Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: sgt203 on March 21, 2007, 10:04:12 PM
-
Am intersted in Comments as to how people feel as far as if the right to keep and bear arms extends to the CITIZENS.. and is not empowered only to the states
I for one have always beleived the right for Citizens to KEEP and bear arms is just that, a right for each individual citizen to own, keep and bear arms.
The constant assaults against this position and a recent court ruling from Washington DC (which is being appealed by the City of Washington DC) which stated this right does extend to the individual citizen have made me want to look into his deeper and see what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind with the second amendment.
I did some research and have posted what I found below..
United States Bill of Rights (ratfied December 15, 1791)
The Second Amendment " A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Having looked at this in the abstract, standing alone, I can see where some may feel this means this is for a "Militia" (army) and not the individual, however standing alone also "the right of the people" seem to be fairly clear also.
To understand what the founders of this country were trying to say I looked at the US Declaration of Independence. A part of this jumped out at me as fairly important to the state of mind of the founding fathers of this country. ....."but when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security".
The Declaration of Independence was signed July 4, 1776 and the first 10 amendments were ratified by the States on December 15, 1791. Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Goverment but many series of 20th century court cases by the Supreme Court have stated that these rights (most of them) apply to the states.
So I looked at the Individual State Constitutions fo the original 13 colonies.
Pennsylvania Adopted Sept 28, 1776
Section 21 Right to Bear Arms.
The right OF THE CITIZENS to bear arms in defense of THEMSELVES AND THE STATE shall not be infirnged
New Hampshire June 2, 1784
Artilce 2-a The Bearing of Arms
All person have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the State.
Georgia (as revised Jan 2005)
Article 1 Section 1 RIGHTS OF PERSONS
Thye right of the poeple to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the general assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be BORNE.
Massechusetts Bill of Rights 1780
Article 17.
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense....
Rhode Island 1663-1843 new Constitution adopted 1780
Section 22 Right to bear Arms
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Virginia June 1788
Article 17
That the people have the right to keep and bear arms...(amended)
North Carolina August 1788
Article 17
That the people have the right to keep and bear arms (amended)
***North Carolina and Virginia read exactly the same***
Delaware Sept 11, 1776 and Maryland May 8, 1867
Both read..
That a well regulated militia is the proiper and natural defense of a free Government.
Del article 18 Maryland Art 28.
New York April 20, 1777
Article XL..
And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every state that it should always be in a condition of defense; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it, this convention therefor, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, doth ordain, determine and delcare that the militia of this state, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war. shall be armed and disciplined and in readiness for service...
My conclusions:
Most of the constitutions of these states were ratified PRIOR to the United States Bill of Rights and a majoirty make it unambiguoius as to the intent that the CITIZENS have the right to keep and bear arms. There are some exceptions where the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are not expressly stated New York, Delaware and Maryland and to some extent Massechusetts.
However the MAJORITY OF THE STATES THAT WERE NEEDED TO RATIFY THE UNITED STATES BILL OF RIGHT CLEARLY BY THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONS INFER THIS RIGHT UPON THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN, NOT UPON THE STATES.
In as much as the United States Bill of Rights sets forth the MINIMUM STANDARDS OF RIGHT FOR ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.. Those states who have less than plain defining language as to the individual right ARE BOUND TO EXTEND THESE MINIMUM RIGHTS TO THEIR CITIZENS..
I am intersted to hear both concurring and opposing views on this issue..
<<>>
-
!
-
I dont like people who try and sue gun manufacturers....
It's like saying.......My brother was beaten to death with a Vitamin water bottle...Lets go sue vitamin water!
-
Sgt203, you've done a lot of homework and you, like almost everyone else that can think critically, realize it is and was always intended as an individual right.
If it were not an individual right, it would be the ONLY ONE of the 10 amendments in the BOR that was not an individual right. That should raise an eyebrow in those that contend it's not an individual right but it doesn't because they aren't interested in that. They're simply interested in banning guns at any cost.
So, just as you can find people that will argue that the world is flat, you can find people that will argue the 2nd isn't an individual right.
I'm happy about the recent Circuit Court ruling; the longer it stands, the better. If it goes to the SC, I feel certain the ruling will be upheld and that would be even better.
-
I think that it is important to try to make a case for the government.... If you did feel that it was not an individual right then...
You would have to believe that the second was the only place where "people" meant "government"...
More importantly... you would have to believe that the second was a guarantee that the government could always arm itself...
Pretty silly. Why not another amendment to guarantee that the government could make laws?
Nope.. it is an individual right. They leaned to heavily on militias because they were more afraid of big government than anything else but it is an individual right.
lazs
-
Yea, just a bunch of silly "flat earthers".
1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms
In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.
-
Oh, you flat earth society folks have had some success twisting the language and meaning.
It looks like that may have come to an end though.
Tell me MT, can you cite an instance where the other 9 amendments in the BOR are not held to be individual rights?
Can you show me any quotations from the founders that indicate the right to bear arms is not an individual right?
Can you show where the state constitutions of the original 13 signatory states didn't protect the right to bear arms as an individual right?
The evidence is overwhelming. Overwhelming.
But I acknowledge that there are special interest groups that have and will attempt to subvert the true constitutional meaning of the 2nd amendment. I don't think that they do this through ignorance, so it's probably not fair to characterize them as flat earth people.
They're more in the line of dictators.
-
If you read miller you will see that the case was not even represented with miller or his attorney... The SC were conned into believing that a sawed off shotgun had no utility as a weapon for war. This was wrong of course but they didn't know that.
The DC ruling flatly states that it is an individual right.... so.. who are we to believe... the KKK and jim crow era SC that admited to not knowing anything about firearms or.. the one who spent the time to study it from BOTH sides?
In the miller case it was noted that one of the SC judges had a submachine gun in their closet at home... He was told that the law would never apply to him.
lazs
-
Oh, btw... have you ever examined how Miller went down?
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court. The SC never read or heard the defendants' views, because they were not represented in any form. Doesn't that seem a bit strange to you MT? The decision was handed down without the defendants lawyer even being there?
Do you think it right that the court heard only one side of the matter, the government's side?
You do realize that the SC did not accept most of the government's arguments andbased its conclusion on a small part of the government's argument?
You realize how fatuous it is that the SC declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)? This after shotguns were a major player in the civil war and the US issued this gun:
(http://www.bedlans.com/1897%20Trench%2031M.jpg)
By the end of World War I, the Army had 19,600 Model 97s on hand; you'd think the SC might have been made aware of that and taken that into consideration if Miller had been represented at the case.
The entire Miller decision rests on the SC viewing a "sawed off" shotgun as not being a military weapon. Anyone can see that is simply untrue. Anyone.
-
Bottom line = Fear anyone who wants you unarmed.
-
Man I love TEXAS
Sel Defense Bill closer to becoming law (http://lonestartimes.com/2007/03/21/self-defense-bill-closer-to-becoming-law/)
:aok
-
So the Supreme Court is a bunch of dictators then or are they "flat earthers"? And 1983 was the "jim crow" era?
LOL
Do you think a citizen should have the right to own a nuclear device?
-
Oh look, more flat earthers!
Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
-
MT, please answer the question posed above: Which of the other 9 bills of right don't apply to the individual?
-
Which of of the other first 10 amendments is not an individual right?
What writings of the founders have you found that indicate the 2nd is not an indidvidual right?
Which of the early state constitutions do not make the right to bear arms and individual right?
Do you see any flaws in the way US v Miller was heard and decided?
-
Originally posted by Toad
But I acknowledge that there are special interest groups that have and will attempt to subvert the true constitutional meaning of the 2nd amendment. I don't think that they do this through ignorance, so it's probably not fair to characterize them as flat earth people.
They're more in the line of dictators.
I think that the flat earth analogy is extremely fitting. Church officials knew very well that the earth is round. As a matter of fact this was a known fact for centuries before.
It was just that the facts did not mesh well with church's teachings and hold on power. The pope (and church in general) was not ignorant, he was simply nipping a challenge to his power in a bud.
Just like today's gun grabbers. The "second amendment = collective right" principle is crucial to them. They can't tolerate any cracks in their dam. If they do, it is only a matter of time until it falls.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
MT, please answer the question posed above: Which of the other 9 bills of right don't apply to the individual?
None of them.
Unfortunately there is only one of the 10 that was written with a justification clause. The 2nd.
Understand this, I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion that we have an individual right to bear arms. I strongly disagree with the conclusion that only idiots and cretins will find the 2nd to be ambiguous on the issue.
Now what about my question... Can an individual own a SCUD missle? A stinger? A Nuke?
-
(http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/266/range5bi.jpg)
: )
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So the Supreme Court is a bunch of dictators then or are they "flat earthers"? And 1983 was the "jim crow" era?
LOL
Do you think a citizen should have the right to own a nuclear device?
A nuke isn't a gun now is it??? Try and keep things in perspective here. The point is, the 2nd Ammendment as with ALL the ammendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. The folks out there that want to take that right away from the public are the same folks that will take away your right to speak out against the government. Once a society is disarmed what defense does that society have against the very government that disarmed them?? None. That is what the 2nd ammendment is all about. Providing the people the ability to protect themselves from anyone trying to take away any of their rights.
I'm glad I live in a state that understands that fact and is a "will issue" state. Took me all of 30 minutes at the court house and $50 and then a wait of about 12 days and I got my CCP that is good for 5 years. I carry on a regular basis. Not because I need to, but because it's my right as a individual to carry. Virginia has even gone as far as allowing CCP holders to carry on school property as long as they don't take a weapon inside a building.
There is one over riding train of thought though that many people will agree with. When the government bans the right of an individual to own a firearm, they will turn millions of law abiding citizens into criminals overnight, because many of those gun owners will not give up their weapons and will fight to keep them. I know I'm one of those people. Also the thought behind that isn't about "I want my guns and you can't take them from me" it about the responsiblity I have as a citizen to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. Any law that bans a persons right to own a gun is unconstitutional and as a free thinking individual I have the responsibility to fight against such a thing because it wont end with just guns.
-
Wait... you're saying the 1st is not an individual right?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Wait... you're saying the 1st is not an individual right?
No I'm saying it is.
Originally posted by Hornet33 A nuke isn't a gun now is it???
The 2nd doesn't say you have the right o bear "guns" it says "arms".
-
No Toad, he wouldn't say that because he LIKES the 1'st, he just doesn't want the rest of the population to have all of their rights because he's afraid of them.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
No Toad, he wouldn't say that because he LIKES the 1'st, he just doesn't want the rest of the population to have all of their rights because he's afraid of them.
Do you often post without reading or do you think that was funny?
-
Ah, so the Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights.... except for the 2nd.
Now, about those founder's remarks that indicate that they thought the right to bear arms was not an individual right? There are many that state the opposite; can you steer me to some that support your position?
What do you think of Miller being decided with only the government's side being heard? Something you think of as proper there?
-
I believe my post was addressed to Toad.
I did read previous posts but the one just above mine wasn't there when I typed my first reply out.
I don't joke very much at all when it comes to constitutional rights.
