Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms

Yeehaw! A great score for the constitution!

AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Originally Posted by :
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

Disappointingly, there are still idiots around:

Originally Posted by :
Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

So, the bill of rights doesn't apply there? No freedom of speech? :dizzy2:

From an appellate law site:
http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153

Originally Posted by :
BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.

According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

This makes me happy. Not only do we have a new federal court ruling the 2nd is an individual right (like all the other rights), but they declared trigger lock laws and the like unconstitutional!

Crazed Rabbit

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
So, the bill of rights doesn't apply there? No freedom of speech?

D.C. is a bit of an oddity, they do not enjoy the same model of representation that the rest of the country does, for example.

However its good to hear that the only dissent was on that basis.

[QUOTE=CRAZEDRABBIT]"Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."[QUOTE]

If you follow this to its logical conclusion, it could be argued that various state laws requiring that firearms be kept unloaded and in a case while being transported in a vehicle are also unconstitutional. If interpreted broadly, this case could even prohibit states from outlawing the carrying of firearms on one's person in public.

Well, no doubt they will appeal. Now you need to worry that the Supremes can actually read what the Constitution says.

Yes, it's going to appeal. DC won't just give up its tyranny easily. The SCOTUS decision could be very big.

CR

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Yeehaw! A great score for the constitution!

Agreed. The DC law was a blight on our freedoms. Let's hope it stand up to appeal.

Wow, you come across like a bunch of real rednecks.

You don't think firearms should be kept locked up and unloaded?

I can understand an aversion to an outright ban, but really.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
You don't think firearms should be kept locked up and unloaded?

Who said that? Making it a law is the issue.

You make it a law so that some idiot doesn't leave his gun out where his two year old can blow his own head off.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
You make it a law so that some idiot doesn't leave his gun out where his two year old can blow his own head off.

Cruise missile, Philipvs. After all cruse missiles are 'arms', too. So that some idiot doesn't leave his cruise missile out where his two year old can blow up the entire town.
Cruise missiles should be locked away safely in your bedroom closet.
:yes:

Okay, I'm definately liking the new username.

Adrian: What about ICBMs?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Adrian: What about ICBMs?

Exactly. And I'm thinking Stealth bombers as well.

After all I think I Homer Simpson said it best when he told Lisa: ‘If I didn't have my gun, the King of England could just waltz right in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Do you?’

Present-day interpretations of the right to bear arms are based on a totally antiquated notion, adequate in the days of Madison when there would be a real need to get together a citizen’s militia to defend the fledgling democracy against external and internal encroachments.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot Act more and more Americans fear for the restriction of their constitutional rights and liberties by the government. But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.

reminds me of a sketch in family guy where they are writing the constitution:

"Hey guys, you think this passage is clear enough?"

"How could it be misunderstood, every citizen has the right to hang a couple of bear arms on the walls(points at two bear arms on the wall)"

"yeah ok, but before we send this thing to the printer, lets remove this abortion thing..."

Seriously though, being european, I really can't see why on earth you wouldn't want to have big restrictions on weapons...

Ditto, owning them is fine intrinsically but you want to restrict ownership and make sure people are culpable for stupidity with deadly weapons. Of course you can take this too far.

Labour is planning on banning Samuri swords.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
Exactly. And I'm thinking Stealth bombers as well.

After all I think I Homer Simpson said it best when he told Lisa: ‘If I didn't have my gun, the King of England could just waltz right in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Do you?’

Present-day interpretations of the right to bear arms are based on a totally antiquated notion, adequate in the days of Madison when there would be a real need to get together a citizen’s militia to defend the fledgling democracy against external and internal encroachments.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot Act more and more Americans fear for the restriction of their constitutional rights and liberties by the government. But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.

Actually, within recent times, one well placed round has been known to have sparked drastic changes. There are plenty of gun laws on the books, punish the criminal who abuses them, not the vast majority of law abiding citizens who do not.

Heh, banning swords is a bit far... They're generally antiques and such...

But I don't see a single reason as to why anyone should be allowed to possess a weapon for any other use than hunting.

Defence? If I get robbed, they'll take my stuff. If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them. In my mind, a human life far outweigh the value of my TV set...

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito:
Actually, within recent times, one well placed round has been known to have sparked drastic changes. There are plenty of gun laws on the books, punish the criminal who abuses them, not the vast majority of law abiding citizens who do not.

Which one? The one in Serbia sparking off WWI? The one killing kennedy? The one killing Lennon?

A gun is made for killing other people. Owning a gun gives you the power to kill other people. Having people own guns, makes people shoot and kill other people. And it is FAR easier to kill someone(both physically, mentally and accidentally) with a gun, than say a knife. There is no other reason to get a gun than to be able to kill.

Coincidentally:

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pb...=2007703050350

Originally Posted by :
As customers watched in horror Sunday afternoon, a man stabbed a woman and attempted to set her on fire in the parking lot of a Jackson store, witnesses said.

The attack was stopped by a passer-by, who held the man at gunpoint until police arrived, witnesses said.

The suspect, Henry Watson, 42, was arrested and is expected to face aggravated assault charges, Jackson Police Department Cmdr. Lee Vance said. Watson's wife, Gracie Watson, 42, was transported to the University of Mississippi Medical center, where she was listed in good condition.

"It wasn't five minutes from when she had left my line when I heard a scream outside," said Theresa Stuckey, a cashier at the Family Dollar at 516 Nakoma Drive in Jackson. "I looked out, and (the attacker) was on top of her stabbing her, and stabbing her and stabbing her.

"She was screaming, 'Help, he's trying to kill me!' She was rolling on the ground, trying to get out of the way, but he kept stabbing her. He stabbed her about 20 times in the neck, back and arms."

As the attack continued, people were yelling at the man to stop and honking their horns, Stuckey said. She said she called 911.

"He was just standing over her hacking away," said Dolly Baker, who had just left the Save-A-Lot store next door when she saw the attack.

