Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on August 08, 2000, 08:59:00 AM
-
We talked about having a rational discussion of America's gun control laws in another thread.
IMHO, that discussion has to start with a clear understanding of how we got to where we are. The "start" is the Second Amendment. To those on one side of this issue, it is a clear authorization to have firearms. To those on the other side, it's an outdated relic that doesn't mean what it appears to say.
In any event, our Constitution can be changed. So before we even start the heated part of the discussion, let's all understand that there IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a legal, Constitutional way to resolve this issue.
Here it is: <I've clipped some of the text but the whole thing is available at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/amdhome.html> (http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/amdhome.html>)
The Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b.....
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. ...
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures....When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. ...
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States...
So, all the long while this debate has gone on, those opposing 2nd Amendment rights have had this option open to them. They have never chosen to excercise it, probably because they realistically don't have a "snowball's chance in h*ll" of getting 2/3 of the House and Senate to modify the 2nd Amendment to their liking, which IMHO basically would be to have it totally removed from the Constitution. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
As a side note, our Founders obviously intended amending the Constitution to be a long, difficult process. These provisions were written when news traveled by horseback or sail and when neither the US Congress nor the State Legislatures were in session on a year-round basis.
Thus, they HAD to know and intend that amending the Constitution would be the work of years, not days/weeks/months. By the time an amendment was proposed, enough support was gathered to get it approved by 2/3 of the US Congress, send it out by horseback to the State Legistlatures that might not meet for almost a year, then discuss it for a year or more, PLUS the requirement that 3/4 of the States approve...it's pretty clear that they didn't intend for the "fad of the moment" to have an effect on what they struggled to achieve in the Revolution.
So that's how it's done. Change is possible, but not easy. It's not SUPPOSED to be easy. Our founders had the gall to believe they pretty well "got it right the first time" and made it difficult for their squabbling children to mess up the inheritance. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Next Up: The 2nd Amendment itself. What does it really say and how can so many people interpet it differently? What did the Founders say about it?
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-08-2000).]
-
Sour sent this to me (Thanks Sour), thought it would be a good place for it:
"Winning The Cultural War"
Speech by Charlton Heston
Harvard Law School Forum
February 16, 1999
PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE SPEECH
I remember my son, when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten
class what his father did for a living. 'My Daddy,' he said,
'pretends to be people.'
There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New
Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various
nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American
presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo.
If you want the ceiling re-painted I'll do my best. There always seems
to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of
them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.
As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: if my Creator gave me
the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men,
then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own
sense of liberty ... your own freedom of thought ... your own compass
for what is right.
Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America,
'We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation
or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.'
Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a
great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright
to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust
the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you ... the stuff that made this
country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.
Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National
Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I
ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve ... I serve as a moving
target for the media who've called me everything from 'ridiculous' and
'duped' to a 'brain-injured, senile, crazy old man'. I know ... I'm
pretty old ...but I sure (thank the Lord) ain't senile.
As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment
freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's
much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural
war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain
acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.
For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 -- long
before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience
last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride
or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.
I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But
when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than
your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.
I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech,
when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling
out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.
Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my
country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural
persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.
From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially
saying, 'Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language
not authorized for public consumption!'
But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness,
we'd still be King George's boys -- subjects bound to the British crown.
In his book, 'The End of Sanity,' Martin Gross writes that 'blatantly
irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost
every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules,
new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every
direction. Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know
something, without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind
mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from
wrong. And they don't like it.'
Let me read a few examples. At Antioch college in Ohio, young men
seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step
of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation ... all
clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.
In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had
been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDS --- the state
commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need
not ... need not ... tell their patients that they are infected.
At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school
team 'The Tribe' because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians,
only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.
In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the
rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals
to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.
In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been
placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely
because their last names sound Hispanic.
At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at
Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially
set up segregated dormitory space for black students.
Yeah, I know ... that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said 'Negroes.'
Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said 'black.' But it's a
no-no now. For me, hyphenated identities are awkward ... particularly
'Native-American.' I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also
happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my
wife's side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation Native American ...
with a capital letter on 'American.'
Finally, just last month ... David Howard, head of the Washington DC.
Office of Public Advocate, used the word 'niggardly' while talking to
colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, 'niggardly' means
stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly
apologize and resign.
As columnist Tony Snow wrote: 'David Howard got fired because some
people in public employ were morons who: (a) didn't know the meaning
of 'niggardly,' (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the
meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their
ignorance.'
What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has
evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be
far behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me:
Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why
do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate
ideas, surrender to their suppression?
Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they
really believe? It scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the
superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.
You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of
American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River,
you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across
the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced
generation since Concord Bridge.
And as long as you validate that ... and abide it ... you are -- by
your grandfathers' standards -- cowards. Here's another example. Right
now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and
researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll
lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine
big-city mayor's pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions
of dollars from firearm manufacturers.
I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at
that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of
unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core value of
academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay
down your arms and plead, 'Don't shoot me.'
If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see
distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If
you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you
anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does
not make you a homophobe.
Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for
this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism. But what can you do? How can
anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?
The answer's been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the
steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, standing with Dr.
Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.
You simply ... disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course.
Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or
how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and
stigmatizes personal freedom.
I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King ... who
learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other
great man who led those in the right against those with the might.
Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that
Disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent
Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that
protested a war in Viet Nam.
In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness
with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and
onerous laws that weaken personal freedom.
But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put
yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies. You must be
willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of
the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma. You
must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but
my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me. Let
me tell you a story.
A few years back, I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a
CD called 'Cop Killer' celebrating ambushing and murdering police
officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the
biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world. Police across the
country were outraged. Rightfully so -- at least one had been
murdered. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a
cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the
rapper was black. I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting
scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I
decided to attend.
What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I
asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American
stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of 'Cop Killer'-every
vicious, vulgar, instructional word.
I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF
I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF
I'M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF
I'M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF...EEEE
It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But
trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The
Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their
shoes. They hated me for that. Then I delivered another volley of sick
lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about
sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore. SHE PUSHED
HER BUTT AGAINST MY ....'
Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left
the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting
press corps, one of them said, 'We can't print that.' 'I know,' I
replied, 'but Time/Warner is selling it.'
Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never
be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time
magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just
talk.
When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself ... jam the
switchboard of the district attorney's office. When your university is
pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with
honors ... choke the halls of the board of regents .
When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets
hauled into court for sexual harassment ... march on that school and
block its doorways.
When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you
... petition them, oust them, banish them.
When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy
Christians holding a cross as it did last month ... boycott their
magazine and the products it advertises.
So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the
hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed
exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of
an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built
this country.
If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.
Thank you.
-
Heston cleverly ties Martin Luther King in with the battle over Second Amendment rights then tries to censor the First Amendment rights of rapper Ice-T.
Same old story, stand up for what's right as long as it's the "right" issue.
Freedom's a tough gig.
POP QUIZ:
What exactly did Martin Luther King die of?
-
Blur,
At the risk of diverting this thread from it's topic...the 2nd, not the 1st (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) although all are inextricably linked IMHO....
So tell me...Heston was a Time/Warner stockholder and attend a somewhat "public stockholder's meeting"...
Did he have the right as a stockholder or under the 1st Amendment, to, in his own words....
"I simply read the full lyrics of 'Cop Killer'-every
vicious, vulgar, instructional word.
Then I delivered another volley of sick
lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about
sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore.
When I read the lyrics to the waiting
press corps, one of them said, 'We can't print that.' 'I know,' I
replied, 'but Time/Warner is selling it.'"
Or did only Ice-T have 1st Amendment rights?
Freedom's a tough gig. Indeed.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
<snip>
Did he have the right as a stockholder or under the 1st Amendment, to, in his own words....
<snip>
Yes he does indeed. As long as I can boycott the local TV station to stop the transmission of his speech!
What a minute, we're getting stuck in some kind of infinite First Amendment loop. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
Maybe it's just me but I find humor in the fact that the president of the National Rifle Association associates his cause with an individual who was killed by a ……you guessed it….....Rifle! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by blur:
As long as I can boycott the local TV station to stop the transmission of his speech!
Yep!
"First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Is this a great place or what? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Gotta be careful though...that bold part is bound to draw some comment over recent Supreme Court decisions. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I re-read that post twice, but I fail to see where Heston relates his earier association with Dr. King to Heston's "cause", the NRA.
What I DO see is an attempt to relate the attempt by some to silence those who don't agree to the Civil Disobedience of Dr. King.
"You simply ... disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course.
Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or
how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and
stigmatizes personal freedom.
I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King ... who
learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other
great man who led those in the right against those with the might."
I think eventually this thread will turn to that subject...the right of all to have their views aired and considered. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But next up.....what does the 2nd Amendment actually say? Stay tuned! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
popquiz answer:
Lead poisoning.
-
Preach on Brother Toad!
------------------
Maj Ghosth
XO 332nd Flying Mongrels
Scenario Corp, AH Trainer Corp
-
So how is Heston? He out of rehab yet for alcohol?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Im embarrassed to admit, when I thought about it at all, I thought Mr. Heston was just some kind of gun nut. Fell for the ol liberal press bull toejam. Thanks for the wake up rip. I got an attatude ajustment about Mr. Heston.
-
Originally posted by easymo:
Im embarrassed to admit, when I thought about it at all, I thought Mr. Heston was just some kind of gun nut. Fell for the ol liberal press bull toejam. Thanks for the wake up rip. I got an attatude ajustment about Mr. Heston.
Ye have been SAVED!!!
Even if ya dinnae like guns, the fight over the 2nd amendment is just a means to an end, and that speech serves nicely as a wakeup call. Gonna have to print it and frame it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Maybe it's just me but I find humor in the fact that the president of the National Rifle Association associates his cause with an individual who was killed by a ……you guessed it….....Rifle!
Ice T is dead? DAMMO!
I sorta liked him in Johnny Mnenonic (spelling). Sure, his early records where crap, and the lyrics infantile, but he seemed to have matured a bit as he started making movies.
Well, there's another reason I am not a rap superstar (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Heh, but I am quite sure you are referring to Luther King. ;D
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 08-09-2000).]
-
And I thought Heston was just a figurehead . Thanks for posting the speech Rip .
-
Maybe it's just me but I find humor in the fact that the president of the National Rifle Association associates his cause with an individual who was killed by a ……you guessed it….....Rifle!
Maybe Mr. Heston believes that Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by a person. Maybe he believes that additional gun laws would do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of sick dimented %$$%@ like the individual that shot Mr. King. Maybe he believes that tampering with the second ammendment would open a pandora's box with the potential to destroy some of the basic principles this country was founded on.
I do... and I'm not a member of the NRA.
AKDejaVu
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 08-09-2000).]
-
Doh!
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 08-09-2000).]
-
To the point:
The Second 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.
Of course, the when lawyers enter the fray, words can mean anything. So what do these words mean?
"Militia" is usually a big point of contention. Here's a definition from the current US Code:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(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.
That bold part should be drawing attention from the feminists, no? Discrimination?
The founders intended a clear distinction between "milita" the people at large and organized, standing military forces.
*********
"Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:
Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The 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."
Tench Coxe was America's first Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Commissioner of Revenue, and Purveyor of Public Supplies. He also was a prolific writer, leaving behind a massive collection of papers relating not only to his involvement with and service to the government of early America, but also to his family's commercial interests, his land dealings, his support of the U.S. Constitution, and his views on the nation's fledgling economy.
**********
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.
--- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
*************
Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the Constitution
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
*****
[W]hereas, 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; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
*******
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
-
Toad:
You are saying that women do not have the right to bear arms? Unless that are part of the national guard?
Not very fair, let's throw equality out the door (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). Why aren't women, who are physically weaker than men, allowed to be able to defend themselves against violent criminals, who tend to be men?
Just sounds a wee bit odd and outdated to my ears (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Santa,
No, _I'm_ not saying that. I don't write 'em, I just read 'em. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The US Code is saying that. Go figure.
I just wonder why our "women's rights" folks haven't jumped on this one yet.
You'll never hear me say that there aren't some things that need to be fixed around here.