I am extrememly leery of anyone who wants to limit the constitution. I do not trust their motives or interpetation of why they want to modify it. I am extremely distrustfull about anyone who wants to limit rights or grant the govt. more latitude in intruding into citizen rights.
-
Why do you keep ignoring my question?
-
Because you are ignoring mine?
-
I gave your "question" more attention than it deserved already.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Which of of the other first 10 amendments is not an individual right?
What writings of the founders have you found that indicate the 2nd is not an indidvidual right?
Which of the early state constitutions do not make the right to bear arms and individual right?
Do you see any flaws in the way US v Miller was heard and decided?
None, as stated before.
Why is this relevant?
Why is this relevant?
Sure, it was one sided... that still doesn't change my point.
None of what you ask has anything to do with my point. There are plenty of well meaning and generally intelligent people out there who think the justification clause of the 2nd is significant.
So what does the strict individual right to "bear arms" really mean? Can I have a Nuke? Of course not, so my right to bear arms is already limited. So all we really have to go on here is the extent to which the government can limit that right.
-
the supreme court is not always right, see dread scott decision.
and MT how are you going to acquire a "nuke", you going to build it? maybe you will buy it? how many millions do you have? who will sell it to you? how will you transport it? where will you keep it? do you have a delivery system?
so many questions, so few answers.
-
So if I had enough money to buy a nuke, it would be OK?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So if I had enough money to buy a nuke, it would be OK?
Of course not. Even if you did have the money and actually bought one, we would have to invade and take it away since you are to dangerous to be allowed to own WMD's. :D
-
what mt appears to be neglecting for consideration beyond the right of the people to keep and bear arms as being necessary to the security of a free state by providing for a well regulated militia is the universal right to self defense. Every human being that is so capable has the right to defend oneself. And all human beings should be understood to be reuired to defend those incapable of self defense.
Now, We can all agree that "arms" are understood to be weapons, that weapons are understood to be long rifles, shotguns, pistols. All intelligent people should be willing to concede that a reasonable limitation to the definition of "arms" as referred to in the 2nd amendment is that of common firearms. Not artillery pieces, armored vehicles, stealth bombers or nuclear weapons.........that argument is the equivalent of absurdity and serves to illustrate the weak ground being stood on by those who ask the question far more than it serves to make a larger point about limitations of rights, which it does not.
imo, of course.
-
MT,why don't you buy something you could really use, like F15 fighter?
-
I'm sure a nuke would be considered a Class III Destructive Device if available on the open market, there for you could own one but you would have to get the required permits and such.
The question here is why are you comparing a gun to a nuke? That doesn't help your argument at all. Why would anyone want one? You can't use it to defend your family or property can you?
I can see it now, 3AM wake up hearing someone trying to break into the house. Ask myself, "Gee I wonder what would be better in this situation, my Kimber 1911A1 .45 or my 5 kiloton nuclear warhead?"
Again lets try and keep this in perspective if we can since no one is trying to take away our nukes, they're trying to take away our guns.
-
If you have enough money, and you can get somebody to actually sell you one... go for it.
F-15s, Seawolf attack subs, surplus aircraft carriers, whatever..
Practical example... if Tom Cruise bought himself a bombing range, and was certified in the handling, loading, arming, and deployment of 500 pound bombs from his P-51... more power to him.
I wonder how you'd get certified to own a Nuke. :huh
The catch is, innocent until proven guilty & all that. Under gun control (rather, lets expand that to Arms Control), Tom wouldn't get his bombs, even though he's never hurt anybody. Per the consitution, Tom should be able to get as many bombs as he wants. Who knows, a time could theoretically arise in which he needed to puts bombs on target to defend his home & family. Either way, it's the highest moral goal to ensure the maximum amount of personal freedoms for our fellow citizens, as long as those rights are not used to impinge on other citizens.
btw, I know Tom Cruise is a really bad example, but it's the first name of a P-51 owner I could think of.
-
This is a good article concerning the justification clause of the second amendment. The jist of the article is the second amendment is not at all unusual due to its justification clause...that other state constitutions contained justification clauses and this language was quite normal for the times, written not so much as legal, but rather political text. If anything, the second amendment's justification clause enhances an individual right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to trumping or limiting any rights.
To objectively look at the writings of the founders and other state constitutions is relevant in reaching honest interpretation of the constitution. It must be read with the willingness to be wrong if the interpretation does not meet with a specific agenda or sought after goal. If interpreted honestly, the second amendment clearly and irrevocably states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is an individual right. To specifically hammer home the idea, militia is mentioned in the spirit of including everyone (this is a political point as was common in those days.) The reason mentioning militia does not affect the second amendment (other than its inclusion as a political motivator) is because no where in the constitution is there a provision for Congress to maintain a militia or even that a militia be armed, i.e. the justification clause could have been left out completely and has nothing to do with the operative clause, which stands alone just fine.
This could be proved through transformational grammar of English and rules concerning grammar (these resemble algebraic formulas where a sentence is broken down to its constituent parts and then tested to see if the parts have the same meaning when re-assembled different ways [flip-flop test].) The operative clause is independent of the preamble or justification clause (the mention of militia.) I could have done this test 29 years ago when I was in college but have long since forgotten how. What we need here is a linguist who knows how to analyze sentences using transformational grammar. I'm pretty sure what the result would be, however. It really would be that simple to determine the meaning.
Militia arms included rifles, pistols, edged and blunt instruments. Anything a man could easily carry and bring to bear. Normally ordnance was considered dangerous or unusual and hence, in addition to contemporary weapons of the day such as grenades, modern weapons such as bazookas, nukes etc. were/are limited. In any event, limiting of this nature does not remove an individual's right to keep and bear arms. This is the understanding I got from reading the article.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
Les
-
I will answer mt's question...
He is correct in that the second.. is a conditional amendment but then... so are all the others.. this does not negate the word "people" this word means the same in every instance.
What is conditional in the second is not that apparent unless you are to put it into the context of the times.. "arms" meant any weapon that could be stored and carried by an individual. That was mostly defined but not limited to... rifle and ammo... it most certainly did not mean the field pieces (cannon) of the time.
In modern day this would mean any shoulder fired or carried weapon..
Modern constitutional limitations would reasonably be things like.... explosive potential and the harm to neighbors... hazardous waste problems or potential for grave and serious contamination of the area.
So no... rockets of any real power and especialy nukes could be highly regulated.... most machine guns and automatic weapons could not...
pretty simple really.
lazs
-
All very good points, but the simple fact that there are web sites devoted to the parsing of the language and historical references to the types of weapons that would qualify as "arms" just prove my point. The 2nd is hardly a slam-dunk when it comes to the law.
Another thing many are now saying is that the intent of the 2nd was to provide a way for a man to "protect his family" (or home etc.). It was much more of a call (historically) to maintain the ability to overthrow a repressive government. If the overthrow or protection from the government is the intent of the amendment, then the classification of "arms" must necessarily go beyond those claimed.
-
Sorry MT but our position simply isn't supported by the rest of the Constitution, the constitution's of the states that initially ratified or by the other writing of the folks that actually created this republic.
In all those cases, the right for an individual to own and bear arms is clear. To pretend that the founders somehow meant the 2nd to say otherwise is, forgive me, bull****.
I look forward to the SC hearing the DC case.
-
Oh, as for "arms",
http://www.brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm
Let me know what you think.
-
i predict the SC will not hear the DC case and it will refer back to the last court ruling.
the SC picks the cases/petitions they will hear, the SC only hears about 10% of the petitions that come before it.
the criteria the SC uses to decide which petitions to hear is based on what constitutional import the law has, i think they should hear this case but i suspect they will defer.
-
Very interesting..
the summation at the bottom of the page:
So where does all this historical research bring us? It seems fairly clear that the Founders and their informed contemporaries understood the term "arms" to be synonymous with what we call "weapons." They did not use that overarching meaning at all times, sometimes referring to particular types of weapons like small arms as simply "arms." But the Founders' generation were certainly willing to apply the term to more powerful and traditionally "military-only" weapons. This is evident in the writings that prove they thought it very important to have an armed populace capable of resisting foreign invasion and domestic tyranny alike.
Which kinda flies in the face of those who say that "Arms" can only mean guns.
-
Yep.
So what did YOU think? Think he's right or wrong?
Not what you wish it was...what do you think of his actual argument?
-
Folks still didn't keep cannons and grenades in their closets MT. In those days it was muzzle loading firearms, black powder and ball that were kept and the occasional sword.
-
It requires at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to agree to grant the Petition for Certiorari. Maybe Roberts will push this one and settle it once and for all.
If they refuse to hear it... that's still good. The ruling stands and can be cited in the next cases that come from the antis.
-
As I posted before in this thread when the "nuculur" argument was trotted out, the definitions of arms and ordnance were well known at the time, just as they are distinct today. I suppose heavy machineguns are a grey area somewhat, but that's about it.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=192182&referrerid=5405
Easily. There is no "If" by the way and it never has been, even minutely, about hunting or sporting. The long drawn out debate over the role of a standing army vs "national guard style militia" vs "people casual militia" is well documented. It was all about power to the people or state.
As I said, the difference between Arms and Ordnance were clearly understood at the time. From another site/poster on the subject:
quote:
Websters Dictionary of 1828 (appropriate time period NOTE I cut some non weapons related references from the definition)
'ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. [edit: clearly personal weapons]
2. War; hostility.
Arms and the man I sing.
To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.
To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.
To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.
(sic)Sire(sic) (probably Fire) arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c. [edit: a broader coverage here for the general term "fire arms" meaning powder weapons]
A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary. [edit: now back to the point]
ORD'NANCE, n. [from ordinance.] Cannon or great guns, mortars and howitzers; artillery.
See, the distinction is clear, and was very clear at the time.
quote:
The Federalist No. 46:
" 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 government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
500,000 armed citizens vs 30,000 with cannons etc. is a fair exchange. Especially after the 500,000 begin to liberate ordnance. The founders were apparently content with the capabilities of personal arms, as they had just fought a revolution and knew what even a lightly armed population could accomplish against even the most powerful military power in the world at the time.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yep.
So what did YOU think? Think he's right or wrong?
Not what you wish it was...what do you think of his actual argument?
Well it is a long article, but the jist of it seems to be that the 2nd is subject to controls placed on weapons without losing the original meaning of the Amendment.
makes sense to me.
Still doesn't dispute my point in the least.
-
Well it is a long article, but the jist of it seems to be that the 2nd is subject to controls placed on weapons without losing the original meaning of the Amendment.
Sure. Controls placed on weapons deemed suitable to mount an insurrection against the military forces of a tyrannical government. I'm all for mandatory training in arms at the high school level :)
Charon
-
I guess it depends on whether or not one takes a "textualist" approach to the Constitution.
If we take a textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution, we find that all military weapons are considered "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment.
I believe here the author admits that in a textualist understanding, ALL military weapons are arms.
I now ask, what other approach to the Constitution can there be other than textualist?
How can one read into the Constitution something that is not there? How can one conversely ignore something that is written in the Constitution?
