So, why are guns necessary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

Husar, tell me why someone would goto a camp and shoot people for fun? How about going into a local movie theater and shooting people for some sense of fulfillment? Are there people out there that are unpredictable? Yes. Do you know what someone is going to do once they have already started to break one law? No.

---

It's boring if you already answer all of your own questions. The last question is answered a bit wrong on one hand and superfluous on the other. First of all you never know what anyone is going to do. And secondly there is quite a difference between stealing and killing and even most thieves know that. Otherwise you'd expect every thief who gets released from prison to start his new life by murdering everyone who spoke out against him in court or something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

What if my family friend had actually confronted the guy instead of leaving out a back entrance? No one ever knew if the guy was armed.

---

Noone knows, yes, maybe they could've had a cup of tea, maybe the thief would've run away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

Cops while in the majority of cities have pretty substandard budgets in Oakland they are constantly hiring.

---

Yes, jobs that are constantly hiring are usually of great quality and completely overpaid. I mean you state that as though the hiring meant they have enough money to hire but maybe it just means the job is paid so bad for the trouble that noone keeps it for long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

You can compare doing street patrol in some of America's worst cities to actual war zones and you wouldn't be that far from the truth.

---

Yes, and all the cops are rookies because they're constantly hiring new ones and only the ones who like violence stay and you wonder about police brutality in the USA. Oh and gangs and stuff often exist because it's the most feasible way for the younglings to make money due to a lack of viable alternatives and a bleak and hopeless upbringing. Or maybe some people just have the evil gene and they all migrated to the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

--------------------------------------------------------------

Look at Germany's police per 100k. You have 298 cops per 100,000 people. A country with 80,000,000 people.

The United states has 316,000,000 people. With 258 cops per 100,000 people. We employ a larger police force than some countries employ a military.

Lets compare your countries capital to lala land usa, Los Angeles.

Berlin population 3.5 million. L.A. 3.82 million.

Berlin police employees per 100,000 is around 159. While L.A. is around 250 police officers per 100,000. If I used all employees that work for the police department it would be closer to 330.


----------------------------------------------------------------

---

All that doesn't tell me a whole lot, the number of officers per 100k is lower in the US while LA has a whole lot of them. Berlin also has some troublesome areas where police do not like to go unless they go there in force. Maybe it's because they have too few police officers to take proper care of these areas or because of other failed policies. Don't think I'm saying we are perfect but if we solve gang crime problems by having public shootouts between gang members and their community, i.e. their parents, aunts and nieces, where is that going to lead? Concerning other crimes, we also struggle with an underfunded police force here, ever since the cold war stopped it's like public spending in the west is going down and down and down as though someone siphons all the money away despite higher tax returns. If a bank fails though, we can throw money at it, that's not a problem really...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

Now a very small percentage of all gun related homicides are committed with a firearm registered to the person in possession. Most being stolen or purchased from underground sources. It is easier and cheaper for me to purchase a black market pistol that if I went through the proper channels. In California which has some of the countries strictest gun control laws I can call a buddy who knows a guy who has a contact or I can go through the proper channels get my criminal history and background check done every time I wish to purchase a firearm. Now if I, a guy with almost 0 criminal connections, can obtain a black market gun so easily what does that say about people who deal in narcotics or other illegal activities on a daily basis? I feel safer knowing I have some way of protecting myself if I'm ever put into an extraordinary situation rather than rely on someone to show up to protect me.

---

Are you assuming that the black market has as many guns to offer here as it has in the USA? It's not like we don't have a black market for guns but we aren't drowning in illegal guns because even the illegal guns have to be siphoned off from somewhere and that's much easier if everyone has unlimited access to guns which aren't even registered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Aurora theatre was a designated gun free zone. If anything that incident is a cautionary tale against openly proclaiming a weak target, as the right has pointed out.

---

That is certainly one part. Another is a strong mental health system. It also pays not to shoehorn a single tool as a every situation solution. If one only has a hammer all problems are nails.

So allow guns, but make sure it includes a full mental health check at least for concealed carry.
Design buildings with multiple safe exits.
Drop CEOs pay.

Well when one is dreaming, dream large... And a more egalitarian society has a much fairer distribution of wealth and less crime.

Oakland has 400,000 people. My county has 2.25 million people.
Oakland's murder rate is 0.32. My county's is 0.03.

