups. Despite this, anti-gun and anti-hunting groups are trying to scare people with crap like 'kids have high-powered sniper rifles!'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
CR
I don;t think hunting is wrong - as long as you eat watever you shoot, at least that way its not wasted :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
um no. have a nice garden every year at my grandpartents. Usally my Grandfather killed them, becauses we usally didn't put up a fence. But since he lost most of his eyesight, and since they,the animals, kept trying to get under the fence this year, and 1 did, I kill them.
That's isn't irreponsilbe, it's called being helpful. What to disagree? Then whatever.
And Mith, Yes. a 14 year old can go hunting, but have to take a Hunting class first.it is required in my state.
Iraq has very relaxed gun law enforcement. I hear it's helped the security situation there a lot...
:)
And banning guns would do what? Somehow magically stop the insurgents from shooting at people? Somehow by banning the ownership of guns would prevent the unrest? Come on.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
Guns do not kill people, guns do not injure people, guns don't even scare people. People kill people, people injure people, the gun is just a tool, just look at the UK. After implimenting strict gun legislation there was and is a massive jump in criminals using knifes to kill with.
There is absolutely no reason why you should need to ban guns. It wont prevent crimes it wont prevent deaths. If you wanted to help prevent accidents you'd support gun education.
It's not wether they should ban guns but. Why should they ban guns?
Iraq is actually illustrating one of the points cited in favour of gun ownership: it makes it nigh impossible for a foreign power to occupy the country.
Well admittedly now, but assuming no one had had guns in the first place, I doubt there'd be any sort of killings on the same level. Be a lot easier to impose some sort of law and order too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Not sure Iraq really shows any good points. Might be nigh on impossible to occupy the country, but that hasn't really helped the population at large has it?
Doesn't Matter. Imposing a Gun Law/Ban isn't going to Help Crime. When Crime rates shoot up then with knifes, what you going to do, banned steak knives then??
Relax, the British aren't about to burn Washington down again...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The country was occupied. The ratio of occupiers to locals killed is immense - and the occupiers aren't supposed to be killing any of 'em!
~:smoking:
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
And why ban heroïn? If alcohol addictions increase, then should alcohol also be banned ?
:rolleyes:
Okay, Warman, speaking as a hunter, shame on you. My grandfather, who taught me how to hunt, would skin and then cram each and every one of those squirrels and rabbits down your throat. If you were actually farming or something and protecting your crops, that'd be one thing. But killing animals shouldn't be entertainment.
Why ban any drug? If people want to committ suicide let them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
I guess after they ban guns you could go Atl Atl hunting. No, wait the same bleeding heart liberals have banned that already. Hunting is important it keeps the deer and other animal populations in check. Without hunting the deer would overpopulate area's and cause mass famines and kill many other creatures. Inevitably bambi's got to be killed, either by the forest rangers or by the hunter. Wait wait, but without hunting were would all those finances come from for the forest rangers?:wall: Hunting is absolutely neccesary it does more envirmental work then PETA and is a wonderful past time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Nice one!
In Hawia women were being raped left and right, more so than in anyother state. They legalized firearms and made training programs for women who wanted to take them - in a matter of months, the rapes occuring in Hawaii dropped to half what they had been!
It isn't just women who have to be able to defend themselves though, it's guys to. People have a fundamental right to defend themselves! The founding fathers saw this when they added they bill of rights and the 2nd amendment, but because of the policy of selective incorparation (which is unconstitutional) many states do not let their citizens bear arms. The crime rate in Swisterland which requires all its citizens to own and be able to operate firearms, is the lowest in the world except militant states!!
Err, source please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I do not believe any of us actually have the superior decisive intelligence to interpret that pathetically vague passage of an Amendment and be sure that we're absolutely correct about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
So the choice would be: be an arse and a partisan hack to assume you know everything about that particularly controversial Amendment and shout down everyone else, or know nothing and try to find a better ground for our arguments. The Constitution has been beaten enough -- the document wasn't written so that people can bring it up as the ultimate law when it agrees with them and silently avoids mention when it isn't so receptive.
Oh, and the Swiss is an old, old example; one that ought to be dropped already. See, I doubt they were the country with an extremely low crime rate because of the metal pieces called guns -- I think it's the social, cultural, and political aspects of that peculiar country that contribute to a safer environment...or may be it's just the weather.
Papewaio: No swearing.
Papewaio: No attacks on others.
Papewaio: No attacking other cultures
Papewaio: Please come again.
cut down on swearing and personal attacks and insults.
If you can't defend your argument without insulting the other one, shut up.
Papewaio: No swearing.
Papewaio: No attacks on others.
Papewaio: No attacking other cultures
Papewaio: Please come again.
My pleasure. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
It does declare itself as the ultimate legal authority of the United States -- I never disputed that. By the way, it isn't "revolutionary" to disagree; even if I don't, in any case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
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.
A prime example of terrible sentence construction up there; somehow I suspect it's intentional, though.
Tell me, word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, what do they mean. Don't just summarize the whole, either. This is legalese, not basic "understanding" English.
I'll readily present alternative viewpoints and their justifications of your awaited interpretation of the phrase.
That makes...no sense. :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Papewaio: No swearing.
Papewaio: No attacks on others.
Papewaio: No attacking other cultures
Papewaio: Please come again.
The Backroom is for (somewhat) civil debate, not name-calling. It is against forum rules, and detracts from your arguments.
