Gun Control

[Gawain of Orkeny]

so the second amendment (when you read all of it, and not just the "quotable" part) seems to mean that the right to bear arms is necessary, so that a well regulated militia can be formed and maintained for the security of the state......-> meaning you need guns for the army....how you get from that to "any civilian has the right to carry a gun" is a jump of logic I haven´t been able to achieve yet..... i´ll try to keep working on it....

You just answered you own question. You just said that in order to form a well regulated militia you need guns. We have already ponited out that the militia is not the army so the part about 'meaning you need guns for the army' doesnt apply. The militia needs to be armed. That once more means every able bodied man so that when called up they can fight at a moments notice. If they only wanted the army armed they would have said that.

[Redleg]

so the second amendment (when you read all of it, and not just the "quotable" part) seems to mean that the right to bear arms is necessary, so that a well regulated militia can be formed and maintained for the security of the state......-> meaning you need guns for the army....how you get from that to "any civilian has the right to carry a gun" is a jump of logic I haven´t been able to achieve yet..... i´ll try to keep working on it....

It could because your leaving out an important part in your reading of the
2nd Amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The amendment clearly states that the right of the people. Avoiding those words is the error you have committed in your reasoning.

[Ronin]

You just answered you own question. You just said that in order to form a well regulated militia you need guns. We have already ponited out that the militia is not the army so the part about 'meaning you need guns for the army' doesnt apply. The militia needs to be armed. That once more means every able bodied man so that when called up they can fight at a moments notice. If they only wanted the army armed they would have said that.

terms and reality changes with times.....the US army(and the navy etc.) is the modern equivalent of the "militia" mentioned in the text.

One of the big problems I think you guys have is that you read and interpret the US constitution like it was written yesterday when parts of it are 200+ years old.....you can´t take a text that old literally word for word, it just won´t make sense nowadays just like it wouldn´t make sense for me go around speaking 17th century portuguese.

[Ronin]

It could because your leaving out an important part in your reading of the
2nd Amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The amendment clearly states that the right of the people. Avoiding those words is the error you have committed in your reasoning.

yes I read that part.....

but the first part of the phrase clearly states the objective of that right of the people -> "to maintain a well regulated militia"

there is a diference between saying

"you have a right to have arms in order to build up a militia"
and
"you have a right to have arms"

the first version clearly states a purpose for the existance of those guns right?....while the second gives the idea you can have guns and do anything you want with them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

terms and reality changes with times.....the US army(and the navy etc.) is the modern equivalent of the "militia" mentioned in the text.

One of the big problems I think you guys have is that you read and interpret the US constitution like it was written yesterday when parts of it are 200+ years old.....you can´t take a text that old literally word for word, it just won´t make sense nowadays just like it wouldn´t make sense for me go around speaking 17th century portuguese.

No, the armed forces are not the equivalent of militias. Standing armies like you mentioned are what the founders feared as oppressors of the people. You are right in that we can't use our modern meaning of words to read the consitution. Consider, briefly, the 'well-regulated' term and this federalist paper:

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

"Well regulated" would then mean something different from well controlled by laws and rules, and rather closer to a state of preparedness after long training. (see more evidence here:http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html)
This leads me to disagree with Redleg:

The government has rightly determined that certain types of weapons are for military purposes and the citizens do not have the right to own them, as one can argue successful given the first part of the amendment.

I would say the government has wrongly determined that. The whole purpose of the amendment was ensuring the people are equipped with military weapons. In US vs Miller, for example, the supreme court upheld the NFA because the gov't was prosecuting a sawed off shotgun owner, and the court believed that these were not military weapons, and so did not fall under the protection of the 2nd.

Anyways, after that 'brief' digression, we return to the meaning of militia. The founders thought of the militia as the whole body of people in the nation:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed ... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations ... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. - George Mason

Once again, I encourage all to read the senate report on the meaning and history of the second amendment:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

Crazed Rabbit

[Haudegen]

"Well regulated" would then mean something different from well controlled by laws and rules, and rather closer to a state of preparedness after long training. (see more evidence here:http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html)
This leads me to disagree with Redleg:

I would say the government has wrongly determined that. The whole purpose of the amendment was ensuring the people are equipped with military weapons. In US vs Miller, for example, the supreme court upheld the NFA because the gov't was prosecuting a sawed off shotgun owner, and the court believed that these were not military weapons, and so did not fall under the protection of the 2nd.

I´m interested in your personal opinion. Would you like it if every citizen had access to military weapons?