Instead of 'Gotta get guns', why not 'How can I clean up my community'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Oakland has 400,000 people. My county has 2.25 million people.
Oakland's murder rate is 0.32. My county's is 0.03.

Instead of 'Gotta get guns', why not 'How can I clean up my community'?

---

Ok, go to oakland and start cleaning up the community. Groups have been trying that for years. Im sure you will succeed where everyone else has failed. The only way they have come close is by buying up ghetto and turning it into areas where the poor can't even fathom going.

What type of a mental health check? You have to be specific. I had to pass a background check, with police interview and get multiple publicly notarized personal recomendation letters from friends and my wife. I also had to sign a hipa notice allowing them to look back into my medical history - all of it, forever. It took 6 months and I can only carry to and from the range. You want to compromise and let me carry anywhere, I'm all for it.

Quote:

---

Ok, go to oakland and start cleaning up the community.

---

I'm nobody - petition the Feds. :mellow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

What type of a mental health check? You have to be specific. I had to pass a background check, with police interview and get multiple publicly notarized personal recomendation letters from friends and my wife. I also had to sign a hipa notice allowing them to look back into my medical history - all of it, forever. It took 6 months and I can only carry to and from the range. You want to compromise and let me carry anywhere, I'm all for it.

---

It should be a sliding scale. Something like:

Basic = firing range
Medium = rifle in the pickup truck, bolt removed
High = concealed pistol carry
Highest = regulated milita = you pay, you play

Note with each higher category comes higher responsibilities. I'd make the highest able to be called up by state authorities ... Just as able bodies in an emergency not as armed response.

Nope. No license needed for the range, no license needed for handgun. Maybe license suggested for carry;concealed or open.

Let me remind you, the 2a is not conditional on the prefatory clause. Read it this way: AS a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The heart is the right of the people. We need to find ways in law to respect the right of the people without infringing or we need to amend/repeal the amendment. This isnt let's make a deal. Australia didn't have a 2a and now people have to get a permit to fire airguns and .22's. I'm not interested in that road as civil code, common law, and natural right support my reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

This isnt let's make a deal.

---

For you and the NRA: clearly. You can't make deals with "enemies" who must be "destroyed."

For the vast majority of Americans, however, making deals is kinda how this democracy thing works.

All of our inalienable rights have boundaries and limitations. All of 'em.

The fact that the panic sisters at the NRA see no limit to a single right speaks more to their monomania than any principled position.

Tell us again how it's great that the background checks bill was defeated. I never get tired of hearing about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The fact that the panic sisters at the NRA

---

Isn't that a very sexist expression?
That is how democracy works? By 'making deals'? By which you of course mean not getting what you want, but instead settling for lessening the damage to your position. You know, it is a darned good thing that when republicans pushed through emancipation and voting rights laws they were absolutists and did not compromise. If they were Lemurian they would have been like: "Ok, let's make a deal. We will give blacks the right to vote, but they will not be allowed to own property. Sound fair?"

Some times giving a little is not in order. Some times you need to take a hard line on a position. Basic human rights is one of those things. Basic human rights like the right to be able to defend yourself (a key part of which is the right to bear arms). You don't compromise on stuff like that, or you end up like Russia or France.

Quote:

---

Basic human rights is one of those things. Basic human rights like the right to be able to defend yourself (a key part of which is the right to bear arms).

---

Ridiculous.

That is because Parliament is the people.

In theory.

According to Wiki that particular right was subject to both the class of the person and the law of the land. Interesting find, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Irepublicans pushed through emancipation and voting rights laws

---

I had no idea Republicans were solely (or primarily) responsible for the voting rights act of 1965.

I learn new and counter-factual things every day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You don't compromise on stuff like that, or you end up like Russia or France.

---

France sounds okay to me, time to compromise?

Russia is more complicated but how is it comparable to France?

Don't forget that people move from France to Russia because Russia is better.

