Gun control

[Sandman]

Plenty of crazies in the beltway area. Most have a big "D" on their license plate.

[lazs2]

MT... the 2nd was most certainly was put there so that we would have a defense over tyranny.   Even a cursory glance at the federalist papers on the subject would show you that.

so what do you think it was there for..... A concession to "Ducks Unlimited"?

lazs

[lazs2]

Oh... and this DC thing proves my theory that mini vans are the root cause of all that is wrong in America today.
lazs

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Plenty of crazies in the beltway area. Most have a big "D" on their license plate.

Diplomat?
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe


Diplomat?
-SW

Neg, "Democrat" )

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by lazs2
MT... the 2nd was most certainly was put there so that we would have a defense over tyranny.   Even a cursory glance at the federalist papers on the subject would show you that.

so what do you think it was there for..... A concession to "Ducks Unlimited"?

lazs

Ducks unlimited... lol good one.

No, I think it was included because the founders saw the necessity for a well regulated militia as a defense against the tyranny of the Crown. Your spin is close to the mark, but not quite the same thing.

[lazs2]

MT... with all due respect.... What you "think" is wrong.   The founders recognized that tyranny in all it's forms could only be defeated by the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

just curious tho ... what good would an unarmed militia be?

are you implying that the 2nd was put there so that the government could hand out guns to a "militia" if the crown ever attacked us again?    
lazs

[midnight Target]

In Presser vs. Illinois the Supreme Court stated that "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the militia. "

The 2nd Amendment reads as follows:

"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."

1. It doesn't say "guns" or even "firearms." It says "arms." Although guns are, in fact, arms, not all arms are guns. So there is no specific guarantee that an individual has the right to own or brandish a firearm...just a weapon of some sort.

2. Oh yeah, it doesn't guarantee the rights of individuals at all. It guarantees the "right of THE PEOPLE," i.e. the general populace or citizenry.

3. You didn't skip over the clause in the beginning that qualifies those rights did you? That's the part that says that the reason THE PEOPLE should be ARMED is so that the MILITIA can provide for the SECURITY of a FREE STATE. How many of you gun owners out there are members of the militia?

4. Don't forget that it also says you militia members are supposed to be "well regulated," too.

The 2nd Amendment simply ensures that the Armed Forces, the National Guard and your local Police Department are able to have the necessary weapons to train and maintain peace in your country and community. It does not give you the right to defend your own house or person through armed violence. It also does not guarantee you the right to have your own assault rifle.

[sb1086]

How why do those stats disturb me?

[Dune]

BTW, Presser v. Illinios is an 1886 case.  A tad bit dated shall we say.

From the United States v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001:

7. Analysis

The history we have recounted largely speaks for itself. We briefly summarize. The Anti-Federalists desired a bill of rights, express provision for increased state power over the militia, and a meaningful express limitation of the power of the federal government to maintain a standing army. These issues were somewhat interrelated. The prospect of federal power to render the militia useless and to maintain a large standing army combined with the absence of any specific guarantees of individual liberty frightened Anti-Federalists. But the Anti-Federalist complaint that resonated best with the people at large was the lack of a bill of rights.

In mid-1788 the Constitution was ratified unchanged and in the spring of 1789 the Federalists gained control of both houses of the First Congress. Hard-core Anti-Federalists persisted in all three demands, but more moderate Anti-Federalists and the people at large were primarily focused on securing a bill of rights. Most Federalists were not really averse to a bill of rights, but, like James Madison himself, had been forced to oppose any modifications to the Constitution since it could only be ratified unchanged. The Federalists wanted to please the Anti-Federalists as much as possible without fundamentally altering the balance of federal-state power. James Madison plainly stated this goal when he submitted his proposed amendments to the House.

Given the political dynamic of the day, the wording of the Second Amendment is exactly what would have been expected. The Federalists had no qualms with recognizing the individual right of all Americans to keep and bear arms. In fact, as we have documented, one of the Federalists' favorite 1787-88 talking points on the standing army and federal power over the militia issues was to remind the Anti-Federalists that the American people were armed and hence could not possibly be placed in danger by a federal standing army or federal control over the militia. The Second Amendment's preamble represents a successful attempt, by the Federalists, to further pacify moderate Anti-Federalists without actually conceding any additional ground, i.e. without limiting the power of the federal government to maintain a standing army or increasing the power of the states over the militia.