Forum rules:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/faq.php
Backroom reminder:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=53372
I'd assume that this is an indirect accusation of my own dangerously traitorous position (somehow...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I must disappoint you with knowledge that I am no citizen of the USA...yet. Feel free to deport me, however.
An intention. Note the wording: "well regulated" and "militia." The stated intention being that this is "necessary to the security of a free State." "Necessary;" "security of;" "a free State." Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia; the argument that they contribute to the security of a free state has to be quite stretched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Who are "the People?" Why "keep and bear arms"? What does it mean to be "infringed"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Moreover, the first phrase does not match the second very well in a modern context. Whereas armies of old often have their own soldiers providing the equipment, especially in a less regularized force as the early American military, such is not the case to the modern military.
Does that nullify the right, or does it not?
Obviously, I am not taking sides -- merely pointing out some the countless questions that can be immediately derived to challenge one certain position of what this particularly Amendment means.
In other words, I'm urging debaters in this thread to acquire support for their positions by other means than the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Please lay off the insults. I do not believe the moderators will appreciate having to go back to edit your posts to remove the profanity. Moreover, you will get the thread closed. I still see a few debates going (or have potential to go) and do not like them to be interrupted and stopped merely because of such distractions as this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Entertainment? Sarcrasm People, try taking Some Sarcrasm About Entertainment. People Bitch to me About me not taking any, and we got People like Don, who can't, amazing :no: .
Shame on me? What is wrong with protecting my grandfather's garden because he can't see worth a damn due to his Eye Ploblems to shoot them himself? But Then Again, Mabye you don't understand, which it seems you don't.
Well, if you explains your situation...Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
It is very easy to derive from your post that you take pleasure from merely shooting the animals. Obviously, some of us here adores Thumper and don't like the idea of the poor little guy getting shot for fun.
Of course, I'm not making judgement on you at all. Also, everyone misses sarcasm time and again. I don't think it's very nice to say "People like Don...amazing," since Don Corleone has demonstrated his ability to grasp sarcasm on many occasions...
That's not how your post came out Warman. If you're actually varmit hunting to protect a vegetable garden, that's a different matter. But said you sat at the window picking off animals, just for grins and giggles.
You're right that I missed your joke. Sorry, I guess I just missed the funny part. ~:confused:
In those days militia meant every able bodied man. The point was with every man armed a well regulated militia could be formed very quickly.Quote:
An intention. Note the wording: "well regulated" and "militia." The stated intention being that this is "necessary to the security of a free State." "Necessary;" "security of;" "a free State." Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia
Hunters are some of the best militia. Their armed and well versed with their weapons. It doesnt say only the militia maybe armed anyway. In fact quite the opposite.Quote:
Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia; the argument that they contribute to the security of a free state has to be quite stretched.
As I said every able bodied man. And do we really need to explain infringed to you?Quote:
Who are "the People?" Why "keep and bear arms"? What does it mean to be "infringed"?
This sentence says it all. There are no qualifiers or exceptions here. Nothing about only the militia can be armed but it states plainly that the People all have the right to bear arms and no one shall infringe on that right.Quote:
the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
As Ive pointed out its not supposed to. Their saying becasue you need a well regulated militia for security it is good to have every able bodied man armed if one need be called up. Thats all it says . Its pretty plain english.Quote:
Moreover, the first phrase does not match the second very well in a modern context
The Militia is not the US army. Its a citizen army. In fact it might be callled upon to fight the US Army.Quote:
Whereas armies of old often have their own soldiers providing the equipment, especially in a less regularized force as the early American military, such is not the case to the modern military.
I live in Texas (you may not know it for I am rather humble) Guns are a part of our culture like alchool or fast food. Banning them would kill us a little inside. Oh and and taking away 25 million guns from 10 million pissed off hillbillys that could be a slight logistical problem
Which I knew. And agreed. The Revolutionary War was fought by militias, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The Second Amendment had a relatively clear historical use. Modern practical usage, however...
Is in dispute.
Were. Unless they are trained in modern military training they will not create an effective fighting force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Of course, they might contribute to a very hard-to-put-down insurgency. ~;)
There are a lot of interpretations, sir. What I subscribe to does not matter -- since my whole point revolves around the issue that there are so many interpretations, many of which equally valid, that just to dismiss them all and cherry-pick the one you happens to agree on is intellectually dishonest.
Just to mention it, I'm not a bleeding heart all-guns-must-be-taken-away kind of person. I just believe regulations are not inherently bad. Else we'll be eating rat meat and human fingers for sausage like we did a century ago.
So you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
What does that terribly confusing original text say?
Not the way the Constitution is often interpreted in this country. Debates often revolves around implications that can be derived from seemingly simple words -- and things had changed from changing interpretations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Do hunters stand a chance against Abrams?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Moreover, it's widely accepted that the modern "Militia" is the National Guard, which in all practicality is now used quite frequently by the Federal Government as a reserve force.
That is pretty much the premise of the 2nd ammendment. To make the USA near unconqurable. Also the Revolutionary war was only held together by the militia. The militia like zeal of the regular army is what won it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
The National Guard is indeed a militia. The federal government can only hold a army the state's have a militia. Militia's have always been used to bolster the ranks of an army. The term militia is by no means a word that refers to peasant troops either, even the spartans only had militia's.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Quite wrong there. Hunter's have almost exclusively built the US army's sniper and advanced marksmanship military tradition. The US army has almost always excelled in accuracy with rifles when compared to their enemies. That has alot to do with alot of the populace being familiar and understanding how to fire and aim a weapon. The 2nd ammendment will always be important in any modern perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Is a pretty simple read. Like most of the ammendments in the bill of rights alot of it needs to be seperated by a good o'l ;.Quote:
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.