The answer is obvious and it has already been demonstrated in this thread.
If something is clearly written in the Constitution, supported by other external writings of the Founders and supported by similar if not exact language in the early state Constitutions.... then you ignore it by pretending it does not mean what it says.
-
Toad, the Constitution is a "living document", interpreted by "emanations of the penumbra". How could you not know that? In fact, the Constitution is so adaptable that if you look closely, you can not only see that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militia", interpreted as military armed services of the states, but you can also see the "separation of church and state clause" that isn't written either. Open your eyes man, for the love of (insert the non offending diety or lack thereof of your choice here) man!
-
I always love these threads on the validity of the 2nd.
MT, first off, let me just say that I find your name (Midnight TARGET) especially fitting when viewed next to your opinions on this issue. I find lots of irony and humor in that.
Now that I got that out of the way:
Anyone know what the definition of a militia is? I have looked at probably 25 definitions , and they all have the same word in common: citizens!
Here's (http://www.answers.com/topic/militia) just one example. Not to mention that the ammendent itself reads, "....The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the word "people" is a pretty concrete word. I don't see how you confuse the word "people" with the word "state".
As for the whole nuke thing, that can be summed up fairly simply.....WTF?
Use your head now. There obviously weren't nukes in the time that the framers were around, right. As much as I dislike it, the government has got to draw a line somewhere. This becomes the impass between the people and the government. We want what we want, and they know, in their infinite wisdom, that if we get what we want, someone will hurt themselves. It will be an argument that will stand as long as weapons continue to evolve. I am a gun owning, law abiding, card carrying member of the NRA, but I do believe that there are some things that should be out of our reach, such as nukes. This is just common sense. I don't think that full auto's should be banned though, but this is my opinion, and I don't get to make the rules.
Finally, as for your spouting off of random websites that support your points, for every site you find, I can find an opposing one. I could do a google search and find 100 sites that say that banging your dog is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and we should all do it on our Friday nights at home. Does that make it fact? My point is, don't buy into half of the garbage that you can google on the intardnet. Almost any article you're gonna find is written by someone with an opinion on the matter, so they're going to be biased. Try using a little free thought on the subject instead of just linking someone elses opinions in leu of your own.
Regards,
-
Hi everyone who remembers me...just thought I'd choose the most combative thread to say..'hello' on - that was usually where I was at.
Just like to say I'm missing Aces High a lot..(into 3d modelling now).
Hope you're all well.
Ravs
p.s. oh my word...they've even remembered my avatar...that's a good company!
-
Originally posted by ravells
Hi everyone who remembers me...just thought I'd choose the most combative thread to say..'hello' on - that was usually where I was at.
Just like to say I'm missing Aces High a lot..(into 3d modelling now).
Hope you're all well.
Ravs
p.s. oh my word...they've even remembered my avatar...that's a good company!
'ello Ravs old bean.:)
-
I see you havn't escaped yet!
Alright with you, Curval?
Ravs
p.s. tell me...have you done any mosquito raids? I really miss them! Oh and the scenarios....I really miss them too! The highlight was telling 303 squadron to stop yabbering in polish...which they actually were. That was a grand highlight in my gaming life which I shall never live again.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Hi everyone who remembers me...just thought I'd choose the most combative thread to say..'hello' on - that was usually where I was at.
Just like to say I'm missing Aces High a lot..(into 3d modelling now).
Hope you're all well.
Ravs
p.s. oh my word...they've even remembered my avatar...that's a good company!
LMAO, probably good timing on the hijack!
-
oops....sorry...please go back to your verbal combat...I was an intermission!
Ravs
-
Don't be sorry, I love it when that happens!
-
Bah...I see that Combat Tour is still the impossible dream. But in terms of service the Aces High team were outstanding. I shall never forget that.
:end of thread-jack:
Ravs
p.s. I see that Lazs is still here and would just like to say a hello to him! (Still havn't read the book although it's still on the shelf...one day!)
-
Originally posted by sgt203
Am intersted in Comments as to how people feel as far as if the right to keep and bear arms extends to the CITIZENS.. and is not empowered only to the states
I for one have always beleived the right for Citizens to KEEP and bear arms is just that, a right for each individual citizen to own, keep and bear arms.
And that about sums it up for me as well
BTW, you ARE the militia
-
Originally posted by ravells
oops....sorry...please go back to your verbal combat...I was an intermission!
Ravs
ya you kept me from posting an inane picture to lighten the mood :)
-
I have rolled up my sleeves and thus have excercised my right to bare arms.
'nuff said.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
I have rolled up my sleeves and thus have excercised my right to bare arms.
'nuff said.
Ravs
LOL welcome back, for real strife, you should have posted in the global warming thread. ;)
-
Originally posted by Helrazr1
I always love these threads on the validity of the 2nd.
MT, first off, let me just say that I find your name (Midnight TARGET) especially fitting when viewed next to your opinions on this issue. I find lots of irony and humor in that.
I'm also a gun owner.
-
In that case, I'm curious.
If the DC decision goes to the court, will you be happier if the individual right aspect of the 2nd is upheld or happier if it is rejected?
-
I don't think either decision would have a direct affect on my life. I'm usually in favor of less government interference with my rights though.
What exactly makes you think I would be happy if the SC strikes down the DC case?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/94_1174616041_hpnx0327.jpg)
-
what would be the result of a high court ban against the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?
To make private ownership of firearms illegal? I cannot even fathom the possibility.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So if I had enough money to buy a nuke, it would be OK?
yes, but you'd have a very difficult time keeping it without drawing much unwanted attention.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I don't think either decision would have a direct affect on my life. I'm usually in favor of less government interference with my rights though.
So you don't care either way? You're ambivalent? Not rooting for either side?
-
Is this like one of those parlor games where you always answer a question with a question?
-
toad.. I don't think MT is so much rooting for a side in the arguement as he is rooting for the democrats to come out ahead in the thing... It amounts to him rooting for a ban on firearms tho.
He would gladly give up his $75 gun if it would please hillary or if he could use it to buy some more power for the democrats or social programs. He does not consider socialism as being government interference in his life.
Democrats who are ambivolent about guns have the same dillema that republicans who don't care about abortion do. It gets worse when you feel strongly about guns or abortion and are on the wrong team.
Back to the second... mt cites miller a lot... in miller the judges said that the "militia" was the whole body of the people. They found that sawed off shotguns had not value to a militia. this was wrong but... hey... it was a mistake of ignorance of firearms not law.
Militia is simply the people.. the "people" is simply the people..
Arms and ord are different. Local regulations can prohibit destructive (explosive) devices or regulate their storage. You don't have the right to endanger your neighbors with a bio hazard... weapons grade or not.
the banning of machine guns and short shotguns and silencers was unconstitutional. I don't know how mt can read it any other way. When it comes to destructive devices we can talk about that.
But for now... we need to correct the 39 miller decision. It was unconstitutional and it helped no one.
lazs
-
That was amazing lazs. You are like the world's worst mind reader.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Is this like one of those parlor games where you always answer a question with a question?
No, this is like a conversation, only it is in written form.
Sometimes in a conversation, you ask your friend a question and he answers without answering. So you ask again in a slightly different way until he finally answers the original question.
Or makes it plain he doesn't want to answer because he doesn't want you to know what he really thinks.
-
mt...you own a gun (such as it is) and you vote for democrats. Not just democrats but the worst offenders of the second amendment..
You are either a very conflicted person or.. you don't really care about firearms at all.
lazs
-
My gun's bigger than yours lazs.
I just think there is a place in society for reasonable gun controls.
-
Originally posted by ravells
..............The highlight was telling 303 squadron to stop yabbering in polish...which they actually were. That was a grand highlight in my gaming life which I shall never live again.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
I love that part of the movie.
Wow MT with a manly gun like an M44. who would have thunk it.
-
It's an M91-30
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It's an M91-30
Pooh got burned.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I just think there is a place in society for reasonable gun controls.
yes, "reasonable" laws, we all want "reasonable" laws, but reasonable to who?
-
so it is, I assumed that was a door it was leaning against.
-
funny MT votes for the traitors that want to ban that gun..Isnt that illegal to have that Bayonet?...
Ill call the gun police for ya..just to make sure
btw that rifle still has its price tag on it?..LOLO MT is a Studio Gangster......Aint never been to jail..aint never shot a gun
-
There are already "reasonable" gun laws and some that are quite unreasonable. It's already against the law to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. It's also illegal for a felon to even possess a firearm much less own or use one in a crime again.
It's unreasonable to punish the millions of otherwise law abiding gun owners by decreeing a specific category, brand, style, color of weapon is "bad" and cannot be owned by that same group of law abiding citizens because some fringe group is frightened by that prospect. Best example is the .50 cal in the peoples republik of kalifornia where they have never been used in commision of a parking violation much less shoot down an airliner.
I love folks who use the term "reasonable" as a justification for something. It is a non specific term that essentially means nothing in and of itself and defines nothing else even when used as a descriptive term.
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
btw that rifle still has its price tag on it?..LOLO MT is a Studio Gangster......Aint never been to jail..aint never shot a gun
So gun owners are gangsters?
-
MT do you have a raiders hat and a hornets jersey with the price tag still on it too?
-
LOL..
let me look.
(the pick was taken the day I bought the rifle.)
-
I'll ask again in a different way.
MT, if you had to make the choice would you make the 2nd an individual or a collective right?
-
your gun is most certainly not bigger than mine and.... I have ammo for mine and know how to take it apart and clean it and shoot it. And... I care enough to join the NRA so that I can keep it.
It would be no big loss to you if hillary took your $75 gun away from you... You would probably gush out your thanks.
We have 40,000 gun laws...at what point do they stop being "reasonable"?
your gun would be illegal in some places... how you stored it or traveled with it.. is that "reasonable" to you? a 60 year old bolt action rifle is not acceptable to many democrats and that fine with you?
It is because of politicians like the ones you vote for and people like you that we needed the second in the first place. You are no friend to the gun owner or the second... I don't believe there is a gun law that you would not find unreasonable so long as the right party suggested it.
What "reasonable" gun law of the 40,000, ever helped anyone?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'll ask again in a different way.
MT, if you had to make the choice would you make the 2nd an individual or a collective right?
I would rather it be recognized as an individual right.
And lazs, it wasn't $75, it was $89. And I do have ammo and I know how to clean it whether I use corrosive ammo or not.
-
Hey MT (little Hijack here),
It might help when you first take it to the range to go with someone from your area familiar with centerfires to work though some of the initial bits. If there is someone at your work, for example, who is familiar with 30 cal centerfires and open sights. I don't know who from the OClub is within going to the range distance of your locale, but if you are ever in the Chicago area I will arrange a shooting day out here. Unfortunately, it tends to be an all day event since the ranges I go to are 1.5 hours away.
Now, this is HARDLY rocket science, but there is a big loud bang and big slap and bad habits can develop early on. Unlike a mouse gun like an AR-15 or a carbine. In fact, it might be a good idea to fire some 22 or low powered "assault weapon" type rounds to get used to the basics.
