Some Rights must be repealed?

[VermGhost]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Lets just hope the link commentary was both discriptive and lengthy enough to pass MP3s standards.


hmm. is there a word for being both sarcastic and serious at the same time?


In any event
and to get back on topic

"The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists."


I contend that the goverment is becomming more and more unruly and tyranical
And
People like him in government is EXACTLY why that ammendment exists

because that state of affairs can still exist

What is the definition of a "Well regulated militia"?:

In 1781 Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX, "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia."  Presently because of anti age and sex discrimation Legislation.  So if this is interpreted into present speech to be legal, according to present laws, anyone could be a member of this 'militia'.  I know it's a stretch but it's a stretch lol.

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

If you look at all of the other Amdendments that use this 'phrase' it refers the the citizens of the united states.  I do not understand how the use of the phrase in the second amendment can be construed as a militia from this sense: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Pretty cut and dry to me.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Nashwan
As real world examples, look at the fall of communism across eastern Europe in 1989.

The fall of communism in 1989 was not the result of an unarmed insurrection but rather economic collapse.

Communism survived quite well against an unarmed insurrection the same year in China.

[lazs2]

soooo...   would it be possible for a few million (as many as 20-100 million) rebels defeat a half hearted United States government force or not?

Perhaps we would throw out the rules when it was on our soil?  

lazs

[Maverick]

There is another factor everybody is missing in the us vs them scenario with the govt. forces. Those same govt. forces are also citizens first. Do not assume they will all be mindless robot drones to do the bidding of a despot.

[wrag]

UH OH..................

Dems are trying to pass a law to be able to more easiley suspend the Constitution???????????????

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/12/hr-1-puts-america-in-a-giant-bird-cage/

what's next????????????????????

[DREDger]

If staplers were made illegal, only criminals would use them.

[Helrazr1]

they can pry my 2nd ammendmant rights from my cold dead lifeless hands!!!!!

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by Maverick
There is another factor everybody is missing in the us vs them scenario with the govt. forces. Those same govt. forces are also citizens first. Do not assume they will all be mindless robot drones to do the bidding of a despot.

exactly, thats why it wont happen.

and Helrazr, if and thats a BIG IF that would happen

they can pry my 2nd ammendmant rights from my cold dead lifeless hands!!!!!

They wont have a problem prying anything from your dead fingers

[zarkov]

I don't support gun control to the degree to which it exists in Great Britain or in Canada but I believe some form of gun control should be practiced.  It's only common sense.  There was gun control in towns in the "wild west" for a very good reason.

Ownership of guns is not necessary to fight against a tyrannical government.  In fact, it's somewhat naive to assume that if the US ever becomes a tyranny, that the brave patriots who choose to fight will do so with guns.  It simply makes no military sense to do so.  Such freedom fighters would probably employ tactics similar to those used by Timothy McVeigh or by the insurgents in Iraq.  I'm not saying that guns wouldn't be useful, but their use would probably be less cost effective than the use of IED's or their ilk against soft targets.

A tyrannical government would probably have little use for limiting ROE's so any force armed with rifles and pistols and determined to fight "clean and fair" would probably get destroyed by artillary and air-strikes; any civilian non-combatant casualties will probably be touted, by the tyranny, as either being "acceptable" or they would accuse the patriots of using civilians as shields.  Of course, engaging government forces in areas with high population densities is probably a smart thing to do, since any casualties caused by the government may result in a propaganda victory.

For some reason, many of the people who tout the ownership of guns as being necessary to fight a possible tyranny would probably be horrifed by the realization that, in such an event, they probably would have little use for their guns in such a conflict rather than to execute government soldiers who have been taken prisoner (keeping prisoners is rather problematic if you are a guerrilla force - see the Boer War for what eventually happens).  Most of the damage would probably be accomplished through more cost-effective means by which the patriots could use their paucity in numbers to advantage.