There are quite a few other countries available for comparison:
Germany
Poland
Botswana
Japan
Belgium
Netherlands
Kazakhstan (very secure cars apparently)
China
Norway

Lemur has already stated that he doesn't believe in an individual right to bear arms exists in natural rights or in Constitutional protections. He's fighting the sisterhood of the traveling NRA as well as settled case law. There is clearly no discussing this with him, either. Those who say that "the right doesn't exist, but we just need to play along with the wackos until they get tired of defending a right that doesn't exist, also take what we can get and give nothing" are not the middle ground, but the extreme. Not the extreme wing of the extreme, but they are the auxiliary leading the Hastatii and the Triarii...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Nope. No license needed for the range, no license needed for handgun. Maybe license suggested for carry;concealed or open.

Let me remind you, the 2a is not conditional on the prefatory clause. Read it this way: AS a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The heart is the right of the people. We need to find ways in law to respect the right of the people without infringing or we need to amend/repeal the amendment. This isnt let's make a deal. Australia didn't have a 2a and now people have to get a permit to fire airguns and .22's. I'm not interested in that road as civil code, common law, and natural right support my reading.

---

I have a ballot box to protect my rights. My country was not formed in its present federation using guns it used the ballot box. Yet we have been able to fight off invaders when required. We have a different geography and a different history. Aussies are quite capable of defending themselves and the facts stand for themselves. Less incarcerations, longer life spans, higher literacy rates etc all quality of life indicators are pretty snazzy and the top ten cities to live in normal feature more then one Aussie city. My life would not be better off one iota by myself carrying a firearm. If I'm having a stressful week I will go for a hike in the national parks surrounding Sydney, or walk on a beach or have a coffee. Thing is every other Aussie has the same access to these and most of them are low cost or free or pretty good quality for what you do pay.

=][=
For the US I would think that removing weapons from the mentally unhealthy and opening up access to those of sound mind would be a positive thing. It should be upto each state to both administer and pay for the tests AND to look after those they find who are going loopy... If you are going to remove the right to bear arms because they are a danger then there is an onus on the state to look after the individual.

Yes, your country was started as a penal colony - mostly political prisoners forced to work by their oppressors who attained freedom due to the distance and neglect of their masters. When you fight a war against your own government (or 2), maybe you will understand what government can be; a monster that needs to be resisted.

Husar can't possibly imagine what a brutal government would require in order to dislodge it. Kittens and hope change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Lemur has already stated that he doesn't believe in an individual right to bear arms exists in natural rights or in Constitutional protections.

---

Feel free to show me where I have expressed that opinion. Heck, point out where I have used the term "natural rights."

Don't mind me, I'll be waiting, eating a sammich.

But when you give up (or perform one of your re-readings of English where words mean new and interesting things), I'll just point out that if your arguments and reasoning were a tenth as strong as you think they are, you wouldn't need to misstate your "enemies" arguments to get through your day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Feel free to show me where I have expressed that opinion. Heck, point out where I have used the term "natural rights."

Don't mind me, I'll be waiting, eating a sammich.

But when you give up (or perform one of your re-readings of English where words mean new and interesting things), I'll just point out that if your arguments and reasoning were a tenth as strong as you think they are, you wouldn't need to misstate your "enemies" arguments to get through your day.

---

Listen, I'll concede the point that my assertion that "well-regulated" could have solely meant "well-equipped" was a false one. I am incorrect. The closest thing would be that "equipped" and "standardized" (with equipment suitable for national defense) would have been a primary component of "well regulated", but along side "controlled" in the way that I don't want it to mean. This point gets lost when you realize that the prefatory clause is not binding on the right to keep and bear arms, so the argument is academic as the lead-up to the right has been largely dismissed as merely an extremely important aspect, of many, to the right to keep and bear arms.

You've stated that this is your read and understanding of the amendment - that people who are members of the militia are the only ones who have a right to be armed and controlled by the government under 2a. Earlier, in prior threads, you have stated that it was merely one read, but not the most compelling or legally recognized read by a long margin. In these recent threads you seem to write off the right and to be looking for a way to denigrate and ignore a right recognized by the law and most Americans, due to some procedural drama in the Senate relating to an overplay of the hand of Democratic leadership (evidenced by the Failure to pass a bill with potential bi-partisan support CONTROLLED by Democrats).

Tom Coburn offered his hand in compromise. How did that offer go for him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

the prefatory clause is not binding on the right to keep and bear arms

---

That's an awfully selective take. So we care deeply about the meaning of the original constitution ... until we don't. Hmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

You've stated [...] that people who are members of the militia are the only ones who have a right to be armed

---

Feel free to show me where I said that. I got more sammiches where that one came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That's an awfully selective take. So we care deeply about the meaning of the original constitution ... until we don't. Hmm.