Easier to understand?Quote:
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.
Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
My two favorite amendments in the bill of rights. There's no reason why we need to ban guns. Sure criminals use them but they use any weapon available to them at the time. Again the gun doesnt kill people, the gun is an inanimate object, it has no soul, no conscious, no thought process, it can't even pull its own trigger. People kill People, objects are just used to speed this process.Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
my bad, I should have talked about my Grandfather in that post,but didn't,my fault.
Owning a Gun/Guns isn't Wrong. They are use TO Hunt, Taget Pratice and Sel-Defense. All of them are done each year.
If the 2nd Amendment is in dispute, in order to bring about gun control legislation Congress first must go through the amendment process to the United States Constitution. You can not argue for gun control saying that the United States Constitution is unclear. The second part of the sentence states very clearly what the amendment means. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
If the arguement does not call for an amendment to the consitution concerning the current wording of the 2nd amendment then the arguement is intellectually dishonest by itself. One can wish away the 1st or the 2nd half sentence of the 2nd Amendment. One calls for the establishment of a militia, the other states clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringedQuote:
Were. Unless they are trained in modern military training they will not create an effective fighting force
Of course, they might contribute to a very hard-to-put-down insurgency. ~;)
There are a lot of interpretations, sir. What I subscribe to does not matter -- since my whole point revolves around the issue that there are so many interpretations, many of which equally valid, that just to dismiss them all and cherry-pick the one you happens to agree on is intellectually dishonest.
Gun control regulation does not equate to OSHA and FDA regulations. Regulations that are created by the government for the general welfare of the people is an approiate action by the government. When the constitutional states something - its not a matter of regulation to restrict the wording of the consitution, but an amendment process that must happen. However gun control - the selling of weapons can be regulated to insure the safety of the people. However the state does not have the right to deny ownership of weapons in the United States. (There are a couple of exceptions, the courts through the legal process can restrict one's rights for cause, and the government has successfully argued that certain types of weapons fall outside of the orginial intent of the constitution.) But not one arguement has been successful in arguing against what the 2nd Amendment means - that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Quote:
Just to mention it, I'm not a bleeding heart all-guns-must-be-taken-away kind of person. I just believe regulations are not inherently bad. Else we'll be eating rat meat and human fingers for sausage like we did a century ago.
So you said.
It states two things - A well regulated militia is important to maintain a free and secure state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The meaning of the words is quite clear - maintain and regulate a militia - and the people shall have the right to arm themselves. What the state has been successfully in arguing is that the orginal intent of the founding fathers was geared toward personal arms - not crew served weapons. Gun control in the form of registration and background checks to determine the legal right to own weapons still exists - fall within the scope of the founding father's orginial intent in my opinion. Attempts to disarm the people does not fall within the scope of the founding father's intent. The desire to disarm the people of arms requires a consitutional amendment, to do otherwise violates the constitution.Quote:
What does that terribly confusing original text say?
Or are you attempting to be intellectually dishonest in this discussion?
And so far no interpation can get around the second half sentence in the 2nd Amendment.Quote:
Not the way the Constitution is often interpreted in this country. Debates often revolves around implications that can be derived from seemingly simple words -- and things had changed from changing interpretations.
Yes - if they are smart and snipe against the crew of the tank...Quote:
Do hunters stand a chance against Abrams?
Which is one of the missions of the guard. It was also the main intent of the founding fathers since not all believed in the necessity of a standing federal army.Quote:
Moreover, it's widely accepted that the modern "Militia" is the National Guard, which in all practicality is now used quite frequently by the Federal Government as a reserve force.
Then you might want to look into the militias that are currently around in the states. There are a several of them. Missouri has a big one that is not the National Guard.
I won't get into this that much because people in general don't have a clue what they are talking about on both sides when it comes to gun control. I haven't even read most of the thread (so this may have been mentioned).
But I figured I'd help my side once. Many anti gunners say that guns can only go to the militia according to the 2nd amendment but what they dont realize is.....they are in the militia.
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com
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.
Confused about the meaning? Consider the Senate Report on the Issue from 1982:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
So there you have it.Quote:
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
"The advantage of being armed ... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations ... 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." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)
"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
...
The history of the Second Amendment indicates that its purposes were to secure to each individual the right to keep and bear arms so that he could protect his absolute individual rights as well as carry out his obligation to assist in the common defense. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an "unorganized" armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant. This concept of an unorganized, armed citizenry clearly recognized the right, and moreover the duty, to keep and bear arms in an individual capacity.
Quoted for truth. You cannot bypass the constituion by claiming a section is in dispute, as though that means you can completely ignore it.Quote:
If the 2nd Amendment is in dispute, in order to bring about gun control legislation Congress first must go through the amendment process to the United States Constitution. You can not argue for gun control saying that the United States Constitution is unclear. The second part of the sentence states very clearly what the amendment means. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.
CR
Thats strange , since the link Ceasar provides gives this.......Quote:
As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.
If there is no definative resolution then it is disputed isn't it , so how the hell can there be no dispute ?PHP Code:Related FindLaw Resources
Findlaw Resources
Visit the Litigation Practice Center
Sign up for a FindLaw Newsletter
Main Index > Cases and Codes > U.S. Constitution > Second Amendment
U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Amendment Text | Annotations
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.