Charon
-
Governments don't make men equal...guns do.
P.S. If your not free to defend yourself, then you are not truly free.
-
TY for the answer MT.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Hey MT (little Hijack here),
It might help when you first take it to the range to go with someone from your area familiar with centerfires to work though some of the initial bits. If there is someone at your work, for example, who is familiar with 30 cal centerfires and open sights. I don't know who from the OClub is within going to the range distance of your locale, but if you are ever in the Chicago area I will arrange a shooting day out here. Unfortunately, it tends to be an all day event since the ranges I go to are 1.5 hours away.
Now, this is HARDLY rocket science, but there is a big loud bang and big slap and bad habits can develop early on. Unlike a mouse gun like an AR-15 or a carbine. In fact, it might be a good idea to fire some 22 or low powered "assault weapon" type rounds to get used to the basics.
Charon
There is an outside chance I will be in Chi-town the week of April 11th. Actually I have a meeting in South Bend, but I usually fly into ORD and drive the 90 miles. I will let you know when my schedule firms up.
-
Cool.
Charon
-
I see Lasz still loves his guns then!
This is what I don't get. We all aim to live in a safe society and let's face it, the US is safer than say....Somalia. Do you people really *need* all those guns? what for? It's pretty safe in the US isn't it? Or do you think the government is coming to get you...wooo wooo !
Take care Lasz!
Ravs
-
Just because you're not paranoid, Ravell, doesn't mean they aren't coming to get you.
-
Originally posted by ravells
I see Lasz still loves his guns then!
This is what I don't get. We all aim to live in a safe society and let's face it, the US is safer than say....Somalia. Do you people really *need* all those guns? what for? It's pretty safe in the US isn't it? Or do you think the government is coming to get you...wooo wooo !
Take care Lasz!
Ravs
And this coming from someone who lives in England where guns are outlawed. Didn't I just read about a couple of thugs over there that were mugging everyone they saw on the subway? Beating them and stabbing them before robbing them? See what gun control has gotten you. Crap like that happens over here too but it's most prevelant in areas that have very strict gun control. See a pattern here?
Take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only makes it easier for the criminals to do what they want without fear of anyone stopping them. 3 times I've used my shotgun to prevent criminals from breaking into my house or truck. All 3 times the criminals where detained by me until the police arrived (on average 20-30 minutes AFTER I called) and all 3 times those criminals did jail time because I did my civic duty and went to court to testify against them. I never fired a shot, but if I didn't have my gun with me who knows what would have happend because all 3 times those criminals were armed. 2 times they had rather large knives, and the last time the punk had a cheap little .380 auto. He almost got shot at point blank range by a 12 gage when I saw it tucked in the back of his pants.
Now I don't advocate over throwing the government, but I will not allow the government that SERVES me to take away my RIGHT to defend my family or my property. When they outlaw guns here, I'll become an outlaw.
-
(http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-secondamendment-gallery-835.jpg)
-
That is too funny.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
My gun's bigger than yours lazs.
I just think there is a place in society for reasonable gun controls.
Interestingly enough, "reasonable gun controls" don't affect the people that it should. Do you really believe that "reasonable gun controls" have any impact on your local corner thug who buys his guns out of a trunk after they've been stolen? Absolutely not, it affects the law-abiding gun owners who go about acquiring their weapons in a legal manor. Basically what "reasonable gun controls" do, is to take yet another method of protection away from the legal gun owners, while leaving the criminals unaffected.
On second thought, I think you're right, I'm going to turn in all of my guns now, because all of us fans of the 2nd are a danger to ourselves, and should be regulated. After all, we're not individuals. We need someone to tell us what we can and can't do on every issue in our lives. Thank you for helping me come to the light and see the errors in my thinking!
-
Originally posted by ravells
Do you people really *need* all those guns? what for?
I have a few, but I don't need any of them.
I don't need an automobile that is capable of exceeding the legal interstate speed limit, but I have one of those too.
I don't need the computer I'm sending this silly message on, but here it is.
Most people don't need them at all, some do. Think outside the box.
-
so rav... Yeah, I like guns and America is a pretty safe place... in many ways.. safer than where you live. If someone trys to break into my home or threatens me on the street tho...
In your country... I can run and hide and hope that I only get robbed and not beaten or stabbed.. I can also hope that I can win a fight with the criminal... Criminals have less restraints than most of us tho and will probly have no moral compunctions against stabbing or clubbing me to death or near to it..
In my country... I can pull out a firearm and change his whole plan... mostly...he will just go away and the incident won't even be noticed by society... other times... He will get shot and society will be a little better off.
in our country we say that criminals and kids and insane people can't have guns.. In your country, no one can.. In either case tho.. they are just laws and when push comes to shove, they are meaningless... it is the penalty not the law that does the work.
As for us aiming for a safe society.. That is what women yearn for....I do not yearn for a safe society so much as I yearn for a free one. Free people will have all the safety they need.
lazs
-
Lasz
What I was asking is whether the crime rate everywhere in the US is so high that it justifies the right for everyone to have a firearm - which seems to be your only justification (although as I understand it the constitutional reason for the right to bear arms was to ensure that citizens had the right to combat a despotic government). I guess you think the answer is yes. If you were to live in an area where crime was high then I could understand the need for it. Not sure I understand what you mean by only women wanting a safe society.
Every now and again we have gun crime here and robberies (and they do seem on the increase) and maybe we'll hit the point where it does mean that law abiding citizens should bear arms to protect themselves. I guess as a nation we don't think we've reached that point yet.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so rav... Yeah, I like guns and America is a pretty safe place... in many ways.. safer than where you live. If someone trys to break into my home or threatens me on the street tho...
In your country... I can run and hide and hope that I only get robbed and not beaten or stabbed.. I can also hope that I can win a fight with the criminal... Criminals have less restraints than most of us tho and will probly have no moral compunctions against stabbing or clubbing me to death or near to it..
In my country... I can pull out a firearm and change his whole plan... mostly...he will just go away and the incident won't even be noticed by society... other times... He will get shot and society will be a little better off.
in our country we say that criminals and kids and insane people can't have guns.. In your country, no one can.. In either case tho.. they are just laws and when push comes to shove, they are meaningless... it is the penalty not the law that does the work.
As for us aiming for a safe society.. That is what women yearn for....I do not yearn for a safe society so much as I yearn for a free one. Free people will have all the safety they need.
lazs
:aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
AMEN TO THAT BROTHER!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by ravells
Lasz
What I was asking is whether the crime rate everywhere in the US is so high that it justifies the right for everyone to have a firearm - which seems to be your only justification (although as I understand it the constitutional reason for the right to bear arms was to ensure that citizens had the right to combat a despotic government). I guess you think the answer is yes. If you were to live in an area where crime was high then I could understand the need for it. Not sure I understand what you mean by only women wanting a safe society.
Every now and again we have gun crime here and robberies (and they do seem on the increase) and maybe we'll hit the point where it does mean that law abiding citizens should bear arms to protect themselves. I guess as a nation we don't think we've reached that point yet.
Ravs
The Constitution (specifically the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights) justifies the right of almost every citizen to possess firearms. The vast majority of us have decided NOT to surrender that right to a bunch of panty waisted candy assed nanny staters.
Thanks.
-
Ravs,
The English Bill of Rights (1689) included the freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for self-defence.
Our Founders included the right to own arms our Bill of Rights. Contrary to what a lot of misinformed folks think, it wasn't just there as a right to combat a despotic government.
George Mason, Co Author of the Bill of Rights:
"Divine Providence has given to every individual the means of self defense."
Thomas Paine:
"Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."
Sam Adams, Father of the American Revolution:
"The Constitution should never be construed to prevent the people of the United States...from keeping their own arms."
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
"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
-
Toad, are you serious? You went out of your way to find Jefferson quotes in which he DOESN'T say that guns are for over throwing governments?
We can't take you serious anymore (or did we ever?). Jefferson was someone who repeatedly espoused revolution at the hands of gun owners.
-
Interesting points have been made on both sides.
When I started this thread I kind of knew things may get a little heated as I know poeple are very passionate about this issue..
What I havent seen addressed by anyone though is if it is the point of view the rights to not extend to the individual why do many State Constitutions EXPRESSLY STATE that this is an individual right???
Now as stated most of the states adopted and ratified their state constitutions PRIOR to the US Constitution being ratified.
Why would the US Constitution have been ratified by the States if the States felt the 2nd amendment was NOT consistent with their own constitutions???
It is my contention the states ratified the constitution as it was believed to be consistent with the states own constitutions thereby meaning the 2nd amendment was for the individuals right to keep and bear arms...
( edited per below post :p )
-
Uh....I think you meant the 2nd Amendment. :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Toad, are you serious? You went out of your way to find Jefferson quotes in which he DOESN'T say that guns are for over throwing governments?
Laser, are you always a male donkey? Is it a genetic thing?
Now, insults aside, Ravs had an item in his post that needed correcting, to whit:
Ravs: right to bear arms was to ensure that citizens had the right to combat a despotic government
While that is ONE reason why the 2nd was established by the Founders, it is not the sole reason.
I think it's a mistake and helps the enemies of the 2nd to pretend that revolution is the sole reason for the 2nd. It isn't.
Therefore, I pointed out that the Founders also considered self-defense a legitimate reason to grant the right to bear arms to citizens of the US. Much as the English Parliament did in 1689, at least for the Protestants.
So I seriously pointed out some of the less-referenced quotes of the Founders.
-
ravs... I believe toad and the others answered for me. As for security over freedom being a womanly thing... It simply is. That is the difference between men and women. not the only one but a very important one.. Most euros and the metrosexual blue voters here are doing their best to blur the lines between men and women but.. it is genetic.
I don't care if you have a gun or not. I only care that you have the right to have one if you want. I can see no reason short of paranoid tyranny why I would think that I had the right to deny you the right to defend yourself with any tool you wanted so long as you did it in a reasonable manner. If someone threatens your life you have the right to take theirs instead of them taking yours. This is not debatable... this is not something we get to vote on or society gets to decide unless.... it is a decayed or tryranical one.
I am a fairly big guy who has seen his share of street combat.. I feel pretty safe as a rule but.. I have seen enough that I know what is out there. I have pointed guns at people and they have become polite and well mannered where they were ill mannered and aggressive and demanding before that.
I would feel like a failure as a man if I could not defend myself or my family or fellow man against the worst any society has to offer. I would feel foolish if I was unarmed because I thought that I lived in a safe society sooo.. why bother?
I can't always be armed.. I like having a 45 on the nightstand in a motel in a strange city tho...
I feel that those who use firearms to commit crimes need to be punished very severly because of the potential for harm. It is a very grave responsibility to own and have a firearm for protection. It is not for the weak and gutless and unskilled.
I am proud of the Americans who own and carry firearms or are willing to use them and proud of the record that concealed carry people have...
They are doing what the womenly men who lack guts and skill are too ignorant to do.
If I was ever in a dangerous situation with aggressive criminals I would rather have one concealed carry American than 12 of the anti gun head in the sand women on this board stand with me.