Feel free to show me where I said that. I got more sammiches where that one came from.

---

so you refuse to say anything? You make implications and then pretend that it isn't you.

Read the Heller and McDonald decisions. Where do they get "self defense" and hunting and target shooting from if all 2A covers is organized militia purposes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If you read the language for what it is, rather than what you think it ought to mean, it's pretty clear. "Well-regulated" means under some sort of organization and control, rather than a bunch of angry dudes in a mob. The founders' intent is pretty clear in this case. They want the state protected, and they want it done by a "well-regulated militia," as opposed to a disorganized bunch of shooters. (And it's clear from letters and speeches of the time that the founders were leery about having a standing army, so the "well regulated militia" was clearly being posited as an alternative to a permanent military force.)

---

When you say that things are clear it implies your own argument, not merely statement of fact. here, you are clearly stating a belief that you have.

Were the founders interested overwhelmingly in the ability of the people to resist abusive central government and standing armies? Absolutely. The problem with regulation is that it comes from the top. The top is the first thing corrupted by abusive government. Protection of the right to keep and bear arms starts at the lowest rung. Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state? Absolutely, but people don't have a right to a well regulated militia - they have a right to keep and bear arms and can aspire to a well regulated militia. The building blocks are more important and those are the things protected. We all want both a standing army AND an organized resistance. The 2nd amendment is a way to best ensure security in case the first 2 fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Yes, your country was started as a penal colony - mostly political prisoners forced to work by their oppressors who attained freedom due to the distance and neglect of their masters. When you fight a war against your own government (or 2), maybe you will understand what government can be; a monster that needs to be resisted.

---

Actually kind of correct but kind is missing the difference between how Australia formed and how its component countries formed. The Commonwealth was a voluntary amalgamation by voting of the people. Which is important in comparing how the US formed vs AU. Note we did have some armed revolution but not how we formed a new federation.

As for some being penal colonies. It just makes us the same as the US, it isn't a factor in modern rights here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Actually kind of correct but kind is missing the difference between how Australia formed and how its component countries formed. The Commonwealth was a voluntary amalgamation by voting of the people. Which is important in comparing how the US formed vs AU. Note we did have some armed revolution but not how we formed a new federation.

As for some being penal colonies. It just makes us the same as the US, it isn't a factor in modern rights here.

---

Nothing against Aussies, I've never gone to war against my government either. The crazy thing is; many of our ancestors have. History isn't over is my point.

Quote:

---

Absolutely, but people don't have a right to a well regulated militia

---

:no:

They absolutely do. This is the very crux of the Amendment.



The people as a body are the militia, as the militia is no more than the whole body of all armed citizens inasmuch as those armed citizens are united in the purpose of providing for the communal defense. As such, the people, in their capacity as militia - the militia - must be not just permitted to arm but even kept armed so that they may guarantee and participate in the defense of their individual states and localities. Towards this end, however, the people as a body must necessarily be heavily regulated in their ownership and usage of guns, to ensure that the militia remains viable as a defensive force for its stated purpose.

The prefatory clause specifies a goal for the amendment, and the operative clause shows how it is to be executed or maintained. This way, both clauses are given equal weight. The people must have access to arms in order that they have the opportunity to be counted among "the militia", which is "necessary to the security of a free state".

This is pretty much a guaranteed collective right for the existence of the above conception of "the militia", and a guaranteed individual right to be counted as a part of that militia, to individually participate towards the collective security, if one can meet the requirements. The whole point is that this individual right subserves the collective right and the collective right demands the individual right.

Therefore, the 2nd Amendment preserves absolutely no individual right to gun ownership unless the individual is consenting to be counted a part of the militia, with all the attendant burdens, in which case he must be armed or arm himself. From here, it is easy to see that if individuals flout their responsibilities as part of the militia - including whatever regulations may exist - they therefore, for such time as the non-compliance obtains, abjure their right to be a part of the militia, or minimally abjure their actual membership in the militia, and therefore abjure their right to keep and bear arms as part of the militia.