This is, of course, a pretty complex subject.  I just wanted to point out that assuming that private ownership of guns was somehow crucial to toppling a tyranny (an argument used by many gun advocates) is somewhat naive and ignores the realities assymetrical warfare.  There is also a sort of "gun fetish" culture that also exists in the US whereby people who do not need guns seek to acquire them simply for the sake of owning them and resorts to circular logic in order to justify their right to own said guns.  With that being said, I don't believe that guns should be banned but that there should be some sort of common-sensical ordinances to regulate their use; of course, this runs afoul of how the political process often works in democracies.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by VermGhost
What is the definition of a "Well regulated militia"?:

In 1781 Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX, "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia."  Presently because of anti age and sex discrimation Legislation.  So if this is interpreted into present speech to be legal, according to present laws, anyone could be a member of this 'militia'.  I know it's a stretch but it's a stretch lol.

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

If you look at all of the other Amdendments that use this 'phrase' it refers the the citizens of the united states.  I do not understand how the use of the phrase in the second amendment can be construed as a militia from this sense: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Pretty cut and dry to me.

If you look further it also talks about the states being resposible for the leadership of their militia with all being trained/organized under a federal standard (paraphrasing here)  It also says that the Federal Government is responsible for providing those arms.

Bottom line to me has always been that the Feds can't control the States decisions on guns, and that the States are responsible for their militia (National Guard) with the Feds being able to call them if needed with State approval etc.  

So in the end I don't believe the 2nd ammendment speaks specifically to individual citizen gun ownership at all.   And yes I'm a gun owner.

Based on the way it's written you could argue the Feds should provide all of us weapons and we should all be responsible to fall under the guidelines and training of our own state "Militia" national guard.

With that in mind, since times have changed, I want a fully armed F15E in my garage thank you

[Charon]

There is also a sort of "gun fetish" culture that also exists in the US whereby people who do not need guns seek to acquire them simply for the sake of owning them and resorts to circular logic in order to justify their right to own said guns.

I don't really need circular logic to justify owning my guns, just the ability to read the Bill of Rights. I see no mention in the Bill of Rights relative to sporting use or target shooting or any other ancillary factor.

Frankly arguments can easily be made for "sensible" controls on the First Amendment, since the Internet is used to facility child pornography and recruit members for hate groups, communicate among radical terrorist groups, and a  book -- the Turner Diaries -- featured prominently in 168 deaths in the Oklahoma City Bombing and numerous individual hate crime deaths beyond that. Also, the Hollywood glorification of firearm violence and news media circuses have far more to do with the Columbines of the world than the guns used. So Zarkov, what sensible restrictions on the First would you suggest?

Charon

[Charon]

So in the end I don't believe the 2nd ammendment speaks specifically to individual citizen gun ownership at all. And yes I'm a gun owner.

Based on the way it's written you could argue the Feds should provide all of us weapons and we should all be responsible to fall under the guidelines and training of our own state "Militia" national guard.

I would disagree. There was a debate among the federalists and anti-federalists over a standing army vs a national guard type militia vs a general militia (there was not just one type of militia in the 1700s/1800s). The general militia is very loose with its organization (able bodied adults, little to no formal drill required) and was clearly the path chosen where the militia concept was concerend along with a formal standing army.

However, the bolded part of the following is critical:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Bill of Rights are all individual rights, unless you feel this is the ONLY exception. The comma makes it pretty clear. The justification in front of it supports a general militia, but at the same time fiream ownership was a common part of life (even among people who were not "on the frontier") and individual firearm ownership had played a critical role in the Revolution itself.

The private writings of the founders and the coverage of the 2nd Amendment from the period in the press and in essays show that the concept of individual firearm ownership was considered a fundamental foundation of our freedom as citizens, regardless of any militia organizational structure -- formal like a national guard or general as in a body of potential patriots. The European failings in this regard were also cited with some regularity.

Charon

[Guppy35]

I'm not disagreeing on that part, but it seems to  be connected to the Militia, meaning that folks were then subject to the 'well regulated' part under each individual State's guidance, based on Federal guidelines for training etc.

The fact that Militia is the specific term used in both Ammendment II and in the 1st Article of the Constitution seems the tie in for me.  

You can argue that the Feds have no right to ban guns.  I think that's clear.  But you could also argue the individual states are in a position to write whatever laws they want as long as it doesn't interfere with that well regulated Militia bit.

It's vague enough you can argue both ways.  I kinda wish they'd been more clear.