Baker said she watched the man pour gasoline on the victim then try to strike a match.

"He was literally trying to kill that lady in broad daylight," she said.

Baker said a passer-by stopped the attack.

"He told the man, 'Stop, or I'm going to shoot. And if you run, I'm going to kill you,' " Baker said.

The man held Watson at bay until police arrived at the scene.

"Right now, all we know is that (Watson) attacked his wife. For what reason, we don't know," Jackson Police Department Sgt. Eric Smith said.

Police said they are looking for the passer-by who stopped the attack and would like to talk to him but don't know who he is or where he went.

The incident occurred about 3:50 p.m.

Smith said he did not know exactly how many times Gracie Watson was stabbed but said it was more than 10 times.

I went to a range and fired a gun for the first time today. It's good fun. :yes:

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Defence? If I get robbed, they'll take my stuff. If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them. In my mind, a human life far outweigh the value of my TV set...

I disagree, plenty of people have been killed by robbers without trying to defend themselves. Plus there are always incidents like public shootings.

@ Sasaki: Yup, that can also happen. But more people are killed than saved, that's a fact you can't escape. And that episode could also be avoided without a gun...

@ Lignator: yes, they have, but still, if you have a gun in your hand, the chances of someone dying are drastically increased.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
A gun is made for killing other people.

Yes, most guns are. Some guns are actually made for hunting, skeet shooting, or target shooting. However, those guns are fairly effective for killing people too.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Owning a gun gives you the power to kill other people. . . And it is FAR easier to kill someone(both physically, mentally and accidentally) with a gun, than say a knife.

Absolutely

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
There is no other reason to get a gun than to be able to kill.

Well, this isn't entirely true. There are certainly other reasons for owning a gun. However, gaining the ability to kill someone who you could not hope to defeat without a gun is definitely one of the best reasons for buying one.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Having people own guns, makes people shoot and kill other people.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that this is just a poorly written sentence. After all, I've agreed with pretty much everything else you said.

Well, the thread isn't about guns used for sports or hunting, so I wasn't talking about those, I'm talking about the guns used for defense...

As for my english, probably right, I'm not english and it's in the middle of the night here...

What I meant was, if people are allowed to have firearms(not for hunting or sports), then there will be deaths caused by those weapons...If that is more understandable?

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
What I meant was, if people are allowed to have firearms(not for hunting or sports), then there will be deaths caused by those weapons...If that is more understandable?

Yes, that's what I thought you meant, and I hope you understand that I wasn't being sarcastic about giving you the benefit of the doubt.

There is no getting around the fact that some of the people who are murdered with firearms each year wouldn't have been murdered if the killer didn't have access to a firearm. There is also no getting around the fact that a very large number of the people who commit murder with a firearm possess it illegally. I know that "the criminals will have them anyway" is an old, crusty argument, but it's one that really can't be refuted logically and realistically.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them. In my mind, a human life far outweigh the value of my TV set...

I don't mean to keep picking on your posts, but I just couldn't let this one go. How can you assume that if a criminal did not expect you to have a gun, he wouldn't bring one along? Believe me, they aren't that chivalrous. I agree with you that no TV is worth a human life, but is your girlfriend? Since you seem to be going with a burglary scenario here, I will inform you that it is very common for burglars who unexpectedly encounter unprotected women during a break in to become rapists spontaneously. If your moral system doesn't allow the killing of a man to prevent a rape, then please consider that the burglar / rapist may not wish to leave a live witness to his crime.

Let's consider this scenario in a world where the government has managed to make ALL guns evaporate. How are you going to defend your girlfriend if this bad guy has a knife or a baseball (Cricket?) bat? What if he's just so much bigger than you that you and your girlfriend are defenseless against him? Suddenly, you might wish you had a gun.

People already have a very strong motive to prevent their children from hurting themselves with unsecured firearms-- they are, after all, their kids. If this isn't enough for gun owners to do the right thing, and one of their kids gets hurt, it's on them. The state's role in this case should be education-- regulation is nothing short of condescending and tyrannical.

Originally Posted by Proletariat:
Who said that? Making it a law is the issue.

I'll say it. :wink:

I regularly keep a gun in the house that's both loaded and unlocked. I sometimes even carry it on my person. There are different situations that suit different people- what I do may not be the best for everyone, but that's a poor reason to outlaw it. :yes:

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
I went to a range and fired a gun for the first time today. It's good fun. :yes:

Good for you, man. I find that's the single best way to "convert" people. I'm not saying this was your case, but many people who are uncomfortable with guns are so because they've never gotten the chance to safely use one. I've changed the minds of several family members/friends by taking them out for some target shooting. :2thumbsup:

Originally Posted by :
People already have a very strong motive to prevent their children from hurting themselves with unsecured firearms-- they are, after all, their kids. If this isn't enough for gun owners to do the right thing, and one of their kids gets hurt, it's on them. The state's role in this case should be education-- regulation is nothing short of condescending and tyrannical.

Quoted for truth.

Now then children , in regards to that keep guns locked away thing .
That American teenager in Michigan who succumbed to the terrible scourge of "spontaneous Jihad syndrome" that we have seen floated around here recently and went and shot someone in a school , the gun he used to commit murder belonged to his mother for her self defence and she had it locked away , but he knew where she kept the key .
It is a bit hard to legislate for that sort of thing isn't it .
Now it could be said that if the mother didn't have a gun then the son couldn't have taken it , or if the mother had kept the key he couldn't have found it .
Then again there is legislation that could have prevented this , she describes her child as stubborn , disturbed , disobedient and unruly.
She should have taken the boy to the city elders and they could have stoned him to death .

Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I'll say it. :wink:

So you have.