I have no respect for anyone who would disarm a fellow man or who thinks they have the right to vote on it. They are the enemy. There is no way for us to come to an understanding short of them leaving men alone and going back in the kitchen with the women. If that is what they want to do then it is none of my business...
hell... I have a lot more respect for the women... they are honest and it is genetic.. and... they are also the fastest growing segment of the gun buying and carrying American.
lazs
-
Damn Lazs, that almost brought a tear to my eye, but I agree with you 110%
Too many people make the leap of imagination that the pro gun lobby wants to put a gun in the hands of every single American, but the truth is we just want to retain and protect the right that gives every American the option to own a gun.
Ah screw it, I'm not going to say it all again. Lazs is right on target with his post. You should send a copy of it to the NRA. I'm sure they would publish it. Hell send a copy to every congressman and senator as well. Maybe some of them will understand it.
Great post.
-
Lazs, I've been poking gunophobes for a good reason why guns are fundamentaly wrong, and this argument stuck out:
His premise is that society as a whole must decide its criminals' fate.
That given this premise, you couldn't shoot someone with no witnesses on hand. Proof of your self-defense by shooting anyone, rightly or wrongly, would not be possible, and anyone would exploit this.
I asked whether he thought that could work anywhere else than in a perfectly monitored society, where no action anyone makes could not be proven (with hard evidence) to have happened as they report.
He then said it is akin to the death penalty, that indeed, considering the gravity of what's at play, it can't responsibly be adopted unless it's 100% certain that it works 100% of the time.
That it was not worth the risk.
What would you have said?
-
Originally posted by moot
Lazs, I've been poking gunophobes for a good reason why guns are fundamentaly wrong, and this argument stuck out:
His premise is that society as a whole must decide its criminals' fate.
That given this premise, you couldn't shoot someone with no witnesses on hand. Proof of your self-defense by shooting anyone, rightly or wrongly, would not be possible, and anyone would exploit this.
I asked whether he thought that could work anywhere else than in a perfectly monitored society, where no action anyone makes could not be proven (with hard evidence) to have happened as they report.
He then said it is akin to the death penalty, that indeed, considering the gravity of what's at play, it can't responsibly be adopted unless it's 100% certain that it works 100% of the time.
That it was not worth the risk.
What would you have said?
If nothing could be adopted unless it was 100% certain,then nothing would ever be adopted.
Interesting that his argument deals only in absolutes when it comes to self-defense with a weapon.
-
I think that in his opinion, the least fuel thrown on the fire of criminality, the better.. that the least tools provided to criminals, the safer everyone will be.
He was taking it in the perspective of the change to freely marketed guns from a gunless society such as his own. What he meant to pin everything on was that the risk of adopting guns was a net worsening of overall security, since criminals had more readily available weapons, and legal users would most likely not be able to prove their case for self-defence.
The 100% threshold is justified, in his opinion, because it deals with human lives.
I agreed he made sense up to that last sentence, "That it was not worth the risk." because it changes everything. Removing guns will only work when the state (or government, or local militia) can provide security that is 100% proven to work 100% of the time, or when humans are 100% certain to leave self-defense at the cost of another as a last resort.
Removing someone's life by restricting his means of self defense is worse than removing someone's life in self-defense, however likely or not you are to be "proven" guilty.
-
"an armed society is a polite society, manners are good when one may have to back up his actions with his life"
Robert A. Heinlein
truer words have never been uttered.
-
Thanks Toad, that was an informative read.
You haven't quoted the relevant passage of the English Declaration of rights in full which reads:
"have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law ."
(emphasis mine).
But the way I read it, the federal constitution says:
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.
Whereas many state constitutions include explicit rights to bear arms for self defence, defence of the home etc.
Which indicates to me that the purpose of the amendment was not intended (primarily at least) for self defence but defence of the community from external threats - particularly when read with the predicate that a well ordered militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
As I read the wiki entry, rights of self defence were considered seperate to a citizen's obligation (obligation because the conciensious objector exception was struck out during the legislative process) to protect the community.
From a practical point of view, it makes little difference I guess. If you have the right to keep and bear arms and happen to use them in self defence, then you can hardly be prosecuted for it.
Lasz: don't you think that security and freedom go hand in hand? How 'free' is a society that is not secure? That sort of society usually ends up passing legislation based on paranoia which takes away its citizens' freedoms. (The Homeland Security Act is an example of this). You say the difference between men and women is the difference between security and freedom? By which I take it to mean following their genetic programming, women want security and men want freedom. I guess that makes most of the world hermaphrodites in your book for wanting both.
I have no doubt that you are responisble gun owner, and if there was a way to identify 'responsible' gun owners, I'd raise my hand like a shot and say - give them guns. The problem is that by giving everybody (except minors, the insane etc) the right to own a gun means that you're handing firearms to irresponsible people too.
What I find interesting is this (and I have no experience in gun combat, so tell me if I'm wrong). If everybody did carry guns, then wouldn't the element of surprise become an overwhelming advantage to the attacker? So if a criminal wants you car, rather than say, bonking you on the head or threatening you with a knife, if he believes you are carrying a firearm and are prepared to use it, is he not more likely to just shoot you in back rather than make demands with menaces (OK you lose the car but at least you're alive)? And if you were with your family, how would you handle the situation then? What I'm asking is whether you think that the universal ownership of guns would actually make crime more violent. In the example I've seen quoted here earlier, it seems that the criminals were not expecting their victim to be armed and that gave the law abiding victim the drop on the criminal.
Ravs
-
If everybody did carry guns, then wouldn't the element of surprise become an overwhelming advantage to the attacker? So if a criminal wants you car, rather than say, bonking you on the head or threatening you with a knife, if he believes you are carrying a firearm and are prepared to use it, is he not more likely to just shoot you in back rather than make demands with menaces (OK you lose the car but at least you're alive)?
Or, perhaps they stop carjacking all together and go back to stealing cars parked on the street as the path of least resistance and least risk to the criminal.
Charon
-
Originally posted by ravells
Thanks Toad, that was an informative read...
....But the way I read it, the federal constitution says:
Ravs
Allow me to clip to save time:
One of the most influential arguments in favor of the opinion that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms is found in the first draft of this document. James Madison, who was responsible for the formation of the Bill of Rights, wrote a first draft of the Second Amendment that was later formed into the version that is read today, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"
Seems pretty clear what they meant to say when you look at the first and last drafts together.
Also, here is another interesting read on the subject:
The Commonplace Second Amendment (http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm)
-
I can guarantee the day any law is handed down that states the government will confiscate weapons is the day the government will realise that the citizenry believes otherwise. There are many millions of gun owners in this country. While some will not defend their rights, the vast majority can, and will defend their rights to the end.
Whenever this debate comes up, I am always reminded of the quote, "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand."
How willing are you to defend your rights as stated in the 2nd Ammendment? I am willing to lay my life down to defend it, are you?
-
Originally posted by storch
"an armed society is a polite society, manners are good when one may have to back up his actions with his life"
Robert A. Heinlein
truer words have never been uttered.
Won't work if the "one" is not intellectually efficient enough to estimate what will happen to him in the future (let say the next 2 minutes :)).
Criminals are more than often dumb and obtuse.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Won't work if the "one" is not intellectually efficient enough to estimate what will happen to him in the future (let say the next 2 minutes :)).
Criminals are more than often dumb and obtuse.
my dear straffo, it has been amply proven here in my beloved florida that being armed does indeed work. we have even managed to make blue staters polite. two or so years ago the state enacted legislation allowing anyone who felt threatened to apply deadly force to end said threat.
Immediately car jackings and home invasion became a fond memory for the criminal element. a collateral benefit is that rudeness in traffic all but disappeared. people would actually use their turn indicators and ask for permission to be allowed to access congested lanes.
what didn't occur was the "dodge city" the handwringing limpwristed under huevo'd blue stater transplants and the equally homosexually tendant mainstream media predicted south florida would come to be.
Mr. Heinlein nailed it. we are a polite society here, you don't know who you will annoy or frighten enough to cap your ass.
-
Originally posted by moot
He was taking it in the perspective of the change to freely marketed guns from a gunless society such as his own.
there is no such thing as a "gunless society ", there are societies where people have guns and there are societies where guns are restricted or baned, but there is no "gunless society".
-
I hear ya Bodhi. I love the anti gun crowds aurgument when they ping on the whole "militia" thing.
Well your not in a militia so you don't need a gun, blah blah bah.
They pass a law outlawing guns, overnight there will be a citizens militia created that the government will not be able to handle. That's when the second American Revolution will take place.
As a military man for over 17 years, I've sworn to uphold and defend the constitution 4 times. I take the oath of service seriously. As such if I was ordered to go and collect firearms from private citizens I would NOT do it as I believe it would be an illegal order. I would however take up arms against the very people giving those orders because they have made themselves a domestic enemy against the consitution.
I don't care if you want to own a gun or not. None of my buisness, but I do have an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend your right too.
For those that think I'm full of crap, I'll say this. I've dicussed this very issue many times with many other members of the military and 9 out of 10 people I've talked to belive the same thing.
The citizens of this country will never allow their right to keep and bear arms to be taken away. If the government ever tries they will find that millions of citizens will fight and the governments strongest tool to use to get those weapons (the military) will become combat ineffective overnight as those members that belive as I do turn against the very people giving those unlawfull orders.
-
The citizens of this country will never allow their right to keep and bear arms to be taken away. If the government ever tries they will find that millions of citizens will fight and the governments strongest tool to use to get those weapons (the military) will become combat ineffective overnight as those members that belive as I do turn against the very people giving those unlawfull orders.
Frankly, I think that hints at the core strength of the 2nd. Even if the military actually supported illegal confiscation, an armed population would require an armed response -- not traditional civilian "non lethal" riot control. Regardless of how strongly the tyrants managed to spin the issue and make it seem like the logical and beneficial thing to do, that would cross a line most would have trouble crossing.
However, we have to remember that our fellow citizens could, though the entirely legal legislative process, ammend the Constitution and modify or eliminate that right. And that would be that.
Charon
-
The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
The anit gun crowd would never have a chance:aok
-
Originally posted by Charon
However, we have to remember that our fellow citizens could, though the entirely legal legislative process, ammend the Constitution and modify or eliminate that right. And that would be that.
Charon
Again, Charon, the government would still have to confiscate guns, and I am willing to bet, more of those with guns will simply refuse and openly defend their right to keep them.
I know I will.
-
Originally posted by ravells
What I find interesting is this (and I have no experience in gun combat, so tell me if I'm wrong). If everybody did carry guns, then wouldn't the element of surprise become an overwhelming advantage to the attacker? So if a criminal wants you car, rather than say, bonking you on the head or threatening you with a knife, if he believes you are carrying a firearm and are prepared to use it, is he not more likely to just shoot you in back rather than make demands with menaces (OK you lose the car but at least you're alive)? And if you were with your family, how would you handle the situation then? What I'm asking is whether you think that the universal ownership of guns would actually make crime more violent. In the example I've seen quoted here earlier, it seems that the criminals were not expecting their victim to be armed and that gave the law abiding victim the drop on the criminal.
