NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do groups like the NRA and certain groups of the Christian Right support the 2nd Amendment so vehemently, and yet turn about and accuse groups such as the ACLU of being anti-American. To them I have a question.

Since when was our right to bear arms the most important aspect of citizenship? I though our nation was SUPPOSED to be known for it's freedom of religion, speech, assembly and press...

Our government, being the gung-ho, patriotic and nationalistic group that it is, (with no small part being that arms companies practically pay their salaries, and that they also have a boner for military spending), AREN'T going to take your guns away. But they ARE currently taking away other rights. You claim to uphold the Constitution, and yet you let them get away with that?

I know it is little more than a rhetorical statement, but do groups like these know that their priorities are more than a little skewed? I'm just putting that out there.

I have included a poll, I would like to know what you think.

Well, being that the fact that the NRA and the "Christian Right" are two completely different groups, the comparison is false.

I would also like to see where the NRA calls the ACLU "Anti-American" for its stance on 1st Amendment issues.

There have been numerous instances of Gov'ts in the US confiscating firearms (aka property) from citizens. The New Orleans debacle was just one. Guess who went to bat for that? It wasn't the ACLU or the "Christian Right".

The importance of the second ammendment is that it is the final check on a government intent on repressing the other rights. When opression reaches a certain point, the only recourse the citizenry has is resorting to violence. Opressive regemes always try to take away weapons from their pesants because they fear that if they had them, they would revold over the unfair infingements on their basic human rights.

It ain't about hunting. It's about protecting your rights both from criminals, and in a larger sense about guarenteeing your other rights in the face of a government intent on taking them away. Even if you trust the government as it is now (which I don't), times change, and letting this government disarm us is going to leave you defenceless when they do change.

The second ammendment is the teeth of the bill of rights. The rest of the bill is important, but the second ammendment is the last chance enforcement power.

Why do groups like the NRA and certain groups of the Christian Right support the 2nd Amendment so vehemently, and yet turn about and accuse groups such as the ACLU of being anti-American. To them I have a question.

Since when was our right to bear arms the most important aspect of citizenship? I though our nation was SUPPOSED to be known for it's freedom of religion, speech, assembly and press...

Our government, being the gung-ho, patriotic and nationalistic group that it is, (with no small part being that arms companies practically pay their salaries, and that they also have a boner for military spending), AREN'T going to take your guns away. But they ARE currently taking away other rights. You claim to uphold the Constitution, and yet you let them get away with that?

I know it is little more than a rhetorical statement, but do groups like these know that their priorities are more than a little skewed? I'm just putting that out there.

I have included a poll, I would like to know what you think.

Have you even read up on this?

The right to bear arms is neither more nor less important than our other major rights...

what are the main used for guns?

a) hunting
b) sport shooting (at non-living targets)
c) home/family defense (because the cops will likely be way too late to save you...)
d) ...collecting them, just to look at them (i suppose some folks do this)

The importance of the second ammendment is that it is the final check on a government intent on repressing the other rights. When opression reaches a certain point, the only recourse the citizenry has is resorting to violence. Opressive regemes always try to take away weapons from their pesants because they fear that if they had them, they would revold over the unfair infingements on their basic human rights.

It ain't about hunting. It's about protecting your rights both from criminals, and in a larger sense about guarenteeing your other rights in the face of a government intent on taking them away. Even if you trust the government as it is now (which I don't), times change, and letting this government disarm us is going to leave you defenceless when they do change.

The second ammendment is the teeth of the bill of rights. The rest of the bill is important, but the second ammendment is the last chance enforcement power.

And, the NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds.

What it seems to come down to is "It's okay for me to be prejudiced about who Bob want's to marry, but it's unconstitutional for Bob to question my suitability to be armed".

And, the NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds.

What it seems to come down to is "It's okay for me to be prejudiced about who Bob want's to marry, but it's unconstitutional for Bob to question my suitability to be armed".

Your evidence of this?

Should I make a list of "liberal" pro-2nd groups?

Or should we just stick w/ stereotypes?

And, the NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds.

What it seems to come down to is "It's okay for me to be prejudiced about who Bob want's to marry, but it's unconstitutional for Bob to question my suitability to be armed".
Guilty by association?

A good idea doesn't become a bad idea once a biggot expresses support of it.

Guilty by association?

A good idea doesn't become a bad idea once a biggot expresses support of it.

For example: The KKK supports strict gun control. So does the NAACP.

Well, being that the fact that the NRA and the "Christian Right" are two completely different groups, the comparison is false.

I would also like to see where the NRA calls the ACLU "Anti-American" for its stance on 1st Amendment issues.

There have been numerous instances of Gov'ts in the US confiscating firearms (aka property) from citizens. The New Orleans debacle was just one. Guess who went to bat for that? It wasn't the ACLU or the "Christian Right".

I do tend to generalize quite a bit.

And as for government confiscation of firearms in New Orleans, I argue that there are always certain conditions placed on rights. For instance, gun control, and on the 1st Amendment, the "Clear and Present Danger" clause. (i.e. No screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre).

I do tend to generalize quite a bit.

And as for government confiscation of firearms in New Orleans, I argue that there are always certain conditions placed on rights. For instance, gun control, and on the 1st Amendment, the "Clear and Present Danger" clause. (i.e. No screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre).

I agree there are certain restrictions. I have few problems w/ the 1934 acts heavily restricting fully-auto weapons. You'll find that common among most firearm owners. Groups like the NRA are valuable and continue to gain support when politicians constantly try to make even more restrictive laws that have been shown not to have any effect on crime and only punish citizens, etc. I'm sure the ACLU wouldn't take up a case defending someone who , for example, yelled "Fire" in a theatre.

The confiscations in NO were blatantly illegal as they didn't have warrants, refused to give receipts, and then denied they had them. It was only after threats to indict the Mayor and Police Chief that they (the city) "discovered" them.

There have also been recent cases of abuses by the BATFE (shock) profiling women and minorities at gun shows along w/ harrassment. Neither the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, or any other group stood up for those who were being harrassed.