Annotations
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
BTW Rabbit , to your earlier "Tribsey" post , you should know by now , read what is written , read exactly what is written:book:
A few things, tribesy:
I said 'basically no dispute'. Of course, we can't rely on you not to make a strawman with every post.
I also said by serious scholars, not long dead supreme court justices who didn't know what they were talking about when they decreed that a 17 1/2 inch shotgun had no use in war, and thus upheld a law as not infringing on militia arms that also, blatantly obvious even to idiots such as themselves, affected weapons of wars, like the BAR machinegun.
Put a little effort into reading my link:
Even what you posted goes against the nanny-stater interpretation of the 2nd amendment.Quote:
Within our own century, the only occasion upon which the Second Amendment has reached the Supreme Court came in United States v. Miller.[63] There, a prosecution for carrying a sawed off shotgun was dismissed before trial on Second Amendment grounds. In doing so, the court took no evidence as to the nature of the firearm or indeed any other factual matter. The Supreme Court reversed on procedural grounds, holding that the trial court could not take judicial notice of the relationship between a firearm and the Second Amendment, but must receive some manner of evidence. It did not formulate a test nor state precisely what relationship might be required. The court's statement that the amendment was adopted "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces" and "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view", when combined with the court's statement that all constitutional sources "show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.... these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,"[64] suggests that at the very least private ownership by a person capable of self defense and using an ordinary privately owned firearm must be protected by the Second Amendment. What the Court did not do in Miller is even more striking: It did not suggest that the lower court take evidence on whether Miller belonged to the National Guard or a similar group. The hearing was to be on the nature of the (p.11)firearm, not on the nature of its use; nor is there a single suggestion that National Guard status is relevant to the case.
That is all.
CR
Oh I see , so when you say there is basically no dispute you actually mean there is a dispute but you don't consider dispute to be dispute .Quote:
I said 'basically no dispute'. Of course, we can't rely on you not to make a strawman with every post.
Hmmmmmm....so you attribute my post to be supporting some other interpretation ? thats interesting , would that be basically another disputed position on the 2nd .Quote:
Even what you posted goes against the nanny-stater interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Now that is just too funny , I wonder what the long dead people who wrote the constitutionand its amendments knew about a BAR ?Quote:
also said by serious scholars, not long dead supreme court justices who didn't know what they were talking about when they decreed that a 17 1/2 inch shotgun had no use in war, and thus upheld a law as not infringing on militia arms that also, blatantly obvious even to idiots such as themselves, affected weapons of wars, like the BAR machinegun.
Its also funny that you consider the supreme court who rule on such things as not being serious scholars .
Whodathunk that the people whose job entails legal ruling covering the interpretation and implementation of a document hadn't put any serious scholastic study into the document they work with . I suppose they hadn't studied law either .
Obviously they are just blatant idiots who have never been serious scholars:dizzy2:
If I had a dollar for every time you used a strawman, I'd be filthy rich.Quote:
Oh I see , so when you say there is basically no dispute you actually mean there is a dispute but you don't consider dispute to be dispute .
Ah, the classic tribesy hang-up on a single word. "Help! This one word confuses me because I'm unable to comprehend English!" :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Hmmmmmm....so you attribute my post to be supporting some other interpretation ? thats interesting , would that be basically another disputed position on the 2nd .
Also, your post doesn't support some other interpretation- it supports the interpretation that the second amendment is an individual right, which agrees with what I said.
Do you have any evidence of a wide dispute about the second amendment amoung constitutional scholars?
Try to understand; amoung scholars studying the constitution, there is broad consensus that the second amendment amounts to an individual right. Do you disagree with the idea of a second amendment as an individual right? Think a bit before answering; I'm not asking for your opinion on other's views of it, but what you think. That is, I'm trying to get you to actually debate the idea, and not pollute the thread with pathetic complaints of semantics.Quote:
As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.
You're ignoring the substance, and messing up the frivolities. Re-read the ruling you posted and what I posted and try and think a bit about how they screwed the ruling up. Also, did I argue there was no dispute amoung scholars of the 1930s?Quote:
Its also funny that you consider the supreme court who rule on such things as not being serious scholars .
Whodathunk that the people whose job entails legal ruling covering the interpretation and implementation of a document hadn't put any serious scholastic study into the document they work with .
CR
No straw man there Rabbit , you set up a position that doesn't have any legs .Quote:
If I had a dollar for every time you used a strawman, I'd be filthy rich.
Yes , you posted itQuote:
Do you have any evidence of a wide dispute about the second amendment amoung constitutional scholars?
A broad consensus , that doesn't mean no dispute does it , plus it had to be disputed for them to even consider trying to reach an agreement on what it meant .Quote:
Try to understand; amoung scholars studying the constitution, there is broad consensus that the second amendment amounts to an individual right.
So what English do you not understand Rabbit ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
"Help! This one word confuses me because I'm unable to comprehend English!"
Then think about what you write Rabbit , since you wish to focus on the precise meaning of the wording of the badly worded amendment then you should be able to understand the importance for clear word usage .Quote:
I'm trying to get you to actually debate the idea, and not pollute the thread with pathetic complaints of semantics.