I'm just against moronic "quick fixes" that have no substance or result other than to make some people feel good about themselves while the original problem continues.
This, I guess, makes me a "radical". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Heh, ok Toad.
Being a radical is fun (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Toad,
If the 2nd amendment was created as "being necessary to the security of a free State," then if it is to remain effective those arms referred to in that amendment of long ago need to be reassessed. The reason is simple: should the United Stated government ever take a chronically undemocratic turn, then the military forces of the United States will have no trouble whatsoever crushing a bunch of people with pistols and rifles. Fully loaded F-15s (god forbid a fully loaded B-52) will be out of range of most semiautomatic pistols and rifles. Thus, if gunowners really believe the amendment to mean this, then new laws will have to be passed, allowing people to own weapons that would give a chance of defeating the military forces of the United States of America. This means some very serious weaponry: SAM rockets, portable anitank weapons, heavy machineguns, recoiless rifles. And if gunowners don't push for something like this, then they're fooling themselves, or taking advantage of a clause so they can plink things out in the woods.
Back in the late 18th century a bunch of guys with muskets were serious trouble for any army. This context must be tied in with the 2nd amendment, or it is no longer valid.
Of course, the day we start allowing people to own such weaponry is the day I emigrate to Canada, and leave the insanity behind.
-
what can you say . it is all confusing as hell. but one point is clear our government abuses power when ever it can. always has always will . and all the b 52s in the world wont stop a dedicated populace with small arms and a bad atitude . ask the vietnamese
stay away from my guns i will vote to keep um and fight if nessisary . but really just want to be left alone.
p.s. two dudes with rifles only killed 130 odd hevely armed regulars in nam .dont umderestimate the rifle as a wepon
-
Well, no big sparks on the "militia" aspect. The writings of the framers of the Constitution make it pretty clear that it includs all able bodied men and is specifically not restricted to "standing" armed forces like the Guard.
So, who are the "people"? The following is clipped from: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html)
because it is clear and to the point. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
"The People
This paragraph shouldn't be necessary. That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.
The first nine amendments were meant to preserve individual rights. The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" It is unlikely. Evidence of an individual right to keep and bear arms is presented throughout the Second Amendment section of GunCite, and will not be repeated here. However, additional evidence follows, showing that the "people" means the people as individuals (everyone) rather than some amorphous body or the state.
First, let's look at the Bill of Rights itself. The Fourth Amendment states in part:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
The use of people in the Fourth Amendment obviously indicates an individual right. The Tenth Amendment reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment above, distinguishes between the states and the people.
Looking at other declarations of rights from the time clearly shows that "the people," in other words everyone, were entitled to certain rights (freemen in those days)."
Next up...there have been 5 Supreme Court cases that dealt with 2nd Amendment rights.
-
If a "bunch of people with pistols and rifles" is so defensless against modern weapons, why does every organized army consist (at least in part) of a bunch of people with pistols and rifles?
-
Originally posted by Spinout:
If a "bunch of people with pistols and rifles" is so defensless against modern weapons, why does every organized army consist (at least in part) of a bunch of people with pistols and rifles?
Because, nowadays those "bunch of people with pistols and rifles" in organized armies have things called support assets, like artillery, armor, antitank, antiaircraft. Oh, and air forces and navies too...
Against that a "bunch of people with pistols and rifles" are pretty much targets. Or do you disagree? And if so, give me a logical and valid explanation of why it would not be the case. I'd like to here it.
-
Maybe because they wouldn't be willing to use B-52's against insurgents in downtown NYC?
Maybe because using armor in the streets of Chicago would be tough and look bad on CNN? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Still doesn't change the 2nd Amendment though, does it?
-
(http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tank-35.jpg)
At some point.. the military would have to choose. "Who's army is it?"
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Maybe because they wouldn't be willing to use B-52's against insurgents in downtown NYC?
Maybe because using armor in the streets of Chicago would be tough and look bad on CNN? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Still doesn't change the 2nd Amendment though, does it?
And how would you know NYC had been bombed if there was martial law, outside of word of mouth? During martial law CNN would be showing atrocities committed by 'traitorous bands of survivalist gang elements', not M-1 tanks chewing up the roads of Chicago.
As to the 2nd amendment, a major interpretation of it is that it allows the average American the means to maintain a free society. Nowadays, that means would require a lot more than pistols and rifles, since a standing army is much much more than small arms (though in 1776 this was not the case). My point is that if one is to uphold the 2nd amendment by this interpretation, then it only stands to reason that the common ownership of various heavy weapons are now in order. And if, then, people are allowed to own such outrageous weaponry what does that do to us as a people? As a society? As a civilized and cultured nation? It's all just a little too paranoid for me, is what I'm driving at.
Personally, I doubt we'll ever see the day America gives up the gun. It's too much a part of our culture, and any concerted attempt to remove the gun from the American citizen will only result in widespread violence, which in turn will spark a thousand other causes of various minority and religious groups. Basically, hell on Earth.
Civilization was an outgrowth of people's yearning for security. People were tired of being in danger of a raid from an aggressor, and decided to live together within a community. While this increased their collective security, it also posed some problems, since now a lot of people were in close proximity to each other, which in turn created a lot of tension. Since the only reason these communities ever came into being was to reduce the level of violence in their lives, a nonviolent method had to be adopted - law and litigation. Of course, violence outside the community could not be truly controlled, but internal violence had to be dealt with, or the idea of a community was mostly worthless.
When you allow citizens to own firearms, you are implicitly saying that the use of firearms (a very deadly weapon, allowing one to massively damage another living being from significant distances, and with little expenditure in physical energy) is an option within your society. No matter laws against manslaughter or murder, it's still an option. To me, this is contrary to the whole concept of civilized society, because it undermines the very basis of civilization - to increase security by reducing violence and promoting nonviolent methods for resolving disputes.
Now, I don't expect to open anyone's eyes with this post, but I just had to get that off my chest. That's it for me in this thread, but I'll certainly read what anyone else has to say here.
-
How idiotic. If a nation can't trust its own military, albeit composed of its own citizens, then they give non-military personnel the false security of militias and other useless "defense".