I´ve partly read your link:

Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

I think that the founding fathers could not imagine the development of weapons that can be carried by one man but that have the power of an "ordinance" (--> Machineguns, bazookas, handgranades or maybe Sci-Fi-stuff like the Star Trek phasers that may be available one day in the future)

Therefore I think the word "arms" has to be restictively defined by the legislation or government.

Sidenote: If the 2nd Amendment basically guarantees the right of the people to own military weapons, that would exclude for example weapons for hunting or sports. Interesting.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I´m interested in your personal opinion. Would you like it if every citizen had access to military weapons?

Every law-abiding (as in no felonies) citizen should be able to own fully automatic machine guns if they want.

I think that the founding fathers could not imagine the development of weapons that can be carried by one man but that have the power of an "ordinance" (--> Machineguns, bazookas, handgranades or maybe Sci-Fi-stuff like the Star Trek phasers that may be available one day in the future)

This is an invalid argument. The consitution stands as it is, and one cannot change its meaning by speculation. Also, though they may not have imagined it, they would support the citizenry being able to own such weapons. Your argument is akin to arguing that free speech does not apply to speech spread with computers, radios, TVs, modern printing presses, etc.

Sidenote: If the 2nd Amendment basically guarantees the right of the people to own military weapons, that would exclude for example weapons for hunting or sports. Interesting.

It gurantees the right to arms. Besides, a hunting rifle is basically similar to military sniper rifles.

Oh, and well said Aenlic. Support for gun rights (and all rights) should not be classified according to liberals and conservatives.

Crazed Rabbit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Crazed Rabbit posted an excellent review piece earlier in this thread.

"Militia" is a term drawn, as are so many of our early concepts, from English Common Law and history. The militia was the whole of the armed citizenry. This is distinct and separate from an army raised to go to war or a standing professional military -- which, however small, we had from the outset.

"Well regulated" was a reference that outlined that the militia must be guided and responsible to their local government, following reasonable regulations of service promulgated by same. This was to prevent 16 blokes from taking their guns, naming themselves a militia and then claiming the legal right to attack and kill as they pleased. Such can still happen, but it would NOT be sanctioned.

[Banquo's Ghost]

This has developed into a fascinating discussion on the Second Amendment. Thank you guys, for your insights.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Every law-abiding (as in no felonies) citizen should be able to own fully automatic machine guns if they want.



This is an invalid argument. The consitution stands as it is, and one cannot change its meaning by speculation. Also, though they may not have imagined it, they would support the citizenry being able to own such weapons. Your argument is akin to arguing that free speech does not apply to speech spread with computers, radios, TVs, modern printing presses, etc.



It gurantees the right to arms. Besides, a hunting rifle is basically similar to military sniper rifles.

Oh, and well said Aenlic. Support for gun rights (and all rights) should not be classified according to liberals and conservatives.

Crazed Rabbit

Crazed, I agreed with you alot on this Topic, very good argument
+8

Haudegen,

People can Used Miliatry Weapons if they want, as long as they are not Criminals and such. Makes Senses.

[Haudegen]

Every law-abiding (as in no felonies) citizen should be able to own fully automatic machine guns if they want.

Ok, but what about bazookas and handgranades and such things that can be carried by one man? Wouldn´t you want to draw a line somewhere?

This is an invalid argument. The consitution stands as it is, and one cannot change its meaning by speculation. Also, though they may not have imagined it, they would support the citizenry being able to own such weapons. Your argument is akin to arguing that free speech does not apply to speech spread with computers, radios, TVs, modern printing presses, etc.

Well but we must assume that the creators of the 2nd Amendment knew the difference between "arms" and "ordinance" (see above). And for some reason they decided to use the word "arms" which describes items that can be used to kill one person at a time. They did not say "ordinance" which means an item that could blow entire houses away or kill dozens of people at once. Therefore I still stand on my point of view.

It gurantees the right to arms. Besides, a hunting rifle is basically similar to military sniper rifles.

In your own words:

The whole purpose of the amendment was ensuring the people are equipped with military weapons. In US vs Miller, for example, the supreme court upheld the NFA because the gov't was prosecuting a sawed off shotgun owner, and the court believed that these were not military weapons, and so did not fall under the protection of the 2nd.

Or would you claim that any item that can be potentially used for combat is protected by the 2nd Amendment? Well I´ve heard of people who can kill with a guitar string....or using pencils to stab into the opponents eye...

I don´t mean to make a cheap joke here. The word "arms" requires a precise definition, and IMHO a restrictive one.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ok, but what about bazookas and handgranades and such things that can be carried by one man? Wouldn´t you want to draw a line somewhere?

I'm not entirely sure on that. I'm leaning towards allowing explosives and cannons (but not long range missiles). A bit extreme? Probably.

