NationStates Jolt Archive

Whereas the "right to bear" people are telling me that our fellow americans can be trusted with guns, not the government. the government *is* our fellow americans. so are all US citizens, including murderers, rapists, the black panthers, the guys you think you're protecting yourself from etc. The people means *everybody* including the government and the 9/11 bombers.



NOBODY has used that argument. Some people have wondered why you all haven't already revolted against the evil government that has *already* infringed your right to own nukes. And the response so far has been *it obviously doesn't mean nukes, although it does mean automatic rifles*



80 million gun owners *are* the government. If the government tried to impose martial law, who do you think would be doing the imposing? People who like peace, flowers and being nice to criminals or people who like guns and wearing camo and shooting stuff?



Guns are dangerous. This is the point of guns.



A definite and regrettable ad hominen attack, balanced only by the constant whining of the gun lobby that you're a criminal-placating sniveller if you don't like guns. See below.



Well the parts about black people not being people are, I hope.



Except in an armed society, where they have to kill you immediately just in case you're packing.


1. Nobody said the Gov't shouldn't have guns, just that citizens should. Those people you mentioned (at least the citizens of the US. The 9/11 bombers weren't citizens and didn't use guns) had/have the right to bear arms until they abuse/abused those rights.

2. Quite a few people, including you, have slippery sloped to "does that mean you can own nukes/tanks etc. So you feel you're a nobody? Not very good self esteem.

3. What? Martial law would be imposed by civilians? Huh?

4. People are dangerous. Guns are objects.

5. You're a criminal placating snivveler if you tell me to give up my possessions and offer no resistance to someone attempting to injure me or my family.

6. Show me in the Bill of Rights where it says Blacks aren't people.

7. So defending yourself "forces" the criminals to act hostile?

Now you've slipped over into the completely irrational. Why pretend that you're so stupid just to make a point? Most people will just see the game you play, or will think you really ARE stupid enough to apply the 2nd amendment to nukes.

You haven't given ANY arguments about why the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to nukes. Some people have argued that it does, and some people have argued that it doesn't, with congent arguments on either side. All you have done is try to insult me, a foreigner, trying to understand US political culture.

Oh wait, you have given an argument, up above this post. It doesn't apply to nukes because nukes weren't invented at the time.

So in fact you have a right to bear single shot muzzle loading black powder rifles, because cartridges and repeating mechanisms, let alone automatic mechanisms, and cordite explosives, weren't invented at the time?

when our forfathers drafted this they obviously meant (in the terms of the day) personal weapons that didnt mean cannons and rockets then and it doesnt mean nukes and missles now. if any more of you use this as an arguing point or example god will give you aids as a punishment just like the christians say he does

Hmm, somebody threw his TiVo with 30 recorded hours of the History Channel (and himself) into the swimming pool.

it might be *obvious* to you that the founding fathers meant "personal weapons". please explain how it is obvious.

The only clue I can see is that it enshrines a right to "bear" arms, and it was hard in those days to "bear" heavy artillery as bear literally means carry. I for one don't think the founding fathers meant "you have a right to any weaponry you can carry".

Anyway these days you can bear some pretty awesome stuff including rocket launchers.

From the Federalist papers: "citizens with arms in their hands".

A few old dictionaries:


ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or
uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a;
Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h.t.



arms, n
3. (Law) Anything which a man takes in his hand in anger, to
strike or assault another with; an aggressive weapon.
--Cowell. Blackstone.


The first quote by the way is from Bouvier's which describes itself as "A Law Dictionary Adapted to the *Constitution* and Laws of the United States of America". The second simply copies Blackstone.

The points of the definition are that this is an individual weapon ("a man") which is portable ("in his hands") and may be used to attack a single opponent ("another"). A bomb is not "arms", and neither is a tank or a surface-to-air missile.

You're welcome to dig up any other old legal dictionaries, they all say the same exact thing.

1. Nobody said the Gov't shouldn't have guns, just that citizens should. Those people you mentioned (at least the citizens of the US. The 9/11 bombers weren't citizens and didn't use guns) had/have the right to bear arms until they abuse/abused those rights.

2. Quite a few people have slippery sloped to "does that mean you can own nukes/tanks etc. Reread the thread.

3. What? Martial law would be imposed by civilians? Huh?

4. People are dangerous. Guns are objects.

5. You're a criminal placating snivveler if you tell me to give up my possessions and offer no resistance to someone attempting to injure me or my family.

6. Show me in the Bill of Rights where it says Blacks aren't people.

7. So defending yourself "forces" the criminals to act hostile?


1. the constitution is talking about *the inalienable rights of man* which apply to everyone (because they are inalienable, and of man) not just US citizens.
2 That isn't a slippery slope argument. It is a question. Many pro-gun people have argues on this thread that it DOES apply to nukes. read the thread.
3 if martial law were imposed on south central LA, do you think the michigan militia or aryan nations or whoever would be down there standing side by side with their black brothers fighting the man? Or do you think they would be marching to the fascist beat of the new government that they had formed themselves? Governments are made of people. The people most likely to form an organised government by force are those people who like organisation and force, eg people who play at armies with guns on weekends.
4 guns are dangerous objects. a dangerous man armed with a banana is a lot less dangerous than a dangerous man armed with a 12 gauge. the differnce in dangerousness can only be accounted for by the 12 gauge.
5 that is an ad hominem attack. case proven.
6. the bill of rights accorded rights to all people. black people did not get those rights. the only explanation for this is that they weren't considered people.
7. attacking your attacker encourages your attacker to attack harder. this is a fact of human nature, not a philosophical position.

A lot of gunowners I know just like guns, end of story. They like to shoot things, and if I had better aim I probably would too (gave up with BB guns and lasertag).

A select few actually own guns because they feel it makes them safer, and I can understand this desire if you're an old lady or a handicap.

But for a grown man living in a suburban neighborhood to think he needs a gun to be safe is downright cowardly. It points to an inner fear within him, one he is unwilling to face. Such 'men' have somehow been instilled with the notion that without a superhuman means of defense such as projectile weaponry they are weak and vulnerable, and the thought of being so scares them to no end.
I'm sure there are plenty of cowards who need weapons to feel safe day to day...but plenty of suburban gun owners use them to stop crimes. Even the ANTI-GUN people admit to this happening 1,500,000 times a YEAR, though others find double this number.

But maybe we should trust the pi...umm, police instead of arming ourselves...so when they show up 20 minutes after the 911 call, what happens?
"2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The error rate for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."

I could give you a million more examples, but I know it's much easier to appeal to simplistic emotion-based sloganeering than actually look at the numbers and think with an open mind.

You haven't given ANY arguments about why the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to nukes. Some people have argued that it does, and some people have argued that it doesn't, with congent arguments on either side. All you have done is try to insult me, a foreigner, trying to understand US political culture.

Oh wait, you have given an argument, up above this post. It doesn't apply to nukes because nukes weren't invented at the time.

So in fact you have a right to bear single shot muzzle loading black powder rifles, because cartridges and repeating mechanisms, let alone automatic mechanisms, and cordite explosives, weren't invented at the time?

I hate to say it, but then you can't be using a computer to communicate your thoughts without a license. Maybe some websites need to be banned as well.

If you restrict one amendment to the constitution due to changes in tech, it has to apply to all amendments, including the first.

That means all religions created after the constitution have to be licensed or regulated as well. Perhaps even be banned.

Just because you don't believe that the right to defend yourself is a right, doesn't mean you get to limit it.

How dare you suggest a man with a gun is a coward, he is a hero
No, he's a man with a gun. It's just a tool, it conveys no moral superiority

From the Federalist papers: "citizens with arms in their hands".

A few old dictionaries:


ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or
uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a;
Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h.t.



The first quote by the way is from Bouvier's which describes itself as "A Law Dictionary Adapted to the *Constitution* and Laws of the United States of America". The second simply copies Blackstone.

The points of the definition are that this is an individual weapon ("a man") which is portable ("in his hands") and may be used to attack a single opponent ("another"). A bomb is not "arms", and neither is a tank or a surface-to-air missile.

You're welcome to dig up any other old legal dictionaries, they all say the same exact thing.

I don't need to dig any more up, yours is fine - it says:
Any thing that a man wears for his defence,
or takes in his hands,
or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another.

So if I use, in my anger, thermonuclear warheads, to strike at another, they are arms.

You haven't given ANY arguments about why the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to nukes. Some people have argued that it does, and some people have argued that it doesn't, with congent arguments on either side. All you have done is try to insult me, a foreigner, trying to understand US political culture.

Oh wait, you have given an argument, up above this post. It doesn't apply to nukes because nukes weren't invented at the time.

So in fact you have a right to bear single shot muzzle loading black powder rifles, because cartridges and repeating mechanisms, let alone automatic mechanisms, and cordite explosives, weren't invented at the time?

I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house."
Thomas Jefferson Letter to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute`s constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded the case because it had concluded that:

* In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.1

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."2 In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.

1 According to Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15 of the Constitution, the functions of the militia are: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions. . . ." Thus, the militia has a law enforcement function, a quasi law enforcement/quasi military function, and a military function. As a result, those firearms which are "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment are those which could be used to fulfill any of these functions.

2 Thus, when combined with the militia test--see bartnote 1--it is clear that cannons, trench mortars, rockets, missiles, anti-tank weapons (such as bazookas), and bombs would not be "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I don't need to dig any more up, yours is fine - it says:
Any thing that a man wears for his defence,
or takes in his hands,
or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another.

So if I use, in my anger, thermonuclear warheads, to strike at another, they are arms.

I thought you said nobody used the slippery slope to nukes?

You haven't given ANY arguments about why the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to nukes. Some people have argued that it does, and some people have argued that it doesn't, with congent arguments on either side. All you have done is try to insult me, a foreigner, trying to understand US political culture.

Oh wait, you have given an argument, up above this post. It doesn't apply to nukes because nukes weren't invented at the time.

So in fact you have a right to bear single shot muzzle loading black powder rifles, because cartridges and repeating mechanisms, let alone automatic mechanisms, and cordite explosives, weren't invented at the time?

"Weren't invented" is a bogus argument. The reason is that "arms" has (or had at the time) a meaning quite distinct from "weapons", which is clearly defined in legal dictionaries of that era, and which a modern military rifle meets, but a tank does not.

Many weapons which existed at the time were obviously not considered arms. To pick a few: cannon, large bombs made of gunpowder, or frigates.

Well then, if you are expecting infantry waves to come through your window, why use an assault rifle when an M18 Claymore will do? Just one of those could rip apart a hundred intruders (along with the window they came through).

And in case you've forgotten, Ford Escorts don't usually fire bullets. I believe the thread on James Bond cars is in another forum.
Actually, automobiles are the number one killer of young people in the U.S. today, many many times more deadly than guns.

And there are few guns at butt-ugly and underpowered as a Ford Escort :-p

None of that is in the constitution. All of it is interpretation after the fact, and all of it could be seen as infringement of the right to bear arms which is enshrined in the constitution.

It is a fact that certain weapons may not be privately owned in the US, but we aren't debating that fact. We are debating what the constitution says.

The constitution says "shall not be infringed". It is up to those who think that nukes shouldn't be allowed to prove that the interpretation after the fact is in the spirit of the constitution, and so far I'm not persuaded. I think your rights are being infringed.

Yu se the term rifle is the problem maybe.

A Pistol isn't a rifle. So not affected.

Is a 50 cal gun a rifle, semi-auto or automatic? No? Than not affected.
The term under discussion was "assault weapons", not "assault rifles".

ANd yes, a 50 cal gun better be a rifle...a 50 cal pistol would snap your little wrist

"Weren't invented" is a bogus argument. The reason is that "arms" has (or had at the time) a meaning quite distinct from "weapons", which is clearly defined in legal dictionaries of that era, and which a modern military rifle meets, but a tank does not.

Many weapons which existed at the time were obviously not considered arms. To pick a few: cannon, large bombs made of gunpowder, or frigates.

weren't invented is definitely a bogus argument - that's why i showed what an obviously bogus argument it was.

Yours though is entirely unproven. i still haven't seen evidence that a cannon would not have been considered "arms" by the founding fathers.

news article i read recently, source at the bottom:


:)
I think the fact that the Onion's parody makes more sense than the actual arguments of the gun banners says it all

You haven't given ANY arguments about why the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to nukes. Some people have argued that it does, and some people have argued that it doesn't, with congent arguments on either side. All you have done is try to insult me, a foreigner, trying to understand US political culture.

Oh wait, you have given an argument, up above this post. It doesn't apply to nukes because nukes weren't invented at the time.

So in fact you have a right to bear single shot muzzle loading black powder rifles, because cartridges and repeating mechanisms, let alone automatic mechanisms, and cordite explosives, weren't invented at the time?

You started out w/ the well worn and stupid statement about nukes, later going into "I live in a country were we vote" , and continueing w/ inane nuke statements. You're not trying to understand US culture, you're trying to start a flame war and make yourself feel superior.

The term under discussion was "assault weapons", not "assault rifles".

ANd yes, a 50 cal gun better be a rifle...a 50 cal pistol would snap your little wrist

isn't the desert eagle 50 cal? doesn't 50 cal mean .5 inch?

The term under discussion was "assault weapons", not "assault rifles".

ANd yes, a 50 cal gun better be a rifle...a 50 cal pistol would snap your little wrist


50 Caliber Desert Eagle pistol. Surely not a 50 BMG rifle, but still... Also the Smith and Wesson 500 Magnum pistol.

A lot of gunowners I know just like guns, end of story. They like to shoot things, and if I had better aim I probably would too (gave up with BB guns and lasertag).

A select few actually own guns because they feel it makes them safer, and I can understand this desire if you're an old lady or a handicap.

But for a grown man living in a suburban neighborhood to think he needs a gun to be safe is downright cowardly. It points to an inner fear within him, one he is unwilling to face. Such 'men' have somehow been instilled with the notion that without a superhuman means of defense such as projectile weaponry they are weak and vulnerable, and the thought of being so scares them to no end.

Interesting thought. However, if my place were to be broken into and I was upstairs asleep, I would have no way to get out of the house safely. Second, I have no idea what this guy may be armed with. No matter what he has I want to make sure I have the upper hand. Fists can only take you so far, If he has a knife or gun...well.... you get my point.

If you restrict one amendment to the constitution due to changes in tech, it has to apply to all amendments, including the first.

I don't get this. Would you care to explain why? Because right now it's a very long stretch of the imagination. And why would it lead to banning?

Regulation is not banning. Free speech is regulated, religions are regulated, to protect the public from libel and scams. Why shouldn't firearms be regulated to diminish the risk of too much firepower falling on a sociopath's hands?

You started out w/ the well worn and stupid statement about nukes, later going into "I live in a country were we vote" , and continueing w/ inane nuke statements. You're not trying to understand US culture, you're trying to start a flame war and make yourself feel superior.

if you read the thread through, you will find more people than just me arguing that the 2nd amendment includes nukes. and you won't find any flaming. you will also find people putting forward *arguments*. Have you got any arguments?

None of that is in the constitution. All of it is interpretation after the fact, and all of it could be seen as infringement of the right to bear arms which is enshrined in the constitution.

It is a fact that certain weapons may not be privately owned in the US, but we aren't debating that fact. We are debating what the constitution says.

The constitution says "shall not be infringed". It is up to those who think that nukes shouldn't be allowed to prove that the interpretation after the fact is in the spirit of the constitution, and so far I'm not persuaded. I think your rights are being infringed.
No, you're playing stupid, a tactic which stops being acceptable in debates at about the age of twelve

III. [Obsolete] You should be expected to further support the Gov't by allowing troops to live in your home that you are required to board.

IV. [Obsolete] Since the Gov't is there to take care of you, warrants shouldn't be needed to remove any objects, possessions, or people in your home that "may be" dangerous.

V. [Obsolete] The Gov't knows best on how long to keep you or your family members in safekeeping and what to do w/ your property.

VI. [Obsolete] The Gov't (those people there to keep you safe from yourself) know best on who to keep "safe".

VII. [Obsolete] The Gov't obviously knows more than a jury of your peers, so your local Meister, Lord, Overseer will decide your "required safety level".

VIII. [Obsolete] The Gov't (knowing better than you] will set fines and bail amounts as it sees fit. For your own safety and protection.

IX & X. [Obsolete] The Gov't will decide which and when rights pertain to you.

NICE!! :)

Oops. I mean it's doubleplusgood!
(When do we get our two minutes hate?? We've always been at war with Eastasia!)

I thought you said nobody used the slippery slope to nukes?

It's NOT a slippery slope. It's in the constitution - your right to bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. this is NOT a slippery slope. It says *YOU CAN HAVE ANY ARMS YOU LIKE*. This is not a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument says *if you allow thing A, this will lead to thing B*.

My argument is *Thing B should be allowed, but it is banned. Why?*

50 Caliber Desert Eagle pistol. Surely not a 50 BMG rifle, but still... Also the Smith and Wesson 500 Magnum pistol.
Good point, and shows how little time I spend thinking about guns.

But I still think that a 50cal anything would snap the wrist of most of the people who think banning guns will take them from the hands of those who abuse them.

No, you're playing stupid, a tactic which stops being acceptable in debates at about the age of twelve

So prove me wrong. Saying *You're being stupid* isn't an argument. Just tell me WHY the second amendment doesn't apply to nukes. And *they weren't invented at the time* isn't the reason is it? Because as previously mentioned, then it wouldn't apply to AK47s.

You do realize that Markreich was using that as a logical counter to DW's little rant and that he fully supports FOS, right?

Graci.
(BTW: It is amazing what happens why you swap a couple of words, eh?)

Good point, and shows how little time I spend thinking about guns.

But I still think that a 50cal anything would snap the wrist of most of the people who think banning guns will take them from the hands of those who abuse them.

because clearly people who want to ban guns are physically weak?

None of that is in the constitution. All of it is interpretation after the fact, and all of it could be seen as infringement of the right to bear arms which is enshrined in the constitution.

It is a fact that certain weapons may not be privately owned in the US, but we aren't debating that fact. We are debating what the constitution says.

The constitution says "shall not be infringed". It is up to those who think that nukes shouldn't be allowed to prove that the interpretation after the fact is in the spirit of the constitution, and so far I'm not persuaded. I think your rights are being infringed.


Fine, whatever, troll. You wanted a definition of "arms". I provided you one by the poeple whos job it is to define and interpret the Constitution and yet "you're not convinced". That shows your intentions right there.

Go slide down your slippery slope some more as it's your only arguement. Come back when you can debate w/ the grownups.

I don't need to dig any more up, yours is fine - it says:
Any thing that a man wears for his defence,
or takes in his hands,
or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another.

So if I use, in my anger, thermonuclear warheads, to strike at another, they are arms.

Remember, this is a legal dictionary: "another" means *one other person*, and *uses in his anger* refers to a found object not ordinarily intended as a weapon (such as a chair or a tool). If you could wear a nuke, or carry it in your hands, or found one lying around, and then used it to attack *one* other person, you might have a point. But that is impractical, to say the least.

That is why firearms are special: they are very discriminating weapons. It is much easier to make something which will kill anyone within ten feet (including the attacker), than something that can be used just to kill the guy who is holding a knife to your child's throat, without harming your child. I think you can see that a hand-grenade is essentially useless for self-defense?

If the RKBA only applies to muzzleloaders, then Free speech only applies to 18th century printing presses.



2 That isn't a slippery slope argument. It is a question. Many pro-gun people have argues on this thread that it DOES apply to nukes. read the thread.


In theory, RKBA includes nukes. However, I don't want to own a nuke.

3 if martial law were imposed on south central LA, do you think the michigan militia or aryan nations or whoever would be down there standing side by side with their black brothers fighting the man? Or do you think they would be marching to the fascist beat of the new government that they had formed themselves? Governments are made of people. The people most likely to form an organised government by force are those people who like organisation and force, eg people who play at armies with guns on weekends.

It would depend on why Martial Law was implemented.
Altho in general, I would probably ingnore Kalifornia. (I am trying to sell it on Ebay. . .)


4 guns are dangerous objects. a dangerous man armed with a banana is a lot less dangerous than a dangerous man armed with a 12 gauge. the differnce in dangerousness can only be accounted for by the 12 gauge.

Itwas said that God created man, but Col. Colt made them equals. You don't seem to realize that criminals will not give up their guns just because they are illegal!


6. the bill of rights accorded rights to all people. black people did not get those rights. the only explanation for this is that they weren't considered people.
Well, aside from making yourself seem increadibly racist, this really doesn't raise much of an arguement for either side. Oh, and Slaves were considered to be 3/5 of a person.

7. attacking your attacker encourages your attacker to attack harder. this is a fact of human nature, not a philosophical position.

Well, if I shoot the attacker in the chest, and keep shooting till they go down, I don't think they will be able to do much of anything. . .

Fine, whatever, troll. You wanted a definition of "arms". I provided you one by the poeple whos job it is to define and interpret the Constitution and yet "you're not convinced". That shows your intentions right there.

Go slide down your slippery slope some more as it's your only arguement. Come back when you can debate w/ the grownups.

You provided me with a definition by *the people whose job it is to interpret the constitution* ie the government. I thought the whole point of the arms is to protect you from the government?

Oh and if you don't have any more arguments, just attempt to insult me, that's bound to make me see your point of view.

if you read the thread through, you will find more people than just me arguing that the 2nd amendment includes nukes. and you won't find any flaming. you will also find people putting forward *arguments*. Have you got any arguments?

I've made quite a few, You just "weren't convinced.

Where's your arguement besides "I WANT TO TROLL "I mean "IT MEANS NUKES"?

because clearly people who want to ban guns are physically weak?

No, because you wouldn't know how to properly hold it so it didn't.
if it was a .50 BMG rifle, you'd break your jaw, as a result of a poor cheekweld.
if it was a S&W 500 Mag pistol, you'd limp wrist it and break your wrist.

And I'd laugh as I called the Ambulance. . .

Remember, this is a legal dictionary: "another" means *one other person*, and *uses in his anger* refers to a found object not ordinarily intended as a weapon (such as a chair or a tool). If you could wear a nuke, or carry it in your hands, or found one lying around, and then used it to attack *one* other person, you might have a point. But that is impractical, to say the least.

That is why firearms are special: they are very discriminating weapons. It is much easier to make something which will kill anyone within ten feet (including the attacker), than something that can be used just to kill the guy who is holding a knife to your child's throat, without harming your child. I think you can see that a hand-grenade is essentially useless for self-defense?

I can see that a hand grenade isn't a great self defence weapon, but the 2nd amendment doesn't actually mention self defence. It doesn't even imply self defence, but the defence of society at large from a tyrannical government.

I agree that a nuke isn't in the spirit of the legal definition you've found, but it IS in the letter, and I still don't think that it shows that the writers of the amendment would definitely have meant to exclude any weapons that aren't personally wielded at a personal target.

No, because you wouldn't know how to properly hold it so it didn't.
if it was a .50 BMG rifle, you'd break your jaw, as a result of a poor cheekweld.
if it was a S&W 500 Mag pistol, you'd limp wrist it and break your wrist.

And I'd laugh as I called the Ambulance. . .

Do you think it is impossible to love something and also want it banned?

That depends on how you read it. Since it is written in *one* sentence instead of two seperate ones assuming the "being necessary to the security of a free state" also refers to the right to bear arms is quite logical IMO.

It's immaterial, by necessity. If you accept that reading, then freedom of the press does NOT cover blogs or even this forum, as this is not a printed medium. There is no printing press involved.
My point: One must apply the same latitude of application to all Amendments. The restrictions of one are the restrictions of all.


No, I'm arguing that the constitution does not grant you the right to bear arms with the primary purpose of defending you against anything but a non-free state. It does not deny you that right either - but according to the interpretation I put forward any law that does would not be against the constitution.

If it is not denied, it is an inherent right, as covered in Article IX. Else, you would need an amendment making the breathing of air legal. ;)


Of course, actually enforcing that law would be impossible, since all you have to do is lie about your plans for the weapon. But as I said: you would be abusing the spirit of the constitution that way. Up to you to decide if that makes one a traitor in spirit.

Abusing the spirit, the way we are *right now* with our freedom of the press? :)

The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of freedom, not a way to curtail them.

That is why Prohibition inherently failed. It is also why there are NO standing Amendments passed that limit any person's rights. Instead, they limit the possible roles of *governement* (two terms for pres, etc.)

Itwas said that God created man, but Col. Colt made them equals. You don't seem to realize that criminals will not give up their guns just because they are illegal! I realise that criminals don't mind being criminal. But a criminal with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a criminal with a banana.



Well, aside from making yourself seem increadibly racist, this really doesn't raise much of an arguement for either side. Oh, and Slaves were considered to be 3/5 of a person.

Slaves were considered 3/5 of a person. And I'm being racist? I argued that the US constitution was racist, in that it considered black people to be less than people. I argued this because I was arguing that some of the constitution eg this part about slaves was obsolete. And if some of it is obsolete, then maybe the bit about bearing arms is obsolete.

You provided me with a definition by *the people whose job it is to interpret the constitution* ie the government. I thought the whole point of the arms is to protect you from the government?

Oh and if you don't have any more arguments, just attempt to insult me, that's bound to make me see your point of view.

This is why you're a troll. No arguement made will change your mind as that's not the point of why you started this thread. No facts will convince you, no reasoned discourse will sway you. You started out w/ nukes and anything said to you is going to me met w/ the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA LA NUKES!!!"

Do you think it is impossible to love something and also want it banned?

Yes.
That is illogical.
You cannot both love something and want to see it banned.

If you did love the RKBA, you would see that all of your arguments on why people shouldn't have arms are rather false. You would agree that the RKBA protects all the others from being thrown out at the earliest convience.

Since you want them banned, it is fairly obvious that you have no respect for my RKBA.

Yours though is entirely unproven. i still haven't seen evidence that a cannon would not have been considered "arms" by the founding fathers.

"Arms" is a legal term, which is clearly defined in Blackstone's, which the founding fathers presumably read since it was *the* legal reference at the time, and some of them were lawyers.

Btw this source [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone] says

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England is also frequently quoted as the definitive pre-Revolutionary War source of Common Law by US courts; in particular, the United States Supreme Court quotes from Blackstone's work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back that far, or further (for example, when discussing the intent of the Framers of the Constitution).

They could have used "weapons", but they chose not to. As with many other things in the constitution which appear perplexing at first glance, they prefered legal terms with very specific and well defined meanings. As for a cannon being considered arms... it simply doesn't meet the Blackstone criteria. If you happened to spontaneously find one lying aroung and used it to defend against a specific attacker, then it might be (just for that occasion). Obviously, it is usually non-portable and used against a group of people in an indiscriminate way, so it isn't "arms".

Yes.
That is illogical.
You cannot both love something and want to see it banned.

If you did love the RKBA, you would see that all of your arguments on why people shouldn't have arms are rather false. You would agree that the RKBA protects all the others from being thrown out at the earliest convience.

Since you want them banned, it is fairly obvious that you have no respect for my RKBA.

i was thinking of guns. i think it is possible to love guns and still want them banned, to place one's own love of something as lower than the greater good. if you don't understand personal sacrifice for the greater good, that's another reason why i wouldn't want you to be stood near me with a gun.

They could have used "weapons", but they chose not to. As with many other things in the constitution which appear perplexing at first glance, they prefered legal terms with very specific and well defined meanings. As for a cannon being considered arms... it simply doesn't meet the Blackstone criteria.

we've had bouvier's definition but not blackstone's.

I realise that criminals don't mind being criminal. But a criminal with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a criminal with a banana.

Do you really think a Criminal is going to give up his gun Just because it'ss now illegal?

"Gee, guess I'll use a knife to rob the bank today, because it's illegal to use my .38!"

If you really think that, I got some beachfront property in Arizona I'll sell you real cheap. . .




Slaves were considered 3/5 of a person. And I'm being racist? I argued that the US constitution was racist, in that it considered black people to be less than people. I argued this because I was arguing that some of the constitution eg this part about slaves was obsolete. And if some of it is obsolete, then maybe the bit about bearing arms is obsolete.

Oh, well the way you worded it it sounded like you thought slavey should still be in effect. And the 3/5 thing is true. Google the 3/5 compromise.

I can see that a hand grenade isn't a great self defence weapon, but the 2nd amendment doesn't actually mention self defence. It doesn't even imply self defence, but the defence of society at large from a tyrannical government.

I agree that a nuke isn't in the spirit of the legal definition you've found, but it IS in the letter, and I still don't think that it shows that the writers of the amendment would definitely have meant to exclude any weapons that aren't personally wielded at a personal target.

According to Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15 of the Constitution, the functions of the militia are: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions. . . ." Thus, the militia has a law enforcement function, a quasi law enforcement/quasi military function, and a military function. As a result, those firearms which are "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment are those which could be used to fulfill any of these functions.

Bet you won't be convinced by this either as you can execute the laws w/ nukes.

I don't get this. Would you care to explain why? Because right now it's a very long stretch of the imagination. And why would it lead to banning?

Regulation is not banning. Free speech is regulated, religions are regulated, to protect the public from libel and scams. Why shouldn't firearms be regulated to diminish the risk of too much firepower falling on a sociopath's hands?

I'll answer to this obliquely:
Zaxon does not agree with any regulation whatsoever.

I believe that the states should issue gun licenses in the manner of automobile licenses. (Pistols & Revolvers, followed by full auto, heavy, etc. endorsements, with no licensing for blackpowder or shotguns). Once you have your license, you can carry concealed in any state in the union.

Gun registration has led to confiscation in nearly all iterations in history. I am still up in the air on this issue.

As for the regulation you speak of, no other goods are thusly regulated. They are made *safe* (ie: cars have seat belts), but they are not limited per se.
In the same manner, all guns in the US have a minimum standards of manufacture.

This is why you're a troll. No arguement made will change your mind as that's not the point of why you started this thread. No facts will convince you, no reasoned discourse will sway you. You started out w/ nukes and anything said to you is going to me met w/ the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA LA NUKES!!!"

I didn't start out with nukes. I started out, if you read the 300 posts or whatever, with the idea that since swords are arms, you can satisfy the right to bear by letting everyone have swords and banning guns.

I then learned that the constitution says *shall not be infringed* and I'm now learning some points of view about how nukes can be illegal without 2A being infringed. I'm not learning it from you though, since you don't have any arguments to teach me with, just insults.

i was thinking of guns. i think it is possible to love guns and still want them banned, to place one's own love of something as lower than the greater good. if you don't understand personal sacrifice for the greater good, that's another reason why i wouldn't want you to be stood near me with a gun.

Lord.
Did your parents feed you lead paint chips when you were young?

If you truely cared for the 'greater good', you'd go out and purchase a gun, and learn how to use it. Why? Because an armed society is a safer society than an unarmed one.

According to Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15 of the Constitution, the functions of the militia are: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions. . . ." Thus, the militia has a law enforcement function, a quasi law enforcement/quasi military function, and a military function. As a result, those firearms which are "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment are those which could be used to fulfill any of these functions.

Bet you won't be convinced by this either as you can execute the laws w/ nukes.

yes, it still says *shall not be infringed* restrict = infringe.

we've had bouvier's definition but not blackstone's.

I gave both. Webster 1913 simply quotes Blackstone on this.

Lord.
Did your parents feed you lead paint chips when you were young?

If you truely cared for the 'greater good', you'd go out and purchase a gun, and learn how to use it. Why? Because an armed society is a safer society than an unarmed one.

I can't buy a gun, it would be illegal in my unarmed society that has a murder rate 1/4 of the murder rate in your armed society, but 14 times that in the swiss armed society. So in fact *some* armed societies are safer than *some* unarmed ones.

I realise that criminals don't mind being criminal. But a criminal with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a criminal with a banana.
Thing is, he's a lot LESS dangerous if you also have a gun, and he is NOT going to give up HIS gun regardless of what laws are passed.

I think it would be nice if nobody ever shot anyone else. I also think it would be nice if Hitler had spontaneously turned into a vase of flowers in 1936, but...

I gave both. Webster 1913 simply quotes Blackstone on this.

but i bet blackstone was updated between 1775 and 1913.

If it is not denied, it is an inherent right, as covered in Article IX. Else, you would need an amendment making the breathing of air legal. ;)

Not the best example -if you deny someone breathing air he will surely die. If you take away his gun he *may* die someday because he didn't have it to defend himself with, but that is far from a certainty.

Your point is valid though, but it works both ways. Assume I find a way to do something so horrible that noone has thought of it yet. Since there are no laws prohibiting me from doing it it is perfectly legal until a law against it is made.
To summarise my reasoning:
a law prohibiting the use of arms against citizens not in service of the state would not be unconstitutional (though impossible to enforce)
saying that the constitution gives you the right to have arms to defend yourself against criminals is incorrect. Correct is saying there are currently no laws denying you that.

Thing is, he's a lot LESS dangerous if you also have a gun, and he is NOT going to give up HIS gun regardless of what laws are passed.

I think it would be nice if nobody ever shot anyone else. I also think it would be nice if Hitler had spontaneously turned into a vase of flowers in 1936, but...

in the uk very few criminals carry guns, because they don't need them and just carrying one makes the crime much more serious.

A MILITIA is a body of CITIZEN-SOLDIERS. They are armed, traditionally, with whatever comes to hand, be it handguns or Uzis.

Since there are no laws prohibiting me from doing it it is perfectly legal until a law against it is made.

This is the case in most places, including the US, except in the case of drugs. Most things that haven't been thought of yet are legal, only *novel drug substances* aren't because the law couldn't keep up with them.

in the uk very few criminals carry guns, because they don't need them and just carrying one makes the crime much more serious.

and yet gun crime has increased in the UK since the grab.

and yet gun crime has increased in the UK since the grab.

gun crime is increading all the time in the UK. It is now *very very rare*.

I believe that the states should issue gun licenses in the manner of automobile licenses. (Pistols & Revolvers, followed by full auto, heavy, etc. endorsements, with no licensing for blackpowder or shotguns). Once you have your license, you can carry concealed in any state in the union.

Gun registration has led to confiscation in nearly all iterations in history. I am still up in the air on this issue.

Suggestion: licenses for concealed carry only (in public places), but no registration of specific weapons, and no restrictions on ownership or carry on private property (except as set by the property owner, but owners of public spaces such as stores or malls cannot restrict). Licenses should be strictly shall-issue, anyone who is not disqualified gets one. Certain individuals (violent felons, etc) should be prohibited from owning as well as carrying. Penalties for unlicensed carry shall depend on the class of the weapon (heavy penalties for full-auto or short shotguns, for example).

and yet gun crime has increased in the UK since the grab.

i now know what you mean by *grab*, you mean since guns were confiscated? I'd like to know a) what your sources are and b) if gun crime has increased per capita as a percentage of total crime

but i bet blackstone was updated between 1775 and 1913.

It wasn't updated ;) It was published in 1765-69, and that was it. So it is a pretty good snapshot of the idea of law as the founding fathers saw it. Any updating doesn't matter, since all common-law definitions are very similar (almost word-for-word "anything a man may take in his hands to attack another with"), and a hand-grenade or cannon would not qualify as "arms" under any of them.

I can't buy a gun, it would be illegal in my unarmed society that has a murder rate 1/4 of the murder rate in your armed society, but 14 times that in the swiss armed society. So in fact *some* armed societies are safer than *some* unarmed ones.

We would have a rate similar to the Swiss if we taught firearms saftey in the schools. (like Drivers ed) It has been shown that those who take a hunter's saftey course/ firearms saftey course have an 80% decrease in gun crimes.

And it looks like you have lost your RKBA.
Well then, looks like I'll have to use mine twice as hard now. . .

But the base thing is that pretty much all gun control is illegal. Problem is that the SCOTUS knows this, and refuses to hear any case where the RKBA is involved.

We would have a rate similar to the Swiss if we taught firearms saftey in the schools. (like Drivers ed) It has been shown that those who take a hunter's saftey course/ firearms saftey course have an 80% decrease in gun crimes.

Really? You expect me to believe that criminals won't kill people if their teacher tells them that it's dangerous?

i now know what you mean by *grab*, you mean since guns were confiscated? I'd like to know a) what your sources are and b) if gun crime has increased per capita as a percentage of total crime

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/01/ngun01.xml

The Home Office and police chiefs should instead tackle the possession of guns in criminal hands, said Prof Mauser, a member of the independent Fraser Institute in Canada. He has given evidence to select committees of the House of Commons and the Canadian Senate and predicted the escalation of gun crime on Britain's streets.

His warning comes as gun crime incidents are averaging about 29 a day in England and Wales, more than twice the level of when the Labour Government came to power in 1997. In the past two years, there have been cases of schoolchildren and a baby, killed or injured by guns.


http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/posts
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/sta_index.htm

Really? You expect me to believe that criminals won't kill people if their teacher tells them that it's dangerous?

You do understand that safety courses don't just consist of "Guns 'R Bad M'kay", right ? Safety courses involve the proper handling and use of firearms, thier implications, and ussually local laws as well.

Then more law abiding citizens would have firearms and criminals would be less inclined to attempt to rob/attack them.

But you'ld rather twist the statement around and take it out of context to make it mean what you want it to.

I don't get this. Would you care to explain why? Because right now it's a very long stretch of the imagination. And why would it lead to banning?

Regulation is not banning. Free speech is regulated, religions are regulated, to protect the public from libel and scams. Why shouldn't firearms be regulated to diminish the risk of too much firepower falling on a sociopath's hands?

Because there are already weapons that are banned. Same should apply to the 1st then.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that you're punishing the law-abiding before they can possibly have the chance to prove they're not criminals.

People have to prove they're irresponsible before enacting punishment (restrictive law) on them.

i now know what you mean by *grab*, you mean since guns were confiscated? I'd like to know a) what your sources are and b) if gun crime has increased per capita as a percentage of total crime

At a minimum 129,000 handguns were confiscated in the UK... Crime doubled, roughly (murder, assault, robbery & rape).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7893178#post7893178

... and read the rest of the thread too. There are three illegal guns for every legal gun in the UK.

Btw you ask "if gun crime has increased" - who the hell cares what instrument was used in a crime? Total crime certainly has increased, and then some.

A 9mm won't help against a tank or a helicopter, which is why folks (at least some folks I know) have TOWs, Stingers, RPGs, Sa-16s, Sa-7s, MILANs, etc.

Freedom is never free nor is it cheap. You have to always be ready to defend it.

Thank you! haha. 20 million people with guns can stop the goverment in its tracks. Thats the whole point, it's not so a group of ten people can revolt because they don't like some dumb law. It's when the goverment really needs to be changed, completely. By the way people do have tanks, half-tracks and other armored vehicles just no shells for them. But the amendment needs to be changed so you can't own a nuke, you can't defend your self from your own goverment with a nuke, but you can with a TOW or an RPG.

So i guess that because defending freedom is hard, you should just give into an all protecting, encompasing, invasive, loving Government?

http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/wgupris.htm

Because everyone knows the jews peacefully marched into the mass graves.

At a minimum 129,000 handguns were confiscated in the UK... Crime doubled, roughly (murder, assault, robbery & rape).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7893178#post7893178

... and read the rest of the thread too. There are three illegal guns for every legal gun in the UK.

Btw you ask "if gun crime has increased" - who the hell cares what instrument was used in a crime? Total crime certainly has increased, and then some.


Heh.
If there ever is a ban here in the states, I can gaurantee you I will have a tragic boating accident that leaves me with just a .22 and a .38 to turn in. . .
If they just happen to appear in my home during a robbery, well, thats a hell of a coincidence. . .

If my dad was not carrying around a very large semi-auto rifle when he was a teenager I would not have been born. Just a thought for everyone. :sniper:

I'll answer to this obliquely:
Zaxon does not agree with any regulation whatsoever.


Bingo.

I do also believe in VERY stiff punishments for those that do abuse the power citizens possess and breaches of their responsibilities.

The government shouldn't be thinking for the citizen, the citizen should be thinking for the government.

Thank you! haha. 20 million people with guns can stop the goverment in its tracks. Thats the whole point, it's not so a group of ten people can revolt because they don't like some dumb law. It's when the goverment really needs to be changed, completely. By the way people do have tanks, half-tracks and other armored vehicles just no shells for them. But the amendment needs to be changed so you can't own a nuke, you can't defend your self from your own goverment with a nuke, but you can with a TOW or an RPG.


It is actually pretty easy to disable a tank with a rifle. Radio antennas, vision slots, exposed crew, all vunerable to a marksman.

but an ATR helps simplify the equation. . .

The government shouldn't be thinking for the citizen, the citizen should be thinking for the government.

*Wild Applause*

Because there are already weapons that are banned. Same should apply to the 1st then.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that you're punishing the law-abiding before they can possibly have the chance to prove they're not criminals.

People have to prove they're irresponsible before enacting punishment (restrictive law) on them.
Ok. I understand. The mere fact of owning, say, a Stinger, doesn't mean you're a criminal or intend to use it criminally. You may be saving it for when the government sends its bombers after you.

I tend to agree. However, I believe that for public safety you should demonstrate that you know how to use and take care of such weapon, and also that you're of a right mind and good standing with the law before being allowed to take one of these to your bunker.

This is just a philosophical point, since I agree that the second ammendment, as is written right now, does not allow for this, but perhaps it should be reconsidered. None of my business since I am not a citizen of the US, but perhaps something you may think about.

Suggestion: licenses for concealed carry only (in public places), but no registration of specific weapons, and no restrictions on ownership or carry on private property (except as set by the property owner, but owners of public spaces such as stores or malls cannot restrict). Licenses should be strictly shall-issue, anyone who is not disqualified gets one. Certain individuals (violent felons, etc) should be prohibited from owning as well as carrying. Penalties for unlicensed carry shall depend on the class of the weapon (heavy penalties for full-auto or short shotguns, for example).

That's pretty much what I have in mind, yeah... :cool:
(Private property is private property. You can drive your car unlicensed in your yard, too.)

Ok. I understand. The mere fact of owning, say, a Stinger, doesn't mean you're a criminal or intend to use it criminally. You may be saving it for when the government sends its bombers after you.

I tend to agree. However, I believe that for public safety you should demonstrate that you know how to use and take care of such weapon, and also that you're of a right mind and good standing with the law before being allowed to take one of these to your bunker.

This is just a philosophical point, since I agree that the second ammendment, as is written right now, does not allow for this, but perhaps it should be reconsidered. None of my business since I am not a citizen of the US, but perhaps something you may think about.

Understood.

Not the best example -if you deny someone breathing air he will surely die. If you take away his gun he *may* die someday because he didn't have it to defend himself with, but that is far from a certainty.

Death isn't the point, though. Someday, we may have technology that allowed dermal breathing. A good is a good is a good.
The idea is that the Bill of Rights enumerates rights, it does not take them. (That's what other litigation is for.)


Your point is valid though, but it works both ways. Assume I find a way to do something so horrible that noone has thought of it yet. Since there are no laws prohibiting me from doing it it is perfectly legal until a law against it is made.

Thanks.
That's true. But what does it have to do with the Bill of Rights? :confused:


To summarise my reasoning:
a law prohibiting the use of arms against citizens not in service of the state would not be unconstitutional (though impossible to enforce)
saying that the constitution gives you the right to have arms to defend yourself against criminals is incorrect. Correct is saying there are currently no laws denying you that.

It would most certainly be, for a multitude of reasons. Most specifically, you cannot pre-judge a citizen's conduct.

If you do or do not have the right to use a gun to defend yourself is a question for the courts to decide (on an individual basis). That's why we have them.

At a minimum 129,000 handguns were confiscated in the UK... Crime doubled, roughly (murder, assault, robbery & rape).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7893178#post7893178

... and read the rest of the thread too. There are three illegal guns for every legal gun in the UK.

Btw you ask "if gun crime has increased" - who the hell cares what instrument was used in a crime? Total crime certainly has increased, and then some.

Crime hasn't doubled since handguns were confiscated. that was in the 1980s. Rape and murder have not doubled since the 1980s. burglary has dropped. the very few handguns that were confiscated in the 1980s were for sporting/target use. If you'd shot a burglar in your own home with one of these, you would be in serious legal difficulties as the law presumes that use of firearms is almost never reasonable.

Guns were made much more difficult to own around 1920, and crime has definitely increased since then. I would like to ccmpare the increase in total crime in the US and the UK since then.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, switzerland is an armed, low crime society, and the UK is an unarmed, high crime society, and the US is an armed high crime society, so the weaponry isn't necessarily making a lot of difference either way.

It's the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms, not just the right of militias to bear arms. That right of states is already protected in Article 2, section 8 and Amendment 10 of the Constitution. There would be no need for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee the right of states to form their own militias.

As for the weapons used, knives can sometimes more dangerous than guns. Any cop will tell you that. Knives are still legal in the UK, and thus can be used by criminals too lazy to get guns. Or as Archie Bunker asked his daughter on the famous sitcom "All in the Family" "Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?". :)

Ok. I understand. The mere fact of owning, say, a Stinger, doesn't mean you're a criminal or intend to use it criminally. You may be saving it for when the government sends its bombers after you.

I tend to agree. However, I believe that for public safety you should demonstrate that you know how to use and take care of such weapon, and also that you're of a right mind and good standing with the law before being allowed to take one of these to your bunker.

This is just a philosophical point, since I agree that the second ammendment, as is written right now, does not allow for this, but perhaps it should be reconsidered. None of my business since I am not a citizen of the US, but perhaps something you may think about.

One little point: You don't have to be a mechanic to own a car.
So long as you're in legal possession of the (object), that's all you need. Ala the idea for nation-wide licensing as with automobiles... in this case, with a "missile" endorsement.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/01/ngun01.xml

The Home Office and police chiefs should instead tackle the possession of guns in criminal hands, said Prof Mauser, a member of the independent Fraser Institute in Canada. He has given evidence to select committees of the House of Commons and the Canadian Senate and predicted the escalation of gun crime on Britain's streets.

His warning comes as gun crime incidents are averaging about 29 a day in England and Wales, more than twice the level of when the Labour Government came to power in 1997. In the past two years, there have been cases of schoolchildren and a baby, killed or injured by guns.


http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/posts
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/sta_index.htm

the last link you have given shows that total crime dropped by either 1% or 5% between 2003 and 2004. This is in spite of the fact that apparently more criminals have guns.

It's the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms, not just the right of militias to bear arms. That right of states is already protected in Article 2, section 8 and Amendment 10 of the Constitution. There would be no need for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee the right of states to form their own militias.

As for the weapons used, knives can sometimes more dangerous than guns. Any cop will tell you that. Knives are still legal in the UK, and thus can be used by criminals too lazy to get guns. Or as Archie Bunker asked his daughter on the famous sitcom "All in the Family" "Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?". :)

Archie Bunker was a straw man, saying ridiculous things for the comedy value. In the UK you have to prove you have a good reason for carrying any knife with a blade longer than 2". And knives are only more dangerous than guns if you're stood right near them. Most of the time, guns are a lot more dangerous than knives.

It is the right of the citizens to have weapons, for defence of their property and their lives. The initial reason for the law to have come into existance is because if someone tried to assault you or your home you would be protected, it too was made clear that the reason that the statement was made is so that not even the local government or any other ideal pushing extreemist group could not find themselves monopolizing the weaponry in the area, therefore allowing the citizens to revolt and defend their ideals and selves. Dont shit where you eat my friends.

It is the right of the citizens to have weapons, for defence of their property and their lives. The initial reason for the law to have come into existance is because if someone tried to assault you or your home you would be protected, it too was made clear that the reason that the statement was made is so that not even the local government or any other ideal pushing extreemist group could not find themselves monopolizing the weaponry in the area, therefore allowing the citizens to revolt and defend their ideals and selves. Dont shit where you eat my friends.

Always be sure to end a post with an irrelevant platitude. That way people considerably more stupid than you, if there are any, will think you may not be as dumb as you look.

General UK Crime statistics
General crime has fallen to every year since 1995

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.asp

Reviem of armed crime by home office:
There are graphs, but I can't post em.
Most homicides are 'Sharp instrument'

1. Homicide
KEY FINDINGS
• There were 858 deaths initially recorded as homicides in England and Wales based on cases
recorded by the police in 2001/02. This is an increase of one per cent on 2000/01.
• Seventy per cent of homicide victims were male. Since 1991, male homicides have
increased by 73 per cent while female homicides have remained quite stable.
• The most common method of killing at 32 per cent involved a sharp instrument.
• Firearms were used in 12 per cent of homicides, an increase of 32 per cent (23 cases) on
2000/01.
• Female victims were more likely to have been killed by someone they knew: Seventy-two per
cent of victims knew the main suspect compared to 40 per cent of male victims. Sixty-eight
per cent of victims aged under 16 knew the main suspect.
• Overall the risk of being a victim of homicide was 16 per million population. The risk was
greatest for children under one (46 per million population) and lowest for children aged
between 5 and 16 (4 per million population).

I but 14 times that in the swiss armed society. So in fact *some* armed societies are safer than *some* unarmed ones.
Not even Switzerland has a murder rate of 0.4 per 100,000.

The intent of the language was to allow a free people to fight, if necessary, any who attempted to usurp that freedom, whether from without or from within. To resist usurpers in the 21st Century would require considerable firepower.

Only if you relied on conventional weaponry and tactics... arguably Osama is fighting his percieved oppressor with nothing more effective than a VISA card and a box-cutter.

(Note the use of percieved before dispatching the cruise missiles please.)

:D Really, fine? You'd give up your firearms if everyone else gave up theirs? Spread the message among your brethren.

Furthermore, I personally don't think anti-gun campaign leaders campaign against guns because they are bored, or because they are looking for stuff to ban just to make you cry. I think it is because they don't think assault weapons have a productive place in the suburban home.

Sure they have a productive place in suburban----wait a minute (in the background) "GET THE F*** OF MY PROPERTY!!!" :mp5: "MY HOUSE B***!!!" :mp5:

:D

It actually means for a militia, regular people are not the militia: the National Guard is. Although we ar allowed by certain laws to have weapons up to assault and nonfiring cannons.

Crime hasn't doubled since handguns were confiscated. that was in the 1980s. Rape and murder have not doubled since the 1980s. burglary has dropped.

Crime has increased a lot in the past decade or two, especially violent crime, and some types have indeed doubled. For example,

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/100years.xls

Comparing 1996 (the last pre-ban year) with 2002
Murder 679 -> 1,048 (up 54%)
Rape 5,990 -> 12,293 (up 105%)
Robbery 74,035 ->108,045 (up 46%)
Wounding 12,169 -> 17,882 (up 46%)

So as you can see serious crime has increased very substantially. Rape *has* doubled, and robbery has doubled as well if you compare 1994 with 2001.

Do I think that the confiscation of guns is solely responsible for the increase? Of course not. The UK has a major violent crime problem, which is getting much worse every year, and which would obviously not go away even if you could wave a magic wand and make all firearms disappear. It should be obvious that the removal of weapons from the hands of law-abiding citizens (which is all the laws have done) has done nothing to improve the situation, and most likely has made it worse by removing an effective deterrent.

the very few handguns that were confiscated in the 1980s were for sporting/target use. If you'd shot a burglar in your own home with one of these, you would be in serious legal difficulties as the law presumes that use of firearms is almost never reasonable.

(Almost) all handguns (129,000) were confiscated in 1997. I don't know what you mean about "confiscated in the 1980s were for sporting/target use".

Guns were made much more difficult to own around 1920, and crime has definitely increased since then. I would like to ccmpare the increase in total crime in the US and the UK since then.

The US doesn't have an increase since the 1920s ;) Remember the Prohibition? I don't have stats going that far back but I think violent crime is down, actually.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, switzerland is an armed, low crime society, and the UK is an unarmed, high crime society, and the US is an armed high crime society, so the weaponry isn't necessarily making a lot of difference either way.

The US is a mixed society. Some areas are heavily armed, others not; some are high-crime, others not. Crime (violent crime) appears to have most to do with gangs. Most murderers and most of their victims have prior felony convictions (and extensive police records), roughly 2/3 of murders are considered gang-related. There are large cities which do not have gangs and which have murder rates of 2 (per 100,000), and other cities which have gangs and have murder rates 45 and higher.

yet another US-UK comparison, all data for 1999.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnscj.pdf

UK
population 52690000
-----------------------------------
offence | number | rate per 100,000

burglary 452000 857.8
robbery 78884 149.7
assault 218433 414.6
rape 7707 14.6
homicide 746 1.4
-----------------------------------

USA
population 248710000
-----------------------------------
offence | number | rate per 100,000
-----------------------------------
burglary 1406799 565.6
robbery 347598 139.8
assault 870561 350.0
rape 89110 35.8
homicide 15530 6.2
-----------------------------------

Bear in mind that US and UK notions of rape and homicide are not comparable. In particular, US homicide is based on initial police reporting, over 1/3 of these will be judged manslaughter, justifiable or excusable homicide or "mutual combat" in the courts. UK homicide reporting is based on the court decisions and so it is already adjusted down. The US contains areas with rates as low as 1 and as high as 75, most places are around 2. Lastly, the trend is down in the US and up in the UK, for all of these.

It actually means for a militia, .
No it doesn't.


regular people are not the militia

Yes they are.

It actually means for a militia, regular people are not the militia: the National Guard is. Although we ar allowed by certain laws to have weapons up to assault and nonfiring cannons.

There *are* militias out there.
http://governorsfootguard.com/info/whatwedo/

http://www.remnantsaints.com/MirrorIndex/Militia/nationwide_links.htm

It actually means for a militia, regular people are not the militia: the National Guard is.

And your proof of this is....?

The NG is not the militia.
They are part of the military.

The Militia is comprised of every able bodied male between the ages of 18-55 IIRC. (It might be 16-60, my memory escapes me right now)

Oh, and to add further fuel to the fire, here is an interesting bit about how well the Washington D.C. gun ban works. . . .

According to casualties.org there have been 88 hostile fire deaths caused by firearms since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. The remainder of coalition deaths have been due to explosives or accidents. What does this mean?

If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in theater during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death rate of 55 per 100,000. The firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000.

This means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol than you are in Iraq! The conclusion? Under the logic of the heathen left, we should immediately pull out of Washington DC!

The NG is not the militia.
They are part of the military.

The Militia is comprised of every able bodied male between the ages of 18-55 IIRC. (It might be 16-60, my memory escapes me right now)

Oh, and to add further fuel to the fire, here is an interesting bit about how well the Washington D.C. gun ban works. . . .

According to casualties.org there have been 88 hostile fire deaths caused by firearms since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. The remainder of coalition deaths have been due to explosives or accidents. What does this mean?

If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in theater during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death rate of 55 per 100,000. The firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000.

This means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol than you are in Iraq! The conclusion? Under the logic of the heathen left, we should immediately pull out of Washington DC!

And by your logic, Washington DC would be a safer place if 160000 troops were stationed there.

a) well duh!

b) military occupation of the nation's capital - isn't that what you bear arms to prevent?

The NG is not the militia.
They are part of the military.

Incorrect. The National Gaurd and Coast Gaurd are the first half of the militia.

Cite (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html)

The Militia is comprised of every able bodied male between the ages of 18-55 IIRC. (It might be 16-60, my memory escapes me right now)

See above. The second half is every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, every female member of the national gaurd, and every male member outside of that age range. Minus a few exceptions listed in the next subsection.

Cite (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000312----000-.html)

And by your logic, Washington DC would be a safer place if 160000 troops were stationed there.

a) well duh!

b) military occupation of the nation's capital - isn't that what you bear arms to prevent?

Careful, you might hurt yourself leaping that far.

What The Militia Is

In May of 1792, five months after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, the Militia Act was passed. That act distinguished between the enrolled militia and the organized militia. Before the passing of that act, there was only the enrolled militia, which was the body of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 44, inclusively, and it is that militia to which the 2nd Amendment refers. It couldn’t refer to the organized militia because it didn’t exist yet. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that this body of citizens is armed and that’s why the Founding Fathers thought to place it in the Bill of Rights. Legally, both militias still exist.

By law, if you're an American citizen, male, between the ages of 17 and 44, United States Code still says that you're in the militia. Some might say then that only people between 17 and 44 are allowed guns. But, that’s just the ages of the body of men constituting the militia. The amendment says the people can both keep and bear arms. It’s usually been construed to mean all the people.

If you don't believe it means "all the people," then perhaps we could go back to the First Amendment and look at its usage of "the people". It's enlightening to read the original Militia Act. It explains what the militia meant to the Founding Fathers. It also shows that the 2nd Amendment came before Federal law created the organized militia and provide evidence that what they referred to as the enrolled militia—the body of citizens—were allowed to arm themselves.

Some might say that all that happened 200 years ago,and that Militia means something else today. Some say it means the military. But the law hasn’t changed. But even if we decide the word means something new to us, you can’t use the new definition to change the intent of the Amendment.

Some may say that times have changed and we need new interpretations of the words and of the Constitution. But the Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can’t go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our approval. And, in the end, the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights are there for our protection, not for the benefit of the government or those who run it.

Some people don’t buy into these definitions of militia. They don’t believe the 2nd Amendment gives me or anyone else the right to privately own guns. They think this interpretation is just a well-presented opinion and that the 2nd Amendment really refers to the powers given to the states. That’s okay. Even if you’re right and the 2nd Amendment refers only to the National Guard, the state police, or some other uniformed military or police organization we’d still have the right to keep and bear arms.
We don’t need the 2nd Amendment. Because the Founding Fathers believed we had that right. They spoke about it and wrote about it. And that’s enough.

The whole question of gun rights hinges on what the 2nd Amendment means. If it means the right to bear arms belongs to the states, then it means you and I don’t have any right to individual gun ownership.

So, can you find anything in the 2nd Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that says the individual can’t have arms?

Just keep in mind my question is not whether you think the Constitution allows individuals to carry guns but whether or not there’s anything in it that says they can’t.

And do you also understand that the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights. It’s not even a complete list of our rights.

I’m asking you if you understand that we do not get our rights from the Bill of Rights.

I’m saying this because the Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent, or white. They believed everyone had these rights even if they lived in Europe, China, or the moon. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed but were denied. This was upheld by a Supreme Court decision in 1876.

It’s a question as to whether or not our rights exist apart from government. Let me ask you this. In a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government won’t protect them?

Then is it too much of a stretch for you to understand that the Founding Fathers believed everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to fair trials...?

I've heard Zeppistan use this same argument to say that the detainees at Guantanamo have rights - even if the US government is using its own interpretations of loopholes in treaty and law - Zepp believes that people have natural rights.

In other words, it’s a question as to whether the rights of the citizens in China are at the pleasure of the government or if they have them but are being denied, or if the Jews had basic human rights in Germany even if Hitler didn’t let them exercise them.

All I want to know is if that’s hard for you to see.

Take it a step further. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didn’t have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease to exist?

The answer, according to the guys who set up this country, is yes, we would still have those rights. We’re just being denied them. Because of that, it’s the way we have to look at the Constitution.

It may be, that in reality, rights are a figment of our imagination. But the Founding Fathers believed they existed and that’s how this country was set up. Rights are something that come with being human. The Founders never believed we got them from the government. If and when the United States goes away, the rights will still be there.

So why a Bill of Rights?

You’re not the first person to ask that. Men like Alexander Hamilton asked it. He and many others thought having a Bill of Rights was dangerous.

They were afraid that the existence of a Bill of Rights as a part of our Constitution implied that the government not only had the right to change them, but that any rights not listed there were fair game for the government to deny. And, as a matter of fact, that’s exactly what has happened. The government seems to have set itself up to be an interpreter of our rights; it acts as if it is also the source of our rights, and whatever rights weren’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the government has seen fit to declare exist only at its discretion.

This is the very danger that Skapedroe seems to point out in most of his posts.

Have you ever read the Bill of Rights? Specifically, have you ever read the 9th and 10th Amendments?

It’s important to understand what they say and know why they are written the way they are because they tie in with how the Founding Fathers viewed our rights and how they expected us to view them.

They were put there to quell the fears of men like Hamilton who were afraid that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights would be usurped by the government. The 9th says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This means that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to be denied to the people.
The 10th says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can usurp.
So it’s enough to show the Founding Fathers thought we had a right for it to fall under the protection of the 9th or 10th Amendment. This means that the Founders didn’t even have to specify we have the right to free speech, religion, jury trials, or anything else. To understand what they felt our rights were, all you had to do was show what they said our rights are. Any rights in the first eight Amendments are just redundant with what the Founding Fathers considered Natural Rights.

So why do we have a Bill of Rights?

Because even though Hamilton and others feared having one, most of the Founding Fathers were sure that without one the government would eventually take all of our rights.

Just getting off the gun issue for the moment, there are actually rights not mentioned in the Constitution that we’ve been denied.

The Founding Fathers felt we had a right to unrestricted travel. So, now we have driver’s licenses, automobile registrations, and passports. They also felt we had property rights, so Civil Forfeiture or Civil Seizure laws, now exercised by the Feds and the states, are actually illegal under both the 9th and 10th Amendment.

And, if the Congress or even the Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment only refers to formal military organizations, we still have the right to keep and bear arms, because the Founding Fathers considered it a natural right. And if you don’t believe it, read what the Founding Fathers said in their papers, their letters, and their debates in both Congress and the state legislatures.

You know, weapons have always been important. In Greece, Rome, and even under Anglo-Saxon law, when slaves were freed, part of the ceremony included placing a weapon in the man’s hand. It was symbolic of the man’s new rank.

Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense.

That was said by John Adams in A Defense Of The Constitution.

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

That was said by Samuel Adams, John Adams’ second or third cousin, during Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788.

If you really want to hear what they had to say, here are a few by Jefferson:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.

And here’s another by him:

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

He wrote this as part of the proposed Virginia Constitution, in 1776.
And here’s one more. It’s Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria—a Milanese criminologist whom he admired who was also his contemporary—in On Crimes and Punishment:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

I think it’s pretty clear that Jefferson felt we had the right to keep and bear arms for both personal protection and as a safeguard against tyranny.
Here’s one by Thomas Paine that comes from his Thoughts On Defensive War written in 1775:

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.

To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

That was by George Mason when the Constitution was being debated.

And who, you may ask, was George Mason? He’s the most underrated and unsung of all the Founding Fathers. Jefferson drew on him when composing the Declaration of Independence; his doctrine of inalienable rights was not only the basis for the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776, but other states used them as the models for their own Bill of Rights, and James Madison drew upon them freely while composing the Bill of Rights for the United States.

Even though a Southerner, Mason recognized the evils of slavery and the fact that slaves were entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity. He also feared the Constitution because it didn’t do a better job of limiting the powers of the Federal government. He believed local government should be strong and the Federal government kept weak. He firmly believed in the power, the rights, and the integrity of the individual.

He suffered bad health and had all kinds of family problems, so he never attained any office outside of Virginia—other than his membership to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. But he was the most vocal of the Founders on individual rights, and the other Founding Fathers recognized him as a force to be reckoned with. Without him, I can guarantee you that the United States would not be as free as it is now.

Here’s a quote by Elbridge Gerry, a representative to Congress from Massachusetts during the debates over the Bill of Rights. He’s also the man for whom gerrymandering is named because, as governor of Massachusetts, he tried to rig districts to favor his party. In this quote he was specifically referring to what we now call the 2nd Amendment:

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

That should also give you insight as to how the Founders defined the militia and why they thought it was important.

There’s one more. It’s kind of a long one, but it’s by James Madison, the guy who wrote the Constitution and actually put together the Bill of Rights.

The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion 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 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. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

I think you can see how the Founding Fathers felt about the right of individuals to have weapons. In fact, this whole debate over the right to arms is a recent one. In the last century, Americans would have been as amazed to find their right to have weapons a subject of debate as they would to have found their right to free speech or religion debated. There was no question to them, or to the Founders, that the right to keep and bear arms was one of the most fundamental—perhaps the most fundamental—of all civil rights.

You might ask if any of the Founders are on record saying they don’t believe individuals should have guns. But there are none.

What The Militia Is

yadda yadda yadda



Which just goes to show that a nation founded on paranoia can remain paranoid for 225 years.

Which just goes to show that a nation founded on paranoia can remain paranoid for 225 years.

But I thought you started this thread to , as a foreigner, learn something about American culture and not to start insulting it.

Which just goes to show that a nation founded on paranoia can remain paranoid for 225 years.

Skip the paranoia - do you believe in "natural rights"?

Do you have a right to defend yourself? Or not?

Skip the paranoia - do you believe in "natural rights"?

Do you have a right to defend yourself? Or not?

Don't bother. IH started this thread to troll around. There is no arguement, data, fact, or discussion that will change his view or 'not convince" him, no matter the source. Any statement you make will be taken completely out of context to ask stupid questions or make inane statements.

Skip the paranoia - do you believe in "natural rights"?

Do you have a right to defend yourself? Or not?

I don't believe in rights full stop. Rights are legally accorded to you by your government. This whole discussion has been about the legal document which gives you the foundation for your government, and what that document says. There is little argument from the perspective that it *is* a natural right, only that a legal document may *say* that is is.

I say rights are legal. You have a right to what the law says you have a right to. When the law changes, your rights change. Whether or not this is morally correct is a matter of opinion.

And in my opinion, defending yourself is, in most circumstances, ok. I don't think that means that societies are always made better by having lots of firearms.

Don't bother. IH started this thread to troll around. There is no arguement, data, fact, or discussion that will change his view or 'not convince" him, no matter the source. Any statement you make will be taken completely out of context to ask stupid questions or make inane statements.

yet again, ad hominem rather than any actual argument.

I've learnt so far that there are good arguments to say that US citizens have a legal right to carry anti-personnel firearms enshrined in their constitution. It is unlikely that anyone is ever going to convince me that lots of guns = very safe. But that isn't what the thread was about when i posted it.

I don't believe in rights full stop. Rights are legally accorded to you by your government. This whole discussion has been about the legal document which gives you the foundation for your government, and what that document says. There is little argument from the perspective that it *is* a natural right, only that a legal document may *say* that is is.

I say rights are legal. You have a right to what the law says you have a right to. When the law changes, your rights change. Whether or not this is morally correct is a matter of opinion.

And in my opinion, defending yourself is, in most circumstances, ok. I don't think that means that societies are always made better by having lots of firearms.

AH! Here's the breakdown, then.

In the US, rights AREN'T granted by the government. They are natural rights that are just RE-ITERATED by the constitution.

Rights don't change. They're immutable.

Only if you relied on conventional weaponry and tactics... arguably Osama is fighting his percieved oppressor with nothing more effective than a VISA card and a box-cutter.

(Note the use of percieved before dispatching the cruise missiles please.)

Watch out for those VISA cards. I defeated the Scopriton in Vegas with nothing but Visa Cards and maps! I lost Ace and Mayor Pedros in the process, though.

(If anybody has a clue what this post is about, I'll fall off my chair.)

AH! Here's the breakdown, then.

In the US, rights AREN'T granted by the government. They are natural rights that are just RE-ITERATED by the constitution.

Rights don't change. They're immutable.

as soon as you say *in the US* you are limiting the scope of the natural rights to the area governed by the government of the US. your rights are still accorded by the government.

I don't believe in rights full stop. Rights are legally accorded to you by your government. This whole discussion has been about the legal document which gives you the foundation for your government, and what that document says. There is little argument from the perspective that it *is* a natural right, only that a legal document may *say* that is is.

I say rights are legal. You have a right to what the law says you have a right to. When the law changes, your rights change. Whether or not this is morally correct is a matter of opinion.

And in my opinion, defending yourself is, in most circumstances, ok. I don't think that means that societies are always made better by having lots of firearms.

According to the people who wrote the Constitution, bearing arms in your own defense is a natural right. Which, to them, exists even if the Constitution does not mention it. Which, to the Supreme Court in 1876, was correct.

If you remove the firearm deaths due to suicide (deaths which would probably occur by other means if a firearm was not available), and you remove those that involve drug war violence, the US ends up with a firearm homicide rate comparable to Switzerland (in fact, in most areas of the country, better than Switzerland).

Guns in the US are documented by two studies (one by the US Department of Justice) to be involved in the stopping of 2.4 million to 2.5 million violent crimes per year - without firing a shot.

That's millions of violent crimes stopped by civilians who didn't hurt anyone in the process. Who didn't spend public money. Stopping violent crimes such as rape, robbery, assault, domestic abuse, and mayhem - just by being present with a firearm.

This occurred because most violent criminals in the US do not use a firearm - and when confronted by one, they leave.

The knowledge that civilians are carrying firearms is also a significant deterrent in my area. Violent crime dropped 33 percent in the first year of concealed carry, and another 12 percent per year ever since.

Violent crime in an adjacent, equally affluent jurisdiction, went up by similar amounts at the same time - because the civilians there are forbidden to carry firearms. This is what felons have been telling me - it's safer to rob somewhere else.

Armed robbery, in fact, in Montgomery County, is up 70 percent. An area where people are forbidden to carry firearms.

Rob and rape where your victims cannot defend themselves.

Oh, and try to call the police. It's still true that you can get a pizza faster than you can get a policeman to show up at your door.

If you remove the firearm deaths due to suicide (deaths which would probably occur by other means if a firearm was not available), and you remove those that involve drug war violence, the US ends up with a firearm homicide rate comparable to Switzerland (in fact, in most areas of the country, better than Switzerland).

back this up?

Guns in the US are documented by two studies (one by the US Department of Justice) to be involved in the stopping of 2.4 million to 2.5 million violent crimes per year - without firing a shot.

That's millions of violent crimes stopped by civilians who didn't hurt anyone in the process. Who didn't spend public money. Stopping violent crimes such as rape, robbery, assault, domestic abuse, and mayhem - just by being present with a firearm.


and yet there are as many violent crimes in the us as in the uk

First, suicide:

In 1995, suicides accounted for over 52% of all firearm deaths, while murder

accounted for 44%, accidents accounted for 3%, and undetermined, 1%. (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)

First, suicide:

In 1995, suicides accounted for over 52% of all firearm deaths, while murder

accounted for 44%, accidents accounted for 3%, and undetermined, 1%. (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)


according to nationmaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap&id=sz&id=us) firearms *murders* in the us are, allowing for rounding, at least 3 times greater per capita in the US than in switzerland

according to nationmaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap&id=sz&id=us) firearms *murders* in the us are, allowing for rounding, at least 3 times greater per capita in the US than in switzerland

Convienently ignoring the section on gang violence.

Taking that out, the "intentional murder" rate drops down to an average of .4 or lless/100K.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Patrick Henry

"What nation can long preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms, I say." Thomas Jefferson

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a GOOD THING, and as necessary in the political world, as storms in the physical." Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would yield essential liberty, for the sake of a little temporary safety, deserve NEITHER liberty NOR safety." Benjamin Franklin

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of their existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln

"Reflect, if you will, how you are to govern a people who think that they ought to be free, and think that they are not. Your scheme yields no revenue. It yields nothing but discontent, disorder, and disobedience, and such is the state of America, that, after wading up to your eyes in blood, you can only end just where you began, that is, to tax where no revenue is to be found..." Edmund Burke

"The budget must be balanced, the Treasury must be refilled, and the ARROGANCE OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS MUST BE CHECKED!" Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Who is there so base, that would be a bondman? If any, let him speak, for HIM have I offended!" Brutus from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

"That to secure these rights, goverments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, that WHEN ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, it is THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT..." Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence

Archie Bunker was a straw man, saying ridiculous things for the comedy value. In the UK you have to prove you have a good reason for carrying any knife with a blade longer than 2". And knives are only more dangerous than guns if you're stood right near them. Most of the time, guns are a lot more dangerous than knives.

They may have seemed ridiculous, but that comment was pure common sense. It doesn't matter what weapon you use, dead is still DEAD. :sniper:

On a year to year basis, the number of firearm deaths per 100,000 population in the US is roughly three times the number of firearm deaths per 100,000 population in Switzerland. It's been fairly close to this ratio since 1992.

The overall US rate in 1992, for instance, was 5.28 per 100,000. In Switzerland, it was 1.42 per 100,000. The overall number of homicides per year in the US has gone down since that time - a good thing.

But these rates are overall rates. It's harder on males - white males have a death rate of roughly 10 per 100,000 per year in the US, and black males are roughly 105 per 100,000 per year in the US.

If you merely drop African-American firearm violence from the equation, firearm deaths are much lower.

So, we might conclude that just being a white male makes you twice as likely to become a victim of handgun death. And 20 times more likely if you're a black male.

The vast majority of firearm homicides are of young black males. It varies between 55 and 68 percent of the total, depending on the year you look at.
(Source: Kleck G, Hogan, M. A national case-control study of homicide
offending and gun ownership. Presented at: 1996 Meetings of the
American Society of Criminology; November 21, 1996; Chicago, Ill.). The majority of these black-on-black homicides are drug related - in fact, the number one predictor of your likelihood of becoming a victim of gun violence in the US is not whether or not you own a gun - it's whether or not you use drugs or sell drugs, or are living with people who do those things. It is five times more likely to be the primary indicator that you'll be killed by gunfire.

So guns are not the reason that Americans kill each other. It is drug-related warfare between people in a specific socioeconomic class. Some of the drug-related violence is gang-related - and some of the drug-related violence is just interpersonal.

Remove the reason for their killing - the illegal nature of drugs - and it's probable that the number of homicides would drop.

But what about the well-known fact that nations with low gun ownership and highly restrictive gun laws have low murder rates while lax controls give the U.S. the highest rates of any modern industrialized nation? This "fact" is actually several unexamined assumptions, each being either unverifiable or verifiably false.

Anti-gun advocates endlessly compare the U.S to a few European nations on the assumption that those nations' low murder rates stem from severe gun controls. In fact those nations' rates were lower yet (and far below ours) before WWI when controls were minimal or nonexistent. Their controls were enacted to preclude political crime in the turbulent post-WWI era. Despite this, these nations far exceed the U.S. in political homicides -- a fact they conceal by just omitting such homicides from their murder statistics.

To determine whether severe gun controls reduce murder, the proper comparison is not to the high (apolitical)-homicide U.S., but to other European nations where firearms (especially handguns) are allowed and common. That comparison reveals that homicide rates in the latter (Austria - 1.0 per 100,000 population, Switzerland - 1.1) do not exceed those of the highly gun-restrictive surrounding nations (France and Germany, both 1.1; Hungary 3.5; Italy 1.7; Slovenia 2.4; Yugoslavia 2.0).

Thus it is not gun scarcity that keeps European homicide rates low. Indeed, analysis of data on 36 nations show "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate...."*1

Concomitantly, the U.S. should be compared not to Western Europe but to other high-murder-rate nations such as Russia. There, severe and severely-enforced gun bans applied to a largely unarmed population succeeded in virtually eliminating gun murders -- so other weapons were substituted. In only four of the 35 years 1965-99 was Russia's murder rate (barely) lower than ours, while in another 10 the rates were almost identical. But in 21 years the Russian rate was higher, and in seven the Russian rate was more than twice the U.S. Today it is almost four times higher.*2

These comparisons imply that the decisive factors in national homicide rates are socio-economic and cultural, not availability of some particular form of weaponry. Two decades ago, after evaluating the literature on gun control for the National Institute of Justice three University of Massachusetts sociologists concluded:

It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view.*3

The intervening years have only fortified that conclusion.

1 Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control (1997), p. 254.
2 William A. Pridemore, "Using Newly Available Homicide Data to Debunk Two Myths About Violence in an International Context: A Research Note." Homicide Studies v. 5, pp. 267-275 (2001).
3 Abstract, p. 2, to Executive Summary of Wright, Rossi & Daly, Weapons, Crime and Violence In America: A Literature Review and Research Agenda Washington, D.C., Gov't. Print. Off.: 1981)

Felons fear armed citizens:

A Dept. of Justice survey (1986) found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted having been scared off or shot at by armed victims. Thirty-eight states now have Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws providing for law-abiding citizens to carry guns for protection. Twenty-eight states have adopted RTC laws since 1987: Two-thirds of Americans live in RTC states.

Firearms deter criminals:

Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, in the most comprehensive study to date of RTC laws, concluded, "When state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell about 8 percent, rapes fell by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent." (1998)

RTC states have lower violent crime rates on average: 27% lower total violent crime, 32% lower murder, 45% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault. (FBI) People who carry legally are by far more law-abiding than the rest of the public.

Studies for Congress, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.

A 1983 study for the DOJ concluded, "there are about 20,000 firearms laws of one sort or another already on the books." However, the NAS study in 2005, conducted by a panel of academics organized during the anti-gun Clinton administration and including prominent anti-gunners, could not identify a single "gun control" scheme that reduced crime, suicides, or accidents.

For the CDC (2003), an independent Task Force studied a wide variety of gun control laws, but "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." A Library of Congress study (1998) concluded, "it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes."

The federal Gun Control Act was imposed in 1968, yet violent crime increased until 1991. Washington, D.C., banned handguns in 1976 and by 1991 its homicide rate tripled, while the U.S. rate rose only 12%. Despite having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, Maryland`s robbery rate remains the highest among the states, and Baltimore`s murder rate is similar to D.C.`s.

States that delay gun sales with waiting periods, licensing and purchase permits have historically had higher crime rates. For many years after California imposed a 15-day waiting period in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1997), its violent crime rate was 50% higher each year, on average, compared to the rest of the country. States that prohibit or severely restrict carrying guns have higher crime rates, on average.

Now "gun control" advocates claim that the federal Brady Act and "assault weapon" law reduced crime. However, both laws were imposed in 1994, three years after violent crime began declining, and studies noted above have found no evidence that either affects crime levels. Also, a study by anti-gun researchers, published in the anti-gun Journal of the American Medical Association in 2000 found the Brady Act to be ineffective.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The right to keep and bear arms is derived from and inseparably linked to the right of self-defense. Thus, by nature it is an individually possessed right, as are all rights protected in our Constitution.

The Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and those whom the Supreme Court (U.S. v. Miller, 1939) referred to as "approved commentators" could not have been more clear about the nature of the right and the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Richard Henry Lee wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms." Thomas Paine noted, "[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."

Prominent Federalist Tench Coxe asked, "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?. . . Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James Madison noted that the amendments "relate first to private rights." Sen. William Grayson observed that they "altogether respected personal liberty." Tench Coxe wrote, "[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Constitutional scholars have noted that there is no historical basis for the claim that the Second Amendment protects a so-called "collective right" of the states. Stephen P. Halbrook writes, "If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." (That Every Man Be Armed, Univ. of N.M. Press, 1984)

Historian Joyce Lee Malcolm, testifying before Congress in 1995, told Rep. John Conyers, "It is very hard, sir, to find a historian who now believes it is only a `collective right.` . . [T]here is a general consensus that in fact it is an individual right."

The Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms is an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the Court also recognized that the right preexisted the Constitution.

In U.S. v. Emerson, on Oct. 16, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that this right is subject only to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions" that "are not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. . . . All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans." Other federal court decisions have been divided on the nature of the right.

During the Bush Administration, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice have recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is an individually-held right. (See http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm).

The National Guard, established in 1903, is not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment. For more than 400 years, the term "well regulated militia" has meant the people, with privately owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves. Tench Coxe said that the militia "are in fact the effective part of the people at large." Richard Henry Lee said that the militia "are in fact the people themselves." George Mason said that the militia consist "of the whole people."

The Guard is subject to absolute federal control (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990) and thus is not the "well regulated militia" referred to in the Second Amendment. "The Militia of the United States" is defined under federal law to include all able-bodied males of age and some other males and females (10 U.S.C., Sec. 311; 32 U.S.C., sec. ;313), with the Guard established as only its "organized" element.

Which just goes to show that a nation founded on paranoia can remain paranoid for 225 years.

And become the nation with a Constitution and the most powerful nation in all of history. :D

Whispering Legs,
If I ever meet you, the beer's on me.
That was some of the best arguements for the RKBA I have seen in a long time.

Oh, and it should be noted that the sole reason the gov. won the 1939 Miller case WAS BECAUSE THE DEFENSE AND THE ACCUSED WAS EVER NOTIFIED OF THE SC APPEAL or the trial date!

So there was no counter arguement put forth to tear the .gov's case apart like it had in all the lower courts.

And by your logic, Washington DC would be a safer place if 160000 troops were stationed there.
No.
My logic is that you are safer in downtown Baghdad than in Washington DC. The difference is that all law abiding DC citizens are disarmed, and in Baghdad, everyone's got a gun.

And become the nation with a Constitution and the most powerful nation in all of history. :D

What is the measure of power?
There are a lot of stats out there, which do we use to measure power?

I have found a site with a broad range of statisitics.

Definition: Total for all ages and sexes. Database compiled January 2004. Total of figures for:
Fall involving ice-skates, skis, roller-skates or skateboards
Fall involving ice-skates, skis, roller-skates or skateboards, home
Fall involving ice-skates

1. United States 97 (2000)
2. Japan 31 (2000)
3. Austria 11 (2002)
4. Canada 8 (2000)
5. Brazil 7 (2000)

Definition: Approximate number of tanks.

1. Russia 21,000 tanks
2. United States 16,000 tanks
3. China 11,000 tanks
4. Poland 3,200 tanks
5. Germany 2,300 tanks

Definition: Scientific literacy mean value of performance scale 15 years old (2000)

1. Korea, South 552
2. Japan 550
3. Finland 538
4. United Kingdom 532
5. Canada

You're just being facetious. There isn't a single statistic for power.

But, if you wanted to find a nation with an overall economic power (and the EU is not a nation - so don't count it as a single nation), and an overall ability to project military power around the globe, you're not going to find another single nation equal to the United States.

What is the measure of power?
There are a lot of stats out there, which do we use to measure power?

Currently, America is at the top of the list Economically, Militarily, Culturally, and Scientifically. I can't think of a *single* unit of measurement where the US isn't in the top 10 in the world. Can you?

According to the people who wrote the Constitution, bearing arms in your own defense is a natural right. Which, to them, exists even if the Constitution does not mention it. Which, to the Supreme Court in 1876, was correct.

There are many ways to define rights. I agree that there are rights individuals have whether or not they are recognized by a government. Rights enshrined in the legal document, the U.S. Constitution, are different.

It is true to a degree that the Constitution recognizes rights that it does not expressly set forth. Of course, these are exactly the rights that many conservatives find most objectionable - privacy, reproductive freedom, etc.

As to "the right to bear arms," there is no such individual right. The law is clear.

The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states:

"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 United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

The controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment exists only in the public debate over gun control. Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one. There is no confusion in the law itself. The strictest gun control laws in the nation have been upheld against Second Amendment challenge, including local bans on handguns. The Supreme Court enunciated in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) remains clearly the law of the US -- that the scope of the people's right to bear arms is limited by the introductory phrase of the Second Amendment regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia" for the "security of a free State." In Miller, the Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of..." the state militias and cautioned that the Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Since today's "well regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed its view of the Second Amendment as expressed in Miller. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1968), the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal, for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Most recently, in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court held that legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not - for purposes of equal protection analysis - "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." See also Lewis, 445 U.S. at 65, n.8 (1980) (Miller holds that the ''Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'''); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment is a right held by states, not by private citizens), cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 276 (1996

The lower federal courts have uniformly followed the interpretation of the Supreme Court. No legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has been struck down in our nation's history on Second Amendment grounds.

The perception that the Second Amendment is somehow an obstacle to Congress and state and local legislative bodies fashioning laws to regulate firearms is simply a pervasive myth. The gun lobby has conducted extensive and expensive campaigns to foster this misperception and the result has been that the myth of the "absolute bar of the Second Amendment" has real effects on regulatory efforts

Then you should see the government's position on the Second Amendment now.

See http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

In response to the first post, the US constitution guarentees the right to bear arms as a way to allow the people the power to overthrow the government, if the people ever determine that this is necessary. I realize that this interpretation will cause controversy, so I will defend my position historically. Furthermore, remember that I am not arguing that possession of weapons with which to overthrow the government should be legal (I'm still considering both sides) only that the writers of the US constitution meant for this to be legal.

The second amendment states "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." For reference, dictionary.com defines militia as "civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army." Notice that the founding fathers, in the second amendment, declared that an army of private citizens is "necessary to the security of a free state." In other words, free people have the right to form armies seperate from the nation's army. This right would not be necessary for freedom if the nation's army always acted in the best interests of the people. Therefore, the founding fathers, fearing that the U.S. could become a military dictatorship, guarenteed citizens the right to form militias that might oppose the national army.

This idea makes sense from the philosophical perspective of the first American leaders. In the Declaration of Indepence, Thomas Jefferson declares "That to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." In essence, he declared that overthrowing the British Government's power over the colonies was an expression of the natural rights of the colonials. Because the government did not have the consent of the people, they had the right to alter or abolish it.

However, some might argue that once America adopted democracy, it was already based on consent of the governed. Therefore, people did not need the right to overthrow the government in order to be free. They could overthrow it by electing new leaders. Thus, the writers of the constitution did not intend to guarentee people this right, but instead the right to bear arms to protect their democratic government (but never to overthrow it).

I disagree with this point because the constitution did not need to guarentee a right to an army of private citizens if a national army could protect the people just as easily. However, a national army cannot protect the people as easily because a military dictator might seize power from within the army. In this case, an unarmed people could not fight his or her oppressive rule. In response to the fear that the national army might lead to a military dictator, the founding fathers guarenteed people the right to form their own armies.

Please go back and read my posts. It's not about a militia.

Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe
Since today's "well regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment.

I should have also clarified the difference between an army of private citizens and an army that uses privately owned guns. The correct interpretation, as you make clear, is that people have the right to form public armies of private citizens for protection against tyranny, not that people necessarily have the right to own weapons privately.

Then you should see the government's position on the Second Amendment now.

See http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Yes, politicians have from time to time asserted this silly view of the 2nd Amendment. You may note that the document admits this. Ashcroft was pilloried in legal communities for this purely ideological pablum. Its not clear the DOJ has actually taken this position in any legal filing. More critically, they have yet to convince any court -- let alone the now conservative Supreme Court.

It has been the law of the land for almost 70 years that the 2nd Amendment does not protect individual rights. You may note the document makes only a superficial dismissal of Miller and does not discuss the other cases I cited. You may also note that the documents admits that copious other cases have held that the 2nd Amendment is not a individual right. The document merely asserts these cases are based on Miller. The document wishes to write from a blank slate -- because a history of precedent is uniformly contrary to the desired conclusion.

As to Montesquieu's argument, it (a) is historically inaccurate, (b) ignores the role of the states in federalism, and (c) ignores that the original
Bill of Rights applied (and the current 2d Amendment applies ) only to the federal government. The founders wished states to have the right to militias -- to protect their citizens from both national tyrrany and other threats.

Even if the 2nd Amendment had the mean of protecting an individual right to weaponry, it would restrict only the federal government. States would be free to ban or regulate arms. Provisions of the Bill of Rights only apply to the states to the extent they are incorporated in the 14th Amendment.

I still think you haven't read the longer of my posts.

Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe
As to Montesquieu's argument, it (a) is historically inaccurate, (b) ignores the role of the states in federalism, and (c) ignores that the original
Bill of Rights applied (and the current 2d Amendment applies ) only to the federal government. The founders wished states to have the right to militias -- to protect their citizens from both national tyrrany and other threats.

I clarified my position on this. I agree that right to bear arms means a right to form public malitias (states' armies) of private citizens.
However, Whispering Legs' has a good statistical argument that gun control is unnecessary. Even if the writers of the constitution never meant to guarentee a private right to bear arms, his arguments show that such a right protects the people more than it endangers them. So although gun control laws are Constitutional, they do seem pointless, unless you can offer a rebuttal to Whispering Legs' statistics.

*Grammar and context.
I find similiar arguements over the internet on not paying taxes, yet I don't see the multitude line up and say...well so and so judge said this, so the IRS can piss off. Bullsh*t.



The history of the drafting of the Second Amendment also makes clear
that "the right of the people" means a civil right belonging to each
individual citizen. The first proposed draft of the amendment as
written by James Madison reads:

"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."

Originally Posted by Windly Queef
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

In no way does this mean that Madison intended for the right to bear arms to be necessarily a personal right. The meaning of "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the point being disputed. Therefore, you must prove that "right of the people" necessarily means individual right in this context. A militia is a public army of private citizens, so this guarentees the public (i.e. states) the right to have armies of private citizens. This does not mean that those private citizens have a right to own weapons outside of the right to serve in a state's army that owns weapons.
The last part of the quote merely means that no person should be forced to serve in the military, that people have the right to reject service in the army. This has nothing to do with the right to own private weapons.

Now personally, I don't f*ck what a judge says; although in this case I'll paste the son of b*tch.

Judge Cummings wrote: "A historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right. "

Oh...on Miller...

The only Second Amendment case in this century, U.S. v. Miller, 1939, did not address individual rights, but hinged on whether a short-barreled shotgun "is any part of the ordinary military equipment."

Now personally, I don't care what a judge says; although in this case I'll paste the son of b*tch.

Judge Cummings wrote: "A historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right. "

Oh...on Miller...

The only Second Amendment case in this century, U.S. v. Miller, 1939, did not address individual rights, but hinged on whether a short-barreled shotgun "is any part of the ordinary military equipment."

it is as simple as this, The constitution says that we can carry arms. If you build a cruise missile that's fine as long as you don't use it. If you do, you might cry about how dumb you are when a S.W.A.T. team is knocking down you're door. My point is, you should be able to have any firearm you want, as long as you don't use it incorrectly/ :headbang:



:confused: :mp5:

*Grammar and context.
I find similiar arguements over the internet on not paying taxes, yet I don't see the multitude line up and say...well so and so judge said this, so the IRS can piss off. Bullsh*t."

I either do not understand or I do and you are way off. I hope you are just being sarcastic.

There are many ignorant positions advocated on the internet -- arguments that one may refuse to pay taxes are a good example. They are simply wrong, as anyone who the IRS goes after will soon discover.

it is as simple as this, The constitution says that we can carry arms. If you build a cruise missile that's fine as long as you don't use it. If you do, you might cry about how dumb you are when a S.W.A.T. team is knocking down you're door. My point is, you should be able to have any firearm you want, as long as you don't use it incorrectly/

No...

Grammar and context.

Cruise missiles aren't of similiar context.

In no way does this mean that Madison intended for the right to bear arms to be necessarily a personal right. The meaning of "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the point being disputed. Therefore, you must prove that "right of the people" necessarily means individual right in this context. A militia is a public army of private citizens, so this guarentees the public (i.e. states) the right to have armies of private citizens. This does not mean that those private citizens have a right to own weapons outside of the right to serve in a state's army that owns weapons.
The last part of the quote merely means that no person should be forced to serve in the military, that people have the right to reject service in the army. This has nothing to do with the right to own private weapons.

'Those who suggest the Second Amendment offers a collective right fail to read the amendment within the context of the Constitution and the other amendments. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase to have the same meaning as the same phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution.

The meaning of the phrase "the people" in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments is not that of militias. The framers of the Second Amendment as well as the other amendments were referring to a class of people -- the country. The Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights. It is a bill of individual rights.'

'Those who suggest the Second Amendment offers a collective right fail to read the amendment within the context of the Constitution and the other amendments. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase to have the same meaning as the same phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution.

The meaning of the phrase "the people" in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments is not that of militias. The framers of the Second Amendment as well as the other amendments were referring to a class of people -- the country. The Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights. It is a bill of individual rights.'

Excellent, and in agreement with what the individual Founders wrote on their own outside of the Constitution.

Windly Queef, from what case does that Judge Cummings quote come. Was he in the majority or the minority. We don't want to take things out of context. Also, can you list the particular English antececents to which Cummings refers.
My arguments thus far have been that I have seen nothing in the history of the second amendment that renders it necessarily an individual right. If you can provide historical examples, you might convince me that the right to bear arms was an individual right. However, nothing I have seen thus far prooves this, so my current opinion is that the founding fathers meant for the second amendment to guarentee the right for states to make their own armies.

What the hell do you think is meant by the PEOPLE, Monty? Not the public- the individuals! There is no need for the right of states to state militias to be protected by such an Amendment, when there are already the 10 Amendment and Article 1, section 8 to protect that. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect an individual right.

Originally Posted by Windly Queef
The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase to have the same meaning as the same phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution.

At the same time, the Supreme Court has legitimized many gun control laws. Therefore, the Court must have been declaring that states have the authority to limit a natural and constitutional right of individuals. This breaks with legal precedent in many ways. You need to explain why the Supreme Court would consider the right to bear arms an individual right while at the same time allowing states to interfere in it. In other instances where states interfere in individual rights the Supreme Court has declared the states' actions unconstitutional.

Now personally, I don't f*ck what a judge says; although in this case I'll paste the son of b*tch.

Setting aside the profanity and hostility, you are right not to care what just any judge says. If you care about the original question here (i.e., what the law is (or what your Constitutional rights are)), then authoritative decisions by appellate courts are at least relevant if not definitive.

Judge Cummings wrote: "A historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right. "

This was a district (i.e., trial) court opinion in Texas. It was reversed on appeal.

Here is what the Bush administration's arch-conservative Solicitor General, Ted Olson, stated in his brief opposing the defendant in that cases petition to the Supreme Court:

Petitioner identifies no case, and the government is aware of none, in which a court of appeals has found Section 922(g)(8) - or, for that matter, any other federal statutory restriction on private gun possession - to be violative of the Second Amendment. Petitioner's claim therefore does not warrant further review.

Other courts of appeals have rejected Second Amendment challenges to various provisions of Section 922(g) on the ground that the Amendment protects the possession of firearms only in connection with state militia activity. See, e.g., United States v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394, 402-404 (6th Cir. 2000); Hancock, 231 F.3d at 565-566; Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 710- 711 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000); United States v. Smith, 171 F.3d 617, 624 (8th Cir. 1999).



Oh...on Miller...

The only Second Amendment case in this century, U.S. v. Miller, 1939, did not address individual rights, but hinged on whether a short-barreled shotgun "is any part of the ordinary military equipment."

As I stated earlier, with citations, U.S. v. Miller is not "the only Second Amendment case in this century."

Further, you ignore what Miller says:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

This clearly states that, unless "possession or use" of a weapon has "some reasonable relationship to to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," then the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Similarly, Miller says:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- '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.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

This clear states the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of state militias and that it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

However, Whispering Legs' has a good statistical argument that gun control is unnecessary. Even if the writers of the constitution never meant to guarentee a private right to bear arms, his arguments show that such a right protects the people more than it endangers them. So although gun control laws are Constitutional, they do seem pointless, unless you can offer a rebuttal to Whispering Legs' statistics.

The original question was the meaning of the Second Amendment. If that point is conceded, I will gladly and easily defend the wisdom of gun control. They are separate questions, however.

I believe that I posted in an earlier thread my defense of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. I also defended the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right, and that the Founding Fathers believed it to be a fundamental right, regardless of what laws might be passed against it.

Originally Posted by New Tarentum
What the hell do you think is meant by the PEOPLE, Monty? Not the public- the individuals!
This is the point under dispute.

There is no need for the right of states to state militias to be protected by such an Amendment, when there are already the 10 Amendment and Article 1, section 8 to protect that. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect an individual right.

The tenth amendment merely states that the powers not granted to the federal government go to the states or to individuals. The second amendment clarifies that although the federal government has the authority to collect taxes for the sake of the common defense (Article 1, section 8), states retain authority to institute militias.

Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe
The original question was the meaning of the Second Amendment. If that point is conceded, I will gladly and easily defend the wisdom of gun control. They are separate questions, however.

So far, I most definitely concede to your argument on the meaning of the second amendment. However, I disagree with the founding fathers that the right to bear arms is not a natural individual right. A debate about this issue would be interesting; however, I am not qualified to debate this statistically (as I have no statistics on this issue to support whatever claim I would make). I could debate the point from a totally theoretical perspective. Perhaps Whispering Legs could provide more statistical arguments.

[QUOTE]Setting aside the profanity and hostility, you are right not to care what just any judge says. If you care about the original question here (i.e., what the law is (or what your Constitutional rights are)), then authoritative decisions by appellate courts are at least relevant if not definitive.

Forgive me, no insult is intended.



This was a district (i.e., trial) court opinion in Texas. It was reversed on appeal.

I liked it on meaning, not that it would get anywhere. The legal world is full of loop-holes.




As I stated earlier, with citations, U.S. v. Miller is not "the only Second Amendment case in this century."

I like to paste a whole sentence, but it's main reference was to what it concerned i.e what was the prime issue of the case.

Further, you ignore what Miller says:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

Didn't ingnore it, I'm just focusing on what it was for.



Similarly, says:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- '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.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

This clear states the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of state militias and that it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

He can say anything, and it wouldn't matter to the laws of grammar.

[QUOTE]This is the point under dispute.


Interesting...'the people' is under dispute....


The tenth amendment merely states that the powers not granted to the federal government go to the states or to individuals.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It says 'the people', so is it still under dispute? So I'm guessing you think 'the people' are individuals or you just forgot the 10th amendment...?

Actually it doesn't matter,...the 10 amendment is the most ingnored law in this country.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, '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 debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."


Questions and Answers

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have it italicized my questions for the sake of clarity):

The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:


(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?

The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.


(2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?

The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.


(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia, is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?

No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.


(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, " or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?

The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.


(5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped, " "well-organized, " "well-drilled, " "well-educated, " or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?

The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority;" this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.


(6) If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues cannot be clearly separated.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

D*mn computer ate my post.

I need to clarify something, because I wish to be intellectually honest.

The Judge Cumming's quotations comes from a memorandum decision by a U.S. district court in United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). The district court decision was reversed on appeal by a panel opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, published at 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001).

The Fifth Circuit decision did, in fact, hold that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, but that the statute at issue did not abridge that right. Because the discussion of whether the right was an individual one did not effect the outcome of the case, some contend the discussion was dictum. I will admit I do not find this particularly persuasive.

Because the US won overall, it could not appeal the decision re whether an individual right is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Emerson did petition the Supreme Court and (as I noted earlier) the Bush Administration opposed. Certiorari was denied, which means the Supreme Court did not hear the case.

I was wrong in saying no court has ever held the right to bear arms was an individual right. With the exception of the Emerson case, neither US Supreme Court nor any US Court of Appeal in the history of the US has ever held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. No law has ever been struck down by a federal court as violating the 2nd Amendment. To the contrary, scores of decisions by judges of every ideological stripe throughout the nation over the last 100 years (and after Emerson ) have held that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right of states to maintain well-regulated militia.

In addition to being definitive as to the state of the law, these decisions are repeated, objective evidence that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to mean, has never meant, and does not mean that an individual has a right to bear arms.

BTW, everyone (except Montesquieu) has ignored that the 2nd Amendment only restricts the federal government. States are constitutionally free to ban and take your guns.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

...

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have it italicized my questions for the sake of clarity):

1. I have no idea who this professor is or why he is opinion should be considered at all. Regardless, his opinion cannot be of more weight than that of majorities of the US Supreme Court (let alone majorities of US Courts of Appeal).

2. As your letter to Professor Copperud indicates, his opinion would be evidence in a case ultimate submitted to a federal court. Such opinions have been submitted. The repeated conclusion has still been contrary to your conclusion.

3. Are you quoting Professor Copperud's entire final letter verbatim? Its unclear.

4. Your questions are flawed, making the answers irrelevant.

5. Your questions and Professor Copperud's answers fail to consider either the legal framework in which the Constitution applies or the context of the Constitution itself.

[QUOTE]1. I have no idea who this professor is or why he is opinion should be considered at all. Regardless, his opinion cannot be of more weight than that of majorities of the US Supreme Court (let alone majorities of US Courts of Appeal).

'He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.'

http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html

2. As your letter to Professor Copperud indicates, his opinion would be evidence in a case ultimate submitted to a federal court. Such opinions have been submitted. The repeated conclusion has still been contrary to your conclusion.

It's not my letter. Read the above link.

I don't deny it has.

3. Are you quoting Professor Copperud's entire final letter verbatim? Its unclear.

Refer to above link.

4. Your questions are flawed, making the answers irrelevant.

How so? I'm geniuely interested in what you would ask.

5. Your questions and Professor Copperud's answers fail to consider either the legal framework in which the Constitution applies or the context of the Constitution itself.

Point for you. True.

Maybe this is why I dislike our form of law, because it reads like a bible, and can be interpeted that way.

I've read a great deal into our founders, and I have big impression that they did imply individual rights into all of the bill of rights. Not all of them were involved into the making of the Constitution, which I'll concede, but it was evident that those that did, held that to such a standard.

I'm reading this at the moment...interesting. Thanks for maintain position. I respect that.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Can't be right all the time, even if you're a Mahatma.


And Im sure that between him and you, people are going to think you are the one who is correct.

so who cares? let's not talk about assault weapons any more. let's talk about assault rifles.

If you had more than 2 brain cells bumping around you would have realized that he already discussed assault rifles.

1) since 1934 they are almost impossible for a regular citizen to obtain
2) there is a 200 years tax but I believe their is aalso a 1500 transfer tax. I am unsure of this because after firing a few full suto/selct fire weapons I realized that I have no interest in them.

So what exactly is your gripe?

Surely someone who argues so much about assault weapons must have actually looked into the matter and realized that they are no differant than your basic hunting rifle. There are some cosmetic differances. but that is all. Surely you must know this.

Or are you just another brainwashed fool who spouts whatever nonsense is spoon fed to you?

According to the US constitution (and I asked the question originally because I wanted to know the answer) the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Which means you have the right to bear any arms you like, because a restriction on what you can own is an infringement of your rights. So I believe the 2nd amendment means you can have as many tanks as you can fit in your yard, and nukes and sarin as well.

No, the framers viewes "arms" and "ordinance" differantly. Arms being guns knives swords ect. Ordinance being cannons explosives ect. I can only believe that the founders would have viewed tanks and nukes and bio chem weapons as "ordinance". Very big differance.

No, the framers viewes "arms" and "ordinance" differantly. Arms being guns knives swords ect. Ordinance being cannons explosives ect. I can only believe that the founders would have viewed tanks and nukes and bio chem weapons as "ordinance". Very big differance.

And you're basing your interpretation on... what, exactly?

I'm reading this at the moment...interesting. Thanks for maintain position. I respect that.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

I had to leave for a while, but I appreciate your thanks. I've enjoyed the exchange. Hopefully a few others were at least not annoyed.

The DOJ document is interesting, if flawed.

I googled the Professor Copperud stuff. Its all over the internet and attributed to various sources. It provenance is questionable, but I've seen nothing clear about it.

As to "the right to bear arms," there is no such individual right. The law is clear.

The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states:

"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 anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." 1

Anyone familiar with the principles upon which this country was founded and upon which it has operated for the last two centuries will recognize this claim's most glaring flaw: In America, rights, by definition, belong to individuals.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal" and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," while governments derive their "powers" from the consent of the governed. The Constitution and Bill of Rights repeatedly refer to the "rights" of the people and to the "powers" of government.

In each case, rights belonging to "the people" are undeniably the rights of individuals. As the Supreme Court recognized in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), "'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.'. . . It suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are a part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

Future U.S. President James Madison introduced in the House of Representatives the amendments that became our Bill of Rights. In notes for his speech proposing the amendments, Madison wrote that "They relate first to private rights." Several days later, William Grayson wrote to Patrick Henry, telling him that "[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty."2 A week later, Tench Coxe referred to the Second Amendment in the Federal Gazette, writing that "the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."3 Samuel Adams warned that "The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."4

Dozens of essays have been written by the nation's foremost authorities on the Constitution, supporting the traditional understanding of the right to arms as an individually possessed right, protected by the Second Amendment.

For example, Prof. Akil Reed Amar of the Yale Law School and Alan Hirsch, like Amar a former Yale Law Journal editor, wrote: "We recall that the Framers' militia was not an elite fighting force but the entire citizenry of the time: all able-bodied adult white males. Since the Second Amendment explicitly declares that its purpose is to preserve a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms was universal in scope. The vision animating the amendment was nothing less than popular sovereignty--applied in the military realm. The Framers recognized that self-government requires the People's access to bullets as well as ballots. The armed citizenry (militia) was expected to protect against not only foreign enemies, but also a potentially tyrannical federal government. In short, the right to bear arms was intended to ensure that our government remained in the hands of the People." 5

By contrast, only a few law journal articles advocating the anti-firearm groups' view have appeared, most written by those groups' employees. (A bibliography of Second Amendment-related books, law reviews and other published works is available at www.nraila.org and from the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division.)

Gun control supporters insist that "the right of the people" really means the "right of the state" to maintain the "militia" mentioned in the amendment, and that this "militia" is the National Guard.

Such a claim is not only inconsistent with the statements of America's early statesmen and the concept of individual rights as understood by generations of Americans, it misdefines the term "militia."

For centuries before the drafting of the Second Amendment, European political writers used the term "well regulated militia" to refer to the citizenry on the whole, armed with privately-owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves.

America's statesmen defined the militia the same way. Richard Henry Lee (who before ratification of the Constitution was the author of the most influential writings advocating a Bill of Rights) wrote, "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms. . . ."6 Making the same point, Tench Coxe wrote that the militia "are in fact the effective part of the people at large."7 George Mason asked, "[W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."8

The Militia Act of 1792, adopted the year after the Second Amendment was ratified, declared that the Militia of the United States (members of the militia obligated to serve if called upon by the government) included all able-bodied males of age. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in U.S. v. Miller (1939), "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the [Constitutional] Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." The National Guard was not established until 1903. In 1920 it was designated one part of the "Militia of the United States," the other part remaining all other able-bodied males of age, plus some other males and females.

However, in 1990, in Perpich v. Department of Defense, the Supreme Court held that the federal government possesses absolute, unlimited power over the Guard. (The Court never mentioned the Second Amendment, noting instead that federal power over the Guard is not restricted by the Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16.)

Thus, the Guard is in fact the third component of the United States Army, behind the Army and Army Reserve. The Framers' independent "well regulated militia" remains as they intended, America's armed citizenry.

The most thorough examination of the Second Amendment and related issues ever undertaken by a court is the Oct. 16, 2001, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit in U.S. v. Emerson, a case that centers around an individual indicted for possessing firearms while under a certain kind of restraining order, in violation of federal law.

The court upheld the indictment against Emerson, noting that restrictions on the right to arms are permissible if they are "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country."

The court then devoted dozens of pages of its decision to a comprehensive examination of the Second Amendment's history and text, and court decisions and scholarship on the amendment and related issues. It began with an examination of the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939), which individual rights opponents commonly claim supports the notion of the Second Amendment protecting only a "collective right" of a state to maintain a militia, or a "sophisticated collective right" of a person to keep and bear arms only when in service with such a militia. The Fifth Circuit disagreed. "We conclude that Miller does not support the [Clinton Administration's] collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment. Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter it cuts against the government's position."

The court then turned to the history and text of the Second Amendment. "There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words 'the people' have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words 'the people' have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And as used throughout the Constitution, 'the people' have 'rights' and 'powers,' but federal and state governments only have 'powers' or 'authority', never 'rights.'"

The court concluded, "We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training. We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it [the amendment] protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms."

More recently, the U.S. Department of Justice officially adopted the historically correct interpretation that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. In briefs filed May 6, 2002, with the U.S. Supreme Court, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson wrote that the position of the United States is that "the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms."

1.Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, Oakland: The Independent Institute, 1994, p. 83.

2. William Grayson, Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights.

3. Tench Coxe, "Remarks of the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," June 18, 1789.

4. Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788.

5. Akil Reed Amar and Alan Hirsch, For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1998.

6. Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer.

7. Tench Coxe, "Examination of the Constitution", Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, 1788.

8. George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788.

Alabama: That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare....That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. (Art. I, § 26)

Alaska: 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. (Art. I, § 19)

Arizona : The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. (Art. II, § 26)

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. (Art. II, § 5)

Colorado : The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. (Art. II, § 13)

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. (Art. I, § 15)

Delaware : A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (Art. I, § 20)

Florida : The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. (Art. I, § 8, [a])

Georgia : The right of the people 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. (1982 Constitution, Art. I, § 1, para. 8)

Hawaii : 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. (Art. I, § 15)

Idaho : The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. (Art. I, § 11)

Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Art. I, § 22)

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. (Art. I, § 32)

Kansas : The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. (Bill of Rights, § 4)

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (Bill of Rights, § 1, para. 7)

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. (Art. I, § 11)

Maine: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. (Art. I, § 16)

Massachusetts : The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. (Part I, Art. XVII)

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep or bear arms for the defense of himself and the State. (Art. I, § 6)

Mississippi : The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. (Art. III, § 12)

Missouri : That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. (Art. I, § 23)

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. (Art. II, § 12) "Militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state except those excepted by law." (Art. VI, § 14)

Nebraska : All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. (Art. I, § 1)
Nevada : Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. (Art. I, § 11, [1])

New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. (Part I, Art. 2a) No person, who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto. (Part I, Art. 13)

New Mexico : No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (Art. II, § 6)

North Carolina : 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. (Art. I, § 30)

North Dakota : All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. (Art. I, § 1)

Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. (Art. I, §4)

Oklahoma : The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. (Art. II, § 26)

Oregon : The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. (Art. I, § 27)

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. (Art. I, § 21)

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Art. I, § 22)

South Carolina : 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law. (Art. I, § 20)

South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. (Art. VI, §24)

Tennessee : That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. (Art. I, § 26)

Texas : Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. (Art. I, § 23 ) Note: The Texas Declaration of Independence stated that "[The Mexican government] has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defense -- the rightful property of freemen -- and formidable only to tyrannical governments."

Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. (Art. I, § 6)

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. (Chapter I, Art. 16)

Virginia : That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. (Art. I, § 13)

Washington : The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. (Art. I, § 24)

West Virginia : A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home, and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. (Art. 3, § 22)

Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose. (Art. 1, § 25) Note: This provision was approved by Wisconsin voters in Nov. 1998 by a 3:1 margin.

Wyoming: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. (Art. I, § 24)

Irregardless of what the framers of the Constitution meant when they agreed on the Second Amendment, a right-wing Nazi lunatic with a bunch of guns in his basement raving about "conspiracies" and a "new world order" does not constitute a responsible owner of firearms or other weapons, and if he has a whole bunch of similar buddies, he and his gun nut friends don't qualify as a "well regulated milita" neccesary for the defense of a free state. Note: This is not meant to flame bait or offend anyone. Or troll bait. Or any other illeagal action.

Irregardless of what the framers of the Constitution meant when they agreed on the Second Amendment, a right-wing Nazi lunatic with a bunch of guns in his basement raving about "conspiracies" and a "new world order" does not constitute a responsible owner of firearms or other weapons, and if he has a whole bunch of similar buddies, he and his gun nut friends don't qualify as a "well regulated milita" neccesary for the defense of a free state. Note: This is not meant to flame bait or offend anyone. Or troll bait. Or any other illeagal action.

Until that right wing Nazi lunatic actually does something illegal he has the right to be a RWNL and therefore he should be allowed to own firearms. And he does constitute as part of the militia. I sure wouldn't want to be the first to remove the rights of "undesirables" or those considered "undependable" by the Gov't.

Until that right wing Nazi lunatic actually does something illegal he has the right to be a RWNL and therefore he should be allowed to own firearms. And he does constitute as part of the militia. I sure wouldn't want to be the first to remove the rights of "undesirables" or those considered "undependable" by the Gov't.

An interesting argument; you consider that Far Right loons with semi-organised militias and wielding military grade munitions, determined to kill anyone who has the temerity to resist them, pose less of a threat to your well-being than a petty thief? :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I'm British and would welcome firearm law relaxation. As it stands, the criminals can have an Uzi and nobody else can get hold of one, or certainly not one capable of automatic fire at any rate. That said, I'd be sure to make the law concerning obtaining any firearm quite insanely stringent - the slightest hint of violent tendencies, political leanings or whatever and you couldn't get more than a water pistol.

An interesting argument; you consider that Far Right loons with semi-organised militias and wielding military grade munitions, determined to kill anyone who has the temerity to resist them, pose less of a threat to your well-being than a petty thief? :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I'm British and would welcome firearm law relaxation. As it stands, the criminals can have an Uzi and nobody else can get hold of one, or certainly not one capable of automatic fire at any rate. That said, I'd be sure to make the law concerning obtaining any firearm quite insanely stringent - the slightest hint of violent tendencies, political leanings or whatever and you couldn't get more than a water pistol.

Until they actually commit a crime, let them scream and rant all they want on their plot of land out in the country. They have that right under the 1st Amendment. When they commit a crime,however, then let the hammer fall. Until they do something illegal, that "petty thief" who breaks into my home carrying a knife, club, gun or is just very large, is more of a threat to me and my family.

A similar situation is that of Randy Weaver. He was a racist, gun-toting separatist. A real asshole. The Janet Reno thugs got a hardon for him and entraped him in an illegal gun sale. Later the ATF snuck onto his property and w/o declaring who they were, shot his dog and his son. He and his family holed up in their home where a ATF sniper shot his wife.

He was doing nothing illegal and yet the Gov't stepped in and destroyed his life. In court, he easily won a settlement against the Gov't.

Who said anything about munitions? Rifles and Cannons are two different animals.

I'm glad you want relaxation of the laws but who gets to decide what is a violent tendency, or what political leaning is appropriate? Do you spank your children? Yes, you're violent. Denied. Do you agree w/ every platform of the party in power at the moment? No. Denied.

Until they actually commit a crime, let them scream and rant all they want on their plot of land out in the country. They have that right under the 1st Amendment. When they commit a crime,however, then let the hammer fall. Until they do something illegal, that "petty thief" who breaks into my home carrying a knife, club, gun or is just very large, is more of a threat to me and my family.

A similar situation is that of Randy Weaver. He was a racist, gun-toting separatist. A real asshole. The Janet Reno thugs got a hardon for him and entraped him in an illegal gun sale. Later the ATF snuck onto his property and w/o declaring who they were, shot his dog and his son. He and his family holed up in their home where a ATF sniper shot his wife.

He was doing nothing illegal and yet the Gov't stepped in and destroyed his life. In court, he easily won a settlement against the Gov't.

Who said anything about munitions? Rifles and Cannons are two different animals.

I'm glad you want relaxation of the laws but who gets to decide what is a violent tendency, or what political leaning is appropriate? Do you spank your children? Yes, you're violent. Denied. Do you agree w/ every platform of the party in power at the moment? No. Denied.


Indeed Weaver's friend who was there when all this went down, shot and killed a Federal Marshal (They were Federal Marshals, not ATF, sent in at first, weren't they?). But whoever they were, they were not wearing the Name Tags of the Department Tags, they were just guys in Camo, with guns, who just opened fire when they saw the dog and the boy. Anyway, the Fed that was killed, the killing of him was ruled in self-defense and Weaver's friend Kevin never went to jail.

Anyway, if you're a 14 year old boy, a squad of masked men in camo, carrying Colt 9mm SMGs and Colt M-16 rifles, charges up the path towards your house, shoots your dog, what would you do? Who can say, "I wouldn't have used my Mini 14 to open fire on them..." Who can say that?

No, the framers viewes "arms" and "ordinance" differantly. Arms being guns knives swords ect. Ordinance being cannons explosives ect. I can only believe that the founders would have viewed tanks and nukes and bio chem weapons as "ordinance". Very big differance.


People owned artillery pieces (cannons) back in the Founders days.

The only Second Amendment case in this century, U.S. v. Miller, 1939, did not address individual rights, but hinged on whether a short-barreled shotgun "is any part of the ordinary military equipment."


So then we can't own sawed off shotguns, but we can own an M-60, since and M-60 is part of normal military equipment and thus has a purpose for a militia?

Anyway, commando units may often take a short-barreled shotgun. And units engaged in house to house fighting often taken one, for covering surrendering enemies during the prisoner takedown and search method, and for breaching doors.

I am leaving this thread. I will make a few parting comments.

1. Lengthy verbatim arguments copied from elsewhere on the web are hardly persuasive or laudible. Do you know the arguments are accurate? Have you checked the facts asserted?

There are, in fact, many, many errors in that long post. To begin with, the second paragraph states:

Anyone familiar with the principles upon which this country was founded and upon which it has operated for the last two centuries will recognize this claim's most glaring flaw: In America, rights, by definition, belong to individuals.

The Constitution, however, has many provisions distributing rights and powers between the federal and the state government. The degree of this distribution was a primary focus of the battle between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the Constitution -- particularly whether the Constitution adequately protect the states' militia powers.

2. The list of state constitutional provisions (are those current?) is a different issue. If one has an individual right to possess and use weapons under your state constitution is distinct from whether such right exists under the federal constitution.

3. Lets not even start on Randy Weaver. Several of you assertions are in error. Having lived near Ruby Ridge at the time of the events and the subsequent trial, I have a firmer grip on the facts. Weaver was not entrapped. He was, in fact, convicted on the guns charge. The motives for the settlement had more to due with politics than anything else.

He was doing nothing illegal and yet the Gov't stepped in and destroyed his life. In court, he easily won a settlement against the Gov't.

He was actively engaged in illegal activity. Weaver had already been indicted for a federal arms offense. Weaver had been previously arrested for the offense and had failed to make required court appearances. Weaver had then also been indicted by a grand jury for failure to appear at trial. Valid arrest warrants were issued for Weaver.

At the time of Weaver's previous arrest, he tried to wrestle a weapon away from the officer. The ATF & FBI believed (correctly): (a) Weaver, and his family, were associated with extremist groups and possessed a cache of weapons and a supply of ammunition and were trained in the use of firearms; (b) the Weavers had written letters to the United States Attorney's office denying, in threatening tones, the authority of the Federal government; and (c) Weaver told his neighbor that he would not submit to arrest and that he and his family were prepared to die in resistance, if necessary.

The US Marshalls delivered several surrender offers to Weaver. They were refused.

Weaver, the Weaver family, and Kevin Harris routinely patrolled the area around their home -- including roads leading to the homes of their neighbors and stopped and threated strangers. The Weavers gave interviews to local media stating that they would not leave their mountain, they would not allow Weaver to be arrested, Weaver would not appear in court, and "Right now, the only thing they can take away from us is our life. Even if we die, we win. We'll die believing in Yahweh." Surveillance showed that the Weavers responded to the noise of approaching vehicles by running with rifles to a rock ledge. Neighbors of the Weavers (including prior friends and Aryans) left their homes, complaining to authorities about the threat posed by the Weavers.

It was not the ATF, but US Marshalls that were in a firefight with the Weavers and Harris that left Weaver's son, the dog, and Deputy Marshall Degan dead. There is a significant difference between the account of the events given by the marshals and the account provided by Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris. All agree that Harris shot and killed Deputy Marshal Degan and that Deputy Marshal Roderick shot and killed the dog. Although the marshals did not realize until several days later that Sammy Weaver had been shot during the encounter, they agree now that he was wounded in the arm and fatally shot in the back during the exchange of gunfire. However, the sequence of these events, and, in particular, the timing of Sammy Weaver's death, remains contested, as does the identity of the person who shot Sammy Weaver.

That Kevin Harris was not convicted of being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murdering Deputy Marshall Degan hardly justified the leap to the conclusion that trained US Marshalls simply started blasting away at Sammy Weaver and his dog. [Moreover, it was not denied that the Weavers and Kevin Harris were in hot pursuit of agents fleeing from being detected by the dog and that the Weavers and Harris thought they might be chasing federal agents. The scenario of self-defense applies equally well, if not better, to the agents.]

After that things escalated. A US Marshall had been killed - ostensibly murdered. The shooting of Vicky Weaver was unfortunate, but occured after an armed suspect had left the Weaver home, shot at US agents, and then ran back to the home. Vicky Weaver was standing immediately behind the open door the suspect was running through when she was struck by a shot fired at the suspect.

The events at Ruby Ridge were unfortunate, but Weaver was not an innocent and his family created the violent standoff. He is hardly a poster-child for gun rights.

More recently, the U.S. Department of Justice officially adopted the historically correct interpretation that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. In briefs filed May 6, 2002, with the U.S. Supreme Court, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson wrote that the position of the United States is that "the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms."


http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Yeah, I just posted that a while ago.

I like this part of the DOJ Memorandum:


"The Second Amendment's recognition of a "right" that belongs to "the people" indicates a right of individuals. The word "right," standing by itself in the Constitution, is clear. Although in some contexts entities other than individuals are said to have "rights," (37) the Constitution itself does not use the word "right" in this manner. Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a "right" on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any "right" restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a "right of the people" discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures "right[s]" to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person's "right" to a jury trial in civil cases. (38) By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only "powers" or "authority." (39) It would be a marked anomaly if "right" in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution."



37 For example, Article II of the Articles of Confederation, drafted a decade before the Constitution, reserved to each State "every power, jurisdiction, and right" not expressly delegated to the federal Government.

38 In addition, the Copyright and Patent Clause authorizes Congress to grant an "exclusive Right" to authors and inventors for a limited time. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.

39 See., e.g., U.S. Const. art. I, § 1; art. I, § 8; art. II, § 1; art. III, § 1; amend. X.

[QUOTE]I had to leave for a while, but I appreciate your thanks. I've enjoyed the exchange. Hopefully a few others were at least not annoyed.


; )


The DOJ document is interesting, if flawed.

If it's flawed, please demonstrate the flaws. I'm sure everyone would like to know...including myself.

I am leaving this thread. I will make a few parting comments.

1. Lengthy verbatim arguments copied from elsewhere on the web are hardly persuasive or laudible. Do you know the arguments are accurate? Have you checked the facts asserted?

There are, in fact, many, many errors in that long post. To begin with, the second paragraph states:





Even though you've "left the thread" , I'll correct you statements anyway.

1. "Lenghty arguements" that are worded well and have verifiable sources are perfectly legitimate forms of response. They have been verified by quite a few individuals (includingme) but are still denied by those wanting to remove the rights of individuals. Can you disprove any of the points beyond "prove them more".

2. It is only mariginally a different issue. It has been argued that the US Constitution only applied to federal juristiction and not state. My second post showed that most states also recognize firearm ownership as an individual right. Once again, can YOU show that the articles stated have been superceded?

3. Just because "you lived close" does not automatically give you a better grasp. Only more local news. We all know how accurate the news is, especially when it comes to headline-making stories.

Federal Marshalls entrapped Weaver into selling an illegal shotgun. Yes, valid arrest warrents were issued, and carried out by unmarked agents in camo hiding on his property. That Harris shot first is the agents story. After all the bungling they did, do you really believe them? "Shot in the back". Does that say anything to you? Of course they'll never admit to which one shot the boy.
Would you "surrender" after several of your family had been murdered?
It was a "political" judgement only in the fact the the Gov't screwed up so badly in carrying out the arrests and the fiasco that followed that they didn't have a leg to stand on. Every time I see an interview w/ the agents involved, the story they tell changes to make them seem more like the victims. None of them say the same thing. That's why it's "in dispute".

Weaver was and still is an asshole, not a not" a poster-child for gun rights" but an example of what a Gov't w/ an agenda can do to citizens it decides to pursue.

The RKBA was intended to insure that future generations would have the means to be able to remove a corrupt government.

If that were true, the Second Amendment would've said so. It's not true.

The reason for the Second Amendment was so that the US could defend itself without the cost and potential destabilizing effects of having a large standing army stationed throughout the country.

If that were true, the Second Amendment would've said so. It's not true.

The reason for the Second Amendment was so that the US could defend itself without the cost and potential destabilizing effects of having a large standing army stationed throughout the country.


Where does the 1st Amendment say porn is okay?

If that were true, the Second Amendment would've said so. It's not true.

The reason for the Second Amendment was so that the US could defend itself without the cost and potential destabilizing effects of having a large standing army stationed throughout the country.

Your source for this?

Here's mine:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The NG is not the militia.
They are part of the military.

The Militia is comprised of every able bodied male between the ages of 18-55 IIRC. (It might be 16-60, my memory escapes me right now)

17 and 45. ;)

People owned artillery pieces (cannons) back in the Founders days.

True, but (as far as I know) only groups of people, such as the residents of a town.

Ditto warships, private warships (privateers) existed but only with a license (and political connections, see John Paul Jones).

I don't believe in rights full stop. Rights are legally accorded to you by your government.
And that, sir, is why I am a citizen and you are a subject.

and yet there are as many violent crimes in the us as in the uk
Actually, the UK has more than double the violent crime rate of the US.

It 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.

Depending on how you interpret the comma's one could say it just gives the right to bear arms to an organised militia, not individuals. This is of course disputed by many.

It does not say which arms are allowed and which aren't.
There's a few problems with the "state militia" interpretation.

1. There were no state militias at the time and they didn't exist for another 150 years.
2. It says that the right of "the people", not the state.
3. The bills of rights deals exclusively with the rights of individual citizens. Why would a state's right appear in the middle of a list about individual rights? It's out of place and makes no sense.

And that, sir, is why I am a citizen and you are a subject.

And part of why we did that whole Revolution thing in the first place and why we have the Bill of Rights, because of abuses by the Gov't.

Really, fine? You'd give up your firearms if everyone else gave up theirs? Spread the message among your brethren.

Furthermore, I personally don't think anti-gun campaign leaders campaign against guns because they are bored, or because they are looking for stuff to ban just to make you cry. I think it is because they don't think assault weapons have a productive place in the suburban home.
I think they mean well, but their approach is incredibly simplistic and naive. They take the approach that "guns = crime". Yet, Switzerland has a machine gun and ammo in most homes, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Therefore, the equation is not true. If they want to stop crime, then they need to go about it another way, because gun control doesn't work.

England has some of the most crime ridden areas in the world currently. I just heard a report on NPR the other day that named southwest England and Wales as being the second worst places in the world for violent crime.

Australia has not released any statistics regarding violent crime since their recent gun ban that I have ever seen. That makes me suspicious that crime did not decrease as they expected. They've released TONS of reports about how "gun related violence" is down, but that's a big DUH! Of course gun related violence is down, but what about violence in general? There's nothing but silence on the subject from the Australian government.

There's a few problems with the "state militia" interpretation.

1. There were no state militias at the time and they didn't exist for another 150 years.
2. It says that the right of "the people", not the state.
3. The bills of rights deals exclusively with the rights of individual citizens. Why would a state's right appear in the middle of a list about individual rights? It's out of place and makes no sense.

Exactly what I'm thinking. Wouldn't someone have to ignore these issues to come up with an opposite conclusion? *shrug* I just can't see the reasoning past these, especially the third.

The excerpt from the Virginia Constitution is particularly interesting, it reads exactly as a slightly expanded, better-explained version of the 2A would:

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

That's exactly what the 2A means. Of course it's an individual right, just as the First and Fourth Amendments protect. To argue otherwise with any intellectual honesty is not possible.

True, but (as far as I know) only groups of people, such as the residents of a town.

Ditto warships, private warships (privateers) existed but only with a license (and political connections, see John Paul Jones).
There was no public property as we know it today. Most everything was owned by individuals.

Your source for this?

Here's mine:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

My source is the history of the times. The fledgling republic could not afford a standing army of the size it would take to defend it. And there was a legitimate fear that idle soldiers could themselves be a threat to the republic. Thus followed the recognition of the need for a well-regulated militia, a phrase that appears in the part of the Second Amendment that many gun fanatics do not care to acknowledge.

You offer a "last resort"--and a rhetorical one at that--as a prime reason, which is a fault in logic.

The excerpt from the Virginia Constitution is particularly interesting, it reads exactly as a slightly expanded, better-explained version of the 2A would:

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

That's exactly what the 2A means. Of course it's an individual right, just as the First and Fourth Amendments protect. To argue otherwise with any intellectual honesty is not possible.

It seems to me that the right is balanced quite precisely with responsibility and discipline of training. It seems that the gun fanatics want only the right but none of the inconvenience of the responsibility and discipline.

Today, though, who would the militia defend the state against?

My source is the history of the times. The fledgling republic could not afford a standing army of the size it would take to defend it. And there was a legitimate fear that idle soldiers could themselves be a threat to the republic. Thus followed the recognition of the need for a well-regulated militia, a phrase that appears in the part of the Second Amendment that many gun fanatics do not care to acknowledge.

You offer a "last resort"--and a rhetorical one at that--as a prime reason, which is a fault in logic.
There was a standing army at the time. If there wasn't, how could there have been a Rebellion in the Continental Army? It was at a meeting of this army's rebellion that George Washington delivered these immortal words after putting on his glasses to read them a letter from a congressman: "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

BTW, "gun nuts" don't disregard the bit about the militia, because we are the militia; the minutemen. What Switzerland has currently is what the founders had in mind for domestic defense.

Even though you've "left the thread" , I'll correct you statements anyway.

I was, and still am, going to leave the thread. No offense, but I made several points earlier that address much of what you say now. I don't wish to simply re-debate what was discussed several pages back.

1. "Lenghty arguements" that are worded well and have verifiable sources are perfectly legitimate forms of response. They have been verified by quite a few individuals (includingme) but are still denied by those wanting to remove the rights of individuals. Can you disprove any of the points beyond "prove them more".

I have no problem with a lengthy argument. Several post before yours had appears to be original material, but were simply unattributed copying from other internet sites. Your post appeared to be copied for somewhere as well.

I actually prefer arguments with supporting evidence. I still think constructing your own arguments is more conducive to discussion than simply copying an NRA website.

I'm not going to address your post directly. I already criticized the Ashcroft memo and pointed out that the history of interpretation of the Second Amendment is contrary to the few carefully selected tidbits you presented.

2. It is only mariginally a different issue. It has been argued that the US Constitution only applied to federal juristiction and not state. My second post showed that most states also recognize firearm ownership as an individual right. Once again, can YOU show that the articles stated have been superceded?

No. We have been debating the meaning of the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment. It does only apply to federal jurisdiction. No one has even tried to argue otherwise.

If a state constitution recognizes a right to own firearms, that is a separate issue that may prohibit that state from banning firearms. Of course, the interpretation of each state provision would have to be considered. I don't want to go there and I doubt you do either.

3. Just because "you lived close" does not automatically give you a better grasp. Only more local news. We all know how accurate the news is, especially when it comes to headline-making stories.

Fine. I'll be more specific. I lived close to Ruby Ridge. The situation there was a long standing issue in local media -- particularly newspapers -- long before it became a national event. I followed the story as it happened from multiple media sources. As it directly effected the community in which I lived, the story got a great deal of attention and was closely followed -- including long after Weaver finally surrendered.

I also attended parts of the Weaver trial and know and spoke to others that attended, including members of the jury pool (the later only after the trial was concluded). I know and have spoken with some of the attorneys that represented Weaver, including Gerry Spence. I've read Mr. Spence's book about the case, various transcripts and cases, and various reports.

Satisfied?

Federal Marshalls entrapped Weaver into selling an illegal shotgun. Yes, valid arrest warrents were issued, and carried out by unmarked agents in camo hiding on his property. That Harris shot first is the agents story. After all the bungling they did, do you really believe them? "Shot in the back". Does that say anything to you? Of course they'll never admit to which one shot the boy.
Would you "surrender" after several of your family had been murdered?
It was a "political" judgement only in the fact the the Gov't screwed up so badly in carrying out the arrests and the fiasco that followed that they didn't have a leg to stand on. Every time I see an interview w/ the agents involved, the story they tell changes to make them seem more like the victims. None of them say the same thing. That's why it's "in dispute".

Weaver was and still is an asshole, not a not" a poster-child for gun rights" but an example of what a Gov't w/ an agenda can do to citizens it decides to pursue.

There is little point in discussing if you are going to ignore facts. Weaver wasn't entrapped. A jury convicted him on the weapons charge -- rejecting any entrapment defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Attempts to serve the warrants by uniformed agents had been met with threats of direct violence. The Weavers refused to surrender before anyone had been killed.

That Sammy Weaver was shot it the back does not identify who shot him or when given the exchange of gunfire. Sammy was shot by a 9mm. One marshall had a 9mm that he fired several times. [He was not the marshall killed.] Randy Weaver also had a 9mm.

Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris have also given several inconsistent accounts of the shootout.

Randy Weaver was actively involved in Aryan Nations meetings planning bombings in the Northwest. He was distributing illegal firearms to his Aryan contacts. He was indicted, arrested (over his physical resistance), and was to be tried. He failed to appear. He refused to surrender peacefully. He and his family threatened federal agents and his neighbors. Should he have been allowed to simply defy the law, drive his neighbors off the mountain "Yahweh have him," and remain a menance?

The marshalls caught in the initial shootout were scouting the Weaver property as part of an attempt to determine how Weaver could be safely apprehended.

US marshalls are more highly trained and/or less volatile than other law enforcement. They do not deserve the unfounded smears you aim at them.

It seems to me that the right is balanced quite precisely with responsibility and discipline of training. It seems that the gun fanatics want only the right but none of the inconvenience of the responsibility and discipline.

Today, though, who would the militia defend the state against?
Inconvenience and responsibility? What invonvenience of reponsibility and discipline are being ditched by "gun nuts"? Accidental shootings are practically non-existant, so you certainly don't mean gun safety. So what are you bringing up here exactly?

I was, and still am, going to leave the thread. No offense, but I made several points earlier that address much of what you say now. I don't wish to simply re-debate what was discussed several pages back.



I have no problem with a lengthy argument. Several post before yours had appears to be original material, but were simply unattributed copying from other internet sites. Your post appeared to be copied for somewhere as well.

I actually prefer arguments with supporting evidence. I still think constructing your own arguments is more conducive to discussion than simply copying an NRA website.

I'm not going to address your post directly. I already criticized the Ashcroft memo and pointed out that the history of interpretation of the Second Amendment is contrary to the few carefully selected tidbits you presented.



No. We have been debating the meaning of the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment. It does only apply to federal jurisdiction. No one has even tried to argue otherwise.

If a state constitution recognizes a right to own firearms, that is a separate issue that may prohibit that state from banning firearms. Of course, the interpretation of each state provision would have to be considered. I don't want to go there and I doubt you do either.



Fine. I'll be more specific. I lived close to Ruby Ridge. The situation there was a long standing issue in local media -- particularly newspapers -- long before it became a national event. I followed the story as it happened from multiple media sources. As it directly effected the community in which I lived, the story got a great deal of attention and was closely followed -- including long after Weaver finally surrendered.

I also attended parts of the Weaver trial and know and spoke to others that attended, including members of the jury pool (the later only after the trial was concluded). I know and have spoken with some of the attorneys that represented Weaver, including Gerry Spence. I've read Mr. Spence's book about the case, various transcripts and cases, and various reports.

Satisfied?

F

There is little point in discussing if you are going to ignore facts. Weaver wasn't entrapped. A jury convicted him on the weapons charge -- rejecting any entrapment defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Attempts to serve the warrants by uniformed agents had been met with threats of direct violence. The Weavers refused to surrender before anyone had been killed.

That Sammy Weaver was shot it the back does not identify who shot him or when given the exchange of gunfire. Sammy was shot by a 9mm. One marshall had a 9mm that he fired several times. [He was not the marshall killed.] Randy Weaver also had a 9mm.

Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris have also given several inconsistent accounts of the shootout.

Randy Weaver was actively involved in Aryan Nations meetings planning bombings in the Northwest. He was distributing illegal firearms to his Aryan contacts. He was indicted, arrested (over his physical resistance), and was to be tried. He failed to appear. He refused to surrender peacefully. He and his family threatened federal agents and his neighbors. Should he have been allowed to simply defy the law, drive his neighbors off the mountain "Yahweh have him," and remain a menance?

The marshalls caught in the initial shootout were scouting the Weaver property as part of an attempt to determine how Weaver could be safely apprehended.

US marshalls are more highly trained and/or less volatile than other law enforcement. They do not deserve the unfounded smears you aim at them.
If all of this is true, then why was Randy Weaver able to successfully sue the government for millions?

It seems to me that the right is balanced quite precisely with responsibility and discipline of training. It seems that the gun fanatics want only the right but none of the inconvenience of the responsibility and discipline.

Today, though, who would the militia defend the state against?
Did you not read it, or did you not understand it?

If all of this is true, then why was Randy Weaver able to successfully sue the government for millions?

Weaver was convicted and served time on the weapons charge. He and his family sued for the wrongful death of Vicky Weaver. The government settled. Each of his 3 children were awarded one million. Weaver received $100.000.

The issue in Weaver's case was the rules of engagement after the initial firefight and the conduct of the sniper that accidently shot Vicky Weaver.

No doubt the government made many mistakes after the initial gunfight and may well have made mistakes before then. Particularly in the political aftermath of the Ruby Ridge events, the government felt it wise to settle.

Darn, I'm getting dragged back in . . .

There's a few problems with the "state militia" interpretation.

1. There were no state militias at the time and they didn't exist for another 150 years.
2. It says that the right of "the people", not the state.
3. The bills of rights deals exclusively with the rights of individual citizens. Why would a state's right appear in the middle of a list about individual rights? It's out of place and makes no sense.

1. What? Simply untrue.
2. Good point.
3. Also a good point. But why does it refer to "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" at all?

The problem with 2 & 3 are that the Second Amendment was the result of a group decision-making process with compromises. The Amendment was specifically intended to respond to demands of Anti-Federalists. Still, it is a weakness in the argument for my side.

In contrast,
1. What does the well-regulated militia clause refer to under your interpretation? You cannot ignore the first thirteen words of the amendment.
2. How does the right to bear arms magically become the right to individual possession and use of firearms? To "bear arms" meant at the time (and often still does) to serve in a militia. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter, "OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from 1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id.

In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was still understood:

"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that n
citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided
he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we
know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we
must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th
section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A
man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his
rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said
of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol
concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)

Although this is getting interesting again, I must cease. I appreciate the debate. Perhaps I will rejoin later. [And I mean it this time, darnit.]

By the way... funny how nobody wants to compare the crime levels in the US and UK anymore ;) Could it have anything to do with exactly how bad the UK looks by comparison these days? ... Nah, couldn't be ;)

Yes, I've seen that. I think the meanings after (1a) are neologisms, essentially. Arms are things that you bear, see the phrases such as "take up arms" or "bear arms" or "up in arms". Now arms has come to mean (as a metonymic) any weapons or more generally any type of military power, but it used to mean specifically individual weapons.
From Mirriam Webster's Etymology of arms: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Old French, from Latin arma

Looking up arma in my latin dictionary gives a definition that includes weapons. So, in otherwords, what you're saying is that something that meant weapons for thousands of years, took on a different meaning for a relatively short period of time, then reverted to its original meaning? That doesn't sound as likely as the alternative: that it always meant weapons.

Edit: you quoted Websters. I looked on three online versions of Webster's 1913 and they give this definition: "A weapon of offense or defense; an instrument of warfare; -- commonly in the pl." Seems like that would even include nukes.

From Mirriam Webster's Etymology of arms: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Old French, from Latin arma

Looking up arma in my latin dictionary gives a definition that includes weapons. So, in otherwords, what you're saying is that something that meant weapons for thousands of years, took on a different meaning for a relatively short period of time, then reverted to its original meaning? That doesn't sound as likely as the alternative: that it always meant weapons.

Your Latin dictionary is not entirely correct, "arma" means arms (individual, not general weapons) or tools (again things you hold in your hand) or troops (as a metonymic). See for example a very detailed Latin dictionary...

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%233666


I. Lit.
A. 1.. What is fitted to the body for its protection, defensive armor, as the shield, coat of mail, helmet 2. Specifically, a shield
B. Implements of war, arms, both of defence and offence (but of the latter only those which are used in close contest, such as the sword, axe, club; in distinction from tela, which are used in contest at a distance; hence, arma and tela are often contrasted

II. Trop., means of protection, defence, weapons
a. War (once in opp. to pax, v. infra)
b. (Abstr. for concr.) The warriors themselves, soldiers, troops

III. Transf., poet. (like hoplon and entea in Gr.), implements, instruments, tools, utensils, in gen.


The modern english usage is close to (II), the common-law legal usage is the offensive weapon part of (I.B). Given the nature of modern weapons, any personal firearms would be "arma". However, missiles and bombs would certainly *not* be. "Arma" are wearable, almost by definition (hence "armor" from the same root word). And to go a little further back, the Hindoeuropean ar- root means "something that fits" (e.g. in your hand or on your body).

Bear in mind that "tela" (ranged hand-weapons) were used primarily as area weapons by the Romans, usually as a concentration of archers or pilum-throwers firing at a massed target, hence "tela" were not usually weapons of individual combat. Also, catapults and siege engines were described as neither "arma" nor "tela", apparently they were called "manganum" (hence, appropriately, the modern word "to mangle") or "tormentum" (also appropriate, actually it comes from the same root as "to torque"). These are not "arms".

Weaver was convicted and served time on the weapons charge. He and his family sued for the wrongful death of Vicky Weaver. The government settled. Each of his 3 children were awarded one million. Weaver received $100.000.

The issue in Weaver's case was the rules of engagement after the initial firefight and the conduct of the sniper that accidently shot Vicky Weaver.

No doubt the government made many mistakes after the initial gunfight and may well have made mistakes before then. Particularly in the political aftermath of the Ruby Ridge events, the government felt it wise to settle.

Darn, I'm getting dragged back in . . .

You are wrong. Weaver WAS NOT convicted on weapons charges. Those were cleared. He was found guilty and served time for failing to appear in court and violating bail conditions. He was entrapped into selling sawed off shotguns at the insistence of an undercover ATF agent.



http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html?sect=18

I have no problem with a lengthy argument. Several post before yours had appears to be original material, but were simply unattributed copying from ther internet sites. Your post appeared to be copied for somewhere as well.


I'm not going to address your post directly. I already criticized the Ashcroft memo and pointed out that the history of interpretation of the Second Amendment is contrary to the few carefully selected tidbits you presented.

No. We have been debating the meaning of the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment. It does only apply to federal jurisdiction. No one has even tried to argue otherwise.

If a state constitution recognizes a right to own firearms, that is a separate issue that may prohibit that state from banning firearms. Of course, the interpretation of each state provision would have to be considered. I don't want to go there and I doubt you do either.



Fine. I'll be more specific. I lived close to Ruby Ridge. The situation there was a long standing issue in local media -- particularly newspapers -- long before it became a national event.


There is little point in discussing if you are going to ignore facts. Weaver wasn't entrapped. A jury convicted him on the weapons charge -- rejecting any entrapment defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Attempts to serve the warrants by uniformed agents had been met with threats of direct violence. The Weavers refused to surrender before anyone had been killed.

That Sammy Weaver was shot it the back does not identify who shot him or when given the exchange of gunfire. Sammy was shot by a 9mm. One marshall had a 9mm that he fired several times. [He was not the marshall killed.] Randy Weaver also had a 9mm.

Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris have also given several inconsistent accounts of the shootout.

Randy Weaver was actively involved in Aryan Nations meetings planning bombings in the Northwest. He was distributing illegal firearms to his Aryan contacts. He was indicted, arrested (over his physical resistance), and was to be tried. He failed to appear. He refused to surrender peacefully. He and his family threatened federal agents and his neighbors. Should he have been allowed to simply defy the law, drive his neighbors off the mountain "Yahweh have him," and remain a menance?

The marshalls caught in the initial shootout were scouting the Weaver property as part of an attempt to determine how Weaver could be safely apprehended.

US marshalls are more highly trained and/or less volatile than other law enforcement. They do not deserve the unfounded smears you aim at them.

1. Your arguement consisted of the opinion that SCOTUS consistently argued against individual rights.
"The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

The controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment exists only in the public debate over gun control. Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one."

"this silly view of the 2nd Amendment"

I showed information contradicting that. I never said it was original but you seem unable/unwilling to contradict my post.

2. It HAS been argued that the US constitution only applies to federal. Reread the thread. Once again, the point of that post was that, on individual vs state rights, even most of the states agree it's an individual right.

3. Most of YOUR "facts" about the Weaver situation are incorrect. You've "read the newpapers". The same papers that had his cabin as a "Fortress" and "Bunker" and had him owning anti-tank rifles ? If you attended some of the hearings, why don't you have the correct information on what he was convicted of? You also ignore that the Gov't admitted during the trial that they never considered going up and arresting him but spent 2 years and 3 million dollars preparing for a siege. Also, why do you find it more important to argue an example used in another post moreso than the arguements I've presented to counter yours?

In contrast,
1. What does the well-regulated militia clause refer to under your interpretation? You cannot ignore the first thirteen words of the amendment.
2. How does the right to bear arms magically become the right to individual possession and use of firearms? To "bear arms" meant at the time (and often still does) to serve in a militia. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter, "OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from 1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id.



1. It is not a clause but a preamble. Well regulated meant equipped, not organized by the Gov't.

2. You seem to ignore the second part of it. "The right of the people to keep and bare.." is pretty plain and has nothing to do w/ "magic". It's exactly the same as "individual possession and use of firearms".

Originally Posted by Snorklenork
From Mirriam Webster's Etymology of arms: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Old French, from Latin arma

This definition is irrelevent to The Cat-Tribe's argument, which focuses on the definition of the whole idiom "to bear arms." Although arms has that definition in most contexts, in the context of this idiom, it means weapons possessed while serving in an army or militia. As the defintions from The Oxford English dictionary show, the phrase "to bear arms" means to serve as a soldier. Thus, the second amendment guarentees the right to serve as a soldier, not necessarily the right to possess weapons individually. Even if the amendment is construed as a completely individual right (ignoring the fact that "well regulated militia" implies a state's power to regulate the militia), this individual right is not a right to individual possession of weapons, but right to serve in the militia.

Sorry to briefly interrupt the serious discussion here, but the previous talk of people giving up their guns reminded me of this Dilbert cartoon...
Dogbert: I've been thinking how wonderful it would be if all people renounced violence forever.

Dilbert: That's a beautiful thought, Dogbert.

Dogbert: If nobody else was violent I could conquer the whole stupid planet with just a butter knife.
:D

How about this interpretation, since the 2nd Amendment says it doesn't want to interfere with the state's decision to let it's citizens have guns or not, why not let each state decide and keep it out of the Supreme Court. That way each state gets to choose what it's militia can have (and yes, that's mostly what it was for: Militia). What we don't need is some hick drving around in his pickup truck with a shotgun shooting deer from public roads at 40 mph while children are playing in a park not too far from there. I seriously doubt if the framers of our constitution could have reasonably argued for the Bill of Rights to include XI: Don't be fucking retarted.

This definition is irrelevent to The Cat-Tribe's argument, which focuses on the definition of the whole idiom "to bear arms." Although arms has that definition in most contexts, in the context of this idiom, it means weapons possessed while serving in an army or militia. As the defintions from The Oxford English dictionary show, the phrase "to bear arms" means to serve as a soldier. Thus, the second amendment guarentees the right to serve as a soldier, not necessarily the right to possess weapons individually. Even if the amendment is construed as a completely individual right (ignoring the fact that "well regulated militia" implies a state's power to regulate the militia), this individual right is not a right to individual possession of weapons, but right to serve in the militia.

<troll>
Actually, "to bear arms" means to display a heraldic symbol. Hence all the amendment protects is the right to display heraldic symbols such as coat-of-arms (such as yours, the "tenne, donkey rampant sinister on shield kite volant").
</troll>

This has got to be the most asinine argument I have ever heard.

You are wrong. Weaver WAS NOT convicted on weapons charges. Those were cleared. He was found guilty and served time for failing to appear in court and violating bail conditions. He was entrapped into selling sawed off shotguns at the insistence of an undercover ATF agent.

Actually, a good deal of evidence points toward the ATF having modified the weapon AFTER it was sold.

That's right, the whole thing was over an unpaid $5 tax on a piece of wood 3/8" too short -- a tax which Mr. Weaver in all likeliness did not even owe.

How about this interpretation, since the 2nd Amendment says it doesn't want to interfere with the state's decision to let it's citizens have guns or not,
It says nothing of the sort. In fact, while the first amendment constrains only "Congress" (that is, the federal government), the second says that "the right of people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This could only be interpreted as meaning that the no government or agency thereof, at any level, may restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Interestingly, of all the states whose constitution says something to the effect that "the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; however, nothing herein shall be construed as to prohibit the regulation of the carrying of concealed arms," EVERY SINGLE ONE has a shall-issue concealed carry law. :)

How about this interpretation, since the 2nd Amendment says it doesn't want to interfere with the state's decision to let it's citizens have guns or not, why not let each state decide and keep it out of the Supreme Court. That way each state gets to choose what it's militia can have (and yes, that's mostly what it was for: Militia). What we don't need is some hick drving around in his pickup truck with a shotgun shooting deer from public roads at 40 mph while children are playing in a park not too far from there. I seriously doubt if the framers of our constitution could have reasonably argued for the Bill of Rights to include XI: Don't be fucking retarted.

You dont be a retard.

How about all those people wo lawfully and responsible use their firearms to protect their families and property?

Monkey

It says nothing of the sort. In fact, while the first amendment constrains only "Congress" (that is, the federal government), the second says that "the right of people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This could only be interpreted as meaning that the no government or agency thereof, at any level, may restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Interestingly, of all the states whose constitution says something to the effect that "the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; however, nothing herein shall be construed as to prohibit the regulation of the carrying of concealed arms," EVERY SINGLE ONE has a shall-issue concealed carry law. :)

you're leaving off the very first part of it. it's not saying you can get guns here and there without restriction, it's only saying that the government won't stop the state from allowing this. I suggest you look at my addition to the bill of rights.

and Isanyonehome, i think that's just fine, guns as they are were invented were a necessity of war, and have grown in capacity to all forms of protection. And if the state decides it's citizens can constitute a militia, then go ahead and have your family protection method of huge destruction. Even if a toddler is fully capable of pulling a trigger while looking down the barrel, that's okay too. The point is, everyone who owns a gun should be required to take a full gun course, kind of like a driving test. If you are incapable of aiming with any accuracy and don't bother yourself with being aware of your target, then you shouldn't have a gun.

you're leaving off the very first part of it.

The first clause has no effect whatsoever on the rights guaranteed by the second clause.

it's not saying you can get guns here and there without restriction, it's .
Wrong. That's EXACTLY what it says.

The first clause has no effect whatsoever on the rights guaranteed by the second clause.

Wrong. That's EXACTLY what it says.

Ahem. If i say, i won't interfere with somebody else letting you do something or not, that's exactly what i mean. Here, let me try to dumb this down a bit for you: I let Wal-mart decide what it sells. when you want to buy something from wal-mart, i had no effect on the stock, ergo it is wal-mart's decision who gets what they sell. now stop trying to be as stupid as a rock and interpret this thing called an analogy for yourself. People like you just don't say very much for the human race. I mean come on, it's something as simple as reading. you'd think a 3rd grader could do it.

And yes, I realize I'm being an asshole

and Isanyonehome, i think that's just fine, guns as they were invented were a necessity of war, and have grown in capacity to all forms of protection. And if the state decides it's citizens can constitute a militia, then go ahead and have your family protection method of huge destruction. Even if a toddler is fully capable of pulling a trigger while looking down the barrel, that's okay too. The point is, everyone who owns a gun should be required to take a full gun course, kind of like a driving test. If you are incapable of aiming with any accuracy and don't bother yourself with being aware of your target, then you shouldn't have a gun.

1) I agree about it being a states rights issue.
2) While I think it is wise to take a course in proper use and storage of firearms(I took one), I get a little nervous when the govt decides on what test. A good govt will give a proper test + course aimed at educating the public. An improper one(like the ones gun ownership is supposed to protect against) will create tests and course aimed at limiting the size of the gun owner pool. I have seen gun stores(well 1 gun store) refuse to sell a person a gun because the employee felt that they were not responsible enough(and before you ask, both the salesman and the customer were both white).

I place my trust in my fellow citizens to do the right thing. I dont feel this way about my govt, even my state govt(which isnt as bad)

edit:
3) militia(from a previous post of your) means all able bodied males above 17, it does not refer to a govt(state or federal) run agency.

1) I agree about it being a states rights issue.
2) While I think it is wise to take a course in proper use and storage of firearms(I took one), I get a little nervous when the govt decides on what test. A good govt will give a proper test + course aimed at educating the public. An improper one(like the ones gun ownership is supposed to protect against) will create tests and course aimed at limiting the size of the gun owner pool. I have seen gun stores(well 1 gun store) refuse to sell a person a gun because the employee felt that they were not responsible enough(and before you ask, both the salesman and the customer were both white).

I place my trust in my fellow citizens to do the right thing. I dont feel this way about my govt, even my state govt(which isnt as bad)

edit:
3) militia(from a previous post of your) means all able bodied males above 17, it does not refer to a govt(state or federal) run agency.

That's just fine, I can back that fully. It's just the mass irresponsibility you see with some of these people.

You are wrong. Weaver WAS NOT convicted on weapons charges. Those were cleared. He was found guilty and served time for failing to appear in court and violating bail conditions. He was entrapped into selling sawed off shotguns at the insistence of an undercover ATF agent.



http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html?sect=18

You are correct about Weaver's convinction. I apologize.

I would maintain he was not entrapped, but a jury did find him not guilty.

Originally Posted by The Cassini Belt
This has got to be the most asinine argument I have ever heard.

Interestingly, you didn't actually debate it, and I can't see why you wouldn't include this as part of your rant. It is rather pitiful to subvert objective debate by declaring your opponent's argument stupid without any support for this assertion. My comment (and The Cat-Tribe's definition, via The Oxford English Dictionary) attacks the common assertion that the right to bear arms means merely a right to possess them. This is the same opinion of Thomas Cooley in General Principles of Constitutional Law.

for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Perhaps you should reconsider your comment, if not your entire position.

You are correct about Weaver's convinction. I apologize.

I would maintain he was not entrapped, but a jury did find him not guilty.


From what I gather, the shotguns were 1/16th inch underlength, and the ATF told him after the sale, "If you don't help us now, you'll go away for a long time..."

Because they were the length of the saw blade, underlength, they threatened him with 10-20 years. Sounds like entrapment to me.

Kecibukia, I think we can both be accused of getting distracted by side paths. Although not responding to every argument raised by the other is somewhat par for the course, I think we have both been somewhat distracted from the merits. I hope to clear the air.

One thing: when I jumped in this thread, I carried on vigorous debate with several individuals. Much later, you and some other able arguers joined with slightly different points. At least some of my conduct that you have objected to comes from (a) that I truely had intended to leave the field when my original sparring partners did, but I was intringued by some of the new arguments and (b) I was still finishing off points made earlier.

1. Your arguement consisted of the opinion that SCOTUS consistently argued against individual rights.
"The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

The controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment exists only in the public debate over gun control. Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one."

"this silly view of the 2nd Amendment"

I showed information contradicting that. I never said it was original but you seem unable/unwilling to contradict my post.

Nothing in your post contradicts what I said. The Supreme Court and the lower courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms.

The Fifth Circuit decision in Emerson is an anomaly that I have discussed elsewhere. I note that the Bush administration disagreed with the reasoning of that decision at the time. Dozens of other US Court of Appeals decision reach a different conclusion, but I recognize Emerson has some persuasive value.

Arguments such as those made in your post have been repeatedly made to courts throughout the country over the last 100 years. With the exception of the judges in Emerson, they have been uniformly rejected. Rather than rehash each quote here or there from a Founding Father, I believe the consistent decisions by the courts to be a strong indicator of the merits of the arguments. I will admit that courts can be consistently wrong on an issue over a long period of time (such as "separate but equal"), although it is hard to point to an example of a legal issue on which the courts have been so uniform for so long only to alter their course.

2. It HAS been argued that the US constitution only applies to federal. Reread the thread. Once again, the point of that post was that, on individual vs state rights, even most of the states agree it's an individual right.

I made that argument myself -- although it is that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government, as other amendments are binding upon the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It is still true. Whether or not a state, most states, or even all states grant an individual right to possess weapons is irrelevant to whether the 2nd Amendment itself restricts actions by a state. Unless and until it is incorporated through the 14th, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states. But that is a complicated point of constitutional law.

If you wish, I'll agree that the argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal gov't is a side issue. It is only marginally relevant to interpretation because, at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, none of the Amendments applied to the states.

I would recognize that state constitutional provisions regarding the right to bear arms may be relevant to interpreting the 2nd Amendment, depending on when they were adopted.

3. Most of YOUR "facts" about the Weaver situation are incorrect. You've "read the newpapers". The same papers that had his cabin as a "Fortress" and "Bunker" and had him owning anti-tank rifles ? If you attended some of the hearings, why don't you have the correct information on what he was convicted of? You also ignore that the Gov't admitted during the trial that they never considered going up and arresting him but spent 2 years and 3 million dollars preparing for a siege. Also, why do you find it more important to argue an example used in another post moreso than the arguements I've presented to counter yours?

I admit my error about the conviction. I stand by the other facts I set forth, but I admit my memory of events that occurred 12-13 years ago are not perfect. I re-verified much of what I said before posting but not the conviction.

I do not appreciate my honesty being questioned. I am not, and did not, rely simply on media coverage and I never simply accept what the media says. I did attend some of the hearings (not all, as that was impossible), as well has having the other connections I stated. Nonetheless, I made at least one (admitting glaring) error in my statements. I may well have made others.

I will not argue the one example any more. I do not recall who brought it up and I agree it is not relevant. I do think you have a skewed view of what occurred, but I can agree to disagree.

OK? With all of the above, I hope I have cleared away the need for individual nit-picking (of which I am guilty). Personally, I shouldn't be spending so much time online debating this. To the extent I do, however, I will endeavor to stick to the merits of relevant issues in the future.

1. It is not a clause but a preamble. Well regulated meant equipped, not organized by the Gov't.

Please enlighten us on (a) what basis who state it is a preamble rather than a clause and (b) why this distinction matters.

If you know of any authority for the proposition that words in the Bill of Rights may be ignored if they are part of a preamble, please share. I know of no such precedent. To the contrary, it is well established that the interpretation of an Amendment to the Constitution must give meaning to every word of the Amendment.

2. You seem to ignore the second part of it. "The right of the people to keep and bare.." is pretty plain and has nothing to do w/ "magic". It's exactly the same as "individual possession and use of firearms".

You miss my point, which was focused entirely on the second part of the Amendment. Assuming there is an individual right "to keep and bare arms," what does that mean?

It is widely assumed that "to keep and bare arms" means "to possess and use firearms," but that is not what it says. As I explained, the definitive dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, makes clear that -- particularly at the time the Second Amendment was written and adopted -- "to bear arms" meant "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." This would seem to indicate your assumption is wrong. Can you explain otherwise?

Please enlighten us on (a) what basis who state it is a preamble rather than a clause and (b) why this distinction matters.

If you know of any authority for the proposition that words in the Bill of Rights may be ignored if they are part of a preamble, please share. I know of no such precedent. To the contrary, it is well established that the interpretation of an Amendment to the Constitution must give meaning to every word of the Amendment.

You miss my point, which was focused entirely on the secnd part of the Amendment. Assuming there is an individual right "to keep
and bare arms," what does that mean?

It is widely assumed that "to keep and bare arms" means "to possess and use firearms," but that is not what it says. As I explained, the definitive dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, makes clear that -- particularly at the time the Second Amendment was written and adopted -- "to bear arms" meant "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." This would seem to indicate your assumption is wrong. Can you explain otherwise?

A preamble states why, a clause states exceptions or additions. People who would restrict the rights of the citizens consider it a clause to make it a "state right". Those who support individual rights consider it a preamble. I do not ignore it but don't misconstrue it as an excuse to remove the rights of individuals.

The Constitition, as stated several times in this thread, clearly defines who is part of the militia and what there duties entail. Every able bodied male 17-45 to defend the nation from all threats foriegn and domestic and to provide police functions. So individuals to defend themselves, home, and nation.

Why do you consider a Dictionary definition to hold more weight in this matter than the Founding Fathers themselves on the issue:

Patrick Henry-- "the great object is that every man be armed . . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

George Mason--"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."

Samual Adams--""That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."

Also see:
United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990): which defines "the people" is defined the same as in the preamble, 1st, 2nd, 4th , and 9th amendments , all citizens and legal aliens in the US.

Gilbert Equipment Co., Inc. v. Higgins, 709 F. Supp. 1071(S.D. Ala. 1989), aff`d, 894 F.2d 412 (11th Cir. 1990) (mem).stating that the 2nd amendment "guarantees to all Americans` the right to keep and bear arms`. . ."

The courts, as you have stated, have never been "consistent" w/ the rulings. The "Courts" tend to use thier judgements to push rediculous agenda's fairly regularly.

Irregardless of what the framers of the Constitution meant when they agreed on the Second Amendment, a right-wing Nazi lunatic with a bunch of guns in his basement raving about "conspiracies" and a "new world order" does not constitute a responsible owner of firearms or other weapons, and if he has a whole bunch of similar buddies, he and his gun nut friends don't qualify as a "well regulated milita" neccesary for the defense of a free state. Note: This is not meant to flame bait or offend anyone. Or troll bait. Or any other illeagal action.

Sir, I'm with the language police. I'm here to give you a warning -- irregardless is not a word. :)

BTW- Actually, yeah, he is a responsible owner of firearms regardless of his politics. Denying him that right would be akin to denying Rosie O'Donnell the microphone, just because she has nothing constructive to say. It's a judgement call that none of us here can make.
OTOH, once the aforementioned neo-Nazi gets caught with his gun in a bar while drinking, that's a different story. Just like if Rosie threatened to kill the President.

Yeah the NRA and other gun toting morons misuse the Constitution and claim that an idea that was meant to give some power to the people in case of tyrany isn't the same as wanting to own an automatic assault rifle to use on the weekends for shits and giggles.

That being said, I have nothing against guns or gun owners. I am in favor of gun control though. You can own as many guns as you want but I don't think background checks or waiting periods is going to kill you.

A 9mm won't help against a tank or a helicopter, which is why folks (at least some folks I know) have TOWs, Stingers, RPGs, Sa-16s, Sa-7s, MILANs, etc.

Freedom is never free nor is it cheap. You have to always be ready to defend it.

A. A point I definitly agree with you upon.

B. I know this is a late-ass response.

C. You really know people with MILANs? If you could forward me some email address' or whatnot, I would love to talk to these people.

Guns for protection is a silly concept. Why kill when there are alternatives? If I ever felt the need for a self defense weapon (not likely) I would go the non-lethal route and buy a tazer or stun-gun. I honestly have a hard time beleiving people who claim to have defended their home from break-ins repeatedly. If you people are so damn paranoid, move to a safer place. Might I suggest Naperville, IL? It's only an hour from O'Hare and the last burgalry occured in the 70's. We have two of the best public high schools in the country. Come to think of it, we don't want you gun-nuts. Go away.

As for guns against tyrannical government, your assault rifles, numerous as they may be, won't do shit to protect you against a RFG satellite.

Might I suggest Naperville, IL? I
Ahhh, Naperville, IL. The same idiot town with some of the stupidest alcohol laws on the books. Although I have to admit, it has some damned good restaurants.

As for guns against tyrannical government, your assault rifles, numerous as they may be, won't do shit to protect you against a RFG satellite.Why do you think Iraq is being such a pain in the arse? the states would have steamrolled the place flat and had no problem with security if Iraq had gun control.

80 million americans with firearms is one big deterrant.

as soon as you say *in the US* you are limiting the scope of the natural rights to the area governed by the government of the US. your rights are still accorded by the government.

Actually, I was saying that everywhere else, governments are limiting their citizens by force. The US constitution actually recognizes that they can't just roll over natural rights.

Like I said, the right is already there, the US government specifically reiterates it.

The government didn't give us rights. They were already part of humanity.

Yeah the NRA and other gun toting morons misuse the Constitution and claim that an idea that was meant to give some power to the people in case of tyrany isn't the same as wanting to own an automatic assault rifle to use on the weekends for shits and giggles.

That being said, I have nothing against guns or gun owners. I am in favor of gun control though. You can own as many guns as you want but I don't think background checks or waiting periods is going to kill you.

It wasn't the NRA--it was rather intelligent gun toting people--the actual framers of the constitution, that made that claim.

Check out the Federalist Papers (you know, those silly docs that actually explain the reasons for everything in the constitution?) before quoting anti-gun rhetoric.

Guns for protection is a silly concept. Why kill when there are alternatives? If I ever felt the need for a self defense weapon (not likely) I would go the non-lethal route and buy a tazer or stun-gun. I honestly have a hard time beleiving people who claim to have defended their home from break-ins repeatedly. If you people are so damn paranoid, move to a safer place. Might I suggest Naperville, IL? It's only an hour from O'Hare and the last burgalry occured in the 70's. We have two of the best public high schools in the country. Come to think of it, we don't want you gun-nuts. Go away.

As for guns against tyrannical government, your assault rifles, numerous as they may be, won't do shit to protect you against a RFG satellite.

Oh yeah, I want to move to an anti-gun state....sorry, that's not fair, those in power in Chicago make it an anti-gun state. There are plenty of repressed citizens in the state of Illinois that want their rights back.

The point is, you can defend yourself however you want. You can't tell anyone else how to go about it, however.

And we don't shoot to kill, we shoot to stop. Quit buying the propaganda.

As for rifles and other weapons that are available to the public for defense against the US military, may I point out.....IRAQ. If it were so easy, the US would finally be out of that mistake. But for some reason, they're not. Hmm.

Interestingly, you didn't actually debate it, and I can't see why you wouldn't include this as part of your rant. It is rather pitiful to subvert objective debate by declaring your opponent's argument stupid without any support for this assertion. My comment (and The Cat-Tribe's definition, via The Oxford English Dictionary) attacks the common assertion that the right to bear arms means merely a right to possess them.

I do debate it, using reductio ad absurdum. My definition is from the dictionary as well, and specific to this phrase. It has just as much of a claim to being the intended definition. It is just as absurd (i.e. completely).

Yeah the NRA and other gun toting morons misuse the Constitution and claim that an idea that was meant to give some power to the people in case of tyrany isn't the same as wanting to own an automatic assault rifle to use on the weekends for shits and giggles.

That being said, I have nothing against guns or gun owners. I am in favor of gun control though. You can own as many guns as you want but I don't think background checks or waiting periods is going to kill you.

Ok, no problem. But then I want you weighed and checked for high blood pressure before you buy a McD's hamburger.

Or better yet, brethalized EVERY TIME you get in your car.

Or take a test to see if you are competant before you vote.

What's good for one Amendment must be good for them ALL.
This is why Prohibition ultimately failed.

Guns for protection is a silly concept. Why kill when there are alternatives? If I ever felt the need for a self defense weapon (not likely) I would go the non-lethal route and buy a tazer or stun-gun. I honestly have a hard time beleiving people who claim to have defended their home from break-ins repeatedly. If you people are so damn paranoid, move to a safer place. Might I suggest Naperville, IL? It's only an hour from O'Hare and the last burgalry occured in the 70's. We have two of the best public high schools in the country. Come to think of it, we don't want you gun-nuts. Go away.

As for guns against tyrannical government, your assault rifles, numerous as they may be, won't do shit to protect you against a RFG satellite.

You really want half of 125th Street, Harlem moving to your town??

It wasn't the NRA--it was rather intelligent gun toting people--the actual framers of the constitution, that made that claim.

Check out the Federalist Papers (you know, those silly docs that actually explain the reasons for everything in the constitution?) before quoting anti-gun rhetoric.

But HCI, dictionaries, and the occasional judge have more relevance than the actual writings of the Founding Fathers.

Ok, no problem. But then I want you weighed and checked for high blood pressure before you buy a McD's hamburger.

Or better yet, brethalized EVERY TIME you get in your car.

Or take a test to see if you are competant before you vote.

What's good for one Amendment must be good for them ALL.
This is why Prohibition ultimately failed.

And any form of public dissemination of information (ie newspapers, books, leaflets, , television, hmmm.. online forums) require licenses and fees.

You can only join a "recognized" religion.

Let's be like Japan. Women only recently acquired the "right" to own property and the authorities search your house twice a year.

Licenses for reproduction. You should be able to "prove" you know how to parent.

But HCI, dictionaries, and the occasional judge have more relevance than the actual writings of the Founding Fathers.

So it seems, so it seems. <sigh> :mad:

Problem is, the dictionary and general vernacular have changed in the years since the constitution was first drafted. What is in the dictionary now isn't how it was always used.

That's the big hole with Cat Tribe's arguments. He's not trying to translate a different language.

Just as an update on the types of arguements used:

So far, the Anti-rights individuals have come up w/:

1. "The People" doesn't really mean the people but the Gov't.

2. Slippery slope to NOOKS!!!!1111!!

3. 80 Million + people could do NOTHING against the Gov't.

4. GUNS 'R BAD! repeated ad nauseum.

5. Ad Hominems : "Your not a REAL man if you like guns", morons, stupid rednecks, etc.

6. The Bill of Rights is obsolete.

7. Criminals will NOT hurt you if you give them all your stuff and do the SNiVeL.

8. "Unreliables" (anyone who holds a different opinion or political stance ) should not be allowed to own guns.

9. Gov't control over rights is good (as long as it doesn't affect me).

IMO: Cat Tribe has been the most effective so far (still wrong, but good :) ) by using actual legal issues to make his point.

So it seems, so it seems. <sigh> :mad:

Problem is, the dictionary and general vernacular have changed in the years since the constitution was first drafted. What is in the dictionary now isn't how it was always used.

IIRC A point in favor of the Oxford is that it present multiple meanings of words throughout the years.

It is, however, still just a dictionary. It's interesting to note that some will use it to argue the meaning of "arms" while others completely ignore the defintion of "regulated" as used during the times according to the OED.

Banning somthing really makes it go away
possession and use of cocaine has been banned since the 1920's, so of course there is absolutely none in the United States or the UK?

there go all of your "ban guns and the world will be a safer place" arguments

Originally Posted by The Cassini Belt
I do debate it, using reductio ad absurdum. My definition is from the dictionary as well, and specific to this phrase. It has just as much of a claim to being the intended definition. It is just as absurd (i.e. completely).

So, you included your debate in the section of your post that you marked [troll], and you included your troll in the rest of your post, which made me think it was a sorry attempt at debate.

However, the definition I was using was completely applicable to the situation, and the definition you used to show that my argument was absurd was not applicable. I proved that my definition is applicable by citing a definition used by a former chief justice of the Michigan supreme court. Furthermore, the definition I use was the one commonly used at that time. The one you use is merely part of the etymology that lead to its denotation in the writing of the constitution. A study (http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html) of 300 uses of the the term "to bear arms" during this period overwhelmingly supports the idea that it was used to mean "to participate in military conflict." Therefore, even if you concentrate on the individual right to keep and bear arms (which the amendment does guarentee), this right only means (as I have said) the right to serve in the militia.

Originally Posted by Kecibukia
So far, the Anti-rights individuals have come up w/:

I'm not anti-gun rights. I've only been arguing from the legal, constitutional perspective. As I said before, I do not believe the founding fathers intended for the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" to mean anything more than their right to serve in the militia; however, I disagree with the framers of the constituion on this issue. I believe they should have guarenteed the right to individually possess weapons for any purpose.

That being said, I have nothing against guns or gun owners.
Liar.

Guns for protection is a silly concept. Why kill when there are alternatives? If I ever felt the need for a self defense weapon (not likely) I would go the non-lethal route and buy a tazer or stun-gun.

You're kidding, right?


I honestly have a hard time beleiving people who claim to have defended their home from break-ins repeatedly. If you people are so damn paranoid, move to a safer place. Might I suggest Naperville, IL? It's only an hour from O'Hare and the last burgalry occured in the 70's. We have two of the best public high schools in the country. Come to think of it, we don't want you gun-nuts. Go away.

Too bad. I don't like liberals, but I don't suggest that they all move themselves to Red China. If YOU don't like it, YOU go away, you gun-grabbing, scum-sucking Communist bastard.

Too bad. I don't like liberals, but I don't suggest that they all move themselves to Red China. If YOU don't like it, YOU go away, you gun-grabbing, scum-sucking Communist bastard.

lmao.

Can we not bunch liberals up as anti-gun? Obviously, many are. Im in california, in basically the most liberal area of the world, and Im basically liberal. Both me and the most liberal teacher in my school are against gun-control. The republican governor is for gun control.

So it seems, so it seems. <sigh> :mad:

Problem is, the dictionary and general vernacular have changed in the years since the constitution was first drafted. What is in the dictionary now isn't how it was always used.

That's the big hole with Cat Tribe's arguments. He's not trying to translate a different language.

The OED gives dated examples of the use of the terms and tracks the changes in the definitions over time. :headbang: The use of the phrase "to bear arms" at the time the Second Amendment was drafted was to serve in a military.

So you have completely missed the point and utterly failed to refute this one of my many arguments.

You really want half of 125th Street, Harlem moving to your town??

Nice to add racism to the debate.

Hey James you were a part of writing it...what do you have to say...

Besides, the advantage of being armed forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did." -- James Madison