NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Did you know that justs means you cannot ban guns for militia use? It is still fully possibly for states to make laws banning guns for other uses, like hunting. Or a ban on machine guns for everyone not in a militia.

Good thing there's those of us who try and keep that from happening.

Also legal wise:

http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html

American Bar Association.

:D

Again with this... :rolleyes:

It is somewhat instructive to read the autobiographies and memoires of the fellows who penned that docment. Many of whom commanded militias in the case of Franklin and Washington both for (in the French and Indian war) and against (in the revolutionary war) the brittish. Universally the process was to once commissioned recruit the armed citizenry. Note that it does not say that the right is reserved for the militia either. It states that the necessity of the militia as the reasoning for the right to bear arms.

Good thing there's those of us who try and keep that from happening.
i sudder to think about what would happen if there were not people fighting for the right to own a gun... we would be living in a very very terrifiing world

Did you know that justs means you cannot ban guns for militia use? It is still fully possibly for states to make laws banning guns for other uses, like hunting. Or a ban on machine guns for everyone not in a militia.

Troll much? Old arguments that show a lack of understanding of precedent, a lack of contextual attention, and ignorance of the english language (both as it was used in 1779 and as it is understood today).

Did you know that justs means you cannot ban guns for militia use? It is still fully possibly for states to make laws banning guns for other uses, like hunting. Or a ban on machine guns for everyone not in a militia.

Well, you have to define a militia then, because the national guard, while it serves the function of a militia, is a militia. None of the states really have militias, but there are independent militias. Do the states have the right to ban standing militias within their borders that are not officially sponsored by the state? Can a person simply form a militia and use that as justification for keeping his Browning .50 cal? You can't start making lots of anti-gun (or more than currently exists rather) legislation without approaching the issue of the militia which really hasn't be touched. I doubt many politicians want to touch that can of worms. Regulation can be done, but banning specific types of weapon ownership on a large scale is just not going to happen again. I could see maybe the banning of personal ownership of automatic weapons again, possibly, but little else.

Meanwhile, I'll just keep my pistol next to my bed, and the rest of my personal gun collection in my uncle's storehouse on his compound out in the woods.

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

All in my link.

Gun control:

When an armed burglar breaks into your house and threatens your family at gunpoint, you can thank gun control for getting rid of all those guns! Now outlaws won't have guns to threaten you with... oh....

Government getting too big? Trying to infringe on your rights? Turning into a monarchy? Thank gun control for making sure you don't have the right to overthrow the corrupt government!

Hoorah!

The Supreme court has also repeatedly upheld the Gibbons v Ogden decision essentially annulling the 10th amendment. That does'nt make it right or just.

Did you know that justs means you cannot ban guns for militia use? It is still fully possibly for states to make laws banning guns for other uses, like hunting. Or a ban on machine guns for everyone not in a militia.
And who comprised the militia in Revolutionary times? The common people, non other - it was pretty much B.Y.O.G. (bring yer own gun) back then...

Oh no... not again!

*Puts on armor and awaits the NS Gun Nuts*

Government getting too big? Trying to infringe on your rights? Turning into a monarchy? Thank gun control for making sure you don't have the right to overthrow the corrupt government!
Ya know, I do have to comment on that point as it makes no bloody sense!

I know (according to rabid gun owners) that part of the 2nd was indeed the idea that you could overthrow the goverment, but really now... Given tanks, jets, and other fun toys that the US military carries, how does having a hunting rifle allow you to overthrow a corrupt goverment?

mi·li·tia
NOUN:

1)An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2)A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

3)The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.





That pretty much describes me. I guess that technically makes me part of a giant militia, namely this:"The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service"

If you aren't in the military, and your old enough to fight, then technically, your in a militia. WITH the right to bear arms!

Ya know, I do have to comment on that point as it makes no bloody sense!

I know (according to rabid gun owners) that part of the 2nd was indeed the idea that you could overthrow the goverment, but really now... Given tanks, jets, and other fun toys that the US military carries, how does having a hunting rifle allow you to overthrow a corrupt goverment?
A standing military of about 2.4 million, versus 300 million Americans, apprx. 180 million of which are armed. Thats how.

The Supreme court has also repeatedly upheld the Gibbons v Ogden decision essentially annulling the 10th amendment. That does'nt make it right or just.

It doesn't do anything of the sort. The Constitution gives the regulation of commerce between foreign nations and between states to the federal government, no contest. The tenth amendment gives powers not specifically given to the federal government to the states. The regulation of commerce between states is a specifically stated power of the federal government, and therefore, is not something the states control. Now if you want to break away from the government, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it. Of course, you better have the guns to hold off the government when they come to ensure you don't break away.

Now if you argued the conflict of the Elastic Clause with the Tenth Amendment, then you could maybe form a pretty good argument. That arguement wouldn't have anything to do with gun control, though.

It doesn't do anything of the sort. The Constitution gives the regulation of commerce between foreign nations and between states to the federal government, no contest. The tenth amendment gives powers not specifically given to the federal government to the states. The regulation of commerce between states is a specifically stated power of the federal government, and therefore, is not something the states control. Now if you want to break away from the government, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it. Of course, you better have the guns to hold off the government when they come to ensure you don't break away.

Now if you argued the conflict of the Elastic Clause with the Tenth Amendment, then you could maybe form a pretty good argument. That arguement wouldn't have anything to do with gun control, though.

The elastic clause is specifically the justification for federal gun legislation. IOt is the auspices under which the BATF operates. One of the more recent (and rare) overturns of Ogden was Lopez v US in which the court decides that possessxion of a firearm in a school zone (amazingly) does not effect interstat6e commerce. The bulk of modern executive police powers are ALL under the elastic clause.

A standing military of about 2.4 million, versus 300 million Americans, apprx. 180 million of which are armed. Thats how.
I've got a stealth bomber if you need it, man.

I've got a stealth bomber if you need it, man.
Well then we're well on our way, aren't we?

Well then we're well on our way, aren't we?

i think you should get in contact wiht the group of guys in montana(i think), supsidly they are better stocked than a small army, i bet they can help you out

Well then we're well on our way, aren't we?
It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.

I'm not saying that banning guns is right or wrong. I'm just saying it could happen with accordance to the constitution.

I'm not saying that banning guns is right or wrong. I'm just saying it could happen with accordance to the constitution.
While I understand the intent behind the "well-regulated milita" and its necessity to a free state part, it's nothing but a Declatory Clause (it only states why we're going to make law). The actual part that actually holds and legal weight is "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed," or at least my interpretation.

A standing military of about 2.4 million, versus 300 million Americans, apprx. 180 million of which are armed. Thats how.
So... 2.4 million in the US Armed Forces vs. 180 million armed "regular" Americans.

Regular Americans have access to standard firearms, unarmed planes (with a few vintage WWII planes and racing planes that might be able to outperform some military planes), and an unarmed costal navy with some training on navigation, but not a lot. Oh, and standard ammo.

vs.

US Military with military grade firearms and ammo, tanks, jets, bombs, artillary and missles, all of which able to hit targets miles away, a blue water navy with navigation training, the ability to turn off GPS, spy sats, drones, mines, and nukes. Oh, and the training to USE such weapons and support services to keep them in-field.

Yup, obviously the regular Americans have it. I don't know how I could have ever doubted it.

So... 2.4 million in the US Armed Forces vs. 180 million armed "regular" Americans.

Regular Americans have access to standard firearms, unarmed planes (with a few vintage WWII planes and racing planes that might be able to outperform some military planes), and an unarmed costal navy with some training on navigation, but not a lot. Oh, and standard ammo.

vs.

US Military with military grade firearms and ammo, tanks, jets, bombs, artillary and missles, all of which able to hit targets miles away, a blue water navy with navigation training, the ability to turn off GPS, spy sats, drones, mines, and nukes. Oh, and the training to USE such weapons and support services to keep them in-field.

Yup, obviously the regular Americans have it. I don't know how I could have ever doubted it.

all of that may be true but you have to rember that the civilions manufactur all of the stuff that the military uses, and if they wanted to they could buy it as well

all of that may be true but you have to rember that the civilions manufactur all of the stuff that the military uses, and if they wanted to they could buy it as well
To think about this seriously though, one, if there every were a time when the US Military backed a take over the US Goverment, don't you think they'd secure those industries that make the neat toys? Right now you can't buy them and I doubt that they would let you buy them if this actually happened.

Then, just because you got your hands on one, doesn't mean you can use it. I might be able to kill a pilot and steal his F-18, but I have no idea how to fly one, even if I did, I have no idea how to use the weapon systems on one, and even then, I would be easy pickings for those who have experience using the suckers.

Honestly, if the whole of the military decided to take over, the citizenry would be reduced to tactics like those employed by the Iraqi insurgency. Unable to defeat the military, but taking out bits and pieces of it.

That's why the whole notion of we need to keep our firearms in order to be able to overthrow a corrupt goverment is now meaningless. Military technology has advanced that much.

To think about this seriously though, one, if there every were a time when the US Military backed a take over the US Goverment, don't you think they'd secure those industries that make the neat toys? Right now you can't buy them and I doubt that they would let you buy them if this actually happened.

Then, just because you got your hands on one, doesn't mean you can use it. I might be able to kill a pilot and steal his F-18, but I have no idea how to fly one, even if I did, I have no idea how to use the weapon systems on one, and even then, I would be easy pickings for those who have experience using the suckers.

Honestly, if the whole of the military decided to take over, the citizenry would be reduced to tactics like those employed by the Iraqi insurgency. Unable to defeat the military, but taking out bits and pieces of it.

That's why the whole notion of we need to keep our firearms in order to be able to overthrow a corrupt goverment is now meaningless. Military technology has advanced that much.
maby but for example a friend of my sister has a military sniper rifle pluse the training on how to use one properly, also all of the dicharged military prsonel know how to operate the various wepons that the military uses

maby but for example a friend of my sister has a military sniper rifle pluse the training on how to use one properly, also all of the dicharged military prsonel know how to operate the various wepons that the military uses
That's assuming former personel wouldn't side with the military (which in itself is silly, the odds of the whole of the military revolting are close to nil, but let's play let's pretend).

Assume that all former military personel do indeed side with civilians and are able to get ahold of military hardware (and again, a sniper rifle does not an F-18 make). They're still outnumbered and outgunned by regular military.

And again, these guys have nukes. In THAT game, nukes win by default (and no, you can't buy one).

There are many good reasons for keeping the second and the right to bare arms, but overthrowing the goverment no longer really applies.

mi·li·tia
NOUN:



3)The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.



That pretty much describes me. I guess that technically makes me part of a giant militia, namely this:"The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service"

If you aren't in the military, and your old enough to fight, then technically, your in a militia. WITH the right to bear arms!

Before you say I'm "anti-gun", I have at least twenty under my bed and a loaded rifle at the door. I've hunted as long as I can remember. I shot my first pheasant before I went to kindergarten.

Here's your problem and the whole problem of the NRA arguement. "eligible by law"-------The first three words, "A WELL REGULATED"

The militia described in the second amendment isn't just ANYBODY, The militia described in the second amendment isn't a group that's self organized. The militia that's described is not one with NO REGULATION.

By your own description there is law. By the description of the first three words of the ammendment, there is a LOT of law.

The militia at the time was a universal draft. Remember most of these people were less than 100 miles from wilderness. The states couldn't afford to hire enough police to enforce laws in the wilderness, so every able bodied man was subject to a universal draft when extra help was needed. This help wasn't a "lynch mob" it was a TRAINED posse. Mandatory training so they would act as a civilizing force in the wilderness. Since the states couldn't afford to buy rifles for everyone, they had to provide their own.

Bottom line--First you have to be male. Second, you have to operate under the laws of the state (your own words). Third, you have to regularly train under the "well regulated" laws of the state (first three words). Fourth, you must be willing to be called out at a moments notice to serve under the local law enforcement.

Do you still qualify? If not, owning a weapon is a privilage (like a driver's license) NOT a right. If you want it to be your right, volunteer for training under the laws of your state and be ready to be called out by the governor. (Now what does that sound like?)

That's assuming former personel wouldn't side with the military (which in itself is silly, the odds of the whole of the military revolting are close to nil, but let's play let's pretend).

Assume that all former military personel do indeed side with civilians and are able to get ahold of military hardware (and again, a sniper rifle does not an F-18 make). They're still outnumbered and outgunned by regular military.

And again, these guys have nukes. In THAT game, nukes win by default (and no, you can't buy one).

There are many good reasons for keeping the second and the right to bare arms, but overthrowing the goverment no longer really applies.
thank goodness for the black market and stable militarys :)

Where is the black market?