My opinion , it is a badly written amendment , lacking in substance and detail , contradictory and pretty worthless really .Quote:
Do you disagree with the idea of a second amendment as an individual right? Think a bit before answering; I'm not asking for your opinion on other's views of it, but what you think.
Which is why some people are so fond of it .
Nope they probably couldn't have dreamed of this weapon when they wrote it. But you can be assured that they would have wanted people to be able to have it. The 2nd amendment is there not just to allow one to carry a firearm or to allow a militia, but to ensure the government always has a healthy fear of its people. And there's nothing like a full automatic heavy saw to do that.Quote:
Now that is just too funny , I wonder what the long dead people who wrote the constitutionand its amendments knew about a BAR ?
Every amendment lacks wording. Their blunt and to the point they don't dance around what they mean nor do they include creative language to explain what they mean. Their not like the EU's constitution, they are only a few pages long. That amendment doesnt even once contradict itself, and neither is it worthless. It is one of the cornerstones of a good democracy that the government fears its people, and not the other way around.Quote:
My opinion , it is a badly written amendment , lacking in substance and detail , contradictory and pretty worthless really .
Quote:
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.
Oh cut it out tribes and give him a real answer. It seems like every time someone tries to debate you, you ignore their main points and go for ones that aren't even made or are insignificant.
Do you think the 2nd amendment is an individual right or not? Yes or no?
No , simple as that .Quote:
Do you think the 2nd amendment is an individual right or not? Yes or no?
It's all in the wording .
Well you quoted it so you must have read it , but for you to say that definately implies that you havn't read it Tex .Quote:
That amendment doesnt even once contradict itself, and neither is it worthless. It is one of the cornerstones of a good democracy that the government fears its people, and not the other way around.
If it was blunt and to the point then you wouldn't have had people debating what the hell it actually means since it was written would you .:oops:
People regularly debate the meaning of the above phrase- yet it is worded quite clearly.Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Just because someone is willing to say it means something other than what it says doesn't automatically mean that it's unclear. That's just sloppy logic. :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Not necessarily...most anti gun organizations don't care what the 2nd amendment says, they just want to get rid of guns. And trying to wiggle a different meaning out of the 2nd amendment is one way for them to achieve their goals.
You could say that they care about the amendment sense they go through all the trouble of trying to change the meaning.
But they really don't they are not trying to uphold the constitution they are just trying to get rid of the guns. (it's just a tactic, it could say that "every single american citizen may have any type of firearm" and they would still try to ban them.)
I am not trying to be insulting but I have never seen organizations make as many our right lies as the anti gun organizations.
People will debate the meaning of anything. The amendment is about as clear as you can get. Saying someone debates the meaning doesnt distract from the fact that it is clear and blunt. The supreme court not once has said it means anything different.Quote:
Well you quoted it so you must have read it , but for you to say that definately implies that you havn't read it Tex .
If it was blunt and to the point then you wouldn't have had people debating what the hell it actually means since it was written would you .
Quoted for the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The fact that your saying the 2nd amendment contradicts itself though does imply you havent read it. Please feel free to point out anywere in that amendment were it contradicts your right to bear arms or the states right to form a militia.
Also very simple sentence construction. The 2 subjects, your right to privately own firearms and the states right to protect itself with a militia, will not be infringed upon.Quote:
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.
So can you explain Tex's assertion , he thinks that the amendment is to make the government fear the people , a cornerstone of his theory of democracy is the threat of armed rebellion against the government .Quote:
Just because someone is willing to say it means something other than what it says doesn't automatically mean that it's unclear. That's just sloppy logic.
Now if the government was in fear of an insurrection by armed people , what provision does the constitution contain to deal with exactly that issue ?:yes:
Some people wish to take one tiny element of a small portion of a document and claim implicitly that it has only one meaning , ignoring that it must be taken together with all provisions relating to it in the document .
Too slow posting .....and you cannot see the contradiction :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Also very simple sentence construction. The 2 subjects, your right to privately own firearms and the states right to protect itself with a militia, will not be infringed upon.
Guys, why are you even bothering to try? I like Tribesman. He's a witty fellow. He's basically decent, doesn't believe in boiling babies for lye or anything of that sort. But in the 2 1/2 years I've been on this board, he's never, not once, even hinted that he's learned a single wit from somebody that he's disagreed with. :no:
He's an idealogue of the highest order. Nice guy, sure, but you're arguing with a brick wall. He is always right in his mind, because he has to be. He has all the answers, he only shows up here to post to inform us all of his brilliance. Doesn't matter whether he's ever been to a country, he knows what laws they need and he can tell you the perfect policy.
This might sound like a personal attack, but it's not meant as one. I just tire of the charade. It's not a dialogue when one party enters from the premise "allow me to show you why you are always wrong".
Where? Remember, the brady handgun control group aren't scholars. Also remember that 1982 is not the present.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I didn't say no dispute, did I? :rolleyes: So basically you're going in some weird argument against yourself.Quote:
A broad consensus , that doesn't mean no dispute does it , plus it had to be disputed for them to even consider trying to reach an agreement on what it meant .
Your opinion, as shown in the study I posted, happens to be wrong. :yes: :smash:Quote:
My opinion , it is a badly written amendment , lacking in substance and detail , contradictory and pretty worthless really .
Which is why some people are so fond of it .
*Tim Robbins voice* Are you being...obtuse? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So anyways, what are people's thoughts on carrying a handgun, after completing a safety class and being approved by the sheriff, in a city?
Yea- people should be able to defend themselves?
or Nay - It'll lead to violent shootouts between crazies!