I regularly keep a gun in the house that's both loaded and unlocked. I sometimes even carry it on my person. There are different situations that suit different people- what I do may not be the best for everyone, but that's a poor reason to outlaw it. :yes:[/quote]

Prey tell where, in the countryside it's different, as you may concievable need a handgun for dealing with certain wildlife, such as snakes I suppose, or perhaps shooting your horse. In a city though there is no justification for a handgun. That doesn't alter the fact that having a loaded gun in your home is pure idiocy. If you don't have a hold of it it shouldn't be loaded.

Originally Posted by :
Good for you, man. I find that's the single best way to "convert" people. I'm not saying this was your case, but many people who are uncomfortable with guns are so because they've never gotten the chance to safely use one. I've changed the minds of several family members/friends by taking them out for some target shooting. :2thumbsup:

Just so you know, I'm a first class shot with an assault rifle.

Give up with the pointless arguments. It is clear that to most of the Americans here guns represent freedom whereas to most of the Europeans they represent quite the opposite. That isn't going to change through bickering on the rights and wrongs of the subject.

You might legitimately argue about the constitutional side of the issue though, since that is clearly open to doubt.

Originally Posted by Tribesman:
It is a bit hard to legislate for that sort of thing isn't it.

The Bill of Rights is perfectly clear on the matter, Tribesman, you know that. Americans are entitled to bear all arms that would be suitable in a well-regulated militia. People who restrain themselves to handguns and hunting rifles are clearly behind the times. Where is the National Cruise Missile Association when you need them?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Just so you know, I'm a first class shot with an assault rifle.

I'll add to that, though I wouldn't call me "first class", I did get the marksman badge for the AG3 rifle in the army.

While it was quite fun, it also assured me that such weapon should only be held by armed forces....

In a demonstration, an instructor shot at a dead pig, the damage done to it was simply absurd...

I always used to love the thing the'd do with blank rounds just before manuvers.

An apple at point blank range, one shot, no apple. Well, sometimes you could find the pieces.

Originally Posted by :
But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.

Would you say the US gov't is winning or losing in Iraq? Just curious.

Or, you are right about defeating the gov't with shotguns and revolvers; that's why all rifles and firearms should be available.

Originally Posted by :
You might legitimately argue about the constitutional side of the issue though, since that is clearly open to doubt.

Not really.

Originally Posted by :
If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them.

Why is it that, so often when this issue comes up, that antis need to make up some hypothetical situation that basically never happens? If crooks expect someone to be waiting with a gun, they don't go to that house.

Originally Posted by :
A gun is made for killing other people.

Then almost all owned by citizens are defective. Besides, if someone attacks me, I don't want something that's made to tickle him.

Originally Posted by :
In a city though there is no justification for a handgun.

LOL! Ever heard of crime in a city?

There are some 1 to 2 million defensive uses of guns per year in the US. Sasaki posted an example where a handgun in the city saved that woman's life, as it has saved many others.

Crazed Rabbit

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Would you say the US gov't is winning or losing in Iraq? Just curious.

I would say the US government is not exactly using its entire arsenal there... But even if it did, this would not infringe for a moment the right of American citizens to bear M1A1 tanks or ICBM's. It's all in the Bill.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I always used to love the thing the'd do with blank rounds just before manuvers.

An apple at point blank range, one shot, no apple. Well, sometimes you could find the pieces.

Was on an exercise once, I was in the intelligence battalion, and so don't normally fire our weapons on exercises(I was on an attack only once, and it turned out to be friendly recruits with poor identifying skills...). I was really expecting to be attacked by special forces that time, and when it was over, I was rather frustrated... So, we found various items, and shot them using blanks(7,62 AG3 round), with about 1 cm between the object and the nozzle...

A youghurt box was the most spectacular one, the bang was so loud we our ears were ringing for about a minute! All that remained was the bottom of the box...

Originally Posted by :
But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.

80 million people with guns is a lot of people. The army has what, ~1M? And you're assuming everyone in the army is going to take the side of the government.

America isn't going to use nuclear weapons on itself :dizzy2:

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
80 million people with guns is a lot of people. The army has what, ~1M? And you're assuming everyone in the army is going to take the side of the government.

America isn't going to use nuclear weapons on itself :dizzy2:

And, of course, all those rifles will cause serious trouble to artillery pieces shooting at you from a few km, and to the tanks, and will certainly inconvenience the jet fighters...~:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Blodrast:
And, of course, all those rifles will cause serious trouble to artillery pieces shooting at you from a few km, and to the tanks, and will certainly inconvenience the jet fighters...~:rolleyes:

~:rolleyes:

A dictatorship is only feasible if it can control the country without open warfare.

The government doesn't have a tank or a fighter for every city and town anyway.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
~:rolleyes:

A dictatorship is only feasible if it can control the country without open warfare.

The government doesn't have a tank or a fighter for every city and town anyway.

Ah, but a dictatorship doesn't need open warfare to control a country - only, at most, to take control of it. Check out China, NK, or other dictatorships of your preference. They don't have, or need, open warfare. Same goes for Eastern Europe - plenty of dictatorships there, but no "open warfare" that I can recall.

And, you can try playing with semantics as much as you want, although I think it's pointless - the gov't doesn't need one fighter/bomber/tank for each city... let's be realistic. Killing a significant number of the "rebels", as well as their leaders, usually suffices. One doesn't need to eliminate all rebels to be in control. Check out the Brits & the Irish - the Brits were in control, even with all the incidents that kept occurring - but it was faaar from "open warfare"...

Also, in reply to your previous post, nukes are not necessary to vaporize large areas - I'll bet you can still find some proof of that in Dresden, even after some 60 years...~;)

Originally Posted by Blodrast:
Ah, but a dictatorship doesn't need open warfare to control a country - only, at most, to take control of it.

That's all very well, but the Second Amendment doesn't talk about who needs what to do what to whom.

It recognizes every American's right to bear nuclear submarines &cetera.

Originally Posted by Blodrast:
Ah, but a dictatorship doesn't need open warfare to control a country - only, at most, to take control of it. Check out China, NK, or other dictatorships of your preference. They don't have, or need, open warfare. Same goes for Eastern Europe - plenty of dictatorships there, but no "open warfare" that I can recall.