Well but we must assume that the creators of the 2nd Amendment knew the difference between "arms" and "ordinance" (see above). And for some reason they decided to use the word "arms" which describes items that can be used to kill one person at a time. They did not say "ordinance" which means an item that could blow entire houses away or kill dozens of people at once. Therefore I still stand on my point of view.

They did not limit arms to what was availible at that time, and to do so goes against their intention. They knew arms would evolve, and put no limits on what arms people could use. Again, using this argument is akin to banning most of the means for free speech today.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

In your own words:
Or would you claim that any item that can be potentially used for combat is protected by the 2nd Amendment? Well I´ve heard of people who can kill with a guitar string....or using pencils to stab into the opponents eye...

I don´t mean to make a cheap joke here. The word "arms" requires a precise definition, and IMHO a restrictive one.

Every implement of the soldier.

This has developed into a fascinating discussion on the Second Amendment. Thank you guys, for your insights.

I'm happy with how its turned out too.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

yes I read that part.....

but the first part of the phrase clearly states the objective of that right of the people -> "to maintain a well regulated militia"

there is a diference between saying

"you have a right to have arms in order to build up a militia"
and
"you have a right to have arms"

the first version clearly states a purpose for the existance of those guns right?....while the second gives the idea you can have guns and do anything you want with them.

The first part of the Amendment clearly states that a well regulated militia is need for the security of the state, the 2nd part states clearly The people, can keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not state you can do anything you want with them. This tract of reasoning is fallacous (SP), in fact if you violate the law - not only do you lose your freedom, the courts through the due process can remove from you, the right to keep and bear arms. Guns can and should be regulated as shown with several key legislative actions that have done so. Which futher demonstrates the fallacous nature of your comment.

In your earlier comment you questioned how the people came about their understanding of the right to bear arms. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was two fold. To insure the security of the state and to allow the people to protect themselves. Hince the two part sructure of the amendment, and it was crucial in the beginning of the country, not only for the security of the state but for the formation of the country.

Has time changed? Yes. Can the 2nd Amendment be changed to reflect that change? Yes. But it must follow the constitutional process and not just be regulatated and legislated away. I personally don't have a problem with gun control legisation because it falls within the intent of the initial part of the amendment, but I do have a problem with the adovation of removing weapons from citizens without following the constitutional process in which the 2nd Amendment provides for.

[Haudegen]

I'm not entirely sure on that. I'm leaning towards allowing explosives and cannons (but not long range missiles). A bit extreme? Probably.

Ok, but with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, how would you justify a ban of long range missiles, battle tanks, B2 bombers, SSBNs for civilians? All these are implements of soldiers...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ok, but with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, how would you justify a ban of long range missiles, battle tanks, B2 bombers, SSBNs for civilians? All these are implements of soldiers...

Not really, but perhaps you have a different definition of an implement.

CR

[Haudegen]

Implements --> tools

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ok, but with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, how would you justify a ban of long range missiles, battle tanks, B2 bombers, SSBNs for civilians? All these are implements of soldiers...

Thats easy. Their technology is top secret. You dont have to ban them anyway as their not for sale to the public.

There was no ban on anyone owning say a cannon back then nor any other type of weapon that I know of. The militia could be armed with anything they felt like using. I dissagree with Redleg and CR on this matter. I dont think they had any restrictions on what arms you were allowed to bare.

[Haudegen]

Thats easy. Their technology is top secret. You dont have to ban them anyway as their not for sale to the public.

I don´t think that this is a sufficient explanation for the rareness of fully functioning battle tanks in civilian hands in the USA. The technology for a mediocre battle tank (or even a WW2 design) isn´t too difficult to acquire, I suppose.

There was no ban on anyone owning say a cannon back then nor any other type of weapon that I know of. The militia could be armed with anything they felt like using. I dissagree with Redleg and CR on this matter. I dont think they had any restrictions on what arms you were allowed to bare.

Were there any civilians in the 18th or 19th century who seriously tried to buy a military cannon?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The technology for a mediocre battle tank (or even a WW2 design) isn´t too difficult to acquire, I suppose.

And many are owned by civilians here today. Theres one down the block from me. A real nice Sherman.

Were there any civilians in the 18th or 19th century who seriously tried to buy a military cannon?

Many civilians owned cannon. There was no law against it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And many are owned by civilians here today. Theres one down the block from me. A real nice Sherman.



Many civilians owned cannon. There was no law against it.

Not a "Homeowners Association w/ covenants" type neighborhood for you eh?

[Aenlic]

I hate to come down on the side of my conservative friends; but, I must in this case.