The relevant passages

Amendment II

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.

Constitution Article I

The Congress shall have the power……..
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[Charon]

As I noted, there is not one militia. There was the well understood and debated concept of a general milita (citizens) and a select militia (national guard) and that the general militia in combination with a standing army was the initial model adopted. A few points from this article published in the Northern Kentucky Law Review (1982).

http://www.guncite.com/journals/haladopt.html

As noted by the link: "Richard Henry Lee's Letters from the Federal Farmer (1787-1788) (hereinafter Letters). Since most of Lee's proposals for specific (p.20)provisions of a bill of rights were subsequently adopted in the Bill of Rights, some with almost identical wording, the Letters provide an excellent commentary on the meaning of the provisions of the Bill of Rights in general and the second amendment in particular. Predicting the early employment of a standing army through taxation, Lee contended:

But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expense, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenseless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.[29]

The language is a bit convoluted today, but he basically states that a select milita would be impractical andineffective, but a general militia is the key to liberty. There are plenty of additional references and points of note concering the 2nd and militias of the day.

another citation from the link:
 

Ten days after the Bill of Rights was proposed in the House, Tench Coxe published this Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution under the pen name "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, at 2, col. 1. Probably the most complete exposition of the Bill of Rights to be published during its ratification period, the Remarks included the following:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

[wrag]

Originally posted by zarkov
I don't support gun control to the degree to which it exists in Great Britain or in Canada but I believe some form of gun control should be practiced.  It's only common sense.  There was gun control in towns in the "wild west" for a very good reason.

Ownership of guns is not necessary to fight against a tyrannical government.  In fact, it's somewhat naive to assume that if the US ever becomes a tyranny, that the brave patriots who choose to fight will do so with guns.  It simply makes no military sense to do so.  Such freedom fighters would probably employ tactics similar to those used by Timothy McVeigh or by the insurgents in Iraq.  I'm not saying that guns wouldn't be useful, but their use would probably be less cost effective than the use of IED's or their ilk against soft targets.

A tyrannical government would probably have little use for limiting ROE's so any force armed with rifles and pistols and determined to fight "clean and fair" would probably get destroyed by artillary and air-strikes; any civilian non-combatant casualties will probably be touted, by the tyranny, as either being "acceptable" or they would accuse the patriots of using civilians as shields.  Of course, engaging government forces in areas with high population densities is probably a smart thing to do, since any casualties caused by the government may result in a propaganda victory.

For some reason, many of the people who tout the ownership of guns as being necessary to fight a possible tyranny would probably be horrifed by the realization that, in such an event, they probably would have little use for their guns in such a conflict rather than to execute government soldiers who have been taken prisoner (keeping prisoners is rather problematic if you are a guerrilla force - see the Boer War for what eventually happens).  Most of the damage would probably be accomplished through more cost-effective means by which the patriots could use their paucity in numbers to advantage.

This is, of course, a pretty complex subject.  I just wanted to point out that assuming that private ownership of guns was somehow crucial to toppling a tyranny (an argument used by many gun advocates) is somewhat naive and ignores the realities assymetrical warfare.  There is also a sort of "gun fetish" culture that also exists in the US whereby people who do not need guns seek to acquire them simply for the sake of owning them and resorts to circular logic in order to justify their right to own said guns.  With that being said, I don't believe that guns should be banned but that there should be some sort of common-sensical ordinances to regulate their use; of course, this runs afoul of how the political process often works in democracies.

It might interest you to know that throughout most of America up until the late 50s early 60s many took their 2nd Amendment rights fairly seriously.  Many schools had rifle and pistol teams.  ROTC was considered a worthy course to take in all levels of schooling.  You could ride the bus to school carrying your firearm with you and no one thought anything about it.  Gun control was unneeded.

Much changed in the 60s and 70s.  Being career military at one time was considered valid and worthy in America.  But again the 60s and 70s changed that.

And yes it is complex.  You must also consider the fact that some soldiers and law enforcment will refuse to fire on their family, neighbors, and fellow Americans and will very likely join them.

The fact that governement officals and perhaps even some military officers will LIE to their troops and personal in order to get them to take such actions must not be over looked either.