And, you can try playing with semantics as much as you want, although I think it's pointless - the gov't doesn't need one fighter/bomber/tank for each city... let's be realistic. Killing a significant number of the "rebels", as well as their leaders, usually suffices. One doesn't need to eliminate all rebels to be in control. Check out the Brits & the Irish - the Brits were in control, even with all the incidents that kept occurring - but it was faaar from "open warfare"...

Also, in reply to your previous post, nukes are not necessary to vaporize large areas - I'll bet you can still find some proof of that in Dresden, even after some 60 years...~;)

Hey, it worked once didn't it? Although the British weren't really that oppressive lol.

The gov't isn't going to bomb all of it's cities. It would cripple itself if it did so. So instead they would have to take on 80M or so citizens who know how to shoot, many of whom are ex-military. I don't know why you bring up other countries in this scenario.

Personally I don't think the scenario is at all likely and don't see at as a big argument in favor of guns. It's more important as a deterrent to invaders really. There's some quote from a Japanese admiral to that effect I believe.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
A gun is made for killing other people.

That's like saying a fast car is made for running from the police.



And Adrian, I understand your being facetious. But one can hardly use a cruise missile in self defense, unless someone invents a cruise missile that "only kills the bad guys". Militias, remember, are for supporting the law, and killing innocent bystanders is against the law.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
America isn't going to use nuclear weapons on itself :dizzy2:

Errr....who can guarantee that if good honest citizens are denied the right to their own nukes ? Who will stop them if they do ?

I say the government needs to fear the people more, I'm going to start a charity for my oppressed US brethren, the goal will be to provide assault rifles and ammo to the people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford them, like the homeless and people living in impoverished (urban) areas. :hmg:

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
And Adrian, I understand your being facetious. But one can hardly use a cruise missile in self defense, unless someone invents a cruise missile that "only kills the bad guys". Militias, remember, are for supporting the law, and killing innocent bystanders is against the law.

Where in the Bill of Rights does it say 'self-defense'? It just says 'arms' without restrictive qualifications. And we don't want to go 'activist' on this issue, do we?

The right of the American people to bear laser guns and cluster bombs shall not be infringed.

Trolls to the left of me, trolls to the right....who will rid me of these troublesome unarmed trolls?:laugh4:

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito:
Trolls to the left of me, trolls to the right....who will rid me of these troublesome unarmed trolls?:laugh4:

Well, as long as you're armed, you should have no problem. :beam:

I agree with Adrian.

Arms does not mean personal weapons only.

When promulgated, the 2nd ammendment seemed simple enough. Most military power in the USA was in the hands of the citizenry in the form of their state/county militias. The standing army was miniscule in size. The navy was completely demobilized after the revolution -- getting it started up again was debated and there was sizeable opposition since many thought it would breed trouble.

A sizeable portion of the voters agreeing to the Constitution did so ONLY because of the promised ammendments including this right. Many of them did conceive of this as a guarantee that they would always have the right to "go to the mattresses" and protect themselves against the federal government by force of arms. Read a little Patrick Henry.

This suggests, of course, that if the ability to overthrow the government is involved, the ability to acquire weapons so capable should not be restricted. Airpower and AFV's seem necessary, though nukes might be excessive.

Currently, most of our self-styled militias are peopled with whack-jobs and tinfoil hatters, since -- as an agregate -- the people are not feeling themselves to be under the heel of the boot.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Currently, most of our self-styled militias are peopled with whack-jobs and tinfoil hatters, since -- as an agregate -- the people are not feeling themselves to be under the heel of the boot.

How many countries have had an organised uprising of the people ? Even in peaceful 'revolutions' like ukrain a few years back there was a large part of the country that wanted to keep things the way they were.

Besides, the second amendment doesn't state why you should have those weapons (well except to form militia's, but not what they're for) it just says your right to arms shouldn't be infringed. So why is your right to owning a nuclear submarine being infringed ?

This whole idea about Nukes being under the right to bear arms is only an argument made by the unreasonable. However if you need a contitutional reason, I'll go way way way way way out on a limb and say it could come into play with the commerce clause. Follow me because this is a damn slippery slope, but the Supreme Court has ruled on rights of the individual before in similar cases. If a local jurisdiction or even individual right has the ability to have a significant effect on the state of commerce (in its many forms), the federal goverment can claim jurisdiction.

As an example, and purposely a poor one, a rich potato Tycoon in some fringe right wing radical militia of Idaho would have the potential to disrupt negatively the current of commerce.

just one question...

what about the right to arm bears?....is that allowed?:juggle2:

Originally Posted by Ronin:
just one question...

what about the right to arm Bears?....is that allowed?:juggle2:

Chicago shouldn't be allowed any more advantage than they're already gonna have, this next season.

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus:
This whole idea about Nukes being under the right to bear arms is only an argument made by the unreasonable.

Prove it.

I think the 'unreasonable' are doing a good job showing that the literal interpretation of this Second Amendment is the truly unreasonable approach. It says 'arms', my friend, not 'arms up to the size of a .30 Browing submachine gun'. Equally, there is nothing in its wording that would render the concealment of your heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles obligatory when you take you dog for a walk.

Any argument that purports to show a restriction inherent to this Amendment is necessarily going to based on notions of proportionality, historicity and context as used by gun control proponents.

The cowardly politicians, fearful people might stick up for themselves, are quick to demand those uppity peasants shut up:

http://www.nbc4.com/news/11213595/de...=headlineclick

Originally Posted by :
D.C. Leaders Vow To Fight Ruling On Handgun Ban
City Likely To Appeal To Higher Court

WASHINGTON -- City leaders are vowing to fight a federal court's decision to strike down D.C.'s long-standing ban on handguns.

In a 2-1 decision, a federal appeals court rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals, "nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

"We intend to do everything in our power to work to get this decision overturned," D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said. "In the meantime, we will vigorously enforce our handgun law."

A lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

President George W. Bush's administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

The District can either ask the full court of appeals to hear the case or appeal to the Supreme Court.

The city can also ask for a stay of the ruling while appealing to a higher court, which would mean there would be no immediate effect on the city's handgun laws.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said he will fight the decision.

"I am strongly opposed to the Court's decision," he said. "District residents deserve every protection afforded to them under District law. I will instruct my attorney general and the solicitor general to explore every legal option that will uphold the city's gun ban."

A statement released Friday afternoon said the city will petition the full Court of Appeals for rehearing, and the current handgun law will remain in effect and will continue to be enforced at least until April 9.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in almost 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

Even as the appeals court overturned the D.C. ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

Such restrictions might include gun registration to provide the government with information about how many people would be armed if militia service was required, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.

It has been illegal to own or possess a handgun in D.C. since Feb. 5, 1977, unless that gun was registered with the city prior to that time.

With the exception of law enforcement officials, no new registrations of handguns have been allowed.

There is a different standard for rifles and shotguns. Those guns must be registered with D.C. police, and there are many restrictions on who can register such guns, including a minimum age of 21 unless cosponsored by a guardian, a vision test and no violent crime convictions. When rifles or shotguns are brought into the District, D.C. police must be notified, and the guns must be registered within 48 hours.

D.C. Council Member Phil Mendelson has scheduled a hearing that will focus on gun control and gun violence. The hearing will be held on March 21.

"This ruling is frightening in its scope," Mendelson said. "It has national implications with regard to gun control statutes across the county. It's the first time that a federal court has sad that the Second Amendment restricts or prohibits gun control."

Preliminary D.C. police statistics show that 267 gun-involved robberies and assaults were reported during the first six weeks of 2007, compared with 181 in the same period in 2006, Mendelson said.

"This situation will likely worsen if the court's decision is not overturned," he said. "Guns are too commonplace, already."

A spokeswoman for the district attorney general's office would not comment on the ruling.

I love how the mayor says this is somehow a protection to the residents of DC, as though a law that criminalizes harmless behavior somehow protects people. I guess he really does think of his subjects as idiot children to be nannied over.

And I love in a non-sarcastic way how the councilman is frightened by the fact that he might be impeded in passing any law he wants by the constitution, that his control over the people might be compromised by rights.

A light has been shone into that dark recess, and the cockroaches are scared.

Crazed Rabbit

Originally Posted by :
Trolls to the left of me, trolls to the right....who will rid me of these troublesome unarmed trolls?

When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic. :beam:

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
Exactly. And I'm thinking Stealth bombers as well.

After all I think I Homer Simpson said it best when he told Lisa: ‘If I didn't have my gun, the King of England could just waltz right in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Do you?’

Present-day interpretations of the right to bear arms are based on a totally antiquated notion, adequate in the days of Madison when there would be a real need to get together a citizen’s militia to defend the fledgling democracy against external and internal encroachments.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot Act more and more Americans fear for the restriction of their constitutional rights and liberties by the government. But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.

No, no Adrian. That makes far to much sense. IT'S OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO OWN A (Insert various weapons here).

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
Prove it.

Actually I pointed out how the possession of such weapons would fall under federal discretion due to the commerce clause alone.

That is much more reasonable than to state we should all have them since we are allowed to bear arms. :dizzy2:

Much more important to realize by any citizen of the U.S. and more so by those who aren't but only hear the rhetoric from or about its contitution and bill of rights is that there are ZERO absolute rights. Every right afforded to the individual is a balance played in the Supreme Court against the welfare of society and its function..ie commerce.

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus:
Much more important to realize by any citizen of the U.S. and more so by those who aren't but only hear the rhetoric from or about its contitution and bill of rights is that there are ZERO absolute rights.

You're one step away of saying that just because the constitution says you're right shouldn't be infringed it doesn't mean you have that right...

The Bill of Rights was written with the idea that those were 'god given' and thus absolute rights. Any 'interpretation' based on 'reason' is pure judicial activism. I'm not saying that isn't a good thing from time to time, but it is clearly stepping away from both the letter and the spirit of the constitution.

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus:
Actually I pointed out how the possession of such weapons would fall under federal discretion due to the commerce clause alone.

Yes, I saw that of course.

I also saw you describing your argument thus: 'I'll go way way way way way out on a limb and say it could come into play with the commerce clause. Follow me because this is a damn slippery slope (..)'.

As far as I understand, the commerce clause only grants Congress the exclusive right to 'regulate' commerce with foreign nations, among the States, and with the Indian Tribes. In no way does this speak to the right acknowledged in the Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by doc_bean:
You're one step away of saying that just because the constitution says you're right shouldn't be infringed it doesn't mean you have that right...

The Bill of Rights was written with the idea that those were 'god given' and thus absolute rights. Any 'interpretation' based on 'reason' is pure judicial activism. I'm not saying that isn't a good thing from time to time, but it is clearly stepping away from both the letter and the spirit of the constitution.

You see only the rhetoric and not the substance. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled from the very beginning that there are no absolute rights, from free speech to weapons. I'll say it again, the Bill of Rights are balanced in the Supreme Court against the welfare of society. What do you think the Supreme Court does? Sit around and wait to protect Timmy the town idiot and his right to smear feces on himself?

If anyone has problems understanding this I'll give a plain, extremely simple, in your face example..often used in U.S. Government 101 at liberal and conservative campuses alike. You cannot go into a crowded theater and yell "FIRE" with the purpose of creating a panic. I can give you another example that will be even less difficult for people to comprehend, human sacrifice. Human sacrifice has been ruled not within the bounds of religous freedom, even by the willing, yet animal sacrifice has been...why I wonder.