This is not to say that the Second Amendment's preamble was not appropriate or is in any way marginal or lacking in true significance. Quite the contrary. Absent a citizenry generally keeping and bearing their own private arms, a militia as it was then thought of could not meaningfully exist. As pointed out by Thomas Cooley, the right of individual Americans to keep, carry, and acquaint themselves with firearms does indeed promote a well-regulated militia by fostering the development of a pool of firearms-familiar citizens that could be called upon to serve in the militia. While standing armies are not mentioned in the preamble, history shows that the reason a well-regulated militia was declared necessary to the security of a free state was because such a militia would greatly reduce the need for a standing army. Thus, the Second Amendment dealt directly with one of the Anti-Federalists' concerns and indirectly addressed the other two. While the hard-core Anti-Federalists recognized that the Second Amendment did not assure a well-regulated militia or curtail the federal government's power to maintain a large standing army, they did not control either branch of Congress (or the presidency) and had to be content with the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Finally, the many newspaper articles and personal letters cited indicate that, at the time, Americans viewed the Second Amendment as applying to individuals. This is confirmed by the First Congress's rejection of amendments that would have directly and explicitly addressed the Anti-Federalists' standing army and power over the militia concerns.

We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty.(60) All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.

We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.

E. Second Amendment protects individual rights

We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights.

Here is the link to the whole case: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm

[lazs2]

ok... the  2nd says that a certain "right"  the right of the people of the united states shall not be infringed upon.    that "right" is the right to "keep and bear arms"..   If the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then any 'arm' falls under it's protection.    Why should this right not be infringed?   why... "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"  

so far as "well regulated"... well that would of course be the most efficient but it is far from mandatory in the 2nd just desirable.  

and who is the militia?   why it is as the court says... "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the militia. "   This boils down to ......

any citizen shall not have his right to bear the firearm of his choice taken from him.

More about this is explained in the federalist papers.   especialy in 46 and 26  numbers 46 and 26 best describe what I was saying about the 2nd being about defending from tyranny from both without and within.

In 46, madison says "the advantage the Americans possess" (under the proposed constitution) with the circumstances in "several kingdoms of europe (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms"

in 26 (Caps mine)..... "but if circumstances should at any time oblige the govenment to form an army of any magnitude  THAT ARMY CAN NEVER BE FORMIDABLE TO THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE while a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in disipline and the use of arms, WHO STAND READY TO DEFEND THEIR OWN RIGHTS AND THOSE OF THEIR FELLOW-CITIZENS.  This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, AND THE BEST POSSIBLE SECURITY AGAINST IT, IF IT SHOULD EXIST.

it seems apparent that a well trained militia was desied simply because the better trained it was the more use it would be against tyranny from both within or without.   Regardless.... it is apparent that the framers understood the danger an unarmed "people" were in from their own standing army (government).   Throughout the Federalist papers it is also apparent that the militia should empahtically NOT be regulated by the federal government.
lazs

[Nashwan]

Shouldn't people have the right to keep and bear all types of arms? As the constitution viewed the right in a military context (a militia, and designed to protect liberty against  the army), shouldn't the citizens have the right to be as well armed as that army?

Machine guns? Rocket launchers, grenades? Anti aircraft weapons? Nuclear weapons?

As Waco proved, the current firepower available to citizens isn't enough to protect them against (quasi)military forces of the government.

[lazs2]

nash... I see no problem with citizens owning any type of weapon except.... Storage.    If the weapon (rockets, nukes, explosives etc..) constitutes a reasonable hazard to fellow citizens..  By that... If a fire in your house can take out the block or cause nuclear hazard... well.... you can't keep it there.

as to machine guns....   Name ONE instance in the last 60 years where a legal machine gun was used to harm someone.    they are legal to own even today.   Does the person who is killed care what type of weapon did it?   Shouldn't the crime be the important thing?
lazs

[Mr. Blonde]

Sorry MT but I must say you are waaaay out in left field on that one and just plain ignorant.  now be a good little socialist and go study your communist manifesto.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with  greater … confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776).

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke (1784).

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense or by partial orders of towns...is a dissolution of the government." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788).

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison.

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"…The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. 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, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" --James Madison, The Federalist Papers

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

The 2nd Amendment simply ensures that the Armed Forces, the National Guard and your local Police Department are able to have the necessary weapons to train and maintain peace in your country and community. It does not give you the right to defend your own house or person through armed violence. It also does not guarantee you the right to have your own assault rifle.

 


Where in the heck does it say Armed Forces, National Guard and local PD in the second amendment?  It says people that means me you them us!  How can a democracy exsist if a governemnt doesn't fear the people.  You may have some of the 'rights' such as freedom to whine squeak and moan but you obviously have no idea what it takes to hold on to them.

[Erlkonig]

BTW, Presser v. Illinios is an 1886 case. A tad bit dated shall we say.

From the United States v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001: snip

More from that link:

ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:

I concur in the opinion except for Section V. I choose not to join Section V, which concludes that the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is an individual right, because it is dicta and is therefore not binding on us or on any other court. The determination whether the rights bestowed by the Second Amendment are collective or individual is entirely unnecessary to resolve this case and has no bearing on the judgment we dictate by this opinion. The fact that the 84 pages of dicta contained in Section V are interesting, scholarly, and well written does not change the fact that they are dicta and amount to at best an advisory treatise on this long-running debate.