Your evidence of this?

Should I make a list of "liberal" pro-2nd groups?

Or should we just stick w/ stereotypes?

I'm not really 'stereotyping'...

"Traditionally, regional differences are greater than partisan ones on this issue. Southern and Western states are predominantly pro-gun while coastal states like California, Massachusetts, and New York favor gun control. Other areas, including the Midwest, are mixed..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_US#Political_battle

Compare, for example, "Religious Bodies which have the Most Congregations of any Denominationin One or More States, 1990"

http://www.adherents.com/maps/US_denom_cong.jpg

Southern Baptists (arguably a 'fundamental' denomination) are strong in: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas... a pretty close match to the Southern and Western states mentioned under the 'pro-gun' geographical distribution.

There have also been recent cases of abuses by the BATFE (shock) profiling women and minorities at gun shows along w/ harrassment. Neither the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, or any other group stood up for those who were being harrassed.

I'm not even going to BEGIN with the ATF, that group needs a major overhaul.

I'm not really 'stereotyping'...

"Traditionally, regional differences are greater than partisan ones on this issue. Southern and Western states are predominantly pro-gun while coastal states like California, Massachusetts, and New York favor gun control. Other areas, including the Midwest, are mixed..."

That's very selective and very generalized. If you actually look at New England, some of the most relaxed ownership laws were in states like Maine, Vermont, and New Hamshire as well as Oregon and Washinton in the West.

As for NY and CA, it's predominantly the heavy urban areas that support "gun control". Both are "may issue" ccw states that vary county by county.


Compare, for example, "Religious Bodies which have the Most Congregations of any Denominationin One or More States, 1990"

http://www.adherents.com/maps/US_denom_cong.jpg

Southern Baptists (arguably a 'fundamental' denomination) are strong in: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas... a pretty close match to the Southern and Western states mentioned under the 'pro-gun' geographical distribution.

And almost all those states were either mixed or came late into the less restrictive firearm laws. You really haven't proven a thing.

Why do groups like the NRA and certain groups of the Christian Right support the 2nd Amendment so vehemently, and yet turn about and accuse groups such as the ACLU of being anti-American. To them I have a question.

The ACLU, as several others have pointed out, seems to be noticeably silent when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. They don't have a problem fighting to allow a Neo-nazi group to march in predominately Jewish neighborhoods, the right to self-defense comes up and the get REALLY quite.....

I would love to know why that is.


I'm not even going to BEGIN with the ATF, that group needs a major overhaul.

Major removal might be ALOT better.

Major removal might be ALOT better.

No, I think there needs to be some federal organization to regulate and police firearms. I hate to be so cynical about human nature, but you cannot expect everyone to be responsible with their firearms, let alone how some "aquire" them.

I'm not even going to BEGIN with the ATF, that group needs a major overhaul.

Tell me about it. Of course they are the governmental body that enforces most federal firearms laws. Even under this administration (which I'm not fond of either) they're changing the interpretation of laws and continuing to abuse their authority. That's what groups "like" the NRA are for.

I agree there are certain restrictions. I have few problems w/ the 1934 acts heavily restricting fully-auto weapons. You'll find that common among most firearm owners.
<snip>

I don't agree with even that restriction. The private citizens must be capable of matching any force the government could be expected to bring to bear against them.

Accepting that restriction is tanamount to agreeing that the only thing a gun should be used for is duck hunting.

Why do groups like the NRA and certain groups of the Christian Right support the 2nd Amendment so vehemently, and yet turn about and accuse groups such as the ACLU of being anti-American. To them I have a question.

Since when was our right to bear arms the most important aspect of citizenship? I though our nation was SUPPOSED to be known for it's freedom of religion, speech, assembly and press...

Our government, being the gung-ho, patriotic and nationalistic group that it is, (with no small part being that arms companies practically pay their salaries, and that they also have a boner for military spending), AREN'T going to take your guns away. But they ARE currently taking away other rights. You claim to uphold the Constitution, and yet you let them get away with that?

I know it is little more than a rhetorical statement, but do groups like these know that their priorities are more than a little skewed? I'm just putting that out there.

I have included a poll, I would like to know what you think.
For the one-millionth time ... what rights are they taking away? Please name them and be SPECIFIC! :p

BTW ... it's the Second Amendment that guarantees all the others. :p

I don't agree with even that restriction. The private citizens must be capable of matching any force the government could be expected to bring to bear against them.

Accepting that restriction is tanamount to agreeing that the only thing a gun should be used for is duck hunting.

I'm not saying I like it, just that it is acceptable for a deciding line. You can also still own them, they are just REALLY expensive. Modern US military firearms are actually closer to semi-autos than fully auto's anyway. Even most military sniper rifles are modified civilian hunting rifles.

BTW ... it's the Second Amendment that guarantees all the others. :p
Thanks Eut.

No, I think there needs to be some federal organization to regulate and police firearms. I hate to be so cynical about human nature, but you cannot expect everyone to be responsible with their firearms, let alone how some "aquire" them.

Sorry Bolol, I am gonna have to go with Five Castes on this one.

True, you cannot expect everyone to be responsible with their firearms, but I'd rather treat everyone as if they are than punish the majority of owners for the actions of a few idiots.

I am gonna have to go with Five Castes on this one.
Yay! The first person to agree with me here without making excuses or limitations.

Sorry Bolol, I am gonna have to go with Five Castes on this one.

True, you cannot expect everyone to be responsible with their firearms, but I'd rather treat everyone as if they are than punish the majority of owners for the actions of a few idiots.

See, now here is we're going to disagree. I support the NICS systems that have been put into place. While they ATF screws up everything else, they have done a good job maintaining that.

It is a good idea to make it more difficult for criminals to purchase firearms.

No, I think there needs to be some federal organization to regulate and police firearms.

No, there doesn't.

As the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to remind government of its place when it starts getting uppity and says it's more important than you, any government restriction on weapons ownership at all is absurd.