The law is perfectly clear, every citizen has the right to have bear arms. I guess you could make a bear arm into a gun however... It should be legal to own a 7.62 mm Assault Bear Arm.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
As far as I understand, the commerce clause only grants Congress the exclusive right to 'regulate' commerce with foreign nations, among the States, and with the Indian Tribes. In no way does this speak to the right acknowledged in the Second Amendment.

Yes, this was an extreme example, but if you read the court cases within the scope of the above, the rights of individuals in that scope are regulated.

At the time the constitition was written, the weapons of the day were quite different. If you read quotes from the founders, you can see they thought self defense was a right americans should have. The 2nd amendment is interpretted in that context.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
Yes, I saw that of course.

I also saw you describing your argument thus: 'I'll go way way way way way out on a limb and say it could come into play with the commerce clause. Follow me because this is a damn slippery slope (..)'.

As far as I understand, the commerce clause only grants Congress the exclusive right to 'regulate' commerce with foreign nations, among the States, and with the Indian Tribes. In no way does this speak to the right acknowledged in the Second Amendment.

The commerce clause also deals with interstate trade. If the weapon is made in New Jersey, the Federal Government has the ability to regulate the foundries business and trade to New York.

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to keep and bear arms, it states nothing about preventing the government from regulating trade of weapons across state lines.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
The commerce clause also deals with interstate trade. If the weapon is made in New Jersey, the Federal Government has the ability to regulate the foundries business and trade to New York.

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to keep and bear arms, it states nothing about preventing the government from regulating trade of weapons across state lines.

Yes, in fact it can even be simpler. All there has to be is a tax on that type of product and it falls within the federal scope. See Also ATF

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus:
Yes, this was an extreme example, but if you read the court cases within the scope of the above, the rights of individuals in that scope are regulated.

And regulations enacted by Congress top the Constitution? I don't think so.

The Second Amendment refers to the perpetuation of free government by the people, in that the people can not be oppressed if they are not first disarmed. The right to bear arms is therefore absolute; it is not granted, but proudly acknowledged by the sovereign convention of the American people in its Bill of Rights. Congress can pass no law upon it, nor impair it by regulation. The right to bear nuclear suitcases is one of the 'high powers' pertaining to the citizens, independent of law-making.

@Redleg. Good to see you're back, hope your house deal turns out well. And on topic: yes, I am aware of all that, I have read Lopez (1995).

At the new bass pro shop there is a fine gun room its the coolest thing I ever seen. To me its not about if but how many. :laugh4:

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
And regulations enacted by Congress top the Constitution? I don't think so.

The Bill of Rights negates the role and function of the Supreme Court? I don't think so...

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
The Second Amendment refers to the perpetuation of free government by the people, in that the people can not be oppressed if they are not first disarmed.

True.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
The right to bear arms is therefore absolute; it is not granted, but proudly acknowledged by the sovereign convention of the American people in its Bill of Rights. Congress can pass no law upon it, nor impair it by regulation.

*Insert the plethora of Acts enacted here*

and their constitutionality

U.S. Supreme Court (and that darn balancing act necessary for government for and by a free people)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The freedom of speech and of the press
(article 1) does not permit the publication of libels,
blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications
injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right
of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not
infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed
weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if
upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the
verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion . . . nor
does the provision of the same article that no one shall be
a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify,
if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time,
a pardon, or by statutory enactment . . . Nor does the
provision that an accused person shall be confronted with
the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying
declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died
since the former trial.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
The right to bear nuclear suitcases is one of the 'high powers' pertaining to the citizens, independent of law-making.

Nuclear suitcases can fall under regulation in so many ways its not even worth discussing further unless you just like to throw stones at a hornets nest. If you want to go to the integrity of law then we don't have to look any further than the principle of self defense against each other and against one's government. To claim nuclear status as a right of arms is to turn the principle on itself as there is no self defense against the nuclear weapon. We can also go to the nature of the weapon.

U.S. Supreme Court (and that darn balancing act necessary for government for and by a free people)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon,
it being of the character before described as being intended
by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of
that unqualified character. The citizens may bear them for
the common defence; but it does not follow that they may be
borne by an individual, merely to terrify the people or for
purposes of private assassination. And, . . . the
Legislature may prohibit such manner of wearing as would
never be resorted to by persons engaged in the common
defence."

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus:
The Bill of Rights negates the role and function of the Supreme Court? I don't think so...

Your quotes make little sense without source and context.

I believe the USSC has never directly addressed the issue of the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. From the inception of the Republic onward, however, the familiar two schools of interpretation have often competed. And the USSC has always come down on the side of regulation and restriction.

In three out of four cases the Court ruled that the Amendment limited the powers of Congress, not those of the States, to regulate or restrict the individual possession of arms. The State laws that restricted gun ownership to Protestants or whites were happily sustained.

In the fourth, the Court ruled that even a weapon as innocent as a sawed-off shotgun in the hands of some poor sob did not qualify as a weapon that could be used in a militia and could hence be outlawed. I quote Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen 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.

It is obvious that the USSC has always been activist to the core, ready to discriminate non-whites, poor sobs and prospective purveyors and buyers of battlefield nukes for legitimate self-defense.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
. Congress can pass no law upon it, nor impair it by regulation. The right to bear nuclear suitcases is one of the 'high powers' pertaining to the citizens, independent of law-making.

@Redleg. Good to see you're back, hope your house deal turns out well. And on topic: yes, I am aware of all that, I have read Lopez (1995).

Incorrect Adrian within the body of the constitution the Congress can regulate several things that while it does not remove the right to keep and bear arms it has an impact on it.

For examble explosives are not considered arms, hince the nuclear suitcase can be regulated based upon the other clauses within the constitution. Same thing can be applied concerning other types of ordance, versus weapons.

Still waiting on the final paperwork, on the house, but it looks like it happen as planned. BTW the railroad is a great job, even though it is one of the more dangerous civilian careers around.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
Your quotes make little sense without source and context.