The part of the 2nd Amendment dealing with a well ordered militia is called a dependent clause. It is not the main part of the statement. It is a dependent clause which clarifies or gives reason for the main clause. This does not mean that the main clause has no other reason.

For example:

Since it is a sunny day, I will go have a nice walk.

Does this mean I can only go have a nice walk when it is a sunny day? Of course not. I can have a nice walk on a cloudy day too. The dependent clause suggests a reason for my heading out for a nice walk; but it doesn't restrict that as the only reason I might do so.

The 2nd Amendment was so worded because at the time of its being written the founding fathers were wrestling with the ideas of state versus federal power, and whether or not states should have their own standing armies or just the federal government. In the end, the federal government was given the sole right to maintain a standing army, the states were given the right to maintain the national guard units and the states were given the right to have a local militia which consisted of all able-bodied men of a certain age. This last bit is important. That local militia was all able-bodied men of a certain and and was not the national guard. A distinction was made between the two. This was the result of having the citizen's rise up as militias in revolution against the British. Unlike the otherwise somewhat similar Swiss system, citizens of the USA aren't required to keep guns; but they have the undeniable right to keep them in light of all of the above. And that right shall not be infringed. The dependent clause was put in to give a reason for having that right; but, as in my nice walk, it can't be construed as the sole reason.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued many decisions in this regard. In fact, in some cases the distinction of that first dependent clause was used to restrict ownership (federal prohibition of sawed-off shotguns for one, U.S v Miller was the case, I think).

[Redleg]

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued many decisions in this regard. In fact, in some cases the distinction of that first dependent clause was used to restrict ownership (federal prohibition of sawed-off shotguns for one, U.S v Miller was the case, I think).

Yes indeed that was the case. In summary I found your observation spot on for how I also understand the amendment and the reasoning behind it. Very well written.

[Haudegen]

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued many decisions in this regard. In fact, in some cases the distinction of that first dependent clause was used to restrict ownership (federal prohibition of sawed-off shotguns for one, U.S v Miller was the case, I think).

Yes, and from these cases I draw the conclusion that the government or legislation can restrict the ownership of of weapons for hunting or sports. If the supreme court has decided several times in the past that a weapon can be banned because it has no military purpose, I see no reason why it should be different in other cases. Your posting contained interesting historical arguments, but it seems that they didn´t affect the supreme courts interpretation of the law in these cases. Or are there other supreme court cases that contradict US v Miller?

My conclusion therefore: the ownership of sports/hunting weapons is legal because the authorities haven´t forbidden them yet. Disclaimer: I´m not saying they should be forbidden. But if the government or legislation would make such a decision one day, it would not be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. However I´m quite confident that this will never happen, because such a decision would be very unpopular.

[Aenlic]

There have been no other cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court since that 1939 decision in US v Miller which used the well regulated militia argument to restrict ownership. Since 1939, the court has heard no other cases which involved the 2nd Amendment. There have been questions regarding gun control; but the court avoided the 2nd Amendment in those decisions. A provision of the Brady bill was overturned using the Commerce clause, I believe. The ban on assault weapons has only made it close to the court in one case, and that case was refused a hearing at the Supreme Court level in 2002.

Unless and until another solid 2nd Amendment case makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court again, the US v Miller decision is it.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Ok I know I said I would leave but I have to make one more post....




Stop making claims that you can't have guns because you are not in the/a militia!!!! (and other such claims)



You are already in the militia wether you like it or not. (assuming you are an american who meets these requirements)




a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

[Tribesman]

A well regulated militia allows for the government to make decisions about how militias are to be organized and equiped, in doing so under the orginial concept of a militia the people were suppose to come armed with their personal weapons. Hince because the founding fathers believed in militia's over a standing army - the people will always have a right to personal arms to defend themselves and their nation.

Just wondering Redleg , if the militia was supposed to be citizens bringing their own arms , then why does the constitution say that congress has to arm the militia ?

[Redleg]

Just wondering Redleg , if the militia was supposed to be citizens bringing their own arms , then why does the constitution say that congress has to arm the militia ?

The constitution states several things about the militia, and one must look to what each statement means. And how it can be interpated

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Very simply stated, and a seperate issue by the way this is where I believe congress has removed itself from its constitutional power with the Presidential War Powers Act of 1973.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

This talks about the government's responsiblity to fund any military requirement that congress deems necessary. The BRAC process falls in line with part of this.

To provide and maintain a navy;

Not necessary for this discussion but was in the part of the article I wanted to bring up.