C'mon, the moron with an M-16 at home will have to face a trained soldier who has an m-16, grenades, artillery, other buddies (also trained and with better weapons) if it comes to a "face the army" situation. Look at all the things that happen when gun nuts get followers and barricade 100 or so men into a bunker and shoot it out with the goverment... they get to face light Tanks, helicopters, snipers, soldiers with superior weapons and tactics.
BTW, the poor guys in Vietnam wouldve won in a few months if they had let the military do its thing, rather than have politicians in the middle. Desert Storm was good, not because of technology, but because the fricken politicans stayed away from the military's job.
"Back in the late 18th century a bunch of guys with muskets were serious trouble for any army. This context must be tied in with the 2nd amendment, or it is no longer valid."
This is EXACTLY what the problem is. NRA and other gun geeks hide and look the other way when this FACT is put into their faces.Their responses to this are heavy in claiming "its their right" yada yada yada. Yeah, you own the gun, let me buy a Tank, i'll feel much safer with it at home... just in case I need it. Bleh!
Its just a bunch of people who dont want to give up the power they now have over their fellow citizen's lives (by owning a gun). If they want to shoot something, go to a gun range, rent them, shoot some targets, return the guns, go home.
The USA is full of hillbillies and gun-totting rednecks whining about their right to bear instruments DESIGNED to kill.
The Anti-Tobbacco campaign was a major success..now lets see if the Anti-Gun campaign has the same result. I can only hope!
-
Nope.. Disagree.
The weapons are already in our hands.. and so is the military. Our armorys are stocked and controlled by our neighbors. Members of our community. Tax-payers and citizens from our own towns, guys we went to school with; work with... at the drop of a hat; these guys can and will make the right decision on WHOS army; WHOS amaments they are.
Think it through... would you; an American citizen, and American Soldier, trained to obey LAWFUL ORDERS open fire on the population of the United States? Do you know of any American soldier that would?
Who's Army is it?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hang
-
I hope you're right Hang...
i pray you're right.
-
The Founders made the intent of the 2nd Amendment undeniably clear.
Of course, nothing is undeniably clear when lawyers get involved. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
This stuff is basically clipped from: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html)
There have been 5 main Supreme Court cases that dealt with the 2nd Amendment. They are: U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). One the Supreme Court refused to hear, Burton v. Sills (1968), and one concerning the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and "the people", U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), are also discussed.
U.S. v. Cruikshank involved members of the Ku Klux Klan depriving black victims of their basic rights such as freedom of assembly and to bear arms. The court decided that neither the First nor Second Amendments applied to the states, but were limitations on Congress. Thus the federal government had no power to correct these violations, rather the citizens had to rely on the police power of the states for their protection from private individuals.
This case is often misunderstood or quoted out of context by claiming Cruikshank held the Second Amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms. However, the court also said this about the First Amendment. The court explained that these rights weren't granted or created by the Constitution, they existed prior to the Constitution.
Presser v. Illinois ruled that the states had the right to strictly regulate private military groups and associations. It also reaffirmed the Cruikshank decision that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation upon the federal government and not the states. However Presser also stated that setting the Second Amendment aside, the states could not prohibit the "people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security..."
Miller v. Texas (1894)
Franklin Miller, convicted of murder, on appeal, claimed his Second and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court upholding the conviction, reaffirmed Cruikshank v. U.S. and stated: "And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court." In other words the court wouldn't even consider whether Miller's rights had been violated under the Fourteenth Amendment because he had not filed such a claim in his original trial.
This Next one is truly illuminating FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION:
U.S. v. Miller (1939)
Frank Layton and Jack Miller were charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms, and required the registration of such arms. The Miller court decided the following:
1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.
2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."
3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."
As noted in the Summary section, Miller has often been mis-cited. Note that in the entire text of Miller, neither the words "state militia" nor "National Guard" are to be found.
Regarding item 4) above, the Miller court defined the Militia as the following:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Note Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.
The defendants had not appeared for their Supreme Court hearing and they had no legal representation as well! In its brief the U.S. government argued the "collective rights" theory. (See GunCite's rebuttal to the U.S. government's brief.)
Lewis v. U.S. (1980)
Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 forbids the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Lewis, the petitioner, was convicted of a felony in a 1961 state court "for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor". In 1977, in Virginia, Lewis was charged with receiving and possessing a firearm in violation of the above act. Lewis, claimed his latest conviction violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because he had no counsel present during his 1961 trial.
The court upheld Lewis' conviction, holding:
(a)...the fact that there are remedies available to a convicted felon - removal of the firearm disability by a qualifying pardon or the Secretary of the Treasury's consent, as specified in the Act, or a challenge to the prior conviction in an appropriate court proceeding - suggests that Congress intended that the defendant clear his status before obtaining a firearm, thereby fulfilling Congress' purpose to keep firearms away from persons classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous.
The court also commented it was customary to deny convicted felons the right to vote, hold union office, or practice medicine.
Burton v. Sills (1985) (the Supreme Court refused to hear t his case for a reason or reasons known only to them)
From Stephen Halbrook's "That Every Man be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right":
A...striking erosion of the right to possess arms was exemplified in the New Jersey case of Burton v. Sills (1968). It originated when members of sportsman clubs and gun dealers brought an action to declare unconstitutional the state's gun-control law, which imposed restrictive requirements. Conjuring up an image of "political assassinations, killings of enforcement officers, and snipings during riots," the court expressed exaggerated fears of a revolution. The New Jersey Supreme Court restricted the definition of militia to "the active, organized militias of the states," that is, the National Guard. The court's very use of these adjectives to modify the word "militia" ignores the constitutional militia comprised of all persons capable of bearing arms. The Burton opinion simply fails to provide scholarly, historical, and analytical treatment of the subject, as indeed primarily only the antebellum state opinions do provide.
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)
This case dealt with whether nonresident aliens, located in a foreign country, were entitled to Fourth Amendment rights. The Court ruled they were not. In discussing the meaning of "the people" in the Fourth Amendment, the Court commented:
" '[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. "
Therefore the Court viewed "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments..