They should be able to be interpreted plainly, yes? They are however the courts opinions in challenges to Acts regulating firearms you can take your pick and you'll pretty much find those opines in most, in essence and directly in 2.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
I believe the USSC has never directly addressed the issue of the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

They have many times and often in cases where the integrity to the decision is the individuals right.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
From the inception of the Republic onward, however, the familiar two schools of interpretation have often competed. And the USSC has always come down on the side of regulation and restriction.

Not by a long shot when it comes to what you call restriction and you forget the elongated process to beginning regulation. They don't just throw hazard regulation without it being forged on the basis of constitutionality. Hence the challenge to regulation in the USSC is a bar set high.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
In three out of four cases the Court ruled that the Amendment limited the powers of Congress, not those of the States, to regulate or restrict the individual possession of arms. The State laws that restricted gun ownership to Protestants or whites were happily sustained.

3 out of which 4?

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
In the fourth, the Court ruled that even a weapon as innocent as a sawed-off shotgun in the hands of some poor sob did not qualify as a weapon that could be used in a militia and could hence be outlawed. I quote Miller:

If I remember correctly this was a challenge to the Title II weapon classification as it fell under the ATF. There is much more I believe, so you might want to quote the decision and opinions in its entirety or provide a link to findlaw or something.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
It is obvious that the USSC has always been activist to the core, ready to discriminate non-whites, poor sobs and prospective purveyors and buyers of battlefield nukes for legitimate self-defense.

I don't think I've stepped in stuff that smelled as bad as that opinion my friend.

Have to cut this one short as my daughter is pulling on the arm to play...will return, but I'm anxious to hear more

Originally Posted by Redleg:
For examble explosives are not considered arms (..)

How so? And by whom?

Originally Posted by Redleg:
BTW the railroad is a great job, even though it is one of the more dangerous civilian careers around.

Well, it's not as if you ever walked away from danger in your life. ~ ;)
Just don't take that left track in Albuquerque...

Wish I had the time to go into all of this and what is wrong with the system…too darn late this evening!

The Supreme Court derives it ability to declare laws unconstitutional not for it position but as the highest Jury of the land….go back and check…

Regulations are not laws but rules made by Federal Agencies like the ATF
They carry the force of law only because Congress more or less allows it so…but very questionable at best…but just try to fight it in court…

The interstate commerce clause is the catch all for congress to circumvent much too much that they were otherwise prohibited from acting on….

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus:
I don't think I've stepped in stuff that smelled as bad as that opinion my friend.

Neither did I ever leave something like it behind, my friend. As you will have understood by now, it is my view that the Second itself is starting to smell to high heaven. To paraphrase Marx' words on Feuerbach: stop interpreting it, change it.

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus:
Have to cut this one short as my daughter is pulling on the arm to play...will return, but I'm anxious to hear more,

That is the most disarming argument in this entire thread. I will of course desist. ~;)

LoL. He said "disarming". :giggle:

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
As you will have understood by now, it is my view that the Second itself is starting to smell to high heaven. To paraphrase Marx' words on Feuerbach: stop interpreting it, change it.

The problem with a concrete code of law which lacks for the need of interpretation is that it cannot be lasting.

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus:
The problem with a concrete code of law which lacks for the need of interpretation is that it cannot be lasting.

The margin of interpretation can be considerably reduced for our time.

Some time ago I was struck by an article on the topic by Californina Law Professor Calvin Massey: Guns, Extremists and the Constitution (2002).

Massey states that American courts, including the States Supreme Courts and the Federal Supreme Court, have taken diverse and contrary positions on the issue of individual arms ownership. But he also contends that there has always been common ground and that this is worth exploring.

The undeniable theme of the arms right is defense - collective and individual. Collective defense is the melody of the theme, but the repeated sound of individual defense is the harmony. The arms right is not just about the right to die in uniform; it is about defending ourselves, our loved ones, our community, our nation, from those who would harm what we value. Not only is there evidence, albeit contested, that a personal self-defense right was part of the original specific intent of the Second Amendment's framers, and additional evidence that a considerable portion of the polity gave it that construction over the ensuing century or so, the personal self-defense interpretation comports with the slightly more general intent of defense. Our nation is no longer defended by citizen-soldiers. We are not Switzerland, where an armed cadre of citizen soldiers continues to form the core of national defense. Ambient circumstances have changed; the "common defense" purpose of the Second Amendment has shriveled into a useless raisin. But the need to defend against ordinary criminality is, unfortunately, still with us, and the right to defend against criminal assault is surely not useless.

I have to say the 'useless raisin' didn't quite take my fancy. I would put it more graphically: it is as if the Second has only one leg left to stand on. That is the individual self-defense leg. The collective self-defense leg has shrivelled to the point of nonexistence. However, the owner is suffering from severe phantom pain.

Massey goes on to explain the main reason for the acrimony that renders present-day debate of the Second so futile:

One of the reasons why the gun debate is so polarized is because many gun owners simply do not believe the disclaimers of gun controllers that they do not intend to confiscate all private firearms. Indeed, the currently fashionable trend to describe firearms as a public health problem, as if guns were a pathogenic organism like smallpox virus, exacerbates this fear because the logical response to equating guns to smallpox is to eradicate the noxious pathogen.176 Because gun owners do not believe that gun controllers will be content with any control scheme short of abolition of private possession of firearms, they tend to overinflate their claim of constitutional entitlement. The result is a "debate" that is an angry shouting match from very long distance. Admitting that the arms right includes a private right to possess firearms for individual self-defense provides some measure of comfort to gun owners and simultaneously denies the grossly inflated claim that firearms ownership is an absohite right or that it includes the right to pack a Ryder truck full of ammonia fertilizer and diesel oil and detonate the package in front of a federal office building. Of course, this will not satisfy either the hard-core abolitionists or the fanatic insurrectionists, but I am not interested in an interpretation of constitional law that panders to extremists and lunatics.

Note the opposition of nightmares in this passages: the fear of total eradication of handguns versus the fear of low-intensity civil wars waged by the militia movement.