CR
No you said "basically" which is even worse , since that covers the core issues of the subject , which is exactly what is disputed . Nice language English isn't it , you should try it some time .Quote:
I didn't say no dispute, did I
Tell you what Rabbit , read some back issues of gun nut weekly and find out how many dispute the meaning and interpretation of the second , you yourself have previously disputed its interpretation here , as has Ceasar , so don't come out with bull about it not being disputed .
Nooooooooo that is an infringement of the peoples rights under the second amendment .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
So anyways, what are people's thoughts on carrying a handgun, after completing a safety class and being approved by the sheriff, in a city?
Really , so you maintain that it is not badly written , is not contradictory , does not lack substance and detail , and is not pretty worthless .:dizzy2:Quote:
Your opinion, as shown in the study I posted, happens to be wrong.
Would you like to read it again .....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.
Then perhaps you can contradict yourself by asking about permission for handgun permits and safety classes:oops:
Then you can explain to Tex why he cannot have a fully automatic heavy SAW to keep his government in order .
Then you can explore the stipulations in the constitution about the well regulated militia:yes:
Too right Don , the yield is too low, boil adults instead :yes:Quote:
He's basically decent, doesn't believe in boiling babies for lye or anything of that sort.
[QUOTE][But in the 2 1/2 years I've been on this board, he's never, not once, even hinted that he's learned a single wit from somebody that he's disagreed with./QUOTE]
It happens Don , you must just have missed those occasions .
In PA, there's no laws forbidding open carry of handguns anywhere except in the city of Philadelphia- permit or no. A permit allows you to carry concealed almost anywhere (court rooms, post offices, ect are prohibited). And, the only requirement to get a permit is being able to fill out an application properly and pass an instant background check. I got mine in less than 30minutes- great stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Probably because the fully automatic heavy SAW does not exist. The SAW stands for Squad Automatic Weapon which fires a 5.56mm, and is also classifed as a Light Machine Gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m249.htm
But you are most likely attempting to refer to the Federal law that bans automatic weapons manufactured after 1968 from being purchased in the United States. One can however buy and own a BAR if one is willing to pay the $200 dollar transfer of license fee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Link
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I don't like the idea. It infringes on your rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
That ban happened in 1986. The gun control act of 1968 was different.
The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation. Unless and until (hopefully not ever) that Amendment is changed by a new Amendment, there is no way around the language.
I don't own a gun and I'm also so far left of what most people consider "left" that I'm nearly all the way right again. I'm a socialist and a libertarian - an anarchist in a cheap and far too easy one word designation. And yet, my position on individual liberties compels me to support the 2nd Amendment.
You don't violate individual rights for any reason, not even if you think it'll make you safer. Oddly, many of the same people who argue vehemently for individual liberties like the 2nd Amendment don't seem intelligent enough to apply that same logic when it comes to things like The Patriot Act and the 2007 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122). You don't trample on individual liberties just because it seems to make one safer. Bad idea.
Luckily, there are still a few real conservatives out there, like former congressman Dick Armey, who feel as I do, even though I'm about as unconservative as they come. I may disagree with people like Armey on almost everything else; but I have to applaud those who have the cahones to apply their principles to all of their positions, not just when convenient.
I really do wish I'd get a buck for every strawman of yours. Try reading what I said, and pay attention to the part about serious scholar (and what the actual subject it) you know, as in not Handgun Control Inc or Rosie O Donnell. You crack me up, tribesy. I'm talking about constitutional scholars, not the average soccer mom, and you know it (I hope, at least, though perhaps reading 'scholars' doesn't impart the idea of scholars to you brain). Simple enough? :smash: I think you'll help yourself get a leg up in life if you can understand the difference between:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
"There is no dispute by anyone on this subject" - Which is what you are arguing against, in classic strawman fashion, and
"There is basically no dispute by serious scholars".
Its very clear, for those not being purposely obtuse about it. :yes: Once again, try gaining a bit of knowledge and read the link I posted:Quote:
Really , so you maintain that it is not badly written , is not contradictory , does not lack substance and detail , and is not pretty worthless .:dizzy2:
Would you like to read it again .....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.
Then perhaps you can contradict yourself by asking about permission for handgun permits and safety classes:oops:
Then you can explain to Tex why he cannot have a fully automatic heavy SAW to keep his government in order .
Then you can explore the stipulations in the constitution about the well regulated militia
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
I agree, but it is better than nothing. Ideally, more states would move to Vermont style laws, but that won't happen in one big jump.Quote:
I don't like the idea. It infringes on your rights.
CR
You might want to read again. Several sources cite both the 1934 "Machine Gun" act and the 1968 legislation together. The 1986 ban I believe was to place even more restrictions that were ommitted from the previous legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Here is one examble of how some are reading the act, note that the class 3 SOT is mentioned which as far as I understand is the only legal way to own a machine gun - hince the comment about the $200 license fee.
Quote:
There are two kinds of firearms under federal law, title 1 firearms and title 2. Title 1 firearms are long guns (rifles and shotguns), handguns, silencers, and firearm frames or receivers. Most NFA weapons are also title 1 firearms. Title 2 weapons are NFA weapons. Title 2 of the 1968 Gun Control Act is the National Firearms Act (codified at 26 U.S.C. sec. 5801 et seq.), hence NFA. Title 1 is generally referred to as the Gun Control Act of 1968, (18 U.S.C. sec. 921 et seq.). NFA weapons are also sometimes called class 3 weapons, because a class 3 SOT (special occupational taxpayer) is needed to deal in NFA weapons.