However, the Court didn't discuss whether the militia clause is a limiting factor, and how it might restrict the people's right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, in U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit stated:
"Citing dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 ... Hale argues that the Second Amendment protections apply to individuals and not to states or collective entities like militias. This argument is inapplicable to this case. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia ... Whether the 'right to bear arms' for militia purposes is [Page 24] 'individual' or 'collective' in nature is irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia. Id. at 1020."
On a concluding side-note:
"Interestingly, the majority opinion's analysis of 'the people' protected by the Bill of Rights was an elaboration of a point made by the dissenting opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, when the majority had held that Mr. Verdugo was entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. When the Verdugo case went to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General's office quoted from Ninth Circuit's dissent, but used ellipses to remove the dissent's reference to the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court majority, of course, put the Second Amendment back in."
--- The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases. By David B. Kopel
Some may find this boring but I find it an interesting example of how our system works. The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial....intended checks and balances one upon the other.
Those Founders were pretty sharp.
-
Toad thanks for posting that, I found it very interesting reading.
After reading all of that I can not help but wonder what the US Supreme Court would do with the Assault Weapons ban that was enacted in 94. The arguement could be made that the ban interferes with the efficiecy of the militia. "The Militia is comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." Semi-auto and automatic weapons are more efficient than bolt action or single shot weapons when it comes to defending a position.
Now before all the anti-gunners start howling for my skin (but they will anyway (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) ), I'm not saying everyone should be allowed to have these weapons. Some people just are not prepared mentally or emotionally to be gun owners. I've even talked some good friends out of buying guns because I felt they couldna handle it.
But I do think the feds have overstepped thier bounds on this one, just noone has taken it all the way to the top.
And I think Hangtime is right. I used to live in Gainseville, GA. There is a NG armory there, right in the middle of town. I had several friends in my shooting group who were in the NG and were assigned there. This subject came up for debate a few times and every one who was in the NG said, to a man, they'd not fight agaist us, the people, and if this situation arose they would assist us in arming ourselves and our friends/families with arms from the armory.
I've spoken with friends here in Groton who are active duty in the Navy, and they've said basically the same thing. If it ever came down to it, they'd not fight against the American public.
C'mon, the moron with an M-16 at home will have to face a trained soldier who has an m-16, grenades, artillery, other buddies (also trained and with better weapons) if it comes to a "face the army" situation. Look at all the things that happen when gun nuts get followers and barricade 100 or so men into a bunker and shoot it out with the goverment... they get to face light Tanks, helicopters, snipers, soldiers with superior weapons and tactics.
The first incident to come to mind when I read that was Waco, TX. If memory serves, they faced the FBI and ATF, not the NG or Army (I suppose it's possible my memory is failing). The FBI and ATF are arms of the federal government that we, the people, are supposed to be regulating. They'll be the ones we'll have to face.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go pick up a Bradley (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
NP, Cave...glad you found it interesting.
I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, believe me, but lots of people argue stuff without doing any research into the particular topic. The Web absolutely shines n this area.
I've read the Handgun Control literature, too. You never know where you might find truth. It never hurts to see where the other guy is coming from. Doesn't mean you have to agree of course. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Knowledge doesn't hurt anyone; truth is usually in there somewhere.
I hope people on both sides of this argument have learned something here, whether or not they agree.
I believe you are exactly right on the Assault Weapons ban. I'm not saying I'm for or against them <trying to just maintain a neutral position of observation>. I think if it went to the Supreme Court, there would be previous case law that might serve to overturn it.
However, at the same time, remember the Court simply refused to hear Burton v. Sills in 1985 which dealt DIRECTLY with the State of New Jersey's gun control law.
So, the Court has ways of ruling without even hearing a case. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Which brings me FINALLY to the point of this entire thread...<thanks for the perfect leadin, btw>...which I will reveal tomorrow because I have to go fly my Fairchild! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Stay tuned!
-
Originally posted by Toad:
I believe you are exactly right on the Assault Weapons ban. I'm not saying I'm for or against them <trying to just maintain a neutral position of observation>. I think if it went to the Supreme Court, there would be previous case law that might serve to overturn it.
However, at the same time, remember the Court simply refused to hear Burton v. Sills in 1985 which dealt DIRECTLY with the State of New Jersey's gun control law.
True, not even hearing the case sets a precedent of sorts, but Burton v. Sills in 85 was the state of NJ's laws.
It appears, from what you posted in U.S. v. Cruikshank, that the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the Federal government from limiting these rights.
"The court decided that neither the First nor Second Amendments applied to the states, but were limitations on Congress"
That being the case, Congress and Slick Willie have overstepped thier bounds, and it just needs someone to take them to the mat on it and it should be overturned. The same can be said for the magazine capacity limitation, which applies to affecting the efficiency of the militia.
BTW, anyone know exactly how many gun models were banned by that Assualt Weapons ban? By the lists of items that is. My friends I stopped counting at 170, including the .22 calibre pistols used by the US Olympic shooting team and the Colt 1911A1 using to win the Biannchi (sp?) cup in 94 (and that was a damn fine pistol, NOT the kind of thing you would find used in crime (criminals would hawk that sucker fast for the big $$$ it would get))
-
So, the topic for today, and why I started this whole thread.....
We US citizens will vote for a President very shortly. What actually will affect us the most?
This deals directly with the three arms of government, Executive, Legislative & Judicial. Intended as checks and balances, one against the other, what really is the current situation?
[IMHO]
The Congress really doesn't do much any more. We are so divided and antagonistic that our Congressmen no longer weigh issues on their merit or value to the nation/society. Special interests groups ($), party lines, etc., etc. take precedence. No real change, no major issue overhauls come out of Congress anymore because on the truly BIG stuff no one will agree and there are enough dollars floating around to delay real change indefinitely.
The Presidency is almost to a figurehead stage. Leadership? Hah! "That vision thing?" Hah! The Presidency is now an office that reacts to fickle public opinion polls rather than an office that can define a dream/goal for this nation and begin to move us forward.
So where does the real power presently lie? I believe it's in the Judicial arm, particularly the Supreme Court. These 9, appointed for LIFE can in one day, one opinion, change the very fabric of American life. Their interpretation of laws past <the Constitution> or laws present <recently passed legislation> can immediately alter our society.