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Done with the Uniform Code of Military Justice

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Self-explanatory.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

This passage does not necessarily mean explicitily what you possiblity attempting to claim, that the government must in fact arm the militia. To provide for - can have several definitions depending upon how one wishes to view the wording of the constitution. By requiring every citizen to bring their own weapon to the call-up actually falls within the definition of this clause. The second amendment actually address this part also.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the people have the right to keep and bear arms - the government can use the weapons in the procession of the civilians that are called up to arm them. In fact this is exactly the system that was used for the first 50 years of the nation. THe government did not arm military forces in a consistent manner until the Civil War, and even then several Regiments supplied their own arms. A Regiment of Civil War Union Sharpshooters was supplied with arms solely by the commander of that Unit. I also remember reading about a Union Cavarly Unit that was armed not by the government but by the commander.

Edit: An interesting read on the subject. I haven't read it all, but the initial glance at the first few paragraphes it has an interesting historical background on the Legsilative Clause and the 2nd Amendment. An aside it seemly takes the point that the Founding Father's intent is not truely understood even by themselves concerning the militia clauses and the 2nd Amendment. I will have to read this link in its entirely when I have time.

http://www.potowmack.org/mahonch4.html#ch4

The part that took my main interest.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Both the framers of the Constitution and a majority of the delegates


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


Militia in the Early National Period 49
ratifying conventions were more concerned with foreign aggression than with internal subversion. As a result, the ratified Constitution contained adequate legal basis for a standing army if Congress chose to create one. On this matter the anticentralists were defeated But in the clauses pertaining to the militia they came close to achieving their objectives. Here, as in the entire Constitution, the object was to prevent the accumulation of overwhelming power in any person or agency. The method used was to split power into fragments, and no part of the document was this done in more detail than in the militia clauses. Congress received authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia; the states, the power to appoint officers and to train the citizen soldiers according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. Not the president but Congress acquired the authority to summon the state militias into federal service, for three specific tasks only: execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasion.


Because the militia clauses, like the rest of the Constitution, were written in general terms, they had to be interpreted to have meaning in specific cases. Only case-by-case interpretation could make it clear what exactly was meant by the power to appoint the officers and to train the militias. likewise, some agency would have to decide in every case whether a federal call for militia to enter national service was for one of the three purposes stipulated. One observer might see an invasion where another saw only a maneuver; an insurrection to one man might be nothing but a harmless gathering to another. In any given situation there could be disagreement over whether or not troops were needed to enforce the laws. The framers did not designate an agency to interpret the Constitution. Over a long period of time, the courts assumed that indispensable task, but not without challenge.

Another clause gives Congress power to govern such part of the militia as maybe employed in the service of the United States. A second says that the president shall be commander-in-chief of the militia when it is called into the actual service of the nation. A third clause, added to the Constitution as the Second Amendment, states that "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In the twentieth century, the Second Amendment has become the center of a controversy between those citizens who want to see gun carrying restricted and those who insist that free Americans must have the right to be armed. The authors of the Amendment left no clues as to their intentions; but it seems likely that they felt scant concern about firearms in the hands of people and that they had the militia in view when they wrote the clause.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Very Much Agreed Redleg..

I'll stop myself with this quaote from ReddyLeggy

"

Stop making claims that you can't have guns because you are not in the/a militia!!!! (and other such claims)



You are already in the militia wether you like it or not. (assuming you are an american who meets these requirements)




a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia."

[Aenlic]

Yeppers. That's why I went to such great pains to differentiate between the National Guard and the militia, and brought up the concept as it is seen in Switzerland.

Also, I'd like to mention, which I don't think I've seen discussed but may have missed, that "well ordered" as a term used during the writing of the Bill of Rights meant only well-trained, not ordered and controlled by the government.

Basically, considering the lack of precedent in Supreme Court rulings and the state of those few cases which actually were decided, there is some cause for alarm on the part of those of us who fully support the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment. It is one reason to support strict constructionist and original intenters. However, I'd be much happier if those same people also applied their strict constructionist ideas and original intent interpretations consistently with regard to things like corporate personhood (especially considering that corporations are not mentioned even once in the Constitution, and the founding fathers were clear on their mistrust and disdain for corporations). It's the inconsistency on such matters that makes me cautious.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Yes. Eariler in the Thread, people was debating about if Non-Militarly People,like ourselves, should have acess to Assualt Rifles and AK-47's and such.. I say Yes..

I was watching this Interisting Show last year, and these 3 or so guys robbed a bank.... Bad thing was, they Had pretty bad butt AK-47's and really good bullet proof vests.the cops had their 9mm I presume and shotsguns, but was no match, because their bulletproofs vests soaked up the cop's fire. and the AK 47's was tearing up the cop cars like crazy. So the Cops went to a local gun store, and also brought assault weapons and took one of the guys down, while the other 2 surreneder soon after..