Ravs
First I would say that no one has said or is saying everyone should own a gun, only that by our constitution it is your right to own a gun if you so choose..
Now looking at this as a hypothetical question I would have to say basically I feel that it makes little to no difference.
If the "attacker" is already predisposed to take your life to gain control of your property you are in a very precarious situation from the onset. Hence it makes no difference. But in such a situation I would have to say YES the advantage at the onset belongs to the attacker.
However with no means of self protection you have a ZERO chance to survive such an encounter.
The fact that some attacker has a gun does not equate to them being proficient in the use of the firearm. I unfortunately do have first hand experience in "street level" combat as opposed to military action ( which I view as distinctly different animals).
The fact that I was proficient in the use of the weapon I had, allowed me to reach a successful conclusion to this unfortunate encounter. I went home and gave a kiss to my wife and son, he took a ride in an ambulance to the nearest hospital. I am still at home with my family and he is serving what amounts to a life sentence for his actions (25-50 years eligible for parole when he is 77 years old).
No I do not think the universal right to keep and bear arms would make crime more violent. Unless you consider the fact that those committing the crimes may themselves be thwarted by the lawful use of force.
I look at my right to employ deadly force in self defense as almost a "last resort". If im alone or with my family and someone wants to steal my car... He can have it... to me its not worth dying over.. Same guy trys to take my car with my family still in it, he has already made the decision my car was worth HIM dying for and I will oblige him without hestitation.
:aok
-
:aok
Couldnt have said it better my self! This coming from 2 men who must carry guns to make it home safe every day!
The average non felon citizen has the same rights we do! Nobody will ever take all the guns from the people of the US. Anybody really think thats going to help or happen??
I would really like to see what would happen if they tried that in TX,FL and all the other States except for the East Coast States or Peoples Republic of California of course.They have all bent over and handed over their rights already....Can you say War!!!
-
Originally posted by storch
my dear straffo, it has been amply proven here in my beloved florida that being armed does indeed work. we have even managed to make blue staters polite. two or so years ago the state enacted legislation allowing anyone who felt threatened to apply deadly force to end said threat.
Immediately car jackings and home invasion became a fond memory for the criminal element. a collateral benefit is that rudeness in traffic all but disappeared. people would actually use their turn indicators and ask for permission to be allowed to access congested lanes.
what didn't occur was the "dodge city" the handwringing limpwristed under huevo'd blue stater transplants and the equally homosexually tendant mainstream media predicted south florida would come to be.
Mr. Heinlein nailed it. we are a polite society here, you don't know who you will annoy or frighten enough to cap your ass.
If it works, I've nothing against.
-
moot... you have gotten some very good answers here.
If I might add... the person who feared that self defence could not be proven without witnesses...
The simple answer is that you do not need a gun to murder someone. You can claim self defence when there is none no matter what weapon is used. The gun... the weapon used.. is of no consequence and not germain to the arguement.
Someone also asked if the criminal having the gun would just make him the one with the advantage.. the advantage of surprise.
Possibly.. but only in very few cases.. "How can this be?" you might ask.
Well.. it is only his advantage if he is planning to shoot you. This is a rare thing.. he doesn't want to shoot you for the most part but only make you do as he says... You on the other hand.. will most certainly want to shoot him. You have the advantage.
Also... As I have stated... the solution is to arm the citizen and disarm the criminal... As penalties go up for using a gun in a crime.. they criminal use of guns goes down. It is more and more common for criminals to use toy guns or weapons that are not firearms and then run into a citizen who does have a gun... all to the good.
Sooo... severe penalties for using a firearm in a serious crime and more firearms availability to citizens. Best of both worlds.
lazs
-
My state is a "shall issue" state for concealed handgum permits.
In my 7 years as a cop I have yet to come across a firearms related crime that was committed by someone who was legally entitled to posess a firearm in the first place.
Despite the "protect and serve" motto that most departments throw on the side of their cars, it is IMPOSSIBLE for law enforcement to protect everyone 24/7. Police work, by it's nature, is REACTIVE. If you are extremely lucky, a cop will be at your door within 1 minute of your 911 call.
Unfortunately this is well beyond the amount of time it takes to be injured or killed.
Personally, I encourage every eligible law abiding citizen to consider obtaining a firearm and a concealed handgun permit.
It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
-
the other side of that equation is indeed strong penalties for committing a felony and using a firearm. here in my beloved florida we have that as well. I believe it's 5 years if you possess a firearm during the commissiomn of a felony. 15 years if you brandish the weapon and 25 years if you discharge it. the problem is that the prosecutors won't apply the law in every instance. the sentencing is mandatory IIRC but the prosecution is soft.
the combination of a responsible armed citizenry coupled with aggressive prosecution and mandatory stiff sentences would indeed curb criminals far better. the benefit to the society is that the thug really doesn't know who may be armed and who is not. the bad guy is taking his chances, he knows it too.
-
Originally posted by sgt203
I look at my right to employ deadly force in self defense as almost a "last resort". If im alone or with my family and someone wants to steal my car... He can have it... to me its not worth dying over.. Same guy trys to take my car with my family still in it, he has already made the decision my car was worth HIM dying for and I will oblige him without hestitation.
:aok
I think that this paragrapgh says it all, and pretty much encompasses the feelings of a majority of gun owners. Well said!
-
I accept all of your apologies and thank you for admitting that I was right.
-
mt.. that was a really weird surrender on your part.. You are not a very gracious loser... but then.. so few liberals are.
Stub.. I know a lot of cops... not political chiefs of police hacks but the on patrol officers for highway patrol and sherrif and local police and they all believe as you do that citizens need to protect themselves..
They all trust law abiding citizens with firearms... as do I. I have no fear of my neighbor having a gun of any type.
MT is strange in his thinking.. he feels he has the right to own a gun that he wants but also has the right to tell others what they can own...
This is based on.... on what? his firearms expertise? His distrust of his fellows? Why is he moral enough to own a high powered rifle but his neighbor not to carry a handgun for instance?
lazs
-
And once again you have exhibited a lack of reading comprehension skills.
My entire point in this thread was this:
1. There is indeed a debate on whether or not the 2nd is an individual right.
2. There are reasonable and highly educated people on both sides of the argument.
Neither of these points have been refuted in the least. In fact the simple act of arguing and posting links on both sides emphasizes my point.
It's OK though. Like I said, I accept your apologies.
-
"the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
yeah, that's really vague, i'd better find someone to explain what it means:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And once again you have exhibited a lack of reading comprehension skills.
My entire point in this thread was this:
1. There is indeed a debate on whether or not the 2nd is an individual right.
2. There are reasonable and highly educated people on both sides of the argument.
Neither of these points have been refuted in the least. In fact the simple act of arguing and posting links on both sides emphasizes my point.
It's OK though. Like I said, I accept your apologies.
HHHMMMm so that is the point of your argument. It's also rather silly. Example
1. There is indeed a debate on whether or not the holocaust happened.
2. There are reasonable and highly educated people on bot sides of the argument.
Now exactly how does that have any bearing on the veracity of the situation? Reality is not changed merely because it's debated or that educated people are doing the debate.
You really should get over this obsession with apologies that are not due to you. :rolleyes:
-
Well, aren't you commander obvious! :)
1. Yes, there is a debate on whether or not the 2nd is an individual right.
2. Yes, there are reasonable and highly educated people on both sides of the argument.
So what exactly is your point?
Originally posted by midnight Target
And once again you have exhibited a lack of reading comprehension skills.
My entire point in this thread was this:
1. There is indeed a debate on whether or not the 2nd is an individual right.
2. There are reasonable and highly educated people on both sides of the argument.
Neither of these points have been refuted in the least. In fact the simple act of arguing and posting links on both sides emphasizes my point.
It's OK though. Like I said, I accept your apologies.
-
I think his point is that he's a sheeple and doesn't think a debate is even needed. That we should just blindly follow the orders of the government and not question anything they do, especialy if it agrees with his political point of view. Well maybe not, but if someone told MT that he couldn't own a gun, he'd probably just say, "well OK if that's what you really think is best."
As far as educated people on both sides of the argument, I'd have to disagree on that. The anti gun crowd is the biggest group of idots out there. They have no clue what they are talking about. They have no knowledge of weapons, and are stupid enough to belive that an inanimate object is capable of doing something evil all by itself. Please tell me of just one person that is anti gun that actually knows what they are talking about. I bet you can't.
"Guns are evil" Well by golly they are wrong. I've kept live rounds in my shotgun for over 20 years and never, not once, has my shotgun gotten up all by itself and shot anything. If it was evil it should have killed me or my wife or kids a long time ago. I've yet to hear of a gun that just went off and killed someone all by itself. The stories you hear when someone says "The gun just went off" actually means "I was messing with it and I didn't know what I was doing and I fired the gun by mistake because I'm stupid."
Here's a favorite one of mine. "Guns kill people" Well so do cars so lets get rid of them too. Hell I'd feel safer with everyone carrying a gun and walking than I do when I get on the road with some of these idiot drivers that are out there. I see it everyday. The little soccer mom with the anti gun bumper sticker on her mini van driving while she's talking on her cell phone, putting on makeup, and eating her bagel and cream cheese. Yeah she's real freaking smart. She's driving a 2 ton vehicle at 60MPH, not paying attention to what she's doing and has a higher probablity of killing someone because she's being stupid, than me and my gun ever will. But yeah I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun because that's a bad thing.
How many of these elected officials that are anti gun are running around with conceled carry permits and armed body guards?? Hmmmm Nancy Pelosi comes to mind. Typical of that crowd. It's OK for me to have, but not you because you can't be trusted. Well piss on that.
Now they want to ban guns because of how they look???????? "errr hmmm well it looks really intimidating and I don't like that so lets ban those guns because we don't want anyone to feel intimidated or scarred if they see one" I loved the whole flash suppresor issue. These inteligent people banned flash suppresors on weapons because????? They thought that a flash suppresor hides the muzzle flash making it some sort of stealth weapon. Opps wrong again. Flash suppresors dispurse the flash out of the line of sight for the shooter so the guy holding the gun doesn't get blinded by the flash. Gee that was real smart of them huh. You can have a loaded gun but we're going to make it so when you shoot it it blinds you. So know you have someone holding a loaded weapon and know he can't see.
But yeah MT you go right on beliving there are inteligent and highly educated people on both sides of the argument. The pro gun crowd knows better.
-
well... mt is in a really bad spot on this...
No matter what he believes... he is stuck because he supports the aclu and the democratic party... the two remaining places that still cling to the socialist ideal and the strange "collective rights" theory on the second.
The debate is there but no real constitutional scholar believes that the second is anything more than what it appears to be... an individual right.
regardless of what mt may or may not believe on a personal level... he has to go along with the party line.... he has too much of the rest of his politics invested in it.
lazs
-
I think Mav won that round. By a landslide.