No, there doesn't.

As the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to remind government of its place when it starts getting uppity and says it's more important than you, any government restriction on weapons ownership at all is absurd.

No, absolutist stances are absurd. It is the same as saying all firearms should be restricted from civilian ownership.

I live in Montana.

Most of the people I know are fairly liberal.

The only one I know in favor of gun control is my mother. She is also the second most religious member of my family (which my sister taking the cake, although my sister is also far left-wing on everything except gun control).

BTW ... it's the Second Amendment that guarantees all the others. :p

Ladies and gentlemen, Eutrusca with his traditional snarky, entertaining remark that helps put things into perspective. *bows*

But to address that for those who do think that the government is going to overthrow us. Again I maintain that the military and civilian arms markets are too lucrative for the government to just one day decide not to allow US citizens the right to bear arms.

Also...I'd like to point out that the US military IS the most advanced military in the world (thanks to the HUGE funding that I mentioned earlier). Joe D. Everyman's shotgun and .44 magnum will mean squat to trained marksmen and Navy Captains capable of shoving a cruise missile up your ass with a 1-2 inch margin of error.

What I'm trying to say is...if "The Man" wanted to take over, he would have a LONG time ago.

I have nothing against the level three firearm laws. (A more extensive background check to purchase a automatic)
But the law limiting civilian Level Three purchases to firearms manufactured prior to 1986 are simply asinine. My Kalashnikov (1947) Can go through body armor better than a M4A1 Production model (Early 90's). Simply unfounded.

Ladies and gentlemen, Eutrusca with his traditional snarky, entertaining remark that helps put things into perspective. *bows*

But to address that for those who do think that the government is going to overthrow us. Again I maintain that the military and civilian arms markets are too lucrative for the government to just one day decide not to allow US citizens the right to bear arms.

Also...I'd like to point out that the US military IS the most advanced military in the world (thanks to the HUGE funding that I mentioned earlier). Joe D. Everyman's shotgun and .44 magnum will mean squat to trained marksmen and Navy Captains capable of shoving a cruise missile up your ass with a 1-2 inch margin of error.

I love this arguement. We're going to have some fun now.

How many marksmen do you think are in the military? How many civilians in the US regularly practice w/ their firearms?


They'll never just "one day" do it. They'll nickle and dime it away from us over the years, just like in Washington DC and Chicago. Do you think the AWB and the Brady Bill would have been the last of the restrictions?

Joe D. Everyman's shotgun and .44 magnum.....


The .44 just not the biggest any more... (Not that you said it was)

No, absolutist stances are absurd.

That's a common platitude, but one that is ultimately false.

Barry Goldwater (well, Karl Hess wrote it, but Sen. Goldwater said it) said it best:
Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Joe D. Everyman's shotgun and .44 magnum will mean squat to trained marksmen and Navy Captains capable of shoving a cruise missile up your ass with a 1-2 inch margin of error.

Which is precisely why all restrictions on civilian weapons ownership should be abolished immediately.

No, absolutist stances are absurd. It is the same as saying all firearms should be restricted from civilian ownership.

At the same time though, I would think that allowing the government to keep records of weapon ownership would make it that much easier for them to confiscate said firearms if they get a bug up their ass..........


Anyone know if there are any American police on this board? I'd be curious to hear their opinions on this.

That's a common platitude, but one that is ultimately false.

Barry Goldwater (well, Karl Hess wrote it, but Sen. Goldwater said it) said it best:

You can claim it's false all you want, that does not make it so.


Edit: Goldwater also beleived in UFO conspiracies. Good support.

At the same time though, I would think that allowing the government to keep records of weapon ownership would make it that much easier for them to confiscate said firearms if they get a bug up their ass..........

Sure, I agree. I oppose the keeping of records. The NICS as it stands, however, doesn't maintain records of purchases

Also...I'd like to point out that the US military IS the most advanced military in the world (thanks to the HUGE funding that I mentioned earlier). Joe D. Everyman's shotgun and .44 magnum will mean squat to trained marksmen and Navy Captains capable of shoving a cruise missile up your ass with a 1-2 inch margin of error.

And look how much progress it's making in Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at how successful it was in Vietnam. High technology does not garauntee that one will win a war. It takes CHOBHAMclad-willpower and balls of depleted uranium to win a low-intensity conflict.

It takes CHOBHAMclad-willpower and balls of depleted uranium.

Almost choked on my Coke when I read that.:p Gives all new meaning to the term "blue balls", doesn't it?

I don't think either of those subjects really have anything to do with each other at all.

That's very selective and very generalized. If you actually look at New England, some of the most relaxed ownership laws were in states like Maine, Vermont, and New Hamshire as well as Oregon and Washinton in the West.

As for NY and CA, it's predominantly the heavy urban areas that support "gun control". Both are "may issue" ccw states that vary county by county.

And almost all those states were either mixed or came late into the less restrictive firearm laws. You really haven't proven a thing.

Strawman?

My comment was "And, the NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds".

Thus, to 'prove' my statement... all I have to show is a SIMILARITY of distribution... which I did.

Sorry Bolol, I am gonna have to go with Five Castes on this one.

True, you cannot expect everyone to be responsible with their firearms, but I'd rather treat everyone as if they are than punish the majority of owners for the actions of a few idiots.

I'm not saying they should. I only think there should be an organization that regulates the firearm laws, and is specificaly trained to deal with offenders.

Which is precisely why all restrictions on civilian weapons ownership should be abolished immediately.

Forgive me, and I am not characterizing ALL firearm owners as such, but I don't like the idea of RPG's sold at gun shows, and Joe D. Alchoholic/Paroled Rapist getting a hold of a Mac-10.

Strawman?

My comment was "And, the NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds".

Thus, to 'prove' my statement... all I have to show is a SIMILARITY of distribution... which I did.

Correlation does not equate to causation.

It is not proof. It is evidence. And only one piece, at that.