NFA weapons include categories such as machine guns, sound suppressors, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, destructive devices and items classified as "any other weapons". NFA weapons do not include the semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which have been since at least 1994 misclassified by many in Congress, government agencies, and the media as “assault weapons.”
Under the provisions of Federal law, anyone over the age of 21 who is not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm may purchase and own National Firearms Act weapons which include machine guns, sound suppressors (i.e., silencers), short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, an other unusual types of weapons commonly classified as an "Any Other Weapon", and destructive devices. Tennessee law does not regulate, prohibit possession of or prohibit the purchase of NFA weapons. The applicable code section is Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1302(b)(7) which provides in relevant part:
The esteemed gentleman from Austin is correct.:book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Goodness Aenlic, you've been missed. Well said.
Nice to see you too. Glad to see Redleg is still here too. I've just been terribly busy for the last few months (ok, I've been playing World of Warcraft out of sheer boredom and nothing much was happening here until M:TW2 came out; but "terribly busy" sounds more important). Now that M:TW2 is near release, I came back around to see how things were going. :wink:
Perhaps you had better tell Tex Redleg , since he mentioned it .~;)Quote:
Probably because the fully automatic heavy SAW does not exist.
oh dear Rabbit , and you talk about strawmen :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: is English not your strong suit ?Quote:
I think you'll help yourself get a leg up in life if you can understand the difference between:
"There is no dispute by anyone on this subject" - Which is what you are arguing against, in classic strawman fashion, and
"There is basically no dispute by serious scholars".
The core issue that is disputed (thats basically if you cannot understand) by serious constitutional scholars is the meaning and implementation of the second . It is disputed and has been for a loooooooong time because it is (a)badly worded , (b) not implemented .
Aelenic writes .....The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation.
Yep so it is badly worded . Since you have regulations infringing upon it at a federal , state and local level , and have had since the beginning .
That bad wording , lack of substance and detail makes it contradictory and pretty worthless .
Nice link BTW rabbit , lots of nice dispute going on there , are those serious scholars , have you shot yourself in the foot ?:yes:
You are incorrect in that approach. The amendment has stood the test of time, just as the constitution has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Adjustments have been made based upon the wording of the 2nd Amendment. For instance the registration of weapons have been found to be consistent with the first part of the amendment and not in violation of the 2nd part of the sentence structure. The government has rightly determined that certain types of weapons are for military purposes and the citizens do not have the right to own them, as one can argue successful given the first part of the amendment.
I don't take issue with criticizing the amendment but to call it worthless is a contradiction to the testimony of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Huh?
1968 seemed to be more about sale and transportation of firearms then full autos. (it mentions them only twice that I saw and doesnt seem to place new regs.)
86 banned the import and manufacture of them after that date.(I'm surprised reagan let that through:thumbsdown: ).
And anyway I'm done with the thread. Cause tribes is a brick wall. There is not discussion with him he just makes smartass post till' you get sick of it and leave.
I totally agree that military weapons don´t belong in the hands of civilians. But how does that regulation you mention fit with the first half of the 2nd amendment? If the reason for an armed population is to have a militia, why deny them the weapons that a militia would need most (bazookas, machineguns)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I think this shows that the militia idea is somehow outdated.
The first half of the 2nd Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." It means that the government has the ability to define what weapons are crew served and which are individual weapons. It means that the government can make definitions about how arms are classified. It means that the government gets to define how militia's are organized and maned. Militia's by definition come with what weapons they as individuals can carry and provide ammunition for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haudegen
Now note the second half of the amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.." This is where both sides get themselves stuck. They attempt to define the amendment as two seperate sentences.
A well regulated militia allows for the government to make decisions about how militias are to be organized and equiped, in doing so under the orginial concept of a militia the people were suppose to come armed with their personal weapons. Hince because the founding fathers believed in militia's over a standing army - the people will always have a right to personal arms to defend themselves and their nation.
Is the militia concept outdated - maybe. But to change the wording of the amendment takes the constitutional process - not simple regulation and legislation. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is such so that the government can not remove personal weapons from the citizens of the nation. It does not mean that the government can not define weapons into different catergories and then regulate ownership. For instance one can buy machine guns made prior to 1968 if they purchase the license class to own one.
I always find it interesting...when I see this debate from the outside not being american myself...that people always seem to like to quote one part of the second amendment of the US constitution and forget about the other part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
this is just my read on the text....not trying to stir anything up here:
the part that is always quoted goes like "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"...which could be taken to mean that you have the right as an american citizen to have any weapons you want...
but why do people always leave out this part? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
notice the words "militia" and "well regulated".....call me silly....but isn´t the modern "well regulated militia" the US army and other armed forces?
so the second amendment (when you read all of it, and not just the "quotable" part) seems to mean that the right to bear arms is necessary, so that a well regulated militia can be formed and maintained for the security of the state......-> meaning you need guns for the army....how you get from that to "any civilian has the right to carry a gun" is a jump of logic I haven´t been able to achieve yet.....:smash: i´ll try to keep working on it....