-
MT, the day that we start telling you that we're sorry is the day that hell freezes over! Why is it that your "points" keep changing as the thread progresses? If you read some of your posts on the first two pages, I'm sure that everyone would agree that you had some other worthless points there too. Surprisingly enough, they weren't the ones listed in your most recent posts. Why don't you decide on exactly what is is that you want to believe for the moment, so that we can tell you why it is ignorant!
-
That would require him to commit to a postion and we all know sheeple democraps won't do any such thing. They're kinda like jellyfish. They go where the current takes them.
-
Toad, please.
Comparing the debate over the 2nd to holocaust deniers? LOL..
Let me help you guys who seem to be having trouble.. now follow the bouncing punctuation.
Toad - So, just as you can find people that will argue that the world is flat, you can find people that will argue the 2nd isn't an individual right.
Me - Supreme Court Ruling (Miller.), 7th circuit ruling (hardly like holocaust deniers or the flat earth society)
lazs - Jim Crow - a shotgun is a "militia weapon" Miller was framed...
Me - 6th circuit ruling stating it is NOT an individual right (Those darned holocaust denier judges again!)
etc. etc.
Mav won the silly point award... well done Mav.
It's OK though Toad, I accept your ap... I mean I forgive you...
-
MT,
I wasn't trying to be silly or even facetious. I just pointed out the post of yours I quoted was null in any means to convince or even to argue a point.
It neither reinforced your assertion that the 2nd is some how the only non individual right in a document comprised of individual rights. Again the Bill of Rights does NOT grant rights. Governments do not give people rights they only limit rights, The BofR limits governments intrusion into civil liberties of Citizens that should not be infringed short of the individual abusing the rights or committing crimes that call for removing them by a court action.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
MT,
I wasn't trying to be silly or even facetious. I just pointed out the post of yours I quoted was null in any means to convince or even to argue a point.
It neither reinforced your assertion that the 2nd is some how the only non individual right in a document comprised of individual rights. Again the Bill of Rights does NOT grant rights. Governments do not give people rights they only limit rights, The BofR limits governments intrusion into civil liberties of Citizens that should not be infringed short of the individual abusing the rights or committing crimes that call for removing them by a court action.
There you go again.. missed it by
T H A T
much. The post you quoted was a position statement, not intended to convince or argue. I backed up that position over and over again. You and your buds were the ones insisting on arguing something completely different.
I hope you enjoyed yourselves.
-
I have yet to see these "reasonable, intelligent, and intellectually honest" people arguing for gun control.
Would that be Sarah Brady, who illegally attempted to circumvent "reasonable" gun laws by buying a rifle for her son out of state?
Would that be Diane Feinstein, who, along with her husband, has a CCW permit, and swept the entire room with the muzzle of an AK-47 at a press conference?
Would that be Michael Bloomberg, who illegally sent private investigators ACROSS STATE LINES to set up a "sting" operation to make straw purchases, while he has several body guards with weapons protecting him at all times?
Would that be Hillary Clinton, who also has armed guards as he constant companions?
How about Madonna, whose armed guards actually SHOT an unarmed trespasser?
Or maybe Rosie O'Donnell, who also employs about a dozen armed body guards?
Maybe you mean Barbara Striesand, who not only has armed guards, but feels she has the right to keep AIRCRAFT from crossing her property?
Yes, a bunch of really smart, reasonable, well intentioned individuals who feel they know better than you what rights you should and should not have, and who feel THEY are entitled to protection they are quite willing to deny you. They all either have guns and permits, or HIRE people to carry guns FOR them, because they DESERVE protection, but feel you do not.
-
Sorry MT.
Mav has ya, this whole thread has ya.
Any honest person that looks at the writings of the Founders on guns, looks at the Constitutions of the first states to ratify the national Constitution, looks at the Bill of Rights as a whole, as a list of individual rights, HAS to come to the conclusion that the 2nd is an individual right and always has been.
IF they are honest.
Now, you defend the legitimacy of the argument by bringing up a couple of incorrect SC decisions...Miller is clearly one of those... and pretend that legitimizes the discussion.
It does not.
The SC makes mistakes; the example of the "separate but equal" decision in Plessy is one of those and I know you agree.
So can I argue, based on Plessy, that there are reasonable and highly educated people on both sides of the argument?
I think that is just as laughable as the argument you make about the 2nd.
Mav has ya... game/set/match.
-
Decided to go ahead and edit this one
Good post though Toad!
-
MT.. Not pikcing on you I respect you having a differing point of view altough I may not agree with you point of view I respect you for being willing to speak up for your beliefs.. Could you pleae answer this question.
Do you have a response as to why if so many of the States that were needed to ratify the Bill of Rights have included in their own State Constitutions language that EXPRESSLY INDICATES the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, why would they ratify a federal bill of rights that would be inconsistant with their own state constituions???
It would seem to me that this would be highly illogical ( to Quote Mr. Spock) that any state would ratify something which was contradictory to the rights of the citizens of their respective states..
Keep in mind we have to place ourselves in the position as to what the FRAMERS MEANT... not with the mindset of what WE may feel is best based upon the current political agendas which are being advanced..
<<>>
PS.. For the most part im fairly impressed with the level of intellegent debate going on here.. NOT that I thought this community was stupid I just really thought this might evolve into political bickering more than a legal debate... WTG (for the most part) trying to keep this debate in the legal aspect not the political...
<<>> to all who have posted.
-
I was a little curious about the Miller Case so I looked it up (briefly) and found the following information. Miller (upon reading it) does not seem to wholly address the issue as to if this is an individual right and was quite unclear in the wording of the ruling. ( as this case was based upon interstate transportation of fireamrs Sawed Off Shotguns in violation of the US Code). It is left to open interpretation. I have posted below some court rulings and information in relation to this topic...
The meaning of the Second Amendment depends upon who you talk to. The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms.
Advocates of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.
The Supreme Court could easily resolve this debate, but ever since the cryptic decision of U. S. vs. Miller in 1939, the Court has ducked the issue.
Miller is subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all.
There is also a second open question concerning the Second Amendment: If it does create a right of individuals to own firearms, is the right enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation?
In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there's been a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then, and it's not clear that the Court would come to the same conclusion today.
In Quilici vs Morton Grove, a case involving a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the possession of handguns, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the right was not enforceable against the states.
The third case posted here is U. S. vs Emerson. Emerson offers a thorough historical and textual analysis of the Second Amendment supporting its conclusion that the Amendment was intended to protect the right of individuals to own and carry firearms. In October, 2001, the Fifth Circuit upheld the validity of federal firearm statute at issue in Emerson as a narrowly tailored reasonable restriction on Second Amendment rights--but, importantly, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to possess firearms, not just members of "militias."
In 2007, the D. C. Court of Appeals, in Parker v District of Columbia, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes. With its 2 to 1 ruling, the D. C. Circuit became the nations second court of appeals (following the Fifth Circuit) in finding that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to own firearms. Most other circuits courts have concluded the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to maintain militias. The split in the circuits suggests that the time may finally be ripe for another Supreme Court decision on the issue.
Cases
United States vs. Miller (U.S. SCt. 1939)
Quilici vs Morton Grove (7th Cir. 1982)
U. S. vs. Emerson (N. D. Tex. 1999)
...[T]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
Judge Laurence Silberman, for the majority in Parker v District of Columbia (DC Cir. 2007)
It does appear the Supreme Court cannot continue to duck this issue for much longer and I would not be surprized to see them take up the Case of Parker vs District of Columbia to put this issue to rest.
My personal opinion on this matter is I cannot see the S.C. holding this is not an individual right. However, It will be intersting to see how they view the Miller case as I am sure this will be Cited by the District of Columbia in support of the position they have to right to control firearms within the home.
Edit... By the way I did read the Miller case and found it very intersting the Supreme Court used in the ruling the language of several of the original 13 colonies Constitutions.. However for unknown reasons they used only the ones which I had stated were less than clear (in my original post) and failed to use any that expressly indicate the right is the the individual..
Makes you wonder why a bit doesnt it????
-
so mt.. only the latest court rulings are pertennent to you or... only the ones that support the position of your candidates and the aclu?
If it is the former... then you need to see the 2007 DC ruling that states beyond a doubt that it is indeed an individual right.
If it is the latter then there is nothing that will convince you.
I would ask tho... do you believe it is an individual right or was simply put there to make sure that the military could always arm itself?
Who exactly are "the people" these founders refer to?
Do you, like the ACLU believe that "the people" is the government and its agencies? That would explain a lot so far as the other amendments and the constitution is concerned...
I simply believe that you have not given this much thought.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry MT.........
It's OK.
-
If that's all it takes to salve your wounds, make up anything you like!
:)
-
Originally posted by ravells
I see Lasz still loves his guns then!
This is what I don't get. We all aim to live in a safe society and let's face it, the US is safer than say....Somalia. Do you people really *need* all those guns? what for? It's pretty safe in the US isn't it? Or do you think the government is coming to get you...wooo wooo !
Take care Lasz!
Ravs
Safe? heres a map of murders, note 9 in my neighborhood:
http://www.mapbuilder.net/users/mqteclo5043/38003
These are only murders, there are dozens of shootings, or shots fired reports, not on the map.
Heres the murder list, note 1 dead infant, several teens, and a mother of 5:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/
Just last week, as I was walking to get 'a pack of smokes', a dude on a bike exchanged gunfire with a car load of cholos 100 yards from my apt, this is the 2nd shooting on my block in as may weeks. So LAPD shows up 10 min after everyone is long gone and swoops on this kid riding home from school.
I don't know where you live dude, but the city of LA is the Wild West where people play for real; the police have ZERO legal obligation to protect the public and the idiot politicos have passed laws leaving law abiding folks hanging out to dry.
I'd rather be judged by 12, then buried by 6.
(http://members.dslextreme.com/users/fanofhockey/images/DSCF0051.JPG)
-
Firm believer in "Peace through Superior Firepower"
That is all.
-
God Bless America, x0847 Marine...you might as well be in Mogadishu.
Ravs
-
You're right, ravells. America is a disjointed division of territories controlled by local warlords.
I went out for a bag of potatoes this morning and had to duck and weave from cover to cover to get to the Red Cross potato wagon. Snipers were firing at me the entire way. Luckily for me, some guy on an armed ATV technical offered me a ride home so I didn't have to run the gauntlet twice. I manned the recoilless rifle and took out 4 local thugs while he drove like mad to get us out of the kill zone.
We can only hope for international intervention at this point.
-
By x0847 Marine's account he lives in a place pretty close to that. Or did you miss his post :)
Ravs
-
Originally posted by VOR
You're right, ravells. America is a disjointed division of territories controlled by local warlords.
I went out for a bag of potatoes this morning and had to duck and weave from cover to cover to get to the Red Cross potato wagon. Snipers were firing at me the entire way. Luckily for me, some guy on an armed ATV technical offered me a ride home so I didn't have to run the gauntlet twice. I manned the recoilless rifle and took out 4 local thugs while he drove like mad to get us out of the kill zone.
We can only hope for international intervention at this point.