Forgive me, and I am not characterizing ALL firearm owners as such,

Which tells me you are more rational on the subject than a lot of people. Always refreshing to see.

The .44 just not the biggest any more... (Not that you said it was)

.454 Cassul, .45 Long Colt, .50 AE...it goes ON and ON...

Strawman?

My comment was "And, the NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds".

Thus, to 'prove' my statement... all I have to show is a SIMILARITY of distribution... which I did.

Um, no. You showed nothing, not even similarity. You presented a couple of generalized Wikipedia "facts" and then linked to religion showing nothing about NRA membership distribution or rates.

Even if: Correlation does not imply causality

I'm not saying they should. I only think there should be an organization that regulates the firearm laws, and is specificaly trained to deal with offenders.



Forgive me, and I am not characterizing ALL firearm owners as such, but I don't like the idea of RPG's sold at gun shows, and Joe D. Alchoholic/Paroled Rapist getting a hold of a Mac-10.

If only the AFT actually went after these kind of individuals instead of harrassing FFL's for not crossing a 'T'.

Overhall agreed.

The ACLU, as several others have pointed out, seems to be noticeably silent when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. They don't have a problem fighting to allow a Neo-nazi group to march in predominately Jewish neighborhoods, the right to self-defense comes up and the get REALLY quite.....

I would love to know why that is.




Major removal might be ALOT better.

Might I direct you to the ACLU's website where they address such questions? http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

Gracias.

I've heard that arguement before. Seems strange to me though that they can believe that the other Amendments can be about the rights of the people, not the Feds or the States, but that one particular one can.

Might I direct you to the ACLU's website where they address such questions? http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

And this is the matter that groups like the NRA have w/ the ACLU. They call the 2nd a "collective" right but support others as "individual" rights to , at times, silly levels.

The ACLU, as several others have pointed out, seems to be noticeably silent when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. They don't have a problem fighting to allow a Neo-nazi group to march in predominately Jewish neighborhoods, the right to self-defense comes up and the get REALLY quite.....

I would love to know why that is.

First, prove that this is true. The ACLU takes up pretty much every civil liberties case that comes to them (that comes to them, they don't go around looking for cases, people come to them). They get alot less publicity when they defend people's rights to practice religion in public or own guns, because people like to bitch and complaine about that. They are the people trying to make it so that you don't HAVE to use your gun to defend your rights from the government.

What I'm trying to say is...if "The Man" wanted to take over, he would have a LONG time ago.

He has.


And look how much progress it's making in Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at how successful it was in Vietnam. High technology does not garauntee that one will win a war. It takes CHOBHAMclad-willpower and balls of depleted uranium to win a low-intensity conflict.

And the willingness for extreme brutallty, as well as the support of the populace.





As for the "the government would win in a war with the people" thing, first off, a well organized and especially *determined* gurilla war can be pretty damn effective. But asside from that, that's not even the point. The point is that if the cops raid my house illegally, or try to drag me away from some bullshit reason, I can fight back, and not just be a victim. You're a victim either way, but if you can defend yourself, you're a victim who faught back. The right of the indevidual to defend him/herself is of vital importance.



And, let us remember, those who give away freedom for safty deserve neither :)

And this is the matter that groups like the NRA have w/ the ACLU. They call the 2nd a "collective" right but support others as "individual" rights to , at times, silly levels.

What? You mean that Free Speech and freedom of religion is a collective right, not an individual right!? The people of Montana can say whatever they want. I cannot. The people of Montana can worship whatever or whoever they want. I cannot.

I love their logic. It would almost make sense if they weren't controlled by the Zionist Conspiracy to Destroy Anti-Zionists by Defending Nazis and Making Zionists Look Like a Bunch of Right Wing Lunies.

Im from the UK so I do get a little baffled by the second ammendment, doesn't it say that in a well organised malitia the citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed? So how is an individual owning a gun for home use, rather than as part malitia protected by the constitution? (btw I have no idea about any of this, so I assume I've got it wrong something wrong along the line).

Also, how far does the second ammendment go, there are some pretty super rich people in the states, in the realm of the completely unlikely, couldn't one of those people purchase / create their own nukes or MOAB or other high yeild weponry and say they are arms just the same as guns etc? Are things like RPG's protected? Land mines?

Im from the UK so I do get a little baffled by the second ammendment, doesn't it say that in a well organised malitia the citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed? So how is an individual owning a gun for home use, rather than as part malitia protected by the constitution? (btw I have no idea about any of this, so I assume I've got it wrong something wrong along the line).
"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free (emphasis mine) state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note the two separate clauses. The first is a justification--and note it is not just security of A state, but of a FREE state. This means fighting against the government if it ceases to be a FREE state. The second is the teeth. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is an absolute. The first clause has no teeth.


Also, how far does the second ammendment go, there are some pretty super rich people in the states, in the realm of the completely unlikely, couldn't one of those people purchase / create their own nukes or MOAB or other high yeild weponry and say they are arms just the same as guns etc? Are things like RPG's protected? Land mines?
You bet your ass they are! Government may not legitimately prohibit the ownership of ANY sort of weapon.

Sure, at the moment it does anyway--but such restrictions are illegitimate.

Im from the UK so I do get a little baffled by the second ammendment, doesn't it say that in a well organised malitia the citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed? So how is an individual owning a gun for home use, rather than as part malitia protected by the constitution? (btw I have no idea about any of this, so I assume I've got it wrong something wrong along the line). [/quote]

First off: Thank you for being polite about it.

Actually it says "well regulated". By the usage at that time, it meant "equipped". The militia is "The People" , both in historic usage and federal law, and is intended to help protect against threats both internal and external.

Also, how far does the second ammendment go, there are some pretty super rich people in the states, in the realm of the completely unlikely, couldn't one of those people purchase / create their own nukes or MOAB or other high yeild weponry and say they are arms just the same as guns etc? Are things like RPG's protected? Land mines?

It's been fairly well established by legal precedent and historical readings that "arms" means small arms and not "ordinance". There is some contention among the more extreme 2nd supports that the restrictions on fully auto weapons should be relaxed but this is more of an internal debate more than an active attempt to revoke the law.