You just answered you own question. You just said that in order to form a well regulated militia you need guns. We have already ponited out that the militia is not the army so the part about 'meaning you need guns for the army' doesnt apply. The militia needs to be armed. That once more means every able bodied man so that when called up they can fight at a moments notice. If they only wanted the army armed they would have said that.Quote:
so the second amendment (when you read all of it, and not just the "quotable" part) seems to mean that the right to bear arms is necessary, so that a well regulated militia can be formed and maintained for the security of the state......-> meaning you need guns for the army....how you get from that to "any civilian has the right to carry a gun" is a jump of logic I haven´t been able to achieve yet..... i´ll try to keep working on it....
It could because your leaving out an important part in your reading of theQuote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
2nd Amendment. 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.
The amendment clearly states that the right of the people. Avoiding those words is the error you have committed in your reasoning.
terms and reality changes with times.....the US army(and the navy etc.) is the modern equivalent of the "militia" mentioned in the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
One of the big problems I think you guys have is that you read and interpret the US constitution like it was written yesterday when parts of it are 200+ years old.....you can´t take a text that old literally word for word, it just won´t make sense nowadays :book: just like it wouldn´t make sense for me go around speaking 17th century portuguese.
yes I read that part.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
but the first part of the phrase clearly states the objective of that right of the people -> "to maintain a well regulated militia"
there is a diference between saying
"you have a right to have arms in order to build up a militia"
and
"you have a right to have arms"
the first version clearly states a purpose for the existance of those guns right?....while the second gives the idea you can have guns and do anything you want with them.
No, the armed forces are not the equivalent of militias. Standing armies like you mentioned are what the founders feared as oppressors of the people. You are right in that we can't use our modern meaning of words to read the consitution. Consider, briefly, the 'well-regulated' term and this federalist paper:Quote:
terms and reality changes with times.....the US army(and the navy etc.) is the modern equivalent of the "militia" mentioned in the text.
One of the big problems I think you guys have is that you read and interpret the US constitution like it was written yesterday when parts of it are 200+ years old.....you can´t take a text that old literally word for word, it just won´t make sense nowadays just like it wouldn´t make sense for me go around speaking 17th century portuguese.
"Well regulated" would then mean something different from well controlled by laws and rules, and rather closer to a state of preparedness after long training. (see more evidence here:http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html)Quote:
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
This leads me to disagree with Redleg:
I would say the government has wrongly determined that. The whole purpose of the amendment was ensuring the people are equipped with military weapons. In US vs Miller, for example, the supreme court upheld the NFA because the gov't was prosecuting a sawed off shotgun owner, and the court believed that these were not military weapons, and so did not fall under the protection of the 2nd.Quote:
The government has rightly determined that certain types of weapons are for military purposes and the citizens do not have the right to own them, as one can argue successful given the first part of the amendment.
Anyways, after that 'brief' digression, we return to the meaning of militia. The founders thought of the militia as the whole body of people in the nation:
Quote:
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
"The advantage of being armed ... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations ... 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." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)
"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
Once again, I encourage all to read the senate report on the meaning and history of the second amendment:Quote:
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. - George Mason
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
Crazed Rabbit
I´m interested in your personal opinion. Would you like it if every citizen had access to military weapons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I´ve partly read your link:
Arms
In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
I think that the founding fathers could not imagine the development of weapons that can be carried by one man but that have the power of an "ordinance" (--> Machineguns, bazookas, handgranades or maybe Sci-Fi-stuff like the Star Trek phasers that may be available one day in the future)
Therefore I think the word "arms" has to be restictively defined by the legislation or government.
Sidenote: If the 2nd Amendment basically guarantees the right of the people to own military weapons, that would exclude for example weapons for hunting or sports. Interesting.
Every law-abiding (as in no felonies) citizen should be able to own fully automatic machine guns if they want.Quote:
I´m interested in your personal opinion. Would you like it if every citizen had access to military weapons?
This is an invalid argument. The consitution stands as it is, and one cannot change its meaning by speculation. Also, though they may not have imagined it, they would support the citizenry being able to own such weapons. Your argument is akin to arguing that free speech does not apply to speech spread with computers, radios, TVs, modern printing presses, etc.Quote:
I think that the founding fathers could not imagine the development of weapons that can be carried by one man but that have the power of an "ordinance" (--> Machineguns, bazookas, handgranades or maybe Sci-Fi-stuff like the Star Trek phasers that may be available one day in the future)
It gurantees the right to arms. Besides, a hunting rifle is basically similar to military sniper rifles.Quote:
Sidenote: If the 2nd Amendment basically guarantees the right of the people to own military weapons, that would exclude for example weapons for hunting or sports. Interesting.
Oh, and well said Aenlic. Support for gun rights (and all rights) should not be classified according to liberals and conservatives.
Crazed Rabbit
Crazed Rabbit posted an excellent review piece earlier in this thread.
"Militia" is a term drawn, as are so many of our early concepts, from English Common Law and history. The militia was the whole of the armed citizenry. This is distinct and separate from an army raised to go to war or a standing professional military -- which, however small, we had from the outset.
"Well regulated" was a reference that outlined that the militia must be guided and responsible to their local government, following reasonable regulations of service promulgated by same. This was to prevent 16 blokes from taking their guns, naming themselves a militia and then claiming the legal right to attack and kill as they pleased. Such can still happen, but it would NOT be sanctioned.
This has developed into a fascinating discussion on the Second Amendment. Thank you guys, for your insights.
:bow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Crazed, I agreed with you alot on this Topic, very good argument
+8
Haudegen,
People can Used Miliatry Weapons if they want, as long as they are not Criminals and such. Makes Senses.