Now, who appoints these 9 wise folks?
The President, of course. THAT is the one reason current Presidential elections are important.
So, I ask all of you to review the societal issues that are near and dear to your heart...the 2nd Amendment, Capital Punishment, Abortion, Income Tax <there is a challenge building here, one that claims it was never ratified by enough states>, whatever issues you feel are of most importance to the future of our society. I don't care what side you are on in any of these debates. Just think them over.
Then, when you vote for a President, I suggest you mainly consider what type of Supreme Court Justices this man will appoint in his term.
This issue, I believe, is where the real power to alter the US lies. Make sure you know what your candidate intends to do here. Ask questions, press their campaigns for information. Bother your local news agencies and make them aware of the interest in this area.
Idealistic? Yep, I am. I admit it.
But I do feel that the future of this democracy lies mainly in the 9 folks on that bench.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-12-2000).]
-
Toad,
Outstanding research and scholarship. I SALUTE you.
I have served in the Military (Army) and worn a badge as a "civilian" Police officer. I also went to college for more than 4 years before putting on a blue uniform. One of the things that really stands out in my memory is a Constitutional Law Prof stating that the Bill of Rights is not a document that gives rights to citizens of this country. It is a document that LIMITS the powers of the Government to restrict the rights you have by benefit of being a citizen of this country. The Government is not in the business of empowering (howzat for a PC term!) people. It is in the business of restricting them.
Some of the restrictions are quite valid. It is unlawful to steal, kill, bear false witness and a host of other acts that are basically injurious to others. Freedom does not mean that you have the right to injure another. It means you have the right to prevent another from injuring you. This injury can be physical, financial and even emotional. If you think I am joking, what category do non violent "hate crimes" fall under? Fre speech also has limits. If you say (print) something that is false and injurious, you can be held accountable. Most obvious easy example, screaming fire in a crowded building. Another example is lible and slander. Now the defense to those charges is simple. All you have to do is prove that the statements you made were true and factual. If they were, then there is NO criminal violation.
I have found, in the course of my career that denying someone their liberty is one of the most damaging things you can do to a person short of physical injury. The exercise of arrest powers are not something to be taken lightly. The restriction of another person should ONLY be done on the basis of a legal and exigent circumstance. Many people are willing now to deny others fredom to live as they wish, just because they don't like other folks living that way. They will continue to state that "security" will be increased if only those "other folks" can no longer do those things that the complaining party doesn't like. Outside of restricting the Government from searching, arresting, holding or otherwise denying you liberty, there is no security promise for an individual from other individuals in the Constitution.
Think about it. The laws are written to punish / prosecute an individual for COMMITTING an act. Not thinking about it. That act most conform to a legal definition of some kind of "harm" before the Government can act. The laws of this country are not preventative in nature, only reactionary in the pure sense of the word. There is very little the Government is allowed to do BEFORE an act is committed. Now the act does not have to be brought to fruition. If you make some move to commit the act the Government can step in, hence conspiracy charges. There still has to be some type of overt action ON the conspiracy to have a criminal violation however.
If you want to have a free society, you must accept responsibility for your actions and deceisions. There must also be an awareness that others in a free society do not think like you do. As long as they do not place their values over you absent a legal / criminal violation on your part, they are entitled to do as they wish. They do not have to like you or your lifestyle, but as long as you are causing no hurt to another or any other criminal violation they have no "right" to force you to act as they wish you to do so. Claiming "politically correct" acts as the only acceptable behavior is not an exercise of freedom. It is an act of individual tyrany.
Examples.
Vegans trying to force non vegans to follow their lifestyle. (Meat is murder)
People who do not like hunting trying to impose their will on others who do like to hunt.
Closing a firearms range with the argument that it creates noise in the neighborhood when the range was there decades before the complainants built a house next door to it.
Demanding an airport / base move due to the noise of the airplanes as the new neighbors build a house or school across the street from an existing airport / base.
Imposing the tenets of your religion onto others who do not believe as you do. (blue laws are a tame example)
Demanding that those who own guns and have not committed any offense with them give them up because YOU don't like guns. No one FORCES you to buy a gun so don't try to force others not to own one.
If you want to have a free land / society you have to be prepared to be tolerant of others who do not live the same way you do. Not all people think as you do and how would you feel if they tried to impose their will upon you if you were in the minority. It may not be a "secure" society to live in but you DO have choices in that case.
A final note regarding the Armed Forces. The members of the Armed Forces swore an OATH not to defend the President or Congress. The oath requres them to defend the CONSTITION, including the Bill of Rights. This makes them a Citizen Armed Force, not a Government force. The members are responsible to the members of the citizenry not the whims of Government. The requirement to disobey unlawful orders makes the responsibility of judging the act a soldier is directed to do before performing the act. Following orders is not a defense and has case law behind it.
Mav
Long post. Sorry but it just growed.
-
Well, just to show you how easily that argument can be made from the other side;
they can claim that YOU force THEM to live in a society full of guns.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Well, just to show you how easily that argument can be made from the other side;
they can claim that YOU force THEM to live in a society full of guns.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
That does not follow. I do not force them to live period. They make their own choices. If they wish to go to another "society" that does not believe in personal freedom or responsibility they can do so. I hold NO ONE here.
I ask that they tend to their business and now that I no longer am a Police Officer I no longer wish to tend to their business either. I just wish to be left alone to tend to MY business.
The "forcing them to live in a society" with inanimate objects is a non sequitor. It is merely another "emotionally charged" nonsense statement. They choose to live where they do, not by my whim or the "whim" of an inanimate object. There is no such thing as "security" in any society. Any society the expects the "government" to protect them is in a fantasy land. There is case law that indicates the Police do not have an obligation to any individual, only to the population at large. If you expect the Police to be everywhere, you have no freedom. You have a police state where choices are extremely limited. It may be your idea of a "security blanket" but it is certainly not mine.
Whoever said life was fair or secure?
Mav
-
Hey Mav, bear with me; I am playing the Devil's Advocate here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). Your post was well thought out and interesting. My purpose is therefore just to illustrate what kind of a response you'll get "out there" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). So see the replies in that light and I might not appear to be quite such an irritating twit (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
That does not follow. I do not force them to live period. They make their own choices. If they wish to go to another "society" that does not believe in personal freedom or responsibility they can do so. I hold NO ONE here.