Thank you for that, I sorta see what you mean (not really being able to read and interperate old legal documents without help lol) but it does seem that the two are linked by the wording ie there's a comma (in your rendition of it) not a full stop, that would seem (purely grammatically speaking) that the two are connected. At least in some way - why would they clarify the first clause if the second is absolute and not affected by anything.

"ordinance"

Sorry, but this is an extremely common error that really pisses me off.

"Ordinance" refers to a municipal law or statute, or a similar concept in other contexts.

The word you're thinking of is "ordnance".

Thank you for that, I sorta see what you mean (not really being able to read and interperate old legal documents without help lol) but it does seem that the two are linked by the wording ie there's a comma (in your rendition of it) not a full stop, that would seem (purely grammatically speaking) that the two are connected. At least in some way - why would they clarify the first clause if the second is absolute and not affected by anything.

If you want some heavy reading on it, here's a Dept of Justice report from '04:

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

Sorry, but this is an extremely common error that really pisses me off.

"Ordinance" refers to a municipal law or statute, or a similar concept in other contexts.

The word you're thinking of is "ordnance".

So my spelling's not perfect. I think the point got across.

Correlation does not equate to causation.

It is not proof. It is evidence. And only one piece, at that.

I didn't say anything about 'causation'.

Another strawman.

First, prove that this is true.

Read Outislands post. Not sure I need to say more......:D

Very interesting, thanks :)

Um, no. You showed nothing, not even similarity. You presented a couple of generalized Wikipedia "facts" and then linked to religion showing nothing about NRA membership distribution or rates.

Even if: Correlation does not imply causality

The Wiki article showed areas where gun lobbying was strong (which is suggestive of NRA strongholds).

If you don't like the source, find a refutation.

That's how it works.

The second site was nothing to do with NRA, but I didn't claim it did. Indeed - I carefully pointed out that the second source was about the relative 'strength' of Fundamentalist Chritian movements.

The two geographies DO coincide, however.

So - as I said: "NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds".

If you deny it - provide evidence.

The Wiki article showed areas where gun lobbying was strong (which is suggestive of NRA strongholds).

If you don't like the source, find a refutation.

That's how it works.

The second site was nothing to do with NRA, but I didn't claim it did. Indeed - I carefully pointed out that the second source was about the relative 'strength' of Fundamentalist Chritian movements.

The two geographies DO coincide, however.

So - as I said: "NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds".

If you deny it - provide evidence.


And since I've already stated the FACT that the wiki article has generalized very broadly and you used it to associate the NRA w/ christian conservatives you are implying that the correllation is proving the causality. It doesn't state anything about "lobbying" either. You implied that those who support the 2nd are religious bigots w/o showing any direct connection. Is the best you have a Wiki article?

Here's the ATF list of state firearm laws:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/statelaws/22edition.htm

and a link showing CCW progression:

www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

And, the NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds.

What it seems to come down to is "It's okay for me to be prejudiced about who Bob want's to marry, but it's unconstitutional for Bob to question my suitability to be armed".
You may as well ask why the people who are pro-choice on abortion and same sex marriage are often against the choice to legally own a gun. The answer is: I don't know.

Your evidence of this?

Should I make a list of "liberal" pro-2nd groups?

Or should we just stick w/ stereotypes?
According to The Right Nation by Adrian Wooldrige, Evangelical Christians have a higher rate of gun ownership than the average in America.

I don't agree with even that restriction. The private citizens must be capable of matching any force the government could be expected to bring to bear against them.
For God's sake,

no matter what firearms are legal, the US military will always have better ones and more of them (and more skills in using them)

gun control laws have usually failed to prevent armed revolutions in many countries

people are not going to be as responsible with their bazookas and tanks as idealists would hope

I don't support handgun or rifle bans, but come on, let's be realistic.

As the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to remind government of its place when it starts getting uppity and says it's more important than you, any government restriction on weapons ownership at all is absurd.
No, the purpose of gun ownership is defence from criminals. The government is there to protect citizens from each other. This means limiting extreme firepower to the military.

Barry Goldwater (well, Karl Hess wrote it, but Sen. Goldwater said it) said it best:
Just because he said it, doesn't make it true. Also, what on earth is wrong with justice?

Extreme politics on all wings are always unworkable in the real world.

BTW ... it's the Second Amendment that guarantees all the others. :p

Exactly. The 2nd amendment isn't there so that you can protect yourself or so that you can collect guns, or anything like that. It is there because it is the final check that prevents a government from becoming ultra-authoritarian and denying you your other rights. Gun control is what enabled the Nazis to have such power and to be able to be militarily efficient -- the German populace could not fight back or rebel because they didn't have the means to do so. The same is true of the US or any other democratic country. It can only remain democratic so long as people are willing to fight for their democracy, and to do so they need guns. However, the disparity betweent the US military's guns and the guns the public is allowed to have is widening, year by year. Eventually, the military will be so high-tech that there can be no armed rebellion against it. We need to abolish all restrictions on guns -- let people have chain guns if they want to. What good is your "freedom of speech" without anything to protect it? It's worthless.

The geographics do coincide, nobody can dispute that. However, if there's an implication that the groups are related on a more internal level, that needs to stop. As a libertarian NRA member (Marksman First Class, High Power Rifle), many of the more conservative gun owners I go shooting with think my views on unregulating first-trimester abortions are wierd, but we all agree on such issues as keeping Iraq funded as long as possible, and that the government should get its nose out of what firearms I'm keeping in my gun safe.

With that in mind, here's how I'd do it.

Deregulate all .22-caliber firearms. The .22LR is already the prime weapon of choice for murders in the US: laws restricting them obviously don't seemt to be doing much. As is, the few restrictions that do exist only impede legitimate ownership, so boot 'em. The .22LR is a great cartridge to get started with: even children can comfortably shoot one (this builds in with the 'get 'em while they're young' notion in teaching gun use and gun safety, which I support in most cases).