For an individual right to own firearms for whatever conceivable justification (e.g. self-defense, hunting), refer to the 14th Amendment - the 2nd is of no use to you, as your individualism clearly consigns you without the militia. Under the 14th Amendment, you may certainly be disarmed by the state in a large number of circumstances. But fear not - you still enjoy the protections offered by the 2nd Amendment, in that those individuals who are willing and able to carry the responsibilities of the militia are there to protect you and your community, and under no or almost no circumstances can be legitimately disarmed by any level of the state. That latter clause is one of the crucial elements of the amendment; the government (especially the national) is not permitted under normal circumstances to neuter the localized/communal defensive groups. However, it must not be omitted that despite this, the government is allowed to, and indeed required to keep the militia in good order.

Do you understand? It is a self-reinforcing feedback cycle that was intended to guarantee that the state would be committed to upholding strong measures mitigating its own inherent and potential oppressive/tyrannical tendencies.

Sure sounds a lot more reasonable than 'GUNZGUNZGUNZGUNZFREEEEEDOOOOOMGUNZGUNZGUNZGUNZ', doesn't it? It should - this is how statesmen, rather than wild-eyed fanatics, conceive of the world.

TLDR: The 2nd Amendment preserves the right of individuals to organize for the communal defense, towards which purpose they must not just be permitted to own firearms, but must actually own such weapons in fact, and must be regulated in their usage of them.

TLDR 2: In case that was confusing, I'll be even more straightforward. The individual has a right to be a part of a collective; neither the individual nor collective side of the right may be abrogated by the federal government or anyone else. That is the whole of the 2nd Amendment.

This is not the case. The 9th and 14th amendments also protect the right to bear arms, but the second protects arms both connected and unconnected from militia service.

Let's look at the summary of the Heller decision
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distr...mbia_v._Heller

Quote:

---

Decision

The Supreme Court held:^[44]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.^[45]

---

Your suggestion is that they were flat out wrong. That is fine, but your opinion is flawed and should not be given undo credence. I believe that most of what they put forward is solid. The "dangerous and unusual", however should be judged not just on the arms of the body of the militia, but also on the military. For example, they shouldn't say that ar-15s should be banned because they are in common use and are not affiliated, in spite of ease of acquisition, with higher usage in homicides than say handguns (which are more difficult to obtain AND more numerous.

Scalia makes numerous fallacious judgements and so the decision is pretty much garbage. I would ask you to quit referring to that as some sort of trump card, when in fact it only acts to your detriment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Scalia makes numerous fallacious judgements and so the decision is pretty much garbage. I would ask you to quit referring to that as some sort of trump card, when in fact it only acts to your detriment.

---

Right, I should defer to your half-baked judgement. Honestly, I'm not concerned with what you think. I'm concerned with the law and this is the law. The same people who argue that the 2a covers only militia service connected to national defense still maintain that the guns whose use was designed for national defense are the ones that can be banned. Again, those who look at the bill of rights for rights reserved to government are attempting to find a right to regulate firearms. No such thing exists in the Bill of Rights.

My view on the right to keep arms exceeds the protections of the court. I want individuals to be armed to a level that would provide a real deterence to the State. Even though individual rights have been expanded beyond Heller, we are not done.

To add insult to injury:
Baracka likes Heller, or lied and said he did at the time.http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/ar...-heller/53633/

Its unfortunate that he must consistently act in bad faith. The sentiment expressed in his public statement is a sentiment that I agree with: close the loopholes where they exist and strengthen background checks to keep our communities safer. The issue is that they want to go beyond this, by keeping records of sales rather than merely knowing if a check has been done. By banning common use firearms which are precisely those which would best secure a free state, as you like to restate.

If you've forgotten how the dog lost his bone, just look back at the greed of the Senate in attempting to have it all. Compromise could have been had, but they preferred to be absolutists and failed. Their absolutism isn't backed up by law.

Quote:

---

The same people who argue that the 2a covers only militia service connected to national defense still maintain that the guns whose use was designed for national defense are the ones that can be banned.

---

More than the national defense, the communal defense.