What this article suggests to me, is that there may be a possible 'historic' deal (akin, in a way, to the Northern Ireland peace accord) between hardcore abolitionists and hardcore militia freaks. The deal would be that the (illusive) right to collective self-defense of the militia movement is traded against the (illusory) ideal of total gun control of the abolitionists.

A future Second would have to be so formulated that the right to ownership of arms suitable for individual self-defense is acknowledged, whilst the right to own and bear arms for any other purpose then individual self-defense is prohibited. Exemptions can be made for hunting and sports along the lines of many present-day States Acts regulating gun ownership.

Of course this is an ilusion on my part. As a non-American all of this is none of my business anyway. But it beats the assignment I am on at the moment, my kids are asleep and so is the love of my life, and I am out of cognac.

Where is Louis when you need him?

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The law is perfectly clear, every citizen has the right to have bear arms. I guess you could make a bear arm into a gun however... It should be legal to own a 7.62 mm Assault Bear Arm.

Originally Posted by Adrian II:
It is obvious that the USSC has always been activist to the core, ready to discriminate non-whites, poor sobs and prospective purveyors and buyers of battlefield nukes for legitimate self-defense.

Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Then again there is legislation that could have prevented this , she describes her child as stubborn , disturbed , disobedient and unruly.
She should have taken the boy to the city elders and they could have stoned him to death .

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Just wanted to say thanks, had a great laugh with these and other posts.:2thumbsup:

Well, on topic, I still live in the german dictatorship that bans knives with a blade longer than 20cm and all sorts of other weapons.
but then again, we learned our lesson and don't elect warmongering criminals into the government anymore.
:wizard:

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
At the time the constitition was written, the weapons of the day were quite different. If you read quotes from the founders, you can see they thought self defense was a right americans should have. The 2nd amendment is interpretted in that context.

:2thumbsup:

Out of curiosity were private citizens allowed to own cannons back in the day? With all the arguments of tanks and jets I'm just curious whether antique artillery is out of line.

Adrian:

You make one compelling point in your disagreement with 2nd -- the times have indeed changed. You point to the "shriveling" of the common defense as enacted by the citizenry as undercutting the need for such a right, or at least preserving that right in a more curtailed form than originally penned (which, I agree, by using the term ARMS was meant to include any and all weaponry).

For me, it is actually the sea-change we have undergone in the basic framework of the republic. At its founding, the United States was a confederacy of sovereign states. This was deemed too balkanized a situation and most of the FF wanted some greater measure of stability and thus the Constitution was born. Each state was still sovereign, but had voluntarily passed certain powers to the national government to provide a degree of consistency and stability -- particularly in interstate commerce and international relations -- while retaining most sovereign power and agreeing in common to the preservation of certain individual rights deemed crucial to the purpose of limiting government and preventing tyranny.

This national form was grievously wounded by Lincoln's effective prosecution of the Civil War. States could be sovereign but, once having become a part of the United States could not sunder themselves from that polity by any means (there is substantial evidence that a significant portion of the FF would have disagreed with this). Thus the Federal government ceased to be an umbrella and became an overseer.

The 16th and 17th ammendments created the means to eradicate the power of the states more or less completely. The 16th inaugurated direct taxation of individuals by the federal government, allowing congress to do more than tax interstate commerce or international trade and giving the federal government the "ultimate" revenue tool [it was, of course, passed fairly readily -- after all, it was only for 1% of the income of top earners like the Vanderbilts and didn't affect the regular guy -- the soak it to the rich theme is an old one in politics]. Prior to this (save during war), National funds were the product of these commerce taxes and monies granted to the federal government by the states.

The 17th ammendment was an open and shut decision. What could be more democratic than removing the selection of U.S. Senators from the "smoke-filled rooms" of the state legislatures and allowing votes by the people of those states? Democratic, no doubt, but now BOTH branches of Congress have a directly vested interest in pandering to the voters and the state leadership is of comparatively little importance to them.

With this springboard, and aided by national crises (Depression, WW2, ColdWar), the F. Roosevelt and Johnson administrations (notably, but to be fair it is NOT as though Eisenhower or Nixon or Carter, or either Bush did a lot to alter this, and Reagan's efforts in this vein didn't go nearly as far as his rhetoric) brought the federal government into direct administration of services and many (most) aspects of every citizen's life.

Together, these events have shifted the United States from a Union of States to a Federal Government with numerous prefectures called states. In this context, the Federal government is keeping the issue and debate thereof firmly centered on personal weaponry.

Many of our liberals really do want to ban and confiscate personal guns. They view the government as the source of our protection and see a monopoly of force by that government as a powerful tool to decrease deadly violence. Many of our conservatives view this as an attack on their individual rights, and doubt the government's ability to provide better protection than they can create for themselves.

But you are correct, Adrian, in that the country for which this ammendment of individual rights was penned no longer exists. My preference would be to reform the country itself towards a style wherein that right was of greater purpose -- not to reform the ammendment to more aptly fit the nation as is. The trend of history suggests to me, however, that I am doing little more than pissing in the wind. I shall now conclude this rant, and go find some dry pants.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
For examble explosives are not considered arms, hince the nuclear suitcase can be regulated based upon the other clauses within the constitution. Same thing can be applied concerning other types of ordance, versus weapons.

Does this mean that the government can say...."alright...you can have all the rifles and other guns you want, but as of this moment it is illegal for you to own any gunpowder" :idea2:

that works for me....without gunpowder even a .50 cal sniper rifle is just a fancy stick.......and since gunpowder is an explosive, and explosives ownership isn´t protected by the constitution.....well....:laugh4:

The comedian, Chris Rock, had an interesting solution, make bullets $5000 a piece....:laugh4:

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito:
The comedian, Chris Rock, had an interesting solution, make bullets $5000 a piece....:laugh4:

*Thinks of Uzis and MAC-10s with insane rates of fire* :2thumbsup: