NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok folks, I gots me a question:

If you're an American, more specifically a conservative American, do you honestly believe that the 2nd Amendment is in any danger?

I mean ... even in California - land of the pinko-liberal "Hollyweird" - firearm ownership is as easy as pie. Even in what some of ya'll have called a "Liberal Wasteland", it is legal in California for a person with a CCP to carry his weapon into a school! That's not even legal in Texas, which many call the most conservative State!

Provided you're an adult (age varies based on type of weapon purchase and State) who is of reasonably sound mind and not under felony probation/parole and not under certain court orders (such as, in Texas, a restraining order) then there isn't a State in this country that will deny you firearm ownership. Many States even allow you to carry your firearm!

Even after 40 years of a Democrat controlled legislative branch, untold numbers of years with a more liberal leaning SCOTUS, the 2nd Amendment stands firm!

Now, again, with that in mind .... Why, oh why, conservatives, now that you have *all* the power in *all* the branches of the US Government, are you suddenly so terrified that your precious 2nd is going to vanish? Do ya'll know somethin' I don't ... cuz I'm genuinely confused.

Because it's in the Democratic Party ideology that they want to restrict all firearms possession.

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in."

I'd like some protection against that, please. I don't want someone to pass a single law that would turn over 80 million Americans into instant felons in their own homes.

I might add that current precedence does not establish the 2nd Amendment as solidly as you proclaim - I'm sure Cat Tribe would be glad to point out the gaping holes.

I want a Constitutional guarantee - not mere laws that allow me to carry in only 35 states.

There are many cities where mere possession is against the law. And licensing is so strict that only the personal friends of the police captains and fabulously wealthy people can obtain firearms licenses (Sean Penn's recent acquisition of a firearms permit in Los Angeles is a case in point).

Ok folks, I gots me a question:

If you're an American, more specifically a conservative American, do you honestly believe that the 2nd Amendment is in any danger?
Well, the 1st Amendment was essentially gutted by the McCain/Feingold bill... If it can happen to the 1st, why not the 2nd - especially when there is a much more active, vocal and virulent opposition to it?

Because it's in the Democratic Party ideology that they want to restrict all firearms possession.


If that were true, then don't you think that at some point in the 40 years the Democratic Party were in legislative and judicial power, they would have done so?

If that were true, then don't you think that at some point in the 40 years the Democratic Party were in legislative and judicial power, they would have done so?

Destroying a Constitutional right takes along time. You know that! :D

If that were true, then don't you think that at some point in the 40 years the Democratic Party were in legislative and judicial power, they would have done so?

They've come closer than you think. There are many bills they have proposed that have come close to passing.

Metzenbaum's bill in particular, came close to passing. And it was a literal translation of the original German law from 1934 that Hitler passed in order to confiscate all firearms in Germany. Metzenbaum admitted to this being the source, and his staffers did the translation.

If it were not for a few defectors in their ranks, they would have passed.

As it is, their judicial power has effected the change in precedence since the early 20th century.

I want a Constitutional guarantee - not mere laws that allow me to carry in only 35 states.

There are many cities where mere possession is against the law. And licensing is so strict that only the personal friends of the police captains and fabulously wealthy people can obtain firearms licenses (Sean Penn's recent acquisition of a firearms permit in Los Angeles is a case in point).

Ok, so you want it blanketed under Federal, but that would mean that the US Government would know who had how many of what at any given time. I know 15 million Texan gun owners (approximated by State polls because we have no registration in Texas) who would probably want to start up another civil war rather than let the US Government invade their privacy like that.

As for city ordinances, shouldn't some things be left up to the community at large? Do we really want a Federal government so bulky that it must intervene on everything down to a City Council level? Why have States, then?

Well, the 1st Amendment was essentially gutted by the McCain/Feingold bill... If it can happen to the 1st, why not the 2nd - especially when there is a much more active, vocal and virulent opposition to it?

Aye ... but it was the conservatives who did that. We know they all hate Freedom. ;)

Ok, so you want it blanketed under Federal, but that would mean that the US Government would know who had how many of what at any given time. I know 15 million Texan gun owners (approximated by State polls because we have no registration in Texas) who would probably want to start up another civil war rather than let the US Government invade their privacy like that.

As for city ordinances, shouldn't some things be left up to the community at large? Do we really want a Federal government so bulky that it must intervene on everything down to a City Council level? Why have States, then?

No, you don't understand.

If the Second Amendment were enshrined as an individual right, there would be no ATF, no Federal control, and no state or local laws concerning possession or carry of firearms of any type.

If that were true, then don't you think that at some point in the 40 years the Democratic Party were in legislative and judicial power, they would have done so?

The banners in the DP were smart enough to realize that outright bans wouldn't work. If you look at local, state and Nat'l laws, they became tighter and tighter each time w/o making an outright ban. Even in Chicago, you can own a handgun IF it was registered before 1982. In DC, before 1977. The goal was to make it "socially unacceptable to own a firearm and to take it step by step. The CAWB apparently, took the measure too far and caused the backlash that, it has been argued, cost the Dem's control and has resulted in the majority of turn-arounds on the issue.

If you read liturature by the anti-gunners(not dems necessarily), they haven't given up and the defense agaisnt them needs to be kept up.

If it were not for a few defectors in their ranks, they would have passed.


But that's just it ... it's not "defectors". The Democratic Party doesn't have "loyalty oaths" or "swear allegiance to the Platform" ceremonies. The Democratic Party is made of of both the extremely liberal Left (Dennis Kucinich) and the extremely radical Right (Zell Miller) and lots of in betweens.

There is, also, nothing in the US Democrat Party Platform that calls for massive restrictions on firearms. We just want to keep them out of the hands of the crazy and the criminal. Is that really so much to ask? Extreme Federal regulation would make it worse. Imagine having to take an oath of loyalty to the President before you were allowed to purchase a firearm .... *shudder*

No, you don't understand.

If the Second Amendment were enshrined as an individual right, there would be no ATF, no Federal control, and no state or local laws concerning possession or carry of firearms of any type.

Ah ... but it wasn't. It was enshrined upon the State and upon the well-regulated Militia. To do what you ask would require a repeal of the 2nd and a congruent rewrite of it.

It's because the conservatives get loyalty by constantly saying "Everyone is against us". Even though they are in the majority, this parinoia is still the rally cry. Listen to "talk radio" sometime or TV preachers. The media is against us, the courts are against us (even though most judges were appointed by conservatives), Europe is against us, Asia is against us, the intelligent are against us, the stupid are against us, congress is against us (even though they control congress), on and on. It's like they are at war with everyone and they must unite to fight the war. They really don't have confidence in their own power and position. They feel if they try to actually debate they will lose, so they use fear and emotion to keep power.

Plus in the area of the 2nd amendment, they realize they are on soft ground. Almost none of them can quote the first three words, but those that can know they have weak arguements.

But that's just it ... it's not "defectors". The Democratic Party doesn't have "loyalty oaths" or "swear allegiance to the Platform" ceremonies. The Democratic Party is made of of both the extremely liberal Left (Dennis Kucinich) and the extremely radical Right (Zell Miller) and lots of in betweens.

There is, also, nothing in the US Democrat Party Platform that calls for massive restrictions on firearms. We just want to keep them out of the hands of the crazy and the criminal. Is that really so much to ask? Extreme Federal regulation would make it worse. Imagine having to take an oath of loyalty to the President before you were allowed to purchase a firearm .... *shudder*

Where are you coming up with the Federal regulation?

And yes, there's plenty of written documents that show that the actual Democratic Party plan is not just to keep guns away from the crazy and the criminal, but to stepwise eliminate all guns from the US. That's too much to ask.

I'm not talking about extreme Federal regulation, or loyalty oaths which you are pulling out of your ass.

I'm talking about the elimination of all restrictions on the purchase and carry of firearms in the US - and the consequent elimination of all bureaucracies that are related to current efforts to restrict firearms purchase and carry.

But that's just it ... it's not "defectors". The Democratic Party doesn't have "loyalty oaths" or "swear allegiance to the Platform" ceremonies. The Democratic Party is made of of both the extremely liberal Left (Dennis Kucinich) and the extremely radical Right (Zell Miller) and lots of in betweens.

There is, also, nothing in the US Democrat Party Platform that calls for massive restrictions on firearms. We just want to keep them out of the hands of the crazy and the criminal. Is that really so much to ask? Extreme Federal regulation would make it worse. Imagine having to take an oath of loyalty to the President before you were allowed to purchase a firearm .... *shudder*

The DP may not believe it as a group, but a sizable percentage of them support heavy restrictions as individuals. Do you deny that some of the most vocal/powerful in the DP are heavily against firearms? (Kennedy, Feinstiein, Clinton, Schumer, Kerry,etc.)

It is not too much to ask to keep them out of the hands of "the crazy and the criminal", but most "gun control" laws do nothing of the sort and only restrict those who actually follow the laws in order to remove them.

Ah ... but it wasn't. It was enshrined upon the State and upon the well-regulated Militia. To do what you ask would require a repeal of the 2nd and a congruent rewrite of it.

That's a view that only became precedence in recent times.

If you read the Federalist Papers, you would know how very wrong you are.

You also are making a classic error in saying so.

You are saying that the word "People" as defined in the First Amendment is not the same "People" as defined in the Second Amendment.

"The Right of the People" means individuals, or it means States. Which one?

I don't believe for a minute that it means either at your whim.

It's because the conservatives get loyalty by constantly saying "Everyone is against us". Even though they are in the majority, this parinoia is still the rally cry. Listen to "talk radio" sometime or TV preachers. The media is against us, the courts are against us (even though most judges were appointed by conservatives), Europe is against us, Asia is against us, the intelligent are against us, the stupid are against us, congress is against us (even though they control congress), on and on. It's like they are at war with everyone and they must unite to fight the war. They really don't have confidence in their own power and position. They feel if they try to actually debate they will lose, so they use fear and emotion to keep power.


Both parties do this. It's an American habit.

Or do you forget Hillary talking about "the vast right-wing conspiracy"?

If you're an American, more specifically a conservative American, do you honestly believe that the 2nd Amendment is in any danger?
"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

If you read the Federalist Papers, you would know how very wrong you are.


The Federalist Papers aren't case precident or law in any way, though. They're really nothing more than a historical curiosity. Those same Founding Fathers also forgot to free black people and let women vote, so if we want to talk "people", we really have to mean "white, land owning, males" if we're dealing with the Founding Fathers's defintion of the term.

You are saying that the word "People" as defined in the First Amendment is not the same "People" as defined in the Second Amendment.

"The Right of the People" means individuals, or it means States. Which one?

The 2nd specifically mentions the State, the 1st does not. The 1st only mentions people in the right to peaceably assemble, yet I don't see you complaining too much that people have to get permits to do so ... why be bothered by requiring a permit for a firearm?

"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

Aye ... and I agree ... but we're facing a sudden and dramatic upsurge in 2nd Amendment banner waving while simultaneously allowing the 1st to be slowly chipped away at.

Why is the 2nd so much more important than the 1st?

Or do you forget Hillary talking about "the vast right-wing conspiracy"?

That always makes me chuckle.

Aye ... and I agree ... but we're facing a sudden and dramatic upsurge in 2nd Amendment banner waving From Whom? I wouldn't call protecting manufacturers from politically motivated lawsuits "banner waving..."
while simultaneously allowing the 1st to be slowly chipped away at.Irritatingly enough.
Why is the 2nd so much more important than the 1st?
It's not. It's just more visible and emotional. Nobody really seems to care about what McCain Feingold did to the 1st - but that's largely because 1st Am cases tend to be a bit rareified. 2 Am cases tend to be about emotion - group A wanting to control Group B even though Group C is responsible for the trouble.

And yes, there's plenty of written documents that show that the actual Democratic Party plan is not just to keep guns away from the crazy and the criminal, but to stepwise eliminate all guns from the US. That's too much to ask.


From the Party Platform:

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

That's it. That's the only mention of firearms in the Democratic Party Platform. A handful of nuts wanting to strip away the entire 2nd Amendment and claiming to be Democrats no more makes it a part of the Platform than Fred Phelps claims makes the word "Fags" appear in the Bible.

Read the whole platform here: http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

The platform may, of course, change when amendments are voted on during the 2008 National Convention, but that's exactly how it stands right now and was voted on by Democrats, such as myself, who served as delegates to their State Conventions.

Nobody can rightfully or honestly claim that Democrats are after people's guns.

The Federalist Papers aren't case precident or law in any way, though. They're really nothing more than a historical curiosity. Those same Founding Fathers also forgot to free black people and let women vote, so if we want to talk "people", we really have to mean "white, land owning, males" if we're dealing with the Founding Fathers's defintion of the term.?

They're used for original intent.



The 2nd specifically mentions the State, the 1st does not. The 1st only mentions people in the right to peaceably assemble, yet I don't see you complaining too much that people have to get permits to do so ... why be bothered by requiring a permit for a firearm?

The "state" is mentioned in the preporatory clause. Re-written in modern English, it would state "The right of the people to own and use firearms shall not be infringed because a well equipped citizenry is necessary for a state to remain free." When requiring a permit is used as a reason to deny the right to peacably assemble, as firearm permits have been used to deny the right of ownership, then the issue becomes comparable.

It's not. It's just more visible and emotional.

Ah! Now that's an answer I can get my teeth into ... thank you, Syniks.

Hell here in NY, firearms laws are far stricter than in most of the country. :(

Do I believe the amendment is in danger? No. In order to nullify that amendment they would need to pass another one and there are more Republican governors than Democrat ones at the moment.

Ok folks, I gots me a question:

If you're an American, more specifically a conservative American, do you honestly believe that the 2nd Amendment is in any danger?

Nope!

I mean ... even in California - land of the pinko-liberal "Hollyweird" - firearm ownership is as easy as pie. Even in what some of ya'll have called a "Liberal Wasteland", it is legal in California for a person with a CCP to carry his weapon into a school! That's not even legal in Texas, which many call the most conservative State!

What is the age there then to buy a gun?

Provided you're an adult (age varies based on type of weapon purchase and State) who is of reasonably sound mind and not under felony probation/parole and not under certain court orders (such as, in Texas, a restraining order) then there isn't a State in this country that will deny you firearm ownership. Many States even allow you to carry your firearm!

All states do. You could also carry your gun on your hip, in full view of the public. That is also legal. Why? Its not concealed :D

Even after 40 years of a Democrat controlled legislative branch, untold numbers of years with a more liberal leaning SCOTUS, the 2nd Amendment stands firm!

For once, The Supreme Court has decided to go with the Constitution on the matter.

Now, again, with that in mind .... Why, oh why, conservatives, now that you have *all* the power in *all* the branches of the US Government, are you suddenly so terrified that your precious 2nd is going to vanish? Do ya'll know somethin' I don't ... cuz I'm genuinely confused.

Read up on the statements of some prominent democrats. There's your answer.

They're used for original intent.

Not important. Times change, ideas change, society changes. I'm not too sure I'm really interested in what a wig wearing, long dead slave owner who pooped in a bucket 30 yards from his house thought.

When requiring a permit is used as a reason to deny the right to peacably assemble, as firearm permits have been used to deny the right of ownership, then the issue becomes comparable.

There have been numerous cases of groups being denied the right to peaceably assemble based on incorrectly formatted or untimely permit applications or failure to obtain the proper permits. It was almost an issue with the 2004 Republican National Convention because they hadn't filed properly with the City of New York. CNY decided to go ahead and let the Republicans assemble, but that is not always the case.

From the Party Platform:

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

That's it. That's the only mention of firearms in the Democratic Party Platform. A handful of nuts wanting to strip away the entire 2nd Amendment and claiming to be Democrats no more makes it a part of the Platform than Fred Phelps claims makes the word "Fags" appear in the Bible.

Read the whole platform here: http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

The platform may, of course, change when amendments are voted on during the 2008 National Convention, but that's exactly how it stands right now and was voted on by Democrats, such as myself, who served as delegates to their State Conventions.

Nobody can rightfully or honestly claim that Democrats are after people's guns.

CAWB: Did nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Made it more difficult for LAC's to obtain firearms previously known as "sporters" now designated as "Assault Weapons". Heavily supported by Dems.

"Gun Show Loophole": Myth purpotrated by anti-gunners stating that 50% of dealers are unlicensed. Few gun sales at shows are not NICS'ed. Makes gun shows less viable. More difficult for LAC's to obtain legal firearms. Supported by dem's.

"Terrorists": The universal political buzzword. "Terrorists" are alledgedly buying .22's from Walmart.

Kerry, Clinton, Feinstien, Durbin, Schumer. All MAJOR dems opposed to most ownership.

I don't worry that the 2nd amendment is in danger in the sense that they will do away with it, I worry that it will become so regulated that we will end up with BB guns and nothing else.

I have heard too many people who want handguns outlawed not to be worried.

Ah ... but it wasn't. It was enshrined upon the State and upon the well-regulated Militia. To do what you ask would require a repeal of the 2nd and a congruent rewrite of it.

Read the 2nd amendment and you can see clearly that the individual, under the constitution, has the right to bear arms.

Read up on the statements of some prominent democrats. There's your answer.

As I said above, and I'm sure you'll get to it, a handful of nuts does not policy make. The most prominent Democrat in the United States right now is Howard Dean, as he is President of the Democratic Party. He heads up the Convention. He helps decide if a candidate is going to be allowed to run on the Democratic Party ticket or if they're on their own.

Howard Dean is a self-described "gun-nut".

Not important. Times change, ideas change, society changes. I'm not too sure I'm really interested in what a wig wearing, long dead slave owner who pooped in a bucket 30 yards from his house thought.

The intent behind the highest law in the land is not important? Fine, let's scrap the entire Constitution because "times change"



There have been numerous cases of groups being denied the right to peaceably assemble based on incorrectly formatted or untimely permit applications or failure to obtain the proper permits. It was almost an issue with the 2004 Republican National Convention because they hadn't filed properly with the City of New York. CNY decided to go ahead and let the Republicans assemble, but that is not always the case.

So you're claiming that it has been used in the same way and amount as firearm registrations? Has any city or state closed their permit offices permanently? Has any city or state denied permits for an entire party or political belief or delayed them for multiple years due to the party and not just "incorrect paperwork"?

Kerry, Clinton, Feinstien, Durbin, Schumer. All MAJOR dems opposed to most ownership.

You have voting records on them to back up your allegations?

As I said above, and I'm sure you'll get to it, a handful of nuts does not policy make. The most prominent Democrat in the United States right now is Howard Dean, as he is President of the Democratic Party. He heads up the Convention. He helps decide if a candidate is going to be allowed to run on the Democratic Party ticket or if they're on their own.

Howard Dean is a self-described "gun-nut".

And Durbin is head of the Senate and is heavily anti-gun. Kennedy and Clinton are two of the most politically powerful and are heavily anti-gun. These "handful of nuts" are some of the most prominent members.

Not important.

It is very important. Federalist 56 (I believe) was used in Marbury v Madison.

If your going to disregard what our founders said in regards to the constitution (as the federalist papers are what Hamility, Madison, and Adams used to get it passed) then why are you trying to argue this point?

Times change, ideas change, society changes. I'm not too sure I'm really interested in what a wig wearing, long dead slave owner who pooped in a bucket 30 yards from his house thought.

Last time I checked, Adams didn't wear a wig. Adams was an avent abolitionist as well fyi.

There have been numerous cases of groups being denied the right to peaceably assemble based on incorrectly formatted or untimely permit applications or failure to obtain the proper permits. It was almost an issue with the 2004 Republican National Convention because they hadn't filed properly with the City of New York. CNY decided to go ahead and let the Republicans assemble, but that is not always the case.

Now this is irrelevent to the topic at hand.

You have voting records on them to back up your allegations?


Kerry's was covered during the election. Feistein is on record. All of them opposed ending the CAWS and voted for "poison pill" amendments to kill the industry protection act last year. Kennedy drafted and all co-sponsored a bill that would have banned all hunting ammunition and most rifles and shotguns.

Are you denying they are anti-gun?

You have voting records on them to back up your allegations?

go to www.congress.gov and you can find anyone's votes over a certain period of time.

The intent behind the highest law in the land is not important? Fine, let's scrap the entire Constitution because "times change"

We don't scrap it, we amend it. If the Founders wanted it carved in stone and unchanged, they would have carved it in stone and said "Don't change this".

Intent is unimportant when you compare the times. Jefferson would have never dreamed of 3 important things:

1] A single party having all the power over all 3 branches of the US Government.

2] Gay Marriage.

3] Women/Blacks voting.

So, yes, their intent is unimportant. It is meaningless in today's society. If you brought Ben Franklin back to life right now, he'd probably tell Senator Obama to bring him tea and scrub his feet and then he'd marvel that there are women in what they designed to be our most August debating body and give Justice Ruth Ginsberg a pinch on the ass. These were not civilised people. Trust me.


So you're claiming that it has been used in the same way and amount as firearm registrations? Has any city or state closed their permit offices permanently? Has any city or state denied permits for an entire party or political belief or delayed them for multiple years due to the party and not just "incorrect paperwork"?

Is denying a group's right to peaceably assemble so much less important than denying an individual's right to a firearm that they probably don't need anyway?

go to www.congress.gov and you can find anyone's votes over a certain period of time.

I should not have to check on his allegations. He has to back up his claims. That's how debate works, goofy. :p

Keruvelia, it is apparent that you know nothing of the constitution of the United States. On top of that, you are also trying to bash the Federalist Papers as unimportant.

They are very important on many issues. Obviously, they don't cover all issues but they still cover the issues of Religious Freedom, guns, and a whole slew of others that were and still are important.

I should not have to check on his allegations. He has to back up his claims. That's how debate works, goofy. :p

Then consider the website my proof.

We don't scrap it, we amend it. If the Founders wanted it carved in stone and unchanged, they would have carved it in stone and said "Don't change this".

Intent is unimportant when you compare the times. Jefferson would have never dreamed of 3 important things:

1] A single party having all the power over all 3 branches of the US Government.

2] Gay Marriage.

3] Women/Blacks voting.

So, yes, their intent is unimportant. It is meaningless in today's society. If you brought Ben Franklin back to life right now, he'd probably tell Senator Obama to bring him tea and scrub his feet and then he'd marvel that there are women in what they designed to be our most August debating body and give Justice Ruth Ginsberg a pinch on the ass. These were not civilised people. Trust me.

You want me to back up a defined voting record and you expect me to "trust you" w/ silly allegations.

You're now claiming "original intent' on the Constitution while stating "original intent" is unimportant.




Is denying a group's right to peaceably assemble so much less important than denying an individual's right to a firearm that they probably don't need anyway?

I never said it was "less important". Quit moving the goalposts.

Do they "need" to peacebly assemble ? Are rights defined by "need"?

Are you denying they are anti-gun?

No, but I'm not seeing any real proof that they are anti-gun. I'm only seeing allegations.

No, but I'm not seeing any real proof that they are anti-gun. I'm only seeing allegations.

I've already listed several bills from each. I have a feeling you'll consider them all "allegations" no matter how many bills/votes I present.

More :

S.1431

Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 295, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 294, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 293, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 375, Nov. 17, 1993; Vote No. 365, Nov. 9, 1993; Vote No. 133, June 28, 1990; Vote No. 103, May 23, 1990; Vote No. 102, May 23, 1990.

Vote No. 28, March 2, 2004.

Vote No. 87, April 12, 1994.

Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004 ("poison pill" amendments).

Vote No. 142, July 9, 1985.

Vote No. 4, Feb. 2, 2000.

Vote No. 140, July 9, 1985.

Vote No. 134, May 20, 1999; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004.

Vote No. 118, May 14, 1999; Vote No. 224, July 22, 1998.

Vote No. 227, July 30, 1993.

Vote No. 141, July 9, 1985; Vote No. 115, June 28, 1991; Vote No. 113, June 28, 1991; Vote No. 278, Nov. 27, 1991; Vote No. 53, Mar. 19, 1992; Vote No. 262, Oct. 2, 1992; Vote No. 385, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 386, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 387, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 390, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 394, Nov. 20, 1993.

Vote No. 325 Oct. 12, 1993; Vote No. 178, June 27, 1996.

Vote No. 64, April 2, 2001; "Kerry asks FEC to Block NRA Channel," AP, Dec. 9, 2003.

Vote No. 104, May 17, 2000.

Keruvelia, it is apparent that you know nothing of the constitution of the United States. On top of that, you are also trying to bash the Federalist Papers as unimportant.

No, it's not apparent. I do know how to read, you know. I've read it. Nothing about it is confusing in any way .... until you bring in the Federalist Papers. Then it ceases to make much sense. Much of John Locke's works were pivotal to the framing of the US Constitution, shouldn't we also be looking at those as well, or is just the single source of the Federal Papers enough?

They are very important on many issues. Obviously, they don't cover all issues but they still cover the issues of Religious Freedom, guns, and a whole slew of others that were and still are important.

Not so much, really. Once again, times have changed. We now live in a time when it is the State, not the people, who decide marriage. We now live in a time when walking around armed is not only uneeded, but in many cases, a danger to the general public. I no more care what the Founding Fathers were thinking than I do what the guy who painted on the walls of that cave in France was thinking.

Religious Freedom is on a rapid decline as well as Speech, the Press, and State's rights. However, and the original intent of this thread, is for someone to finally, once and for all, answer me as to why being able to put holes in paper from 200 feet away is so much more important than everything else that's being taken away from us?

I've already listed several bills from each.

Not in this thread.

I have a feeling you'll consider them all "allegations" no matter how many bills/votes I present.

Noooo ... it's an allegation if you don't provide proof. Fortunately, that's easy as how a Senator votes is a matter of public record. If you make the statement, you must provide the public record along with it. Otherwise, it's just an allegation. Otherwise, why not just throw Libby in prison now? After all, an accusation is enough right?


S.1431

Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 295, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 294, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 293, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 375, Nov. 17, 1993; Vote No. 365, Nov. 9, 1993; Vote No. 133, June 28, 1990; Vote No. 103, May 23, 1990; Vote No. 102, May 23, 1990.

Vote No. 28, March 2, 2004.

Vote No. 87, April 12, 1994.

Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004 ("poison pill" amendments).

Vote No. 142, July 9, 1985.

Vote No. 4, Feb. 2, 2000.

Vote No. 140, July 9, 1985.

Vote No. 134, May 20, 1999; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004.

Vote No. 118, May 14, 1999; Vote No. 224, July 22, 1998.

Vote No. 227, July 30, 1993.

Vote No. 141, July 9, 1985; Vote No. 115, June 28, 1991; Vote No. 113, June 28, 1991; Vote No. 278, Nov. 27, 1991; Vote No. 53, Mar. 19, 1992; Vote No. 262, Oct. 2, 1992; Vote No. 385, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 386, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 387, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 390, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 394, Nov. 20, 1993.

Vote No. 325 Oct. 12, 1993; Vote No. 178, June 27, 1996.

Vote No. 64, April 2, 2001; "Kerry asks FEC to Block NRA Channel," AP, Dec. 9, 2003.

Vote No. 104, May 17, 2000.

That's better. You can rest assured that I will go through this. However, I can tell you right now that George Bush was behind S.1431. Made a lot of people very angry, too.

No, it's not apparent. I do know how to read, you know. I've read it. Nothing about it is confusing in any way .... until you bring in the Federalist Papers. Then it ceases to make much sense. Much of John Locke's works were pivotal to the framing of the US Constitution, shouldn't we also be looking at those as well, or is just the single source of the Federal Papers enough??

Are you saying they aren't?



Not so much, really. Once again, times have changed. We now live in a time when it is the State, not the people, who decide marriage. We now live in a time when walking around armed is not only uneeded, but in many cases, a danger to the general public. I no more care what the Founding Fathers were thinking than I do what the guy who painted on the walls of that cave in France was thinking.

CC holders are more law-abiding than the average citizen. Unless I'm mistaken, the people still decide who is in state Gov't as well.



Religious Freedom is on a rapid decline as well as Speech, the Press, and State's rights. However, and the original intent of this thread, is for someone to finally, once and for all, answer me as to why being able to put holes in paper from 200 feet away is so much more important than everything else that's being taken away from us?

You have yet to source any of your "allegations". Nobody except you has stated that the 2nd is more important than the 1st.

Not in this thread.

I listed the names of the bills and information regarding them. Try again.



Noooo ... it's an allegation if you don't provide proof. Fortunately, that's easy as how a Senator votes is a matter of public record. If you make the statement, you must provide the public record along with it. Otherwise, it's just an allegation. Otherwise, why not just throw Libby in prison now? After all, an accusation is enough right?

So where's your "proof" behind all the "allegations" you've made?