Any specific gun can be banned toward the goal of creating a well-regulated militia. Any specific firearm is obviously not important - it is the firearm's suitability as a weapon of the militia that matters. For instance, it is very difficult to argue that a suitable militia can not exist without free access to a specific model of 19th-century revolver, or free access to all manner of flame-throwing weapons, whether military-grade or homemade. As for things like tanks and other heavy-weapons platforms, you run into the same problem. The militia right entitles you to access to weapons in that context, but it does not automatically and utterly entitle you to any which weapon or weapons system of your choice. That obviously may and must be carefully regulated - it's simply the case that the state can not do something like banning every single projectile weapon and weapon-class except the bow and arrow, as that would plainly contravene the stated goal of a legitimate militia.

Quote:

---

Again, those who look at the bill of rights for rights reserved to government are attempting to find a right to regulate firearms. No such thing exists in the Bill of Rights.

---

Wrong again. Not only is the regulation of weapons allowed for by the 2nd Amendment, it is required by it. Any non-disingenuous reading of the text makes this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, as I very plainly stated this a right of the individual citizen to participate in a collective; both that right to participate (if willing and able to undertake attendant responsibilities) and the communal right of being the militia (that is, the latent and potential constitution of such a body) is protected. It takes quite a stretch of imagination to assert that this is somehow a right reserved to the government.

Quote:

---

My view on the right to keep arms exceeds the protections of the court. I want individuals to be armed to a level that would provide a real deterence to the State. Even though individual rights have been expanded beyond Heller, we are not done.

---

I agree - that is what is called for by the 2nd Amendment.

HOWEVER, your right to keep guns as part of the regulated body of armed citizens willing and able to undertake the responsibilities of being militia, has nothing to do with any notional right to keep and bear weapons for self-defense. Indeed, even for the guns of the militia, it is only permitted and required that they keep guns; the bearing of guns in random contexts may be freely infringed, as it has no affect on the capacities of the militia. Therefore (for example), laws that require firearms to be kept disassembled in the home when not being trained with are perfectly constitutional.

The weight of case law, not just in the Supreme of Supremes but in each individual State Supreme Court, is on my side. Your absurd position that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited and applies to any and all contexts of ownership/usage has only prevailed for the past decade - our time will come again, mark my words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

More than the national defense, the communal defense.

Any specific gun can be banned toward the goal of creating a well-regulated militia. Any specific firearm is obviously not important - it is the firearm's suitability as a weapon of the militia that matters. For instance, it is very difficult to argue that a suitable militia can not exist without free access to a specific model of 19th-century revolver, or free access to all manner of flame-throwing weapons, whether military-grade or homemade. As for things like tanks and other heavy-weapons platforms, you run into the same problem. The militia right entitles you to access to weapons in that context, but it does not automatically and utterly entitle you to any which weapon or weapons system of your choice. That obviously may and must be carefully regulated - it's simply the case that the state can not do something like banning every single projectile weapon and weapon-class except the bow and arrow, as that would plainly contravene the stated goal of a legitimate militia.



Wrong again. Not only is the regulation of weapons allowed for by the 2nd Amendment, it is required by it. Any non-disingenuous reading of the text makes this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, as I very plainly stated this a right of the individual citizen to participate in a collective; both that right to participate (if willing and able to undertake attendant responsibilities) and the communal right of being the militia (that is, the latent and potential constitution of such a body) is protected. It takes quite a stretch of imagination to assert that this is somehow a right reserved to the government.



I agree - that is what is called for by the 2nd Amendment.

HOWEVER, your right to keep guns as part of the regulated body of armed citizens willing and able to undertake the responsibilities of being militia, has nothing to do with any notional right to keep and bear weapons for self-defense. Indeed, even for the guns of the militia, it is only permitted and required that they keep guns; the bearing of guns in random contexts may be freely infringed, as it has no affect on the capacities of the militia. Therefore (for example), laws that require firearms to be kept disassembled in the home when not being trained with are perfectly constitutional.

The weight of case law, not just in the Supreme of Supremes but in each individual State Supreme Court, is on my side. Your absurd position that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited and applies to any and all contexts of ownership/usage has only prevailed for the past decade - our time will come again, mark my words.

---

You can keep restating your false position. Laws that require guns to be dismantled in the home were struck down DC v Heller. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and your argument isn't worth the ether it is printed on.

Is anyone else interested in discussing this topic, because if Montmorency is going to continue hammering large square pegs into small round holes, there is no more point to this discussion

Quote:

---

there is no more point to this discussion

---

Especially as you have no arguments against my position other than 'Scalia has a different interpretation'.