Well, they would like to STAY in the good old US which they believe represents personal freedom. But are you basically saying that if they dislike guns, or being forced to live with them, they can just bug the hell out?
Well, Sir, you can do the same. As Toad has mentioned, there are other places in the world where gun ownership is mandatory.
And as we've discussed before, personal freedom stops somewhere. Somewhwere we draw the line. Allowing people to own nuclear weapons, or manufacture biological ones, for instance.
I ask that they tend to their business and now that I no longer am a Police Officer I no longer wish to tend to their business either. I just wish to be left alone to tend to MY business.
No argument with this, except if your way of life has detrimental effects on others.
The "forcing them to live in a society" with inanimate objects is a non sequitor. It is merely another "emotionally charged" nonsense statement.
I am glad that you see it as this. In reality, they have two choices; leave the US to get away from the guns, or stay with the guns. Some would call that choice choosing between a rock and a hard place. But, it is not as you suggest irrelevant. The laws as they are currently made makes it impossible for them to avoid guns or gun owners *if they live in the USA*. In just the same way other laws limit your persoal freedom and disallow you from owning biological weapons.
They choose to live where they do, not by my whim or the "whim" of an inanimate
object.
Most people in the western world stick to their culture. Fixing it (seen from everyone's point of view) is important to some.
There is no such thing as "security" in any society.
Hm, various levels of security, I'd say. Various levels of safety.
Any society the expects the "government" to protect them is in a fantasy land.
My government is protecting me in more way than one. I'm fed, educated and bad guys are locked up. It doesn't offer 24 hours personal protection, and toejam can happen, but I am protected. Just not 100%, and I wouldn't want to be.
There is case law that indicates the Police do not have an obligation to any individual, only to the population at large.
Hm, might be a US thing?
If you expect the Police to be everywhere, you have no freedom. You have a police state
where choices are extremely limited. It may be your idea of a "security blanket" but it is certainly not mine.
Well, this is really a straw man. And, technically, the number of police officers wouldn't have anything to do with the severity of the laws or how much personal freedom you have.
Whoever said life was fair or secure?
Some dumb allied opportunist?
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Maverick, there are two thinks i wish to ask you:
Demanding that those who own guns and have not committed any offense with them give them up because YOU don't like guns. No one FORCES you to buy a gun so don't try to force others not to own one.
1. I misunderstand maybe the problem, but the actual "regulation struggle" in U.S.A. is about to registrate gun owned or confiscate gun ?
I ask this because the former case will be a good issue, the latter cut be a real freedom violation and in this case i am with you all opportunist gun owners at your side to defend your rights. (not joking, except for "opportunist (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
If you want to have a free land / society you have to be prepared to be tolerant of others who do not live the same way you do. Not all people think as you do and how would you feel if they tried to impose their will upon you if you were in the minority. It may not be a "secure" society to live in but you DO have choices in that case.
2. Wich choises? (but you answer later):
That does not follow. I do not force them to live period. They make their own choices. If they wish to go to another "society" that does not believe in personal freedom or responsibility they can do so. I hold NO ONE here.
"If you dont like what i like, go away"
Is this freedom? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
WAIT !!!
Before you go mad, i explain myself, i was just provoking you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
IMHO the problem is both of you, gun owners, and gun opposing ones, have the same right to live in your country, so some kind of balance between the two position has to be reached, like in any civilized society.
I think a weapons registration is a good issue to realize that balance, because your right to own a weapon is granted, you need just to record yourself and the weapon matricula when buy it, like in Europe, difference is here you need the police forces authorization, somewere easy to have (not here where i live, too many crazy guys (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)), this registration make the police work easier, because if you dont record your gun you have somethink bad to do with it (you know each weapon leave a clear "sign" on the fired bullet), if you dont want to do anithink bad, where is the problem to record?
Back to the car example some of the gun owners use, if you kill someone with your car and a witness read your plate, the police can easly find you, in the case of a gun your bullet is the witness accusing you.
More, if the police find someone with an unregistered gun (and have a law punishing this), can prevent a possible crime arresting the guy (probably a criminal).
But i know, this is an US question, and you all have to solve it.
For all that can answer the following questions, i need some information regarding the topic:
When the National Guard were founded?
With wich purpose?
Is the NG assimilable to the militia of the second amendment, if not, why?
I am not provoking, i am serius, i need to understand this, because when i read the amendment the first think coming on my mind as the militia, was the NG, and i dont understand the difference.
[This message has been edited by Naso (edited 08-16-2000).]
-
Naso,
Let me explain a normal course for things in the USA.
1) Something is identified as being a problem. (ie Bankrobberies and cancer)
2) Someone identifies something as facilitating the problem (ie guns and cigarettes)
3) More people start to agree with that someone (voters)
4) Congress gets involved the only way they can (ban/regulate/outlaw)
5) Restrictions occur.
AKDejaVu
-
"BTW, the poor guys in Vietnam wouldve won in a few months if they had let the military do its thing, rather than have politicians in the middle."
First of all, I was there, 1969, on the DMZ with 4/12 3rd Marine Division.
In retrospect I don't think there was any way to win the war, other than to arm the South Vietnamese people (and NO I do not mean the fricken So Vietnamese Army I mean the PEOPLE).
The Marines had a highly successful program called the Combined Action Platoons CAP. Where a squad of Marines would live with, arm and train the people to defend themselves against the VietCong and the NVA.
Westmoreland, ever the military genius, pulled the rug out from under the CAP program, and sent the Outranked Marines to be slaughtered in untenable, ill thought, and essentially worthless postitions. If you think I am BSing, well the Marines were less than 10% of the American troops in Vietnam, but 1 in 4 of the names on the wall in Washington are followed by four letters; USMC. Semper Fi
However, we have over 225 years of continuing the tradition of inept Army brass sending the outranked Marines to be slaughtered in ill concieved, tactically untennable situations. So the Marines have adopted tactics to allow us to prevail and overcome.
Stormin Norman, was the first Army General to deploy Marines properly, mind you he was an anomoly. For a Dogface, he has my respect (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As for Vietnam, an invasion of the North was impossible, as it would have led to a Chinese Communist confrontation as happened in Korea. Bombing the North only strengthened the position of Ho Chi Minh, as it consolidated the North Vietnamese against the Americans. Hard not to hate someone who just bombed your child, mother, father etc etc.
The solution was to give the people the power to defend themselves against any government. That is give them the right to keep and bear arms.
[This message has been edited by AKFokerFoder+ (edited 08-16-2000).]
-
Naso,
Rather than try to rewrite something that someone has already done better than my modest skills could acheive, here's something from:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html)
This place is an excellent, well-researched site for 2nd Amendment information.
The following is excerpted from To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, Joyce Lee Malcom, Harvard University Press, 1994
The second and related objective concerned the militia, and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. The customary American militia necessitated an armed public, and Madison's original version of the amendment, as well as those suggested by the states, described the militia as either "composed of" or "including" the body of the people.
A select militia was regarded as little better than a standing army. The argument that today's National Guard, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation.
Indeed, it would seem redundant to specify that members of a militia had the right to be armed. A militia could scarcely function otherwise. But the argument that this constitutional right to have weapons was exclusively for members of a militia falters on another ground. The House committee eliminated the stipulation that the militia be "well-armed," and the Senate, in what became the final version of the amendment, eliminated the description of the militia as composed of the "body of the people." These changes left open the possibility of a poorly armed and narrowly based militia that many Americans feared might be the result of federal control.
Yet the amendment guaranteed that the right of " the people" to have arms not be infringed. Whatever the future composition of the militia, therefore, however well or ill armed, was not crucial because the people's right to have weapons was to be sacrosanct. As was the case in the English tradition, the arms in the hands of the people, not the militia, are relied upon "to restrain the violence of oppression."
Directly addressing the role of the National Guard:
There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.
"One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army.
Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's another interesting little tidbit from the same place.
"Arms
In Colonial times "arms" 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."
A nicely done, very detailed history of the US National Guard can be found at:
=http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/ (http://=http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/)
A quick answer to your question would be <from that source>:
"The Militia Act of 1792, actually two pieces of legislation passed in May of that year, provided for two categories of militia, but in a less expensive and less centralized form. The vast majority of individuals would continue to serve in the common militia <Toad's Note: this is the "PEOPLE" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment>, just as they had in the past. A volunteer militia, similar to the minutemen of 1775, would be the actual ready reserve."
Hope this helps.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-16-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-16-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-16-2000).]
-
Santa:
"Well, they would like to STAY in the good old US which they believe represents personal freedom. But are you basically saying that if they dislike guns, or being forced to live with them, they can just bug the hell out?"
No, I don't think that is the point. Excuse me for covering some previously covered material but maybe we should review.
From the aforementioned Guncite:
Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. How do we know this? The Ninth Amendment states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, we have other rights beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government is not justified in denying us those rights.
What could those rights be? Although, this Web site is not for the purpose of discussing natural and positive rights, below are quotes from two Founding Fathers telling us that the right to self-defense is a natural right, it cannot be justifiably taken away by any governing body.
"I go farther; and now proceed to show, that in peculiar instances, in which those rights can receive neither protection nor reparation from civil government, they are, notwithstanding its institution, entitled still to that defence, and to those methods of recovery, which are justified and demanded in a state of nature."
"The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."
--- James Wilson, Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in 2 The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).
The above quote is from a series of lectures given between 1790 and 1792.
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).
We have many, many natural rights not written down in law. Think about it! (Of course, we have responsibilities as well).
End of Guncite commentary
So, these 2nd Amemendments Rights PRE-EXIST our Constitution and have been RE-ASSERTED in that Constitution.
To the point:
For those who do not care for this aspect of our Constitution, there exists a remedy.
The Constitution provides a means to AMEND the Constitution. It is deliberately not easy. Those who oppose the 2nd have NEVER, EVER chosen to attempt to amend the Constitution.
So, one might ask if they are so concerned about living in such a society, why have they not availed themselves of this legitimate remedy provided by the Founders?
Secondly, they were born into this society with the Constitution long established. They now find one particular aspect of that Constitution not to their liking. Should they be allowed to alter it WITHOUT using the method provided by the Founders?
What of the rights of those who see no problem with the 2nd? The "rest of us" so to speak. Is this not exactly the "personal freedom" that the Constitution specifically provides?
The 2nd is only a slightly analogous to Mav's airport out in the country that is suddenly surrounded by new housing developments. Of course, the new suburbanites that moved out to the "country" for "peace and quiet" find the noise objectionable and want the airport closed. They didn't notice it when they signed the contract but of course the developer got the land cheaper because it was so "close to that airport noise".
What of the pre-exisiting rights of those who use the airport?
There's the difference. The Consitution does NOT guarantee the rights for "the people" to use an airport.
It ABSOLUTELY guarantees the rights of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
Therefore, the airport pilots and angry suburbanites will most likely meet in a local court and hammer out a compromise that will allow the airport/pilots compensation to move further out into the country. The suburbanites should, but might not, bear the cost of this move.
This is exactly what is happening at my little grass strip. <G> We'll see how it turns out.
OTOH, those who don't like guns, should, if they are honestly believers in the the US Constitution, begin a drive to amend the Constitution.
However, that is not what is happening. Instead, they are trying to circumvent the Constitution through other means.
In short, the rules are long-established. There exists a legitimate way to change the rules, provided by the Founders themselves. If they don't like the rules, let them use the approved method to change them.
If they'd rather move to Denmark, that's OK too! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-16-2000).]
-
leonid, my point was that there is no implement of war that is completely immune to infantry. Armor can be disabled, airfields can be overrun. Both can be denied fuel and ammo. Both armor and aircraft are useless in certain types of terrian. At some point everything is vulnerable to a guy with a rifle.
Now think about it in the context of an armed internal rebellion of say 50 millon people. Could the military just steam-roll over that many people while simultaneously gaurding its food, fuel, and ammo production? I dont think so, but thats just my opinion. At any rate, a slim chance is better than none at all.