:rofl
-
No, Ravells. I caught his post. I was just playing along with the hyperbole ;)
On a more serious note, I find it ironic that the areas with the most restrictive measures (like x marine's city/state and our nation's capital) suffer the highest incidences of violence. Don't you?
It makes me think some well-meaning legislators have missed the forest for the trees or are unable or unwilling to address the real problems.
-
The more liberal socialist an area is in the US and the more gun control... the more violence and killing. liberal socialists are not polite people.. they have no respect for their fellows and expect to get something for nothing.. this leads to violence.
Stay out of the blue areas and you will be fine.
lazs
-
That's why I thank God I live where I do. I've been making payments on this for the last 3 months and went in and picked it up yesterday after I got paid. Took all of about 5 minutes for the paperwork and I walked out the door with it. I'm sure the liberals would have a heart attack but that's OK. I like it and can't wait to get to the range and do some plinking.
(http://www.ipsprotection.com/bcwa3f16m4.jpg)
Bushmaster M4A3
Model XM15-E2S
Caliber .223 Rem
Capacity Shipped with 30 round magazine
Overall Length 32-35 inches
Barrel Length 14.5 inches
Rifling Right-hand twist; 1 turn in 9 inches
Weight w/o Magazine 6.9 lbs
Action Gas operated, semi-automatic
-
Originally posted by VOR
No, Ravells. I caught his post. I was just playing along with the hyperbole ;)
On a more serious note, I find it ironic that the areas with the most restrictive measures (like x marine's city/state and our nation's capital) suffer the highest incidences of violence. Don't you?
It makes me think some well-meaning legislators have missed the forest for the trees or are unable or unwilling to address the real problems.
I don't have the figures so I don't know what the ratios are.
What's odd, is that as a whole the States has a large proportion of people who do carry guns and a very high level of gun crime compared to say, Italy. Yet Canada (so I understand) has a higher level of gun ownership per person and yet much lower gun crime than America. (I'm not sure about the figures, but I'm reasonably certain that they're right having been cited on these boards a few times many years in the past).
It's possible that Canadians taken as a whole just have a society that is less pre-disposed to violence than Americans? I don't know....just guessing.
Ravs
-
I think you're getting closer to the truth (at least as I see it) about addressing the real issue. Society is becoming less and less stable and it's because of the people. People are wigging out more and more frequently.
One generation ago, murder rampages were an absolutely shocking rarity. It isn't so nowadays.
I see it as two specific problems:
1. Gang activity: this is mostly an unappetizing side-dish to our failed war on drugs. The drug underworld is directly and indirectly responsible for a very high percentage of our per capita murder rate. I find the solution very tasteless but simple and effective: legalize them. This same scenario played out in our history once before during the prohibition era, but apparently history has taught us nothing. We can't even collectively recognize the symptoms of a disease we cured less than 100 years ago.
2. Popular culture and the fast food phenomenon: Western culture and America in particular has gotten technologically spoiled. We want what we want exactly how we want it and we want it now. When we don't get it, it's fashionable to assume a "don't take any crap" attitude and more often than not escalate a petty situation to the brink of violence or beyond. (Example: road rage.) This is a more complex issue than #1 and is a disease with many contributing factors, the greatest of which is impatience. (We even get PO'd when our pr0n doesn't download fast enough.) Add to this popular tough-talking cultural icons born from the entertainment industries and symptoms of overcrowding in urban areas and you have one very short collective fuse that essentially makes otherwise normal people flip out as a stress reaction. I'm not going to address the issue of legitimate metal illness because the percentage is negligible.
A cure exists for number one provided we have the moral courage to admit failure and move on.
Number two is only going to get worse and is precisely why I will never again follow a job into a sprawling urban cesspot. My family's safety means more than that to me.
-
I couldn't have said it better myself, VOR - I think you're spot on.
I would just add to the cultural bit the following tropes that are peddled on media: 'get rich quick' and 'having stuff makes you happy'.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
I don't have the figures so I don't know what the ratios are.
What's odd, is that as a whole the States has a large proportion of people who do carry guns and a very high level of gun crime compared to say, Italy. Yet Canada (so I understand) has a higher level of gun ownership per person and yet much lower gun crime than America. (I'm not sure about the figures, but I'm reasonably certain that they're right having been cited on these boards a few times many years in the past).
It's possible that Canadians taken as a whole just have a society that is less pre-disposed to violence than Americans? I don't know....just guessing.
Ravs
We have more minorities.
-
Originally posted by VOR
I think you're getting closer to the truth (at least as I see it) about addressing the real issue. Society is becoming less and less stable and it's because of the people. People are wigging out more and more frequently.
One generation ago, murder rampages were an absolutely shocking rarity. It isn't so nowadays.
Ummm.
BULL****.
BULL****
BULL****
BULL****
What the hell is up with all this crap? Why do people immediately forget history at the 10 year mark? Why do we always think that the worst things that could possibly happen are now?
-
Dago said: we have more minorities.
meaning exactly what? That it's the minorities that are commiting the crime?
Any minorities in particular? If so....why?
Ravs
-
Laser, back in the day people remembered the names of the killers because it was such a shocking event. Jack the Ripper, Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Whitman, Bonnie and Clyde, Charles Manson.
Nowadays you have to do some extraordinary or particularly twisted in order to stand out from the herd of nutcases: Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy. Without looking it up, do you remember the name of the original "Postal" employee that shot up his post office? The fellow that shot up a McDonald's in 1984? Were you even out of diapers back then? Just how much history have you experienced outside of a textbook?
Or more recently: who was the mall shooter? Remember his name?
Here's a good exercise for you: Google "Post Office Shooting" and count the different events that have happened in the last 20 years. How many do you specifically recall? I don't recall very many, personally. They blend in because of the volume of events, which is supportive of my ideas.
In summary, *you* are full of ****. :)
-
I call bullcrap on "the world is more dangerous now". The media is just more sensationalist.
(http://hallert.net/images/crime-victims_games.jpg)
-
Originally posted by VOR
Laser, back in the day people remembered the names of the killers because it was such a shocking event. Jack the Ripper, Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Whitman, Bonnie and Clyde, Charles Manson.
Nowadays you have to do some extraordinary or particularly twisted in order to stand out from the herd of nutcases: Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy. Without looking it up, do you remember the name of the original "Postal" employee that shot up his post office? The fellow that shot up a McDonald's in 1984? Were you even out of diapers back then? Just how much history have you experienced outside of a textbook?
Or more recently: who was the mall shooter? Remember his name?
Here's a good exercise for you: Google "Post Office Shooting" and count the different events that have happened in the last 20 years. How many do you specifically recall? I don't recall very many, personally. They blend in because of the volume of events, which is supportive of my ideas.
In summary, *you* are full of ****. :)
Dont forget Richard Speck, that one freaked me out as a child growing up just outside Chicago.
-
I call BS on your chart.
Murder and other felony crime statistics move alot like the stock market. Your chart's timeline begins at the start of a peak trend in 1972 which miraculously plummets with shoot-em-up games being the apparent savior of Western society. I don't buy off on the idea of PC entertainment reversing a 30 year anti-empathic crescendo. Games are fun, but they aren't positive life-changing experiences.
Current felony crime rates are stable and have been since about 1998-1999 following a peak in the late 1980s. This put the 2005 murder rate on par with the 1970-71 rate at around 17,000. By comparison, there were a little over 9000 reported homicides in 1960.
So, it goes up and down in the near-term, but long-term displays an indisputable climb. If it had a ticker code, I'd buy it.
So, back to my original idea: changes in society and the booming drug trade are more responsible for felony crime stats than firearm ownership across the board. They're the real culprits here...or I mean WE are the real culprits here.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Dago said: we have more minorities.
meaning exactly what? That it's the minorities that are commiting the crime?
Any minorities in particular? If so....why?
Ravs
If you divide England into two groups, the ~91% white Englishman group and the ~9% minorities group, to which group would you statistically attribute most of your murders?
-
VOR, if the data from the Department of Justice is incorrect, or is being displayed incorrectly, perhaps someone should say something?
-
Originally posted by ravells
Dago said: we have more minorities.
meaning exactly what? That it's the minorities that are commiting the crime?
Any minorities in particular? If so....why?
Ravs
From the FBI statistics for 2004:
Murder Offenders
by Age, Sex, and Race, 2004
Sex Race
Age Total Male Female Unknown White Black Other Unknown
Total 15,935 10,262 1,130 4,543 5,339 5,608 271 4,717
Funny, blacks number maybe 13% of the population, but killed more than any other race?
Murder Stats (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)
Yeah, it's un-PC to point out a truthful reality.
-
Crime in general is publicized more today, that's for sure. Our overall homicide rate today is about on par with the 1966 at about 5.6/100k. In 1950 it was 4.6 /100k. You really see the numbers start to rise in the 1960s with the late 1960s and 1970s being much steeper. It peaked at about 10/100k in 1980. The real drop off back to where we are at today started in 1994.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
Where homicide in general is concerned (looking back to 1900) you can see the peak impact of prohibition and the "serious" war on drugs. You can see the rise of the Narco gangs and then their maturity and increased stability. The state of the economy, employment and age demographics also come into play in notable fashion.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm
However, the kind of suicide in a blaze of glory/Go Postal on all who pissed me off kind of thing is relatively new. VOR is dead on. These events used to be rare. Now, statically out of a population of 300 million they are still exceedingly rare compared to lightening deaths etc. -- but more common in general terms than they ever were. I would say it's a combination of cultural glorified revenge violence like you find in much Hollywood fare (movie and TV) starting about with the Action Hero stuff of the 1980s. Firearm violence is now MTV stylized, the 40 cal equivalent of a Bruce Lee movie. And then there is the guaranteed 24 hour media circus these losers know they can expect. Fame at last.
Charon
-
This country was made for bibles, with guns. I say the 2nd ammendment stays. We all should have the right to bear arms (Except convicted crimminals, for obvious reasons) to protect ourselves, or just go hunting!
-
some people just miss the point. we all have the right to bear arms. the very first tools man ever created were arms. some governments want to go against nature and claim the right exclusively. some sheeple allow them to.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
VOR, if the data from the Department of Justice is incorrect, or is being displayed incorrectly, perhaps someone should say something?
Chair, I'm surprised a resourceful person like you is displaying a graph made with such a transparent agenda AND defending it.
I'd debunk it in more detail, but I'm off to the range this morning for some recreation. :cool:
-
rav... we have a very diverse and vibrant society with lots of opportunity.
It maybe makes for a more excieting and dangerous one at times and at places...
I would not give it up tho for the security of some decaying euro socialistic one.
Black homicide rates are much higher than whites. they commit about half the homicides and felonies in our society.
Do I think that reducing our homicide rate by half would be worth removing black citizens rights? No... Just as I don't think the false security of a decaying socialist government is worth giving up my rights or my country.
There are plenty of women and womanly men out here that don't agree tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by VOR
Chair, I'm surprised a resourceful person like you is displaying a graph made with such a transparent agenda AND defending it.
I'd debunk it in more detail, but I'm off to the range this morning for some recreation. :cool:
Charts have no agendas.
But occasionally, they have a good sense of humor.