From there, regulate weapons based on their concealability and hitting power. Regulate, don't ban. I think a nice licensing system, no more or less intrusive than state driver's licenses, would do nicely. A basic run-of-the-mill card would let you into the club of typical rifles (bolt-action and semi-automatic), shotguns, and that ilk. A second-tier license would be somewhat more difficult to obtain, but nothing you couldn't do with a bit of perseverance. This would focus more heavily around handguns and concealable firearms, and also double as a license for concealed-carry. A third-tier license would be equivalent to a commercial trucking or pilot license, which would enable you to own artillery, such as .50 BMG rifles (and up), full automatics, and possibly even explosives.

Such a system would keep the casual shooter happy (I could buy my Dragunov SVD, for example), while ensuring that the really nasty pieces can still be owned by the dedicated individuals who don't mind filling out forms and are obviously qualified in their usage.

Here's the crux of the idea: with the modest licensing fees (and I stress modest; there will be no 'nickel and diming' of gun rights away based on economic status), you could fund a re-organized BATF to try and crack down on the flow of weapons entering the country illegally. Illegal automatics tend to be snuck across the Mexican border, or illegally imported from China and other nations in that neck of the woods (other sources exist, I'm sure, but those are the prevalent ones). Suddenly, we've dramatically reversed the situation: the enthusiasts have guns, and the crooks don't. Brilliant!

It would require more bureaucracy (ugh!), and as much as I hate that, I think it could be worth it if we could pull it off correctly. Such a system would require a lot of cooperation between both government and private citizen, and if we're lucky, just may help the government lose its stigma as the Party Chairman coming to disarm you in the weeks before the Proletariat Revolution.

I don't think it'll ever happen, though. -_-

"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free (emphasis mine) state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note the two separate clauses. The first is a justification--and note it is not just security of A state, but of a FREE state. This means fighting against the government if it ceases to be a FREE state. The second is the teeth. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is an absolute. The first clause has no teeth.
I would imagine that the real outcome of the application of this 2nd Amendment would be a Swiss or Finnish-style system, in which all civilian men get military training and then the right to own a gun. This way, if the country is attacked, they can efficiently band together to repel the attack.

Gun control is what enabled the Nazis to have such power and to be able to be militarily efficient -- the German populace could not fight back or rebel because they didn't have the means to do so.
They also didn't really want to. (Not making a point about gun control; just fighting historical revisionism.)

I would imagine that the real outcome of the application of this 2nd Amendment would be a Swiss or Finnish-style system, in which all civilian men get military training and then the right to own a gun. This way, if the country is attacked, they can efficiently band together to repel the attack.

I wouldn't mind that. All members of the reserves maintaining their weapon at home w/ state subsidized ammunition and shooting competitions for adults and youth.

Since when was our right to bear arms the most important aspect of citizenship? I though our nation was SUPPOSED to be known for it's freedom of religion, speech, assembly and press...
I think that some gun nuts believe that the 2nd Ammendment is more important than breathing.:rolleyes:

I honestly believe that when it comes election time, some pro gunners will look to see if the candidate is pro gun first before considering anything else on the candidate's agenda.

No, the purpose of gun ownership is defence from criminals.
Wrong, it's to defend against government. Government is there to defend you from criminals. You have guns to defend yourself against government. After all, it's absurd to expect government to defend you from itself, isn't it?

Just because he said it, doesn't make it true.
I never said it does. Note I said that Senator Goldwater "said it best". It is true regardless; he just put it quite nicely.

Also, what on earth is wrong with justice?
Nothing at all--which is why moderation in its pursuit is not a virtue.

I think that some gun nuts believe that the 2nd Ammendment is more important than breathing.:rolleyes:

It is.

Without guns, how are we going to keep government in its place?

Wrong, it's to defend against government. Government is there to defend you from criminals. You have guns to defend yourself against government. After all, it's absurd to expect government to defend you from itself, isn't it?


I never said it does. Note I said that Senator Goldwater "said it best". It is true regardless; he just put it quite nicely.


Nothing at all--which is why moderation in its pursuit is not a virtue.

The gov't is there to defend you from criminals? Really? You don't keep up on your SCOTUS cases then.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Extreme politics on all wings are always unworkable in the real world.

It's not enough to just say "it doesn't work"--you must also state what your goals are.

Socialism doesn't work if your goals are liberty and reason. If your goals are ignorance and slavery, it works great.

Furthermore, not all sets of goals are valid. There is only one objectively correct set of political goals to have.

You don't keep up on your SCOTUS cases then.

The Supreme Court has demonstrated time and time again that has no fucking clue what it is talking about.

I'm sick and tired of people constantly deferring to the Supreme Court rather than coming up with their own arguments. It's revolting.

The Supreme Court has demonstrated time and time again that has no fucking clue what it is talking about.

I'm sick and tired of people constantly deferring to the Supreme Court rather than coming up with their own arguments. It's revolting.

Listen Randroid, you stated that the Gov't is there to protect you from criminals. If you knew ANYTHING about history, the Gov't, or real life, you'ld know that wasn't true.

You might also not want to ignore that second little bit I posted. It's kind of important.

It is.

Without guns, how are we going to keep government in its place?
I rest my case.

Randroid

You say that as if there was something wrong with eminent 20th-century philosopher and economist Ayn Rand. Bizarre. Tangled Up In Blue makes excellent points which you seem unable to refute and rely solely on derogatory terms to argue.

You say that as if there was something wrong with eminent 20th-century philosopher and economist Ayn Rand. Bizarre. Tangled Up In Blue makes excellent points which you seem unable to refute and rely solely on derogatory terms to argue.


You're right. I guess my citing the US Constitution really has no meaning in an debate like this. I am ashamed.

The Wiki article showed areas where gun lobbying was strong (which is suggestive of NRA strongholds).

If you don't like the source, find a refutation.

That's how it works.



I beg to differ. That only works if you have a legitimate source. Wiki is not legit.