That's better. You can rest assured that I will go through this. However, I can tell you right now that George Bush was behind S.1431. Made a lot of people very angry, too.

Prove it w/ public record, otherwise it's an "allegation".

No, it's not apparent.

Yes it is apparent.

I do know how to read, you know.

You sure? Because from this end of the computer, you don't.

I've read it. Nothing about it is confusing in any way .... until you bring in the Federalist Papers.

The federalist papers (all of them) where written as to HOW the constitution should be INTERPRETTED!!!! Is that hard to comprehend?

Then it ceases to make much sense. Much of John Locke's works were pivotal to the framing of the US Constitution, shouldn't we also be looking at those as well, or is just the single source of the Federal Papers enough?

No! Why? Because it was written before the Constitution of the United States whereas the federalist papers where WRITTEN BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO HELPED WRITE IT!!!!!!!

Not so much, really. Once again, times have changed.

Not on key issues such as press, religion, guns, and everything else under the bill of rights.

We now live in a time when it is the State, not the people, who decide marriage.

Last time I checked, the voters voted to do away with gay marriage. Therefor, marriage WAS decided by the people.

We now live in a time when walking around armed is not only uneeded, but in many cases, a danger to the general public. I no more care what the Founding Fathers were thinking than I do what the guy who painted on the walls of that cave in France was thinking.

Then you are showing your complete ineptness in matters that are constitutional. I don't know why you are trying to bring this up for debate when we have used:

1) The constitution to defeat your arguements

2) the voting records of Democratic Senators to defeat your arguements

3) The Federalist Papers to defeat your arguements.

Religious Freedom is on a rapid decline as well as Speech, the Press, and State's rights.

For once, I can agree with you.

However, and the original intent of this thread, is for someone to finally, once and for all, answer me as to why being able to put holes in paper from 200 feet away is so much more important than everything else that's being taken away from us?

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.

You can't get any clearer than that.

I listed the names of the bills and information regarding them. Try again.

Not in this thread, you didn't. If you think you did, link to the post. I've just read back through the entire thread and you've made very little in the way of naming bills and giving information. You've only rattled off a few names and talked of the "gun show myth". That's not the same as actual resolution numbers so that everyone can look up and see how each Senator voted.

So where's your "proof" behind all the "allegations" you've made?

This very thread, with its degeneration into "Evil Dems want your guns!!", is my proof. Only Syniks has actually answered my question.

Prove it w/ public record, otherwise it's an "allegation".

http://www.chuckhawks.com/lprelease_assault_rifle_ban.htm
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultweaponsbush.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644044.stm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32074
http://www.factcheck.org/article258.html
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/a/assault.htm

Bush clearly supported the ban, before he didn't support it.

You can't get any clearer than that.

Nice to see you like the 2nd part of it so much, but not the first bit.

*shrug* ... such is the issue ....

If it were so strikingly clear, why all the debate in the first place?

Nice to see you like the 2nd part of it so much, but not the first bit.

*shrug* ... such is the issue ....

If it were so strikingly clear, why all the debate in the first place?

Because it is clear and that 2nd part is the reason WHY we have the right to keep and bear arms. The constitution has given us permission to own weapons and the federal government can't do jack shit about it.

Not in this thread, you didn't. If you think you did, link to the post. I've just read back through the entire thread and you've made very little in the way of naming bills and giving information. You've only rattled off a few names and talked of the "gun show myth". That's not the same as actual resolution numbers so that everyone can look up and see how each Senator voted..

#38



This very thread, with its degeneration into "Evil Dems want your guns!!", is my proof. Only Syniks has actually answered my question.

As much proof as ID. I've also answered your question. You've also made "allegations" that CC is more dangerous than not carrying, various suppostitions on the reactions of the FF's (using original intent BTW), etc. None of these you've proven.



http://www.chuckhawks.com/lprelease_assault_rifle_ban.htm
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultweaponsbush.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644044.stm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32074
http://www.factcheck.org/article258.html
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/a/assault.htm

Bush clearly supported the ban, before he didn't support it.

None of those specifically mention S. 1431 or that he was "behind" the renewal. It is different than the original CAWB. You're "factcheck" article even states:

That's an opinion, of course. And indeed, we could find no instance of Bush himself even mentioning the assault weapons ban in his official appearances as President. Furthermore, when pressed repeatedly by a reporter Sept. 13, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan would not cite the name of a single member of Congress that Bush had called to ask that the ban be extended.

and the uspolitics has Kerry blatantly lying stating :"Kerry said: "[F]or the first time in 10 years when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: sure."

While Bush's opinion:"News reports stated that Bush ignored questions about the ban. "

The BBC article is just BS stating that the ban was about fully-auto weapons.

Worldnet: During his 2000 campaign, Bush said he supported the current ban but was not clear on whether he would back an extension of the law. And in recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General John Ashcroft – traditionally a gun-rights supporter – would not say whether the administration supported an extension. Instead, he quoted from a 1999 Justice Department report that found the ban's impact on violent crime wasn't clear.

The Fienstien aricle:"he supports reauthorization of the current law. S.1431 was not the same as the original CAWB.

"Chuckhawks":"supports reauthorization of the [b]current law[b/] See above.

Nice to see you like the 2nd part of it so much, but not the first bit.

*shrug* ... such is the issue ....

If it were so strikingly clear, why all the debate in the first place?

Because of those who want to disarm the populace using any excuse they can to do it.

As for "original intent" not being important, too bad the judicial branch still uses it then:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it.

Wholly apart from this interpretive principle, this argument also rests on an incomplete understanding of the preface's language. Although the Amendment's prefatory clause, standing alone, might suggest a collective or possibly quasi-collective right to a modern reader, when its words are read as they were understood at the Founding, the preface is fully consistent with the individual right that the Amendment's operative language sets out. The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms. "

BTW, SCOTUS uses quite a few writings to interpret the constitution. US v Miller refers to the Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and others as "approved commentators". Thereby making "original intent" an important part of law.

The thing I wonder about, is why so many people call for assault weapons, as they so call them, and other guns of the sort, when they kill so few people relatively. Same with CCP owners. I just don't see why some people refuse to look at the facts, and instead go with gut instincts about these things. Thats the question I really want to know.

The thing I wonder about, is why so many people call for assault weapons, as they so call them, and other guns of the sort, when they kill so few people relatively. Same with CCP owners. I just don't see why some people refuse to look at the facts, and instead go with gut instincts about these things. Thats the question I really want to know.

It's the "fear" factor. "Assault Weapons" are scary looking while the anti-gunners conjure up images of "Wild West Shootouts".

Ok folks, I gots me a question:

If you're an American, more specifically a conservative American, do you honestly believe that the 2nd Amendment is in any danger?

I mean ... even in California - land of the pinko-liberal "Hollyweird" - firearm ownership is as easy as pie. Even in what some of ya'll have called a "Liberal Wasteland", it is legal in California for a person with a CCP to carry his weapon into a school!
Um, no. CCP's in california are a may issue deal, which basically means unless you're buddies with or can provide a large enough donation for your local police department, you ain't getting one. There's also the matter of long licensing waits, and various other things they do to make it as complicated and annoying as possible. Not to mention how many firearms are illegal in california, for basically no other reason than they look mean. Also, the whole anti-gun school zone is a bit stupid. I mean anyone who's planning on doing something is going to ignore laws like that anyway, so they don't really help.

It's the "fear" factor. "Assault Weapons" are scary looking while the anti-gunners conjure up images of "Wild West Shootouts".

I just fail to see that intelligent people can have this impressed upon them(people like bill clinton, etc). I fail to believe there is some innate larger intelligence by all anti-gun control advocates, it just doesn't make much sense to me.

Um, no. CCP's in california are a may issue deal, which basically means unless you're buddies with or can provide a large enough donation for your local police department, you ain't getting one. There's also the matter of long licensing waits, and various other things they do to make it as complicated and annoying as possible. Not to mention how many firearms are illegal in california, for basically no other reason than they look mean. Also, the whole anti-gun school zone is a bit stupid. I mean anyone who's planning on doing something is going to ignore laws like that anyway, so they don't really help.

You have to be 18 or older to own a rifle/shotgun, and be 21 or older to own a handgun. You cant really conceal carry rifles or shotguns, so students are pretty much out of luck, especially since its completely unlikely they could get a CCP.

So basically, you have adults who can walk onto californian campuses with guns. Ok... so? How many school shootings have been committed by adults? Ones with CCP's and legal weaponry in addition to being adults?

I don't see this a problem, though I have heard of stories where principals who carry, etc, defuse situations that involve guns in the schools. Just because it sounds bad, doesn't mean it is.

BTW, SCOTUS uses quite a few writings to interpret the constitution. US v Miller refers to the Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and others as "approved commentators". Thereby making "original intent" an important part of law.

True, but there does need to be an addendum in this instance. S.C. decisions often reference the Federalist Papers for guidance on any particular subject, and given how the Framer's were the ones who first envisioned how the government ought to work, we by extension ought to consider the Federalist Papers as privileged commentary in a way that, for instance, the Persian Letters by Montesquieu, however influential it might have been on the Framer's, is not. Put simply, we generally envision the Framers as people who had some idea of what the hell they were doing, and so if we can get a good idea what they were thinking on an issue, as we do in the Federalist Papers, we ought to at the very least seriously consider what they have to say.

That being said, original intent is hardly an easy thing to prove, even granted The Federalist Papers. The Papers were written in approximately 1787, and within ten years of that, you had serious disagreements between members of the Founding Fathers as to what phrases like "necessary and proper" meant. Hamilton, for instance, believed that it allowed the Federal government to construct a Bank of the United States; Madison and Jefferson, despite both being Founding Fathers and one actually coauthoring The Federalist Papers with Hamilton, did not. This was not an isolated instance. So it is often the case that you can use "original intent" doctrine to prove either or both sides in any argument.

Secondly, there were, as Keruvalia did correctly note, instances where framer's intent is at best murky: how can we possibly twist Jefferson to say anything meaningful on the matter of online pornography, for instance? Anything we can pull out of his writings are at best vague when applied to this issue, because I as visionary as he was, I have a hard time seeing how he could foresee a day when a ten-year old could not only contact Siam in a second, but get a live show of women from there engaging in a stylized three-way. As such, his input on the matter is of somewhat less import than ordinary.

Anything we can pull out of his writings are at best vague when applied to this issue, because I as visionary as he was, I have a hard time seeing how he could foresee a day when a ten-year old could not only contact Siam in a second, but get a live show of women from there engaging in a stylized three-way. As such, his input on the matter is of somewhat less import than ordinary.

And if we are talking about pornography, etc, this can be granted(though I see no problem with a 10 year old watching porn, if he so wishes). However, as far as I have seen, he wanted free press and free gun ownership as ways to ensure protection from over-powerful government, along with other, less important reasons. I see no reason he would want to ban certain guns, except maybe handguns, because of their limited use against governments, etc, though I am guessing he would side for the protectionary values of handgun ownership over the harmful values.

Secondly, there were, as Keruvalia did correctly note, instances where framer's intent is at best murky:
Um, this doesn't apply as much to the 2nd. The abilities of guns has of course progressed, but it's a natural progression which anyone who had at all studied warfare might surmise, albeit the speed at which it occured may have been much faster. There's also the fact that the federal 2nd amendment was the widest most encompassing of all the variants proposed and in fact a motion to add the words "for the common defense" after "to keep and bear arms" was struck down in congress.

Have you read the Wiki entry right now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

No official records were kept of the proceedings of the committee, and on July 28th the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment (AoC pp. 669). On August 17th, that version was read into the Journal (AoC pp. 778):

"A well regulated monkey, composed of the body of the penis, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The Second Amendment itself was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17th and August 20th.

Um, this doesn't apply as much to the 2nd. The abilities of guns has of course progressed, but it's a natural progression which anyone who had at all studied warfare might surmise, albeit the speed at which it occured may have been much faster. There's also the fact that the federal 2nd amendment was the widest most encompassing of all the variants proposed and in fact a motion to add the words "for the common defense" after "to keep and bear arms" was struck down in congress.

It's possible: I'm hardly a 2nd Amendment scholar, so I couldn't really say. I can say, based on my knowledge of firearms, that handguns are of limited use either for self-defense or for liberty defense: they require too much training to be used effectively in defense of the home or person, and unless you are very lucky against a trained military soldier your average handgun isn't going to do much more than dent his body armor and really piss him off, something that generally you don't want to do to a person with an M-16 and artillery support. Instead, you use shotguns (despite the fact that everyone thinks I'm anti-gun, I've never said anything but good things about a 12-guage pump for home defense) for the former and rifles for the latter. As such, because handguns are of limited use in defense, I don't really see how limiting them through regulation would really hurt anyone but those who use them to bad ends: they can't be used effectively to defend yourself, and they wouldn't be of much use in the event of a use of American military power on American civilians.

Back to the main point, however, I can't say, based on that reasoning, whether Jefferson would agree or disagree, since he never lived in an era where the means of the people to defend themselves and the means of the military to efficiently respond with a minimum of casualties were so widely disparate. Would he allow the banning of ineffectual weaponry? I don't know, because he seems both to have a pragmatic and a highly ideological streak in him.

As a side note, Dick Durbin is not the "Democratic leadership." Harry Reid is the "Democratic leadership", and while I could be wrong (his last campaign focused primarily on such substantive issues as his childhood nickname of "Pinky"), I'm pretty sure he's fairly supportive of gun rights. As such, there is no real Democratic conspiracy to take away your guns.

It's possible: I'm hardly a 2nd Amendment scholar, so I couldn't really say. I can say, based on my knowledge of firearms, that handguns are of limited use either for self-defense or for liberty defense: they require too much training to be used effectively in defense of the home or person, and unless you are very lucky against a trained military soldier your average handgun isn't going to do much more than dent his body armor and really piss him off, something that generally you don't want to do to a person with an M-16 and artillery support. Instead, you use shotguns (despite the fact that everyone thinks I'm anti-gun, I've never said anything but good things about a 12-guage pump for home defense) for the former and rifles for the latter. As such, because handguns are of limited use in defense, I don't really see how limiting them through regulation would really hurt anyone but those who use them to bad ends: they can't be used effectively to defend yourself, and they wouldn't be of much use in the event of a use of American military power on American civilians.

Back to the main point, however, I can't say, based on that reasoning, whether Jefferson would agree or disagree, since he never lived in an era where the means of the people to defend themselves and the means of the military to efficiently respond with a minimum of casualties were so widely disparate. Would he allow the banning of ineffectual weaponry? I don't know, because he seems both to have a pragmatic and a highly ideological streak in him.

As a side note, Dick Durbin is not the "Democratic leadership." Harry Reid is the "Democratic leadership", and while I could be wrong (his last campaign focused primarily on such substantive issues as his childhood nickname of "Pinky"), I'm pretty sure he's fairly supportive of gun rights. As such, there is no real Democratic conspiracy to take away your guns.

Handguns are used quite often, in the civilian side of things, to prevent crime, etc. Maybe not as well for home defense as shotties, but in other times, like outside the home...

It's possible: I'm hardly a 2nd Amendment scholar, so I couldn't really say. I can say, based on my knowledge of firearms, that handguns are of limited use either for self-defense or for liberty defense: they require too much training to be used effectively in defense of the home or person
Not really. The amount of training it takes to become accurate enough to hit the target you want to at under 25' is relatively minimal, especially if you train to fire multiple times. Most people could easily become that proficient at shooting after 2 weeks of hour-long target practice.

Because of those who want to disarm the populace using any excuse they can to do it.

As for "original intent" not being important, too bad the judicial branch still uses it then:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it.

Wholly apart from this interpretive principle, this argument also rests on an incomplete understanding of the preface's language. Although the Amendment's prefatory clause, standing alone, might suggest a collective or possibly quasi-collective right to a modern reader, when its words are read as they were understood at the Founding, the preface is fully consistent with the individual right that the Amendment's operative language sets out. The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms. "


Now *that* is good debate.

You know ... for being primarily a debate forum - as any happy, spammy fun threads are almost immediately banned - you people are spectacularly bad at debate.

Congratulations, Kecibukia, you've won the debate. Unfortunately, you haven't changed my mind ... I'm still an outspoken advocate of the 2nd amendment (HA GOTCHA!). However, it's refreshing to see someone who can actually use the tools God gave them at their disposal. You've just climbed up about 10 rungs on my respect ladder.

Then consider the website my proof.

Awwwww ... I wish I had seen this earlier .... I'd put up the Flying Spaghetti Monster website as proof that all life began with a mountain, some trees, and a midget. :D

That's what I like about you, Corn .... sense of humor. Rock on witcha bad self.

Incidently, did you put on the John Kerry mask and scare neighborhood kids for Halloween?

though I see no problem with a 10 year old watching porn, if he so wishes

I take it you don't have kids? Or, at least, female kids?

It's possible: I'm hardly a 2nd Amendment scholar, so I couldn't really say. I can say, based on my knowledge of firearms, that handguns are of limited use either for self-defense or for liberty defense:

Honestly, neither.

From what I've seen, owning and/or carrying a handgun is like a badge of courage. People seem to think it's some grand, exciting thing that separates them from us primates who defend our home with, well, nothing.

In the modern age, again with the intent, no Founding Father could have conceived an M1 Abrams, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the average household 9mm is completely useless against such a machine. Maybe I'm wrong.

If the US Government wants to take our guns, they will. There isn't thing one we can do about it. I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people who own guns or carry guns have never been robber or mugged and that fact has nothing to do with them having a firearm, but rather that we don't live in as violent a society as America in the early 1800s. I mean, come on gun owners, when's the last time a savage Indian tried to break into your home and rape your wife? Honestly ... come on now.

In reality, just about anything available to civilians is either for sport or for show. For anything else, it's relatively useless. So ... carry on ...

The English Bill of Rights 1689, which is the precursor for the US Bill of Rights, clearly connects the right to bear arms to the right to self defence.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm

Now *that* is good debate.

You know ... for being primarily a debate forum - as any happy, spammy fun threads are almost immediately banned - you people are spectacularly bad at debate.

Congratulations, Kecibukia, you've won the debate. Unfortunately, you haven't changed my mind ... I'm still an outspoken advocate of the 2nd amendment (HA GOTCHA!). However, it's refreshing to see someone who can actually use the tools God gave them at their disposal. You've just climbed up about 10 rungs on my respect ladder.



:fluffle:

The English Bill of Rights 1689, which is the precursor for the US Bill of Rights, clearly connects the right to bear arms to the right to self defence.

Wait ... I thought that had to do with the right to bear the family Coat of Arms .... or perhaps it was something to do with the right to coat bear's arms in grease or somethin' .... shit ... I dunno. :p

:fluffle:


Hooray! (oh, ummm ... I should warn you ... I tend to vote Democrat .... but, then, I'm a Texan ... would you have voted for Delay?)

http://www.nrawestla.org/2Asupreme_court_case.htm

Read the case 1939 about the gangster with the sawed off shotgun. Basically the court ruled that if a weapon isnt used for the purpose of a militia that you dont have a the right to own a gun. Courts have decided that the militia is pretty much exclusively the national guard so it appears the 2nd amendment doesnt do much of anything to protect our gun rights. If a state or the federal government were to ban gun ownership it would likely be constitutional. It hasnt happened because of the "gun nut" group that people think is much more powerful than it acutally has. Just thought you'd like to know.

Honestly, neither.

From what I've seen, owning and/or carrying a handgun is like a badge of courage. People seem to think it's some grand, exciting thing that separates them from us primates who defend our home with, well, nothing.

In the modern age, again with the intent, no Founding Father could have conceived an M1 Abrams, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the average household 9mm is completely useless against such a machine. Maybe I'm wrong.

If the US Government wants to take our guns, they will. There isn't thing one we can do about it. I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people who own guns or carry guns have never been robber or mugged and that fact has nothing to do with them having a firearm, but rather that we don't live in as violent a society as America in the early 1800s. I mean, come on gun owners, when's the last time a savage Indian tried to break into your home and rape your wife? Honestly ... come on now.

In reality, just about anything available to civilians is either for sport or for show. For anything else, it's relatively useless. So ... carry on ...


Of those who have actively used firearms to protect themselves (not sure of the numbers but it's more than 1% :) ), 60% have used handguns. They're the primary home defense weapon w/ shotguns coming in second. Yes, I will agree w/ you that a 9mm is useless against a tank. If they're standing in the cupola however.....

As for civilian small arms, most civilian firearms are more powerful round-wise, are more accurate, and longer range than most military weapons. The difference is the rate of fire.

Hooray! (oh, ummm ... I should warn you ... I tend to vote Democrat .... but, then, I'm a Texan ... would you have voted for Delay?)

I actually tend to vote for whoever fits my ideology best. Locally it tends to be Repub., the local Dems are more Daleycrats than Democrats. I would have voted for Dean had he gotten the nod. I ended up voting Lib.

http://www.nrawestla.org/2Asupreme_court_case.htm

Read the case 1939 about the gangster with the sawed off shotgun. Basically the court ruled that if a weapon isnt used for the purpose of a militia that you dont have a the right to own a gun. Courts have decided that the militia is pretty much exclusively the national guard so it appears the 2nd amendment doesnt do much of anything to protect our gun rights. If a state or the federal government were to ban gun ownership it would likely be constitutional. It hasnt happened because of the "gun nut" group that people think is much more powerful than it acutally has. Just thought you'd like to know.

Recent court cases have started turning that. Also the amount of Constitutional Scholarship and the DOJ have stated it's an individual right. The majority of state legislatures have also followed suit w/ CC laws as well as the fact that many states have more descriptive ownership rights in their state constitutions.

An interesting thing to note about US v Miller is that there was NO defense present. SCOTUS only heard the prosecutors side of the story.

http://www.nrawestla.org/2Asupreme_court_case.htm

Read the case 1939 about the gangster with the sawed off shotgun. Basically the court ruled that if a weapon isnt used for the purpose of a militia that you dont have a the right to own a gun. Courts have decided that the militia is pretty much exclusively the national guard so it appears the 2nd amendment doesnt do much of anything to protect our gun rights. If a state or the federal government were to ban gun ownership it would likely be constitutional. It hasnt happened because of the "gun nut" group that people think is much more powerful than it acutally has. Just thought you'd like to know.

And yet, in other supreme Court cases, they have upheld the right for an individule to bear arms. Read up on the 2nd Amendment, especially that 2nd part.

As for civilian small arms, most civilian firearms are more powerful round-wise, are more accurate, and longer range than most military weapons. The difference is the rate of fire.

Meh ... you may be right ... I studied martial arts and have sword and a solid oak baseball bat for home defense ... what I know from guns could fill 1/3rd of a paragraph in 48 point type.

I believe in self-defense. To believe otherwise is, well, retarded. My initial thing on this thread was to clarify why it seemed that the 2nd amendment was so much more important than the 1st (or 9th or 14th or 22nd). Unfortunately, it does seem that way.

We live in a time in the United States where a public official is unelectable if he questions the 2nd Amendment. However, we've got all manner of people applauding a 2nd Amendment advocate being appointed to SCOTUS even though he believes that a woman should consult her husband on matters of medical necessity. (Sorry, but even if two people are married, a grown woman has the right to make medical decisions on her body just for the fact that she's a grown woman and without regard to "marital" status)

In short, I'm seeing people hold the 2nd Amendment above the Right to Privacy and, well, I'm sorry, but you can take my Right to Privacy when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands. :p

'Tis a funny time and a strange time. Maybe that's the excitement of being American.

Ah ... but it wasn't. It was enshrined upon the State and upon the well-regulated Militia. To do what you ask would require a repeal of the 2nd and a congruent rewrite of it.

This argument annoys me, as it doesn't hold ground, entirely.

"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."

This part is referring to the state's right to keep a regulated militia. Plain and simple, no?

"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."

This is the part people overlook. The two parts that I bolded are entirely seperate parts, not run together. The Second Amendment guarentees two rights:

The right of the state to form a militia

THe right of the people to own firearms.

Simple, no?
============================================
And if you still don't believe me, we'll ignore the second half of the amendment and just go with the first like all of the anti-gunners do, m-kay?

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

--(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

--(b) The classes of the militia are—
----------(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
----------(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This is the part people overlook. The two parts that I bolded are entirely seperate parts, not run together.

But they're parts of the same sentence.

I mean ... come on ....

There wasn't a period separating the two. The 2nd Amendment is one, complete sentence that you can't chop up into parts.

Kind of like if I were to write: "How Long is a Chinese man."

1,000 different interpretations based on simple language.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: If it is so damn clear, why all the debate?

But they're parts of the same sentence.

Yes they are part of the same sentence, however did you notice the comma seperating the word militia from the part about people have the right to bear arms without the government infringing on it?

There wasn't a period separating the two.

Nope, just a comma.

The 2nd Amendment is one, complete sentence that you can't chop up into parts.

A comma seperates a LIST!!!

Kind of like if I were to write: "How Long is a Chinese man."

That is a complete sentence without a comma seperating a list.

1,000 different interpretations based on simple language.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: If it is so damn clear, why all the debate?

*yawns* We already showed you that it is clear but certain people, as well as Special Interest groups don't care.

http://www.nrawestla.org/2Asupreme_court_case.htm

Read the case 1939 about the gangster with the sawed off shotgun. Basically the court ruled that if a weapon isnt used for the purpose of a militia that you dont have a the right to own a gun. Courts have decided that the militia is pretty much exclusively the national guard so it appears the 2nd amendment doesnt do much of anything to protect our gun rights. If a state or the federal government were to ban gun ownership it would likely be constitutional. It hasnt happened because of the "gun nut" group that people think is much more powerful than it acutally has. Just thought you'd like to know.
*sighs* Did you actually read the transcript of the case? It basically says that until you can demonstrate that the weapon itself has military usefulness, it is not covered by the 2nd amendment. It says nothing about the person being eligible for the militia, just the weapon. Shotguns certainly fall into that category.

That's not even legal in Texas, which many call the most conservative State!
Sorry, they're looking for the Dakotas and Mormonland (Utah, Idaho). Texas is pretty conservatie, but not the most conservative.

First, before someone says I'm anti-gun, I own at least 25 and have a loaded rifle next to my door. I can't remember how young I was when I first used a weapon. I wasn't over 5 when I shot my first pheasant with a .410. In High School I shot at least 500 rounds a week. Haven't had time to do that much since, but seldom miss what I shoot at.

A WELL REGULATED---That doesn't mean NO regulation--It means LOTS of regulation.

MILITIA---NOT just anyone off the street with NO training. At the time EVERY man was in the militia and were REQUIRED to train under officers of the regular army. It was a time of universal draft. EVERY man was trained to be a part of the military. Should the nation be attacked EVERY man would be in the army and already be trained in army stratigy. This wasn't a bunch of men running around in the woods on their own, or an untrained person setting at home watching TV. The militia was controlled by the government and trained regularly by the government. This was the requirement for the need and right of the citizen to own a weapon. The amendment simply as possible gives this explanation. REQUIRED---- If you want to own a gun you should be required to have regular military training. Everything else is a PRIVILAGE granted by the government NOT a right.

Concealed Carry---As I said above, I own lots of firepower. If I felt I needed to carry I would strap one on where everyone could see it and go about my business. If someone has bad feelings for me, I want him to KNOW what he is getting into. If someone doesn't have the guts to wear a weapon where people can see it, they don't deserve to have one hidden, and I doubt if they would have the guts or skill to use it. Only a true poultry defication would need or want to hide a weapon.

I take it you don't have kids? Or, at least, female kids?

No, I don't. Your point? If my kids wanted to watch that stuff, I would gladly get it for them, and set them down to watch.

If its a girl, she probably wont want to watch anymore. If its a boy...well, we all wank off, why deprive him?

If the US Government wants to take our guns, they will.

Only if the move is immensly popular. Otherwise, you will have a large amount of military dissent, and populace descent. We lost in vietnam to mostly infantry, we would damn well lose fighting our own populace. The military isn't monsters. I certainly couldn't fire on other californians, because they didn't want their guns taken away.

No, I don't. Your point? If my kids wanted to watch that stuff, I would gladly get it for them, and set them down to watch.

Corrupting a minor is against the law.

No, I don't. Your point?

You'll change your mind when you do.

A comma seperates a LIST!!!


A comma used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a complete sentence. If the 2nd amendment were intended to be two completely separate ideas, there would have been a period. That's just grammar.

Notice the comma in this sentence: "If the 2nd amendment were intended to be two completely separate ideas, there would have been a period."

Now separate them both into their own sentences and watch the bad grammar.

Same with the 2nd amendment. You can't separate it. It's one idea with its elements separated by a comma because a comma is necessary for proper grammar.

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

If you take out the separate elements, the 2nd amendment *actually* says: "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed." However, the framers decided to include the reason (being necessary to the security of a free State) and the method (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms).

[/English lesson]

It's the "fear" factor. "Assault Weapons" are scary looking while the anti-gunners conjure up images of "Wild West Shootouts".

The fun thing about this is, in the Wild West there were FEWER shootings. With fewer laws and more guns (proportionally) than today. Every family had a gun out there.

The Wild West shootout is a Hollywood fabrication.

So, once we put 20,000+ laws on the books restricting firearms, we get more crime with them....hmmm...correllation?

The fun thing about this is, in the Wild West there were FEWER shootings. With fewer laws and more guns (proportionally) than today. Every family had a gun out there.

The Wild West shootout is a Hollywood fabrication.

So, once we put 20,000+ laws on the books restricting firearms, we get more crime with them....hmmm...correllation?
Where did you get the idea that there were fewer guns in the Wild West than there are today?
Seems to me that a prof at Emory got fired for suggesting the same thing.

First, before someone says I'm anti-gun, I own at least 25 and have a loaded rifle next to my door. I can't remember how young I was when I first used a weapon. I wasn't over 5 when I shot my first pheasant with a .410. In High School I shot at least 500 rounds a week. Haven't had time to do that much since, but seldom miss what I shoot at.


That's fine...I've only been shooting the last five years (for the most part--I grew up with shooters around me, and I did shoot my first rifle at the age of six--just never got into them until recently). I don't hunt. But it looks like we have a differing opinion on what's listed below. This just proves that one's background doesn't necessarily dictate current beliefs.


A WELL REGULATED---That doesn't mean NO regulation--It means LOTS of regulation.


Actually, historians agree that for the time, it actually meant, "well practiced", IE lots of rounds downrange. Not a bevy of rules.


MILITIA---NOT just anyone off the street with NO training. At the time EVERY man was in the militia and were REQUIRED to train under officers of the regular army. It was a time of universal draft. EVERY man was trained to be a part of the military. Should the nation be attacked EVERY man would be in the army and already be trained in army stratigy. This wasn't a bunch of men running around in the woods on their own, or an untrained person setting at home watching TV. The militia was controlled by the government and trained regularly by the government. This was the requirement for the need and right of the citizen to own a weapon. The amendment simply as possible gives this explanation. REQUIRED---- If you want to own a gun you should be required to have regular military training. Everything else is a PRIVILAGE granted by the government NOT a right.


Current definition of militia, according to the US government: Any male between the ages of 17 and 45, or any person serving in the National Guard. And local militias trained themselves. And actually, anything not listed in the constitution is not limited, quite the opposite--it's all accepted as legal, until a local law decides.


Concealed Carry---As I said above, I own lots of firepower. If I felt I needed to carry I would strap one on where everyone could see it and go about my business. If someone has bad feelings for me, I want him to KNOW what he is getting into. If someone doesn't have the guts to wear a weapon where people can see it, they don't deserve to have one hidden, and I doubt if they would have the guts or skill to use it. Only a true poultry defication would need or want to hide a weapon.

Bad tactics to display your entire capability. You will be the first target, whereas someone who conceals the weapon will have the upper hand. Also, if it's concealed legally, criminals won't know who has a gun. Another useful tactic.

Besides, didn't you see Kecibukia's SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd? They already stated that the militia part is subordinate to the latter portion.

Where did you get the idea that there were fewer guns in the Wild West than there are today?


I didn't. I said fewer laws. :D

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0717hill0717.html

Old West violence mostly myth
Cooperation valued more than conflict

Jul. 17, 2005 12:00 AM

Once again as summer progresses, tourists are trying to recapture the romance of the West. Recalling the violent images fostered by Hollywood, they seek out ghost towns, ride horseback at dude ranches and take part in exciting re-enactments of conflicts among vigilantes, sheriffs, cowboys and Indians.

What they don't realize is that the violence of the West is largely a myth.

Yes, there were isolated examples of violence, but the true story of the American West is one of cooperation, not conflict.

My colleague Terry Anderson and I have been studying the history of the West for nearly 30 years. We found that wherever "people on the ground" got together, they generally found ways to cooperate rather than fight.

Let's begin with the mining camps in the Sierra Nevada of California. Several thousand camps sprang up after the discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill in 1848.

In three years, more than 200,000 people had migrated to California, most of them trying to get rich quick. If there were ever a recipe for chaos, this would seem to be one: people of varied backgrounds and ethnicities, all armed and all seeking a valuable resource. But the mining camps quickly evolved rules for establishing mining claims and for judging disputes. The fact that each person carried a six-shooter meant that each had a relatively equal amount of power. That minimized violence.

Travel, both to the mining camps in California and to the new settlements in Oregon, was also remarkably peaceful. From 1845 to 1860, almost 300,000 people traveled overland via wagon trains to different places in the West.

John Phillip Reed, the pre-eminent historian of wagon train governments, says it was "a tale of sharing more than dividing, a time of accommodation rather than discord." One reason: "Far removed from lawyers and courts, the concept of concurrent ownership proved to be one of legal strength not of legal failure, for promoting social peace not internal disharmony," he says. "The overland trail was not a place of conflict."

Many other groups of settlers and explorers peacefully interacted with one another, overcoming problems such as unknown weather conditions and unmapped territories. Several hundred fur trappers gathered every year at pre-designated rendezvous sites in the Rockies. Even though they brought thousands of dollars' worth of furs, little stealing took place. The many contests involving drinking, fighting and shooting were primarily a form of entertainment, not signs of theft and deprivation.

Cattle ranchers in the northern Great Plains faced some unique problems. They were unable to establish large-scale ranches because the Homestead Acts severely limited the amount of acreage that could be claimed. So they grazed their livestock on the open range.

The "tragedy of the commons" can occur when there is no limit on entry. The cattlemen avoided this by holding a biannual roundup. Although they couldn't exclude newcomers from the range, they could exclude them from the roundup. Without being able to participate, the newcomers would move elsewhere and the land would not be overgrazed.

Once barbed wire was available, it became possible to fence the range. Until then, fencing had been impractical except on small parcels because trees were too scarce to make traditional rail fences. The new fences used wire and just a limited number of fence posts, and ranchers were quick to adopt the new technology. Now, they could define and enforce their rights to land.

Cattlemen and farmers also adopted the new system of water rights that had evolved in the mining camps. It was called the doctrine of prior appropriation or "first in time, first in right."

Basically, if a person diverted water for irrigation, he or she held a right to that amount of water in perpetuity. This meant that rights to a valuable resource, water, were clearly defined and defendable in a court of law. And it meant that as other users came along, such as municipalities, they could purchase the water rights if they valued them more than the farmers did.

There were, of course, a few exceptions to the story of harmonious relations. After the Civil War, the nation had a standing army that did not have much to do. Settlers were much more likely to call upon the cavalry to take land from the Indians than to engage in trade with the native tribes, as they had previously done.

There were fisticuffs in barroom brawls. When a large group of unattached males had time on their hands, violence could erupt.

However, even in a cattle town like Abilene, Kan., the murder rate was much lower than in most modern American cities. Larry Schweikart, a historian at the University of Dayton, estimates that there were probably fewer than a dozen bank robberies in the entire period from 1859 through 1900 in all the frontier West. Schweikart summarizes: "The record is shockingly clear: There are more bank robberies in modern-day Dayton, Ohio, in a year than there were in the entire Old West in a decade, perhaps in the entire frontier period!"

An interesting conclusion of our study of the West is that today's New West is more conflict-ridden than the Old West. Agencies such as the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management now control nearly one-third of the land in the United States, most of it in the West.

The benefits from these lands are allocated through political and bureaucratic processes that stifle cooperation. The conflict over resource use far exceeds anything that one saw in the Old West of the 19th century.

If one wants to see the "Wild, Wild West" in action one should turn to congressional hearings, political demonstrations and arguments over recreational and consumptive vs. non-consumptive uses of forest lands.

The processes of decision-making can no longer evolve in response to local needs and changing demands as they did throughout the 19th century. Current policies reward acrimony and political hard-lining.

So don't look for the Wild West in the tales of frontier justice or the stories of gun fights at the O.K. Corral. The Wild West is with us now.



Peter J. Hill is co-author with Terry L. Anderson of "The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier" (Stanford University Press, 2004).

A comma used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a complete sentence.

This sentence alone debunks everything you have said including The statement below.

If the 2nd amendment were intended to be two completely separate ideas, there would have been a period. That's just grammar.

Same with the 2nd amendment. You can't separate it. It's one idea with its elements separated by a comma because a comma is necessary for proper grammar.

Wrong. Read what you wrote above!

*snip*

We already debunked you. Have a nice day.

Take away my right to posses firearms and I will just become a crminal. I will never give up my firearms, I have every right to hunt and to protect myself and family regardless of what the law states.
Once I take the Firearms Safety Training Course I will obtain a concealed carry permit.

We already debunked you. Have a nice day.

No, you didn't, and you clearly have no understanding of sentence structure. "Separation of ideas" does not mean "Stand alone ideas".

If you could separate the 2nd Amendment into its constituent parts, then you would have to accept that "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a complete sentence/idea.

It's not.

And actually, anything not listed in the constitution is not limited, quite the opposite--it's all accepted as legal, until a local law decides.

Bad tactics to display your entire capability. You will be the first target, whereas someone who conceals the weapon will have the upper hand. Also, if it's concealed legally, criminals won't know who has a gun. Another useful tactic.

The constitution DECIDES what can be in local laws. The debate is, what CAN be in local law? If it's a RIGHT local law can't touch it. If it's a PRIVILAGE (such as a driver's license) it can be "well regulated".

Bad tactics???? When was the last time you saw a soldier (militia?) with a concealled weapon? When was the last time you saw someone mugged that had a weapon on their hip? How fast can you pull a weapon from "concealed" when you are surprised by overwhelming force? Criminals go for "soft targets". The "militia" (if that's how you want to define yourself) needs to openly display force, like police at a gathering of a crowd. The visible diplay of force makes people think about their limits. Why would you conceal any action if you were proud of that action. The very act of concealing is an act of cowardace and shame.

I repeat: Anyone who thinks they need to conceal is so full of poultry defication that they wouldn't have the guts to pull the trigger if the time came.

The very act of concealing is an act of cowardace and shame.

Zing!

The constitution DECIDES what can be in local laws. The debate is, what CAN be in local law? If it's a RIGHT local law can't touch it. If it's a PRIVILAGE (such as a driver's license) it can be "well regulated".


No, the constitution decides what CAN'T be in local laws. Not what can.


Bad tactics???? When was the last time you saw a soldier (militia?) with a concealled weapon?


A soldier? I don't know--I've never asked any if they ever carry concealed or not. As far as the militia goes, by current definition, I'm in it (male 17 to 45), and I've carried concealed much more than open.


When was the last time you saw someone mugged that had a weapon on their hip? How fast can you pull a weapon from "concealed" when you are surprised by overwhelming force?


You seem to think that I think that a gun is a silver bullet. With overwhelming force, it doesn't matter where you have the gun--you lose.


Criminals go for "soft targets". The "militia" (if that's how you want to define yourself) needs to openly display force, like police at a gathering of a crowd. The visible diplay of force makes people think about their limits. Why would you conceal any action if you were proud of that action. The very act of concealing is an act of cowardace and shame.


In your limited opinion, it seems. If the criminals know that ANYONE can be armed, but they don't know who is, they're less likely to attack on a whim. They've even said so--just check on John Stossel's report regarding criminals and concealed carry.

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html

The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."


I repeat: Anyone who thinks they need to conceal is so full of poultry defication that they wouldn't have the guts to pull the trigger if the time came.

You are SORELY mistaken, sir. How many people do you know carry concealed? This would be a good time for you to do a bit of homework on the topic...

Only a true poultry defication would need or want to hide a weapon.
Except when mandated by Law (since I do want to remain law abiding) and prudence - i.e. because there are too many people afraid of a thing and the Police get really tired of having to tell whiners to stop calling them whenever (OMG!) they see a gun.

Of course it is under some threat, but as you have pointed out, not much. When this country got under way the musket was the most effective weapon in the world. I would count on 5 guys with muskets taking down 5 guys manning a cannon. Nowadays, to be similarily armed, we the public would have to own tanks, jets, howitzers, etc. The presumed concept of an armed society enforcing democracy has become almost ludicris given the present arms situation. So, even though the 2nd amendment isn't under much, if any, threat, it is already nearly gone in its most practical sense.

A couple of notes. There isn't any mention of hunting, so those that point out that assault rifles are "no good for hunting", missed the point. The 2nd amendment is about weapons to kill people, and assault rifles are pretty good for hunting bambi or people. America has far fewer home bugleries while people are home than in England. The last stat I read was 16% to 60% or so. Oh, California has put a lot of republicans into its governorship, so that California Pinko stuff is for the right wing fools to gobble up, which they do. Texas is a Left leaning state that recently gerrymandered the districts to give it a right wing "majority". Remember, the Republican party right now is not consevative. Many of the people that voted them in are conservative, but not the party. So dont be to suprised that they haven't done much at all that the conservatives that put them in would want done. Oh yeah, towards the end of Al Gores run for the white house, he took notice of the problems that guns were causing the Democrats, and came to this decision. Guns are an issue for the people, part of the constitution, and a political party should not have a stand on changing the constitution in an area where public opinion is so divided.

Here's my take on the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.

I live in Kentucky and I've been to a couple of the bi-annual machine gun shoots and shows that they do here. It's a wild amount of fun and just about any machine gun you can imagine is there. It was also at one of these shows that I had an epiphone. Lemme explain:

These people that are owning these assault rifles and chainguns by and large aren't the people that are causing problems with the guns. These guns aren't cheap either, and so they're usually white collar workers with a ton of money and spare time. They're not holding up 7-11's and they aren't in the middle of gangland brawls. Ney, they go to work, go to church, and meet up with their likeminded buddies from across America at these shoots in various places nationwide. So why shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy their hobby? They're not hurting anyone.
Point to is the fact that the people that ARE causing problems with guns are CRIMINALS. It doesn't matter if you pass legislation and laws against gun ownership...they'll break it to get the gun if it advances whatever purpose they're wanting to advance. It's what they do. So in the event of gun control, all you're really doing is punishing the innocent gun owner that is merely out to enjoy their hobby and not harm anyone or anything but an old car down range. The criminals still have their guns and will continue to have their guns because they've already proven to have a disreguard for the law.

So what's the solution? Simple: If you're convicted of a crime inwhich you used a gun...hey, double, triple, or even quadruple the sentence. The punishment for a gun crime should act more as a deterent from committing the crime. The CRIME should be punished, not the gun, and not John Q. Taxpayer out to enjoy their hobby.

And beyond all of that, the 2nd Amendment is there for a specific reason...rebellion. When the Constitution was drafted, the American Revolution was still fresh in most peoples' minds. The British had attempted to seize arms from the colonists whom had them stashed away and later used them to fight the British army. Quite simply, the framers and writers of the Constitution wanted people to freely be able to rise up against the very goverment they were attempting to establish IF NECESSARY. The entire point was so that the goverment would have an built in fear and respect for the people that were forming it and the people they govern, in knowing that if they failed to do their job, they could and would be overthrown.
Paraphrased, the 2nd Amendment says that in order to form a well regulated MILITIA, the PEOPLE'S right to bare arms shall not be infringed. This has nothing to do with a National Guard, but everything to do with the average citizen's right to rise up and challenge the goverment and form a militia with which to do so. Why? Because we had to do it once in our history and we understand that there may come a time inwhich we need to do it again.
As it is, the National Guard DOES protect us as does our standing army...but if the goverment so desired to and became so corrupt as to oppress we the American people...who then would protect us from the National Guard and army? Better hope your neighbor has a gun.

AMENDMENT II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The Compact Oxford English dictionary:

infringe
verb 1. violate (a law, agreement, etc.). 2. encroach on (a right or privilege).
— ORIGIN Latin infringere, from in- ‘into’ + frangere ‘to break’.

Telling me to be different ages to own different guns in different places is encroaching on my right to bear arms.

AMENDMENT II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The Compact Oxford English dictionary:

infringe
verb 1. violate (a law, agreement, etc.). 2. encroach on (a right or privilege).
— ORIGIN Latin infringere, from in- ‘into’ + frangere ‘to break’.

Telling me to be different ages to own different guns in different places is encroaching on my right to bear arms.

Yup.

No, you didn't, and you clearly have no understanding of sentence structure. "Separation of ideas" does not mean "Stand alone ideas".

Yes we have debunked you.

If you could separate the 2nd Amendment into its constituent parts, then you would have to accept that "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a complete sentence/idea.

Wrong. The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be INFRINGED. Yes there is a part about a militia but after that little comma, you get what I have already written.

I agree with New Reman. Every disscusion I get into about the 2nd Amendment I bring up that, criminals break laws; making gun laws will only give them more laws to break. Also, new laws created to stop criminals make it harder for the ethical, law-obeying citizens to do what they like to do, such as going out and shooting with their friends.

Yes we have debunked you.

No, you have not.

Wrong. The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be INFRINGED. Yes there is a part about a militia but after that little comma, you get what I have already written.

The part after the comma in what I have bolded is "shall not be infringed" ... that's it ... if that's stand alone, WHAT shall not be infringed? You have to have a complete sentence. If you take the comma out of the bolded sentence, then it is a complete and properly formatted sentence. However, since you're missing the first part of the sentence, what I have bolded above is bad grammar and improper use of the comma.

My god, son ... go back to English classes. A comma does not separate stand alone ideas in anything but a grocery list. You're being as bad as those people who pull half a sentence out of the Bible and claim that it alone is what makes up the entire Bible.

II. Textual and Structural Analysis

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, reads in full as follows:

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

The Amendment expressly protects a "right of the people," which is "to keep and bear Arms" and which has some relation to the prefatory declaration that a "well regulated Militia" is necessary for the ultimate end of "the security of a free State." We address each of these phrases in turn and then consider how the structure of the Constitution illuminates the Amendment's meaning.

As explained below, the text of the Second Amendment points to a personal right of individuals: A "right of the people" is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase "keep arms" at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a "right of the people." While the phrase "bear arms" often referred to carrying of arms in military service, it also sometimes denoted carrying arms for private purposes. The Amendment's prefatory clause, considered under proper rules of interpretation, could not negate the individual right recognized in the clear language of the operative clause. In any event, the prefatory clause - particularly its reference to the "Militia," which was understood at the Founding to encompass all able-bodied male citizens, who were required to be enrolled for service - is fully consistent with an individual-right reading of the operative language. Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals. Finally, a consideration of the powers that the original Constitution grants or allows over the militia makes it unlikely that the Second Amendment would secure a collective or quasi-collective right.

A. "The Right of the People"

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.

In any event, any possible doubt vanishes when "right" is conjoined with "the people," as it is in the Second Amendment. Such a right belongs to individuals: The "people" are not a "State," nor are they identical with the "Militia." Indeed, the Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a "right" only to the "people." The phrase "the right of the people" appears two other times in the Bill of Rights, and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," and the Fourth safeguards "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to "rights . . . retained by the people." We see no reason to read the phrase in the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it plainly means in these neighboring and contemporaneous amendments.

The Supreme Court, in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, likewise has recognized that the Constitution uses "the people," and especially "the right of the people," to refer to individuals:

"[T]he people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. (40)

Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional scholar after the Civil War, took the same view in explaining "the people" in the context of the First Amendment: "When the term 'the people' is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the government through being clothed with the elective franchise. . . . But in all the enumerations and guaranties of rights the whole people are intended, because the rights of all are equal, and are meant to be equally protected." (41)

The Constitution confirms this meaning of "the people" as individuals by expressly distinguishing the "people" from the "States," using each word to refer to a distinct thing. Indeed, the Second Amendment itself refers separately to "the people" and the "State." And the difference is firmly established by the Tenth Amendment, which distinguishes between the powers reserved "to the States" and those reserved "to the people." The "people" are the individuals who compose the States, distinct from - and bearing their federal "rights" apart from - those entities. (42)

Similarly, the Constitution gives distinct meanings to "the people" and the "Militia." Again, the Second Amendment itself is a notable example, referring to the "well regulated Militia" but granting the "right" to "the people." The Constitution's other references to "rights" of "the people," noted above, cannot plausibly be construed as referring to the "Militia." In addition, when granting governmental power over the militia, the Constitution speaks of the militia expressly, without any reference to or suggestion of the broader "people." (43) And the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, which distinguishes between all "person[s]" and those serving in the army, navy, or "the Militia, when in actual service," indicates that where the Constitution addresses rights that turn on service in the militia it does so expressly.

The only truly "collective" use of the "the people" at the time of the Founding was to refer to the people as they existed apart from government or any service to it. The Declaration of Independence refers to "one People" dissolving their political bonds with another and forming their own nation, and "We the people" created the Constitution in ratifying conventions chosen "by the People" of each State. (44) Thus, even in this context, the "people" are distinguished from "the government" or "the State"; nor can the term plausibly be limited to the "Militia." And when "the people" appears in the phrase "the right of the people" in the Constitution, we conclude that it indicates a personal right of individuals, whether that be a right to assemble and petition, to be secure in one's person and property, or to keep and bear arms.

B. "To Keep and Bear Arms"

The "right of the people" that the Second Amendment secures is a right "to keep and bear Arms." As the previous subpart showed, those who hold the right are, according to the text, "the people" - individuals - not the government or even the militia. The phrase "to keep and bear Arms" is consistent with this conclusion: The phrase "keep . . . Arms" reinforces it, (45) and the phrase "bear Arms" is not inconsistent with it.

1. "To Keep . . . Arms."

In eighteenth-century English, an individual could "keep arms," and keep them for private purposes, unrelated to militia duty, just as he could keep any other private property, and the phrase was commonly used in this sense. For example, in Rex v. Gardner (K.B. 1738), a defendant charged with "keeping a gun" in violation of a 1706 English statute (which prohibited commoners from keeping specified objects or "other engines" for the destruction of game) argued that "though there are many things for the bare keeping of which a man may be convicted; yet they are only such as can only be used for destruction of the game, whereas a gun is necessary for defence of a house, or for a farmer to shoot crows." The court agreed, reasoning that "a gun differs from nets and dogs, which can only be kept for an ill purpose." (46) The Court of Common Pleas six years later treated Gardner as having "settled and determined" that "a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family," (47) and in 1752 the King's Bench reiterated that "a gun may be kept for the defence of a man's house, and for divers other lawful purposes." (48) The same usage appeared in an earlier prosecution of a man for "keeping of a gun" contrary to a statute that barred all but the wealthy from privately owning small handguns. (49)

William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in the decade before the American Revolution, was the leading legal authority in America at the Founding, wrote, without any reference to the militia, of "person[s]" who are "qualified to keep a gun" and are "shooting at a mark," apparently on their own property. (50) He also noted that certain persons could not "keep arms in their houses," pursuant to a statute that used "keep" to signify private ownership and control over arms, wherever located. (51) Colonial and early state statutes similarly used "keep" to "describe arms possession by individuals in all contexts," including requiring those exempt from militia service (such as the over-aged) to "keep" arms in their homes for both law enforcement and "the defense of their homes from criminals or foreign enemies." (52) At the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention in 1788, Samuel Adams proposed an amendment prohibiting Congress from "prevent[ing] the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms," indicating ownership by individuals of private arms. (53) And that State's Supreme Court, in a libel case soon after the Founding, likened the "right to keep fire arms" to the freedom of the press, both being individual but not unlimited rights - the former not protecting "him who uses them for annoyance or destruction." (54) The basic dictionary definition of "keep" -"[t]o retain" and "[t]o have in custody"- was consistent with this specific meaning. (55)

In short, the phrase "keep arms" was commonly understood to denote ownership of arms by private citizens for private purposes. When that phrase is read together with its subject - "the right of the people" - the evidence points strongly toward an individual right. Had the Constitution meant not to protect the right of the whole "people" to "keep" arms but instead to establish a "right" of the States or of only the members of their militias to store them, presumably it would have used different language. (56)



2. "To . . . Bear Arms."

To "bear" was, at the Founding as now, a word with numerous definitions - used with great "latitude" and "in very different senses," as Samuel Johnson noted in his dictionary. (57) Its basic meaning was simply to "carry" or "wear" something, particularly carrying or wearing in a way that would be known to others, such as in bearing a message, bearing another person, or bearing something as a mark of authority or distinction. (58) As a result, "bear," when taking "arms" as its object, could refer to multiple contexts in which one might carry or wear arms in this way. (59) It is true that "bear arms" often did refer to carrying arms in military service. (60) But the phrase was not a term of art limited to this sense. Arms also could be "borne" for private, non-military purposes, principally tied to self-defense. For example, an early colonial statute in Massachusetts required every "freeman or other inhabitant" to provide arms for himself and anyone else in his household able to "beare armes," and one in Virginia required "all men that are fittinge to beare armes" to "bring their pieces" to church. (61)

There are also several examples closer to the Founding. In 1779, a committee of eminent Virginians including Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, charged with revising the new State's laws, authored a bill penalizing any person who, within a year of having violated a restriction on hunting deer, "shall bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty." This bill demonstrates that to "bear a gun" was not limited to "performing military duty." James Madison submitted this bill to the Virginia legislature in 1785. (62) Many early state constitutions, including some written before the Founding (Pennsylvania's and Vermont's) and one written a month after Secretary of State Jefferson declared the Bill of Rights ratified (Kentucky's), protected an individual right to "bear arms" in "defense of himself and the State" or in "defense of themselves and the State," indicating that a person might be said to "bear arms" in self-defense. (63) A 1780 opinion of London's Recorder (the city's legal adviser and the primary judge in its criminal court) on the legality of a private self-defense association acknowledged "the rights of the people of this realm to bear arms, and to instruct themselves in the use of them, collectively," albeit within limits. (64) In a newspaper commentary published in major cities after Madison introduced the Bill of Rights in Congress, a friend of his wrote that the proposed Second Amendment would "confirm[]" the people's "right to keep and bear their private arms." (65) Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, paraphrased as a "right to bear arms" the right of English "subjects . . . [to] have arms for their defence," an individual right not tied to service in the militia. (66) Finally, other examples of contemporaneous uses of "bear arms" to denote actions of individuals appear in cases from the early 1800's up to the Civil War, discussed below in Part IV.B.

The Minority Report issued by twenty-one delegates of the Pennsylvania Convention that ratified the Federal Constitution in late 1787 illustrates the various uses of the phrase at the time, including both the right of private "bearing" and the duty of "bearing" for the government in the militia. The report recommended amending the Constitution to recognize "[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game" and also urged exemption from militia service for those "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms." Although the Minority Report was a product of Anti-Federalists, who had lost at that convention and who lost the battle over ratifying the Constitution, we are unaware of any contemporaneous criticisms that this widely circulated document misused language in giving such senses to the phrase "bear arms." (67)

In sum, although "bear arms" often referred to carrying or wearing arms in connection with military duty, it was not limited to such a meaning. When, as in the Second Amendment, those words are used in conjunction with "keep arms," which commonly did refer to private action, and the whole phrase "to keep and bear Arms" is used in the context of a "right of the people," (68) we conclude that the core, operative text of the Amendment secures a personal right, which belongs to individuals. We next consider whether the Amendment's prefatory language requires a different conclusion.

C. "A Well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to the Security of a Free State"

A feature of the Second Amendment that distinguishes it from the other rights that the Bill of Rights secures is its prefatory subordinate clause, declaring: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . ." Advocates of the collective-right and quasi-collective-right interpretations rely on this declaration, particularly its reference to a well-regulated militia. On their interpretation, the "people" to which the Second Amendment refers is only the "people" in a collective, organized capacity as the state governments, or a small subset of the "people" actively organized by those governments into military bodies. "People" becomes interchangeable with the "State" or its "organized militia."

This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it.

Wholly apart from this interpretive principle, this argument also rests on an incomplete understanding of the preface's language. Although the Amendment's prefatory clause, standing alone, might suggest a collective or possibly quasi-collective right to a modern reader, when its words are read as they were understood at the Founding, the preface is fully consistent with the individual right that the Amendment's operative language sets out. The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms.

1. The Limits of Prefatory Language.

In the eighteenth century, the proper approach to interpreting a substantive or "operative" legal provision to which a lawmaker had joined a declaration (whether a "Whereas" clause or analogous language) was (1) to seek to interpret the operative provision on its own, and (2) then to look to the declaration only to clarify any ambiguity remaining in the operative provision. (69) It was desirable, if consistent with the operative text, to interpret the operative provision so that it generally fulfilled the justification that the preface declared, but a narrow declaration provided no warrant for restricting the operative text, and the preface could not itself create an ambiguity. This rule applied equally to declarations located in any part of a law, not simply at the beginning of it, and to both statutes and constitutions. We therefore consider this rule applicable to the Second Amendment.

English Parliaments of the 1700's and late 1600's regularly included prefaces throughout statutes - not only at the beginning (constituting the first section) but also in particular sections. (70) The same rule of interpretation applied to both uses of prefaces. As an example of the latter, a section of a bankruptcy statute recited the problem of persons who "convey their goods to other men upon good consideration" before becoming bankrupt, yet continue to act as owners of the goods; the immediately following clause of the statute provided that if a bankrupt debtor possessed "any goods or chattels" with "the consent and permission of the true owner," was their reputed owner, and disposed of them as an owner, such property should repay the debtor's debts rather than return to the true owner. The difficulty arose when the bankrupt debtor possessed property that never had been his, such as property in trust. A leading case in 1716 read the enacting language to apply even in such cases and rejected the argument "that the preamble shall restrain the operation of the enacting clause; and that, because the preamble is too narrow or defective, therefore the enacting clause, which has general words, shall be restrained from its full latitude, and from doing that good which the words would otherwise, and of themselves, import." (71) The King's Bench reiterated the rule in 1723, rejecting in a criminal case an argument based on declaratory language introducing part of a statute: "Now those general words in the enacting part, shall never be restrained by any words introducing that part; for it is no rule in the exposition of statutes to confine the general words of the enacting part to any particular words either introducing it, or to any such words even in the preamble itself." The court acknowledged that "a construction which agrees with the preamble" was desirable, "but not such as may confine the enacting part to it." (72)

Blackstone summed up this understanding in explaining that, although the words of an enacting clause were "generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification," yet if its words, after due analysis, were "still dubious" or "ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate," one might look to the context, which included "the proeme, or preamble, [which] is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament." (73) Chancellor Kent, a leading early American commentator, likewise reasoned that a preamble, although not technically part of the law, "may, at times, aid in the construction of" a statute or "be resorted to in order to ascertain the inducements to the making" of it, "but when the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble." (74)

Prefatory language also was common in constitutions, and this rule of construction applied in the same way. Speaking of the preamble of the whole federal Constitution, Joseph Story in his Commentaries reiterated that statutory preambles are "properly resorted to, where doubts or ambiguities arise upon the words of the enacting part; for if they are clear and unambiguous, there seems little room for interpretation," and he could not see "any reason why, in a fundamental law or constitution of government," the same rule should not apply. (75) Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution's preamble lacks any operative legal effect and that, even though it states the Constitution's "general purposes," it cannot be used to conjure a "spirit" of the document to confound clear operative language; (76) the Court has, however, also sought some guidance from the preamble when the operative text did not resolve a question. (77)

The same reasoning applied to declaratory phrases in the language of individual constitutional provisions, the closest analogies to the Second Amendment. The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution provided: "In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed." (78) Even though in some cases a trial outside of the county where a crime was committed might bring it closer to the crime scene, or a judge might think a trial in the county where the crime occurred not "essential to" (or even in conflict with) "the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen," neither fact would justify disregarding the clear operative language of this constitutional provision. (79) Likewise, the pre-1787 constitutions of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont declared that freedom of speech in the legislature was "so essential to the rights of the people" that words spoken there could not the basis of "any" suit. (80) One could not use this declaration to avoid the clear immunity conferred by the operative language, even where particular statements made in the legislature - such as an egregious slander unrelated to a pending bill - were not thought "essential to" the people's rights. (81) In addition, Madison's draft of what became the First Amendment's Free Press Clause read: "the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." (82) The emphasized declaratory language presumably could not have qualified or limited the freedom clearly conferred, such as by exempting from protection, as hostile to "liberty," publications advocating absolute monarchy.

A discussion at the Constitutional Convention demonstrates the same understanding, including that prefaces in a particular constitutional provision might merely state policy. What would become Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution, empowering Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia," had reached its final form. But George Mason proposed "to preface" it with the phrase, "And that the liberties of the people may be better secured against the danger of standing armies in time of peace." He wished "to insert something pointing out and guarding against the danger of" standing armies. Madison spoke in favor, because the preface would "discountenance" a peacetime standing army while "not restrain[ing] Congress from establishing" one. (83) No doubt an organized, armed, and disciplined militia would generally "better secure" liberties against peace-time standing armies (by reducing the need for such armies and the threat from any that were created), and thus the operative grant of power "agree[d] with" the declaratory preface; (84) but the preface did not restrain or confine the power.

We see no reason to except the Second Amendment from this broadly applicable interpretive rule. (85) Thus, the Amendment's declaratory preface could not overcome the unambiguously individual "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" conferred by the operative text - even if the collective-right and quasi-collective-right schools' understanding of the preface's meaning were correct, and even though the preface might help resolve any ambiguities concerning the scope of that individual right remaining after one has analyzed the operative text. At the same time, any interpretation of the right ought, if possible consistent with its text, to further the declared justification in general, as the Court in Miller recognized when it stated that interpretation of the Amendment should keep the "end in view" of assuring the continuation and rendering possible the effectiveness of the militia. (86) As we explain in the remainder of this subpart - considering in turn the meaning of "Militia," what a "well regulated Militia" was, and the ultimate end of "the security of a free State" - the individual-right view does further the ends set forth in the prefatory language, and therefore the preface, properly understood, is fully consistent with the individual-right interpretation of the operative text.

2. The "Militia."

A key claim of the collective-right and quasi-collective-right schools with regard to the Second Amendment's preface is that a "well regulated Militia" is a standing military organization or body of troops, of limited size, organized and governed by state governments, albeit concurrently with the federal Government (akin to voluntary select forces such as the National Guard that were established over a hundred years after the Amendment was adopted). As a result, the argument goes, the Amendment merely protects the States against federal efforts to undermine such forces, either by protecting the States directly or by protecting only persons serving in those forces. (87)

This argument disregards the understanding of the "Militia" at the time of the Founding. As used in the Second Amendment, and elsewhere in the Constitution, "Militia" referred to a body consisting of all adult male citizens up to a certain age (anywhere from forty-five to sixty), the goal being to include all who were physically capable of service. It was not limited to a select force of persons in active military duty. This entire population of able-bodied male citizens was involuntarily "enrolled" by local militia officials, somewhat as men now register for the selective service (except that enrollment required no action by the citizen), and all enrolled citizens were required by law to join occasional "exercise" - to which they were expected to bring their own, private arms - but they otherwise remained in civilian life. The militia "rest[ed] upon the shoulders of the people," (88) because, as then understood, it consisted of a large number of the "people" at any one time and of all of the able-bodied white men for a substantial portion of their lives. It was the people embodied as an armed force. Thus, a key aspect of the term "Militia" was the composition of the force to which it referred. As a result, the reference to the "Militia" in the Second Amendment's preface "agrees with" the individual right that the Amendment's operative text sets out, (89) because securing to "the people" a right to keep and to bear their own arms made such a broad-based, privately armed force more likely to exist and to be effective. (90)

The term "Militia" was used in contrast both to a regular, standing army and, more importantly, to a "select militia" or "corps." (91) The latter distinction is evident throughout contemporaneous usage, "select militia" denoting a significantly smaller body, consisting either of better trained military professionals who could remain active for extended periods, or of those chosen selectively, perhaps because of political or other discrimination. (92) For example, at the Constitutional Convention, George Mason mentioned the need for federal regulation of the militia to ensure that they were adequately trained. He suspected that the States would not relinquish "the power over the whole" but would "over a part as a select militia." He added that "a select militia" would be "as much as the Gen[eral] Gov[ernment] could advantageously be charged with," and thus suggested that it receive power only over "one tenth part" of the militia per year. Oliver Ellsworth, later to be a Senator and Chief Justice, objected because a "select militia" either would be impractical or would cause "a ruinous declension of the great body of the Militia." (93) Edmund Randolph, leader of the Virginia delegation, similarly equated the militia with "the whole mass" of the people. (94)

In the debate over ratification, both sides shared this broad understanding of "Militia." Among the Federalists, Madison in The Federalist predicted that a federal army bent on oppression would be opposed by "a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands" - a group that he likened to the citizen bands that had fought in the Revolution and linked to "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." (95) Alexander Hamilton described the militia as "the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens," "the great body of the people," and "the whole nation," which he contrasted with a "select corps." (96) A Connecticut Federalist writing as "The Republican" praised as "a capital circumstance in favour of our liberty" that "the people of this country have arms in their hands; they are not destitute of military knowledge; every citizen is required by Law to be a soldier; we are all martialed into companies, regiments, and brigades, for the defence of our country." (97) In a speech, later published, in response to South Carolina's vote to ratify, David Ramsay, a state legislator and delegate to the ratifying convention, praised the Constitution's militia powers and asked, "What European power will dare to attack us, when it is known that the yeomanry of the country uniformly armed and disciplined, may on any emergency be called out to our defence . . . ?" (98) Maryland's "Aristides," in a fairly widely circulated pamphlet, wrote simply that "the militia . . . is ourselves." (99)

Among the Anti-Federalists, Mason, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, asked: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people," while warning that the new Congress might exempt the rich from service. (100) The Federal Farmer, a leading Anti-Federalist essayist, explained that the "militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves," and counseled "that regular troops, and select corps, ought not to be kept up without evident necessity." If the federal Government properly organized, armed, and disciplined the militia - including in it, "according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms" - the country would have a "genuine" rather than "select militia." Under such wise regulation, "the militia are the people." (101)

This common sense of "Militia" also appeared in the House of Representatives' debates on the Second Amendment, discussed below in Part III.C.2, and the Second Congress applied it in the first Militia Act, enacted in 1792, two months after the Second Amendment was officially ratified. The Act required "each and every able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years," to be "enrolled in the militia" by the local commanding officer. Each enrolled citizen was required to provide his own arms - "a good musket or firelock" or "a good rifle" - plus ammunition and accouterments. These private arms were exempted from "all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes." The enrollees were required to appear, armed, "when called out to exercise, or into service," although Congress left the details of exercise to each State. (102) (Since 1792, Congress has only expanded this definition, such as by eliminating the racial restriction and including some women. (103)) Finally, Noah Webster in his 1828 American dictionary defined "militia" in accord with this Act and the above understanding: "The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations." They were "enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies." (104)

The analogy of the "Militia" to a select (and voluntary) corps such as the National Guard is further strained by the common-law prohibition against the King's deploying the militia outside the country - a rule that Blackstone celebrated as part of the individual's "absolute right" of "personal liberty." (105) The Constitution appears to incorporate this rule, by specifying domestic reasons for the federal Government to call out the militia: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." (106) Implicit in the common-law rule is that the militia was so composed that its members ought to be treated as ordinary citizens doing their duty, rather than as soldiers. President Taft's Attorney General reaffirmed this ancient rule in 1912 as Congress was developing the modern National Guard, which, partly to avoid this rule, was made a component of the regular military forces. (107)

The Supreme Court in Miller, relying on a brief historical survey, summarized as follows the definition of "Militia" that we have set out and explained above:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily 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. (108)

If, as the Court recognized and historical usage confirms, the "Militia" was composed of the general population of able-bodied men, an individual right of the whole people to keep and bear arms would make eminent sense. A large portion of the "people" would be required to appear occasionally for service or simply training, and they were expected to bring their private arms. If the people could be disarmed, it would then, among other things, be impossible for militiamen to make the required provision of their privately provided arms when called up, and the citizen militia would be undermined.

3. The "Well Regulated" Militia.

Advocates of the collective-right and quasi-collective-right views argue that the Amendment's reference in its preface to a "well regulated" militia indicates that the preface refers to a select, organized body akin to today's National Guard. They claim additional support for this argument from usage of the term "Militia" elsewhere in the Constitution, in the context of governmental power over the Militia. (109) No doubt the "Militia" was, through enrollment, exercise, and command when activated by a governor or president, a creature of the government. But it does not follow that the meaning of "Militia" as used in the Second Amendment depended on congressional (or state) legislation organizing or regulating the Militia. The word's use elsewhere in the Constitution and the Amendment's prefatory reference to a "well regulated Militia," properly understood, in fact suggest the opposite.

The Constitution distinguishes not only between the "Militia" and the regular armed forces but also between different parts and conditions of the militia. The latter distinctions appear in (1) Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, authorizing Congress to "provide for calling forth the Militia"; (2) the immediately following clause authorizing Congress 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"; (3) Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, making the President commander-in-chief of "the Militia of the several States" when "called into the actual Service of the United States"; and (4) the Fifth Amendment, which withholds the protection of the Grand Jury Clause from persons whose cases arise in the militia, but only when "in actual service in time of War or public danger" (cases in the army and navy, by contrast, are always exempted).

These provisions indicate that the militia is of a size that will make complete mobilization usually unnecessary, that members of the militia will often not be in service (or that not all parts of the militia will always be in service), and that when any members are not employed in "actual service," they ought to be treated as ordinary citizens. The "Militia" is both large and largely latent. In addition, the reference to "organizing . . . the Militia" suggests an entity that in some sense exists and is definable apart from congressional regulation, in contrast to "Armies," which Congress must "raise," pursuant to another power in Article I, Section 8. Congress might not "organiz[e]" all of the "Militia"; it might organize some parts differently from others; and it would be expected to give necessary precision to the definition of the body's membership by laying down a specific age range for service (as Congress did in the first Militia Act). But the background meaning of the word would remain. As an Anti-Federalist writer recognized: "[T]he militia is divided into two classes, viz. active and inactive," the former, he expected, likely to "consist of young men chiefly." (110) Thus, the use of "Militia" throughout the Constitution is consistent with the common understanding of the word at the Founding.

Nor does the preface's phrase "well regulated" alter this sense of "Militia"; rather, it presupposes it. Having an armed citizenry, which the operative text protects by establishing a right of individuals, becomes a necessary (albeit not sufficient) condition for a well-regulated militia once one properly defines "Militia." As one academic commentator has put it: "The Second Amendment simply forbids one form of inappropriate regulation," which would ensure a militia that was not well regulated, namely "disarming the people from whom the militia must necessarily be drawn. . . . [T]he one thing the government is forbidden to do is infringe the right of the people, who are the source of the militia's members, to keep and bear arms." (111) A militia composed of the whole body of able-bodied male citizens and only infrequently meeting for state-sponsored exercise is more likely to be "well regulated" in the bearing of arms, and can more readily be trained and disciplined, if its members possess their private arms and are accustomed to them from usage for private purposes between exercises. (112) And an individual right of the people to have arms has the indirect effect of securing the ability of States at least to have their militias armed. (113) As the Court stated in Miller, the Second Amendment seeks "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of" the militia of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." (114) It protects the minimum for a well-regulated citizen militia.

In addition, the standard for a "well regulated Militia," as opposed to a well-regulated select militia, or well-regulated army, presupposes the background meaning of "Militia" by taking into account the body's large size and varied source. As the Militia Act of 1792 contemplated, it might be enough to have a county officer enroll persons and ensure that they possessed arms and knew how to use them through basic training once or twice a year. Similarly, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 defined "a well-regulated militia" as simply being "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms." (115) And the first New York Constitution declared that "the militia" should always "be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service" because "it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it." (116)

Even those Founders skeptical of the benefits of the citizen militia, and who advocated a more highly regulated select corps, still recognized the distinction between the proper regulation of the two. Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist argued that it would be both "futile" and "injurious" for Congress to attempt to "disciplin[e] all the militia of the United States." Most enrolled citizens would need extensive "time and practice . . . under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia." But such a burden on so many citizens "would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." Thus, as to "the people at large," he expected that "[l]ittle more can reasonably be aimed at . . . than to have them properly armed and equipped" and, for this purpose, "assemble them once or twice" a year. He therefore recommended that Congress use its constitutional power to provide for organizing the militia also to form a select militia - "a select corps of moderate size." (117) Hamilton was reiterating George Washington's well-known recommendations to Congress for a two-tiered militia, consisting of (1) "the Citizens of America . . . from 18 to 50 years of age," who would be put "on the Militia Rolls" and given minimal training, and (2) "a Corps in every State" consisting of those aged 18-25. (118) From the opposite political pole, the Federal Farmer likewise recognized that Congress might make just such distinctions in "modelling the militia" and warned that creation of a "select corps of militia" would lead to "inattention to the general militia." (119)

This understanding of the "well regulated Militia," and of the possibilities for congressional organization of it (or not), leads to a view of the preface that not only fits the meaning of "Militia" in common contemporaneous usage, including throughout the Constitution, but also most agrees with the meaning of the Second Amendment's operative text setting out a "right of the people." The "well regulated Militia" and the "people" were not identical, but because of their close relationship, a right of the latter - of individuals - to keep and bear arms would facilitate the former. By contrast, a view rejecting the individual right on the basis of the preface's reference to the "well regulated Militia" struggles to harmonize the operative language establishing a seemingly general and individual right with that prefatory language. As Justice Scalia has written, a narrow definition of "Militia" "produces a guarantee that goes far beyond its stated purpose - rather like saying 'police officers being necessary to law and order, the right of the people to carry handguns shall not be infringed.'" (120) The "Militia" on this erroneous view consists only of those few citizens whom a State chooses to specially organize, arm, and train into professional units, which requires one to reject the normal, unambiguous meaning of the operative text as overbroad, rewriting "the people" to mean either "the select militia" or "the State." If that were the true meaning, the Amendment's authors chose singularly inartful language.

<giant snip>




Nice stuff there. It also proves my point that you have to look at the entire 2nd Amendment, not just the bit after the first comma.

*applause*

Nice stuff there. It also proves my point that you have to look at the entire 2nd Amendment, not just the bit after the first comma.

*applause*

On top of that, he just stated that we DO IN FACT have the right to own and keep firearms.

As I said, you have been debunked. Have a nice day.

On top of that, he just stated that we DO IN FACT have the right to own and keep firearms.

I never said we didn't. Show me once where I said we didn't.

As I said, you have been debunked. Have a nice day.

No, I have not, and stop acting like a 12 year old.

I never said we didn't. Show me once where I said we didn't.

The way you have been argueing.

No, I have not, and stop acting like a 12 year old.

Be in denial all you want.

The way you have been argueing.

Arguing sentence structure and grammar is somehow proof that I'm anti right to bear arms? What ... were you home schooled?

I am an extremely vocal proponent of the right to bear arms. I have been since I came to these forums. Where you'd get the idea that I'm anti is laughable. You can't even show me proof of your allegation, you merely express opinion.

Once again, stop acting like a 12 year old.

Be in denial all you want.

You have nothing from me to have debunked, hence, I have not been debunked. Have a nice day.

So what's the solution? Simple: If you're convicted of a crime inwhich you used a gun...hey, double, triple, or even quadruple the sentence. The punishment for a gun crime should act more as a deterent from committing the crime. The CRIME should be punished, not the gun, and not John Q. Taxpayer out to enjoy their hobby.

BINGO!

The laws regarding the misuse of deadly force are far too relaxed in the US, as I understand them.

As far as I am concerened:
Firearms equal deadly force.

The illicit use of deadly force equals attempted murder.

Carrying a firearm (or other impliment primarily intended as a deadly weapon) during the commision of a crime is an illicit use of deadly, regardless of whether the weapon is even visible. (For what other purpose would one carry a firearm in the commission of a crime than the expected use as a threat of deadly force).

Such acts are premeditated. (The actor has made a choice to employ deadly force in the commission of said crime - very few people accidently equip themselves with a firearm.)

Premeditated acts of violence that do not result in death equal attempted mudrder in the first degree.

Thus, if you knowingly carry a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime, you should be brought up on attempted first degree murder charges.

In other words, the use a firearm or other deadly weapon during the commisssion of a crime equals attempted murder. Period. No questions asked.

Well, it's a good thing the majority of the US legislators, judiciary, and citizenry disagrees w/ you.
Oh, I dunno. I rather agree with it. If you are intent on commiting a felony and are in possession of a weapon premeditation of use of deadly force during said felony is a given.

That's why I shoot back first (when I see a weapon being used in a felony).

Well, it's a good thing the majority of the US legislators, judiciary, and citizenry disagrees w/ you.

And why is that a good thing (assuming of course that you are correct)?

Would you rather see people carrying deadly weaponry to commit crimes and get away with no punishment for a clear intent to use deadly force?

Or does the premeditated employment of deadly force somehow not equate with
attempted murder?

(And this is really rather far afield from the original question. Perhapse I should post it as a separate question...)

Oh, I dunno. I rather agree with it. If you are intent on commiting a felony and are in possession of a weapon premeditation of use of deadly force during said felony is a given.

That's why I shoot back first (when I see a weapon being used in a felony).

If I misinterpreted D, I apologize. I read it as the use of a firearm for deadly force period = attempted murder. If he was just talking about more severe penalties for armed criminals, I fully agree.

And why is that a good thing (assuming of course that you are correct)?

Would you rather see people carrying deadly weaponry to commit crimes and get away with no punishment for a clear intent to use deadly force?

Or does the premeditated employment of deadly force somehow not equate with
attempted murder?

(And this is really rather far afield from the original question. Perhapse I should post it as a separate question...)

I misinterpreted your post. I apologize and will delete it.

No, you didn't, and you clearly have no understanding of sentence structure. "Separation of ideas" does not mean "Stand alone ideas".

If you could separate the 2nd Amendment into its constituent parts, then you would have to accept that "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a complete sentence/idea.

It's not.
Actually, amog the various records of the time, there were anywhere from one to three commas in the second amendment. This was when it was known as the fourth amendment of course.

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.

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.

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 comma in the center was never omitted. The others were.

In the grammatical structure of the sentence, the first half is completely dependent and therefore subordinate, to the second half.

A couple of notes. There isn't any mention of hunting, so those that point out that assault rifles are "no good for hunting", missed the point. The 2nd amendment is about weapons to kill people, and assault rifles are pretty good for hunting bambi or people.
Just to make a point, the reason that modern-day assault rifles suck ass for hunting is because most of them fire the 5.56 poodleshooter or the underpowered 7.62 X 39 AK cartridge. Since these calibers are highly unreliable to take down a deer sized target(or human sized for that matter) in one shot, they are considered bad for hunting.

In the grammatical structure of the sentence, the first half is completely dependent and therefore subordinate, to the second half.

Aye, true, but removing the first part, while subordinate, changes the entire idea of the original sentence. The trouble we're having here is that some folks just want to drop the first part of the sentence all together and, frankly, that makes no sense to me.

Having a subordinate clause in a sentence means that it can be removed without losing structure, but you still lose interpretive function or ideaology.

The part after the comma in what I have bolded is "shall not be infringed" ... that's it ... if that's stand alone, WHAT shall not be infringed? You have to have a complete sentence. If you take the comma out of the bolded sentence, then it is a complete and properly formatted sentence. However, since you're missing the first part of the sentence, what I have bolded above is bad grammar and improper use of the comma.

The shortest combination of segments in the 2nd amendment is the following:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In order for it to be a complete sentence at all, both the bolded and the italicized have to be present, while the rest of it is rendered superfluous.

Aye, true, but removing the first part, while subordinate, changes the entire idea of the original sentence. The trouble we're having here is that some folks just want to drop the first part of the sentence all together and, frankly, that makes no sense to me.

Having a subordinate clause in a sentence means that it can be removed without losing structure, but you still lose interpretive function or ideaology.
No you don't. The first part is an explanation for the right in question, NOT a prerequisite.

If I misinterpreted D, I apologize. I read it as the use of a firearm for deadly force period = attempted murder. If he was just talking about more severe penalties for armed criminals, I fully agree.

Not sure if you got it half right or noit. To clarify, the key is illicit use of deadly force (eg deadly force used in the commission of a crime). Deadly force used for legitimate purposes (eg self defense) wouldn't fall under attempted murder.

So if I walked into the local Stop-n-Rob with a Saturday night special in my pocket and rob the place, I've used deadly force in the commission of a crime, even if I don't brandish the weapon, and am guilty of attempted murder.

If you are the shop kepper, and I come in brandishing my firearm, you are clear and safe to shoot me.

I misinterpreted your post. I apologize and will delete it.

:D No prob. We all do it. ;)

No you don't. The first part is an explanation for the right in question, NOT a prerequisite.

Not really ... if you look at how it is currently written - the accepted 2nd Amendment - you get this:

"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."

Removing the subordinates, the 2nd Amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed."

Not really ... if you look at how it is currently written - the accepted 2nd Amendment - you get this:

"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."

Removing the subordinates, the 2nd Amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed."
Except in the greater framework of the constitution and the BoR in particular that makes no sense. The constitution itself already spells out that the militia has to be kept up in such and such a way. The bill of rights is specifically concerned with defining the rights of either the states or the people. The only right in the second is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed. If they had meant to make that right dependent on the people's performance in the militia that would have been indicated. Specifically, the motion to add the words "for the common defence" after "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would not have been struck down in the meetings of congress when they were hashing out the bill of rights.

Now, again, with that in mind .... Why, oh why, conservatives, now that you have *all* the power in *all* the branches of the US Government, are you suddenly so terrified that your precious 2nd is going to vanish? Do ya'll know somethin' I don't ... cuz I'm genuinely confused.

The Second Amendment is in no danger. The states still have the right to maintain a "well-regulated militia," although it's called the National Guard nowadays. ;)

Not really ... if you look at how it is currently written - the accepted 2nd Amendment - you get this:

"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."

Removing the subordinates, the 2nd Amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed."Which is a nonsensical statement. One may infringe an action, or right, but not a noun.

It can't even be rephrased "the regulation of the militia shall not be infringed" because of the word "well".

So the "subordinate clauses" are not all that subordinate, are they?

Which is a nonsensical statement. One may infringe an action, or right, but not a noun.

It can't even be rephrased "the regulation of the militia shall not be infringed" because of the word "well".

So the "subordinate clauses" are not all that subordinate, are they?

The word "right" in this sentence is also a noun. Back to grammar school for you!

"Conservative" Americans aren't much better than "liberal" Americans when it comes to defending the 2nd Amendment. Check out the PATRIOT Act sometime, take a hard look at some of the anti-ownership laws the NRA has outright supported, think about why a GOP-dominated government has yet to take a single step to better protect the rights it gets elected by. Both sides benefit too much from this issue being in-between to ever do anything substantive about it. It's just like abortion -- the big parties don't benefit from doing, they benefit from talking about doing. As long as those two hold the reins, be prepared for your right to bear arms to be held in limbo indefinitely.

"Conservative" Americans aren't much better than "liberal" Americans when it comes to defending the 2nd Amendment. Check out the PATRIOT Act sometime, take a hard look at some of the anti-ownership laws the NRA has outright supported, think about why a GOP-dominated government has yet to take a single step to better protect the rights it gets elected by. Both sides benefit too much from this issue being in-between to ever do anything substantive about it. It's just like abortion -- the big parties don't benefit from doing, they benefit from talking about doing. As long as those two hold the reins, be prepared for your right to bear arms to be held in limbo indefinitely.

Welcome to the controlling body that is government....sickening, no?

The word "right" in this sentence is also a noun. Back to grammar school for you!
A Right, in this context, is a noun that is defined by a category of (ability to perform) actions making it representative of the actions (or the ability to perform).

A Militia is an existential noun. One can not infringe on a thing.

But you knew that. :rolleyes:

A Right, in this context, is a noun that is defined by a category of (ability to perform) actions making it representative of the actions (or the ability to perform).

A Militia is an existential noun. One can not infringe on a thing.

But you knew that. :rolleyes:

Or maybe they just had different rules of grammar back in 1790. (They did, by the way. Correction: they had few rules of grammar at all!) So who knows what they really meant?

II. Textual and Structural Analysis

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, reads in full as follows:



That was an excellent post. I did a bit of research many years ago on this as many of the most foolish arguments irritated me. The item I never found that I wanted to see was the corespondence/record of communication on the intent of the amendment. Is any of this information available, or was it lost? This is all off of the original topic, but hey, the serious stuff is cool.

No, you don't understand.

If the Second Amendment were enshrined as an individual right, there would be no ATF, no Federal control, and no state or local laws concerning possession or carry of firearms of any type.

Ridiculous.

Only if the 2nd Amendment were the only ABSOLUTE individual right would this even be close to true.

Freedom of speech is an individual right, but it has many limits, the FCC, etc.

No, you don't understand.

If the Second Amendment were enshrined as an individual right, there would be no ATF, no Federal control, and no state or local laws concerning possession or carry of firearms of any type.
That's.... retarded....