I rest my case.

What case was that?

My personal opinion is that the 2nd amendment was meant to grant the right to form militia's for the benifit of the state. I think the modern day of equivalent of this would be to say people have the right to serve in their state's national guard. Unfortunately, this doesn't work well because the National Guard is being used improperly these days...(in my eyes, at least.)

It is.

Without guns, how are we going to keep government in its place?
May I point out that if you're not there to shoot the gun, it doesn't really make a difference if you have one or not?
Thus Breathing>Gun ownership

My personal opinion is that the 2nd amendment was meant to grant the right to form militia's for the benifit of the state. I think the modern day of equivalent of this would be to say people have the right to serve in their state's national guard. Unfortunately, this doesn't work well because the National Guard is being used improperly these days...(in my eyes, at least.)
Certainly not for the BENEFIT of the state. It's to enable people to overturn the state, if necessary.

My personal opinion is that the 2nd amendment was meant to grant the right to form militia's for the benifit of the state. I think the modern day of equivalent of this would be to say people have the right to serve in their state's national guard. Unfortunately, this doesn't work well because the National Guard is being used improperly these days...(in my eyes, at least.)

That goes back to assuming, like the ACLU does, that out of all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd is the only one that refers to the rights of the state as opposed to the rights of the individual. I find it hard to believe that they would write it that way.

And when it comes down to it, the NG is a government organization, which a militia is not.

I beg to differ. That only works if you have a legitimate source. Wiki is not legit.
Certainly is. It's been proven to be about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and it'll take me a while to find a source on that if you want me too.
In any case, to prove he has a bad source, you need a source that says that his source is generally bad, or you need a source disproving the info of the "bad" source. Personal opinion doesn't cut it.
EDIT: Whattya know, that was faster then I thought:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
EDIT2:And more!http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

My personal opinion
Which, as I shall demonstrate, is wrong
is that the 2nd amendment was meant to grant
The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights.

The Founders understood, as few do today, that rights are not something that can be granted or revoked by fiat. Rather, they are an inherent part of our existence. Thus, the Bill of Rights was worded so that it states that government may not infringe upon rights that are presumed to already exist.

the right to form militia's for the benifit of the state.
1) You dont use apostrophe's to make plural's
2) "benefit"
3) Wrong. The justification was the "security of A free state". This means rebelling against the CURRENT state if it is necessary to preserve or recreate a free one.
I think the modern day of equivalent of this would be to say people have the right to serve in their state's national guard.
Despite what they told you in high school, the National Guard is not a militia. A militia is, by definition, free of government control.

May I point out that if you're not there to shoot the gun, it doesn't really make a difference if you have one or not?
Thus Breathing>Gun ownership
Life is worthless without liberty.

Life is worthless without liberty.
How can you have liberty without life? Life is a prerequisite to liberty, and as such is more important.

Ladies and gentlemen, Eutrusca with his traditional snarky, entertaining remark that helps put things into perspective. *bows*

But to address that for those who do think that the government is going to overthrow us. Again I maintain that the military and civilian arms markets are too lucrative for the government to just one day decide not to allow US citizens the right to bear arms.

Also...I'd like to point out that the US military IS the most advanced military in the world (thanks to the HUGE funding that I mentioned earlier). Joe D. Everyman's shotgun and .44 magnum will mean squat to trained marksmen and Navy Captains capable of shoving a cruise missile up your ass with a 1-2 inch margin of error.

What I'm trying to say is...if "The Man" wanted to take over, he would have a LONG time ago.

well if they do try to take over, i would kind of like to have some stuff to defend myself until they do kill me, maybe i can take out a few of them

How can you have liberty without life? Life is a prerequisite to liberty, and as such is more important.

That doesn't mean that life isn't worthless without liberty (I used a bit too many negatives in that sentence). A ham sandwich may require bread and ham to exist, but it is worthless without butter or mayo.

That doesn't mean that life isn't worthless without liberty (I used a bit too many negatives in that sentence). A ham sandwich may require bread and ham to exist, but it is worthless without butter or mayo.
Wasn't arguing against that. I was saying that even though that's true, it's stupid to argue for gun freedom over breathing, as if you can't breath the gun is pointless because you're dead. With breathing but no gun, you could try for other stuff.
Incidentally, since I really want to apply this to your analogy:
Yes, but if you have the mayo but not the ham, there's no use for the mayo then, is there? If you have the ham but not the mayo, you could put other stuff on it.

I don't understand how some people seem to believe that owning a gun equals liberty.

If the government really wanted to become a totalitarian dictatorship, they'd just get use the gun registration information to find out who they had to kill first in order to take over easier.

*shrug*

I'm Canadian, what do I know about gun ownership. Because we're so oppressed because we can't own guns for any reason other than hunting.

If the government really wanted to become a totalitarian dictatorship, they'd just get use the gun registration information to find out who they had to kill first in order to take over easier.

The gun is to make them that much harder to kill.

The gun is to make them that much harder to kill.
No matter what gun you own, the government will own better. Or, if not better, more of them.

Or maybe not even a gun.

If the government really wanted to take over, they'd just nuke the largest concentrations of gun nuts shortly before securing the remainder of them.

Or maybe not nukes. Maybe just biological or chemical warfare.
Because you can fight chlorine gas with bullets.


No. Bloody. Sense.

And if they did that, everybody ELSE who owns a gun would be storming into the white house with it trying to shoot stuff.

And if they did that, everybody ELSE who owns a gun would be storming into the white house with it trying to shoot stuff.

Because it would be impossible to simply have CIA-trained spooks slowly kill off those people before they even nuke the gun nuts in the first place, huh?

But then those people would have the gun to shoot the CIA people.
And even so, you think a mass murder of everyone who owns a gun in the US except the gun nuts wouldn't be unnoticed by them? At least some of them would figure it out and then you have the "everybody ELSE with a gun with storms the white house and starts shooting stuff" scenario.

It's more of a theory of M.A.D. applied to society than anything else. The all-volunteer US military would most likely not follow through with orders to open fire on an armed crowd of protestors. Less-than-lethal means are out of the question when the protesting parties are packing heat, openly, and when confronted with the decision to either (A) shoot people whom they may personally know, or (B) refuse orders which likely don't make much sense to them in the first place, I'd wager 8 or 9 of 10 GIs would prefer option B.

Unlike 'crowd control' in low-intensity hotspots worldwide (e.g. Iraq), you're not debating whether or not it's moral to shoot a bunch of people you don't know, and don't look like you. Now it's your own countrymen, likely all varieties of ethnicities (though it'd be surprised if it wasn't predominately us white guys; we seem to be the biggest gun enthusiasts), and chances are you probably agree with their views more than those of your commanders.

I've got one good historical example of this. During the French Revolution, army units within Paris were activated to bring artillery in to break the siege of the Bastille. When faced with blowing away their citizens at large, or ignoring orders they mostly considered to be preposterous, they joined with the revolutionaries and began shooting the fortress itself. Whether or not the Revolution was good for France in the long run I'll leave up to individual interpretation.

But then those people would have the gun to shoot the CIA people.
And even so, you think a mass murder of everyone who owns a gun in the US except the gun nuts wouldn't be unnoticed by them? At least some of them would figure it out and then you have the "everybody ELSE with a gun with storms the white house and starts shooting stuff" scenario.

But you see, then the government could claim plausible deniability, and have them imprisoned, or killed in their attack on the White House.

We can go back and forth like this for a good, long while, but it's really irrelevant. Guns are not a requirement for liberty.

Jim shoots John, the Ob-Gyn, outside of an abortion clinic. John dies, losing his right to life. Jim is imprisoned, losing his right to free movement.

Janice tracks down and shoots her ex-husband, Tim, who kidnapped their daughter. Tim dies, and Janice goes to prison.

Rob is trafficking drugs on a city street in the evening, and gets into a shoot-out with police officers. Two innocent bystanders are shot, one critically wounded. One officer is shot dead, and two more severely wounded. Rob is shot dead.

... Honestly, the only way guns equal liberty is when they're not present.

I'm a centrist, but when it comes to the second ammendment, I will defend it with live ammunition (if necesarry (I'm a gun owner by the way)). The removal of the second ammendment strips us of our last tools to use against the government, and gives them a stepping stone to continuely strip our freedom away.

"Gun control is using both hands."

But you see, then the government could claim plausible deniability, and have them imprisoned, or killed in their attack on the White House.
And then you have the general populace rising up and voting everyone out of office or doing something more violent with anything they can find.
And I agree we could go on like this forever, but how do no guns equal liberty?
They were certainly essential for the American Revolution and that's probably why they were included in the Bill of Rights.
Really too bad very few people have them for the original(good) reason now, and now have them for security and stuff, considering they often end up shooting someone the gun was not bought to shoot.
And that nobody STOPS buying a gun because of excess testosterone.

Rob is trafficking drugs on a city street in the evening, and gets into a shoot-out with police officers. Two innocent bystanders are shot, one critically wounded. One officer is shot dead, and two more severely wounded. Rob is shot dead.

... Honestly, the only way guns equal liberty is when they're not present.

Earlier in the day Rob, using his illegally purchased and possessed firearm, executed an entire family that could not own firearms legally and so did not.

The only way guns equal liberty is when everyone has one.

Or, as my father likes to say, if you had given every passenger on every plane flying on 11 September 2001 a sub-machine gun, there would be a lot fewer dead people by the time the day ended and two buildings would still be standing.

Another thing, to the people thinking the removal of guns gives to a safer environment, it doesn't. I live in a county that has one of the LOWEST crimes rates in the entire United States. Why? Because everyone owns a gun.

I do believe in gun safety, and only RESPONSIBLE, MATURE people should have their hands on them, not kids.

Finally, even if the second amendment is stripped from the bill of rights, wouldn't that make the black market for illegal weaponry soar? The answer is yes.

Earlier in the day Rob, using his illegally purchased and possessed firearm, executed an entire family that could not own firearms legally and so did not.

The only way guns equal liberty is when everyone has one.

Or, as my father likes to say, if you had given every passenger on every plane flying on 11 September 2001 a sub-machine gun, there would be a lot fewer dead people by the time the day ended and two buildings would still be standing.
The problem with that is, you get the people who shoot 20 people before anybody thinks to shoot the one person with the blazing gun. Guns are rather fast, you know. This is probably the entire problem behind gun control, and it can't be rememdied because then the time lag would apply to everyone, making it pointless.

Another thing, to the people thinking the removal of guns gives to a safer environment, it doesn't. I live in a county that has one of the LOWEST crimes rates in the entire United States. Why? Because everyone owns a gun.

I do believe in gun safety, and only RESPONSIBLE, MATURE people should have their hands on them, not kids.

Finally, even if the second amendment is stripped from the bill of rights, wouldn't that make the black market for illegal weaponry soar? The answer is yes.
In the U.S, perhaps.
I should note however that the safest COUNTRYS in the world are the ones that have banned guns.
And the black market may soar, but it will never reach the point the legal market is today.

The problem with that is, you get the people who shoot 20 people before anybody thinks to shoot the one person with the blazing gun. Guns are rather fast, you know. This is probably the entire problem behind gun control, and it can't be rememdied because then the time lag would apply to everyone, making it pointless.

Well, yes. That is a problem. But taking guns away from everyone means that that lag goes from seconds to minutes or even hours.

Yes, but it also means that the crazy guy is much less likely to have a gun to start all this.

True.

But I'd rather that there be a response while the bodycount is still in the single-digits, rather than once a dozen or two dozen people are dead or bleeding out where Paramedics can't get to them because the police can't kill the guy....

The American Revolution was a war between Great Britain, France, and the entity that would later become the USA, with GB opposing the other two.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

=====
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.
=====

Okay.

So, lets dissect this.

A well regulated militia,
membership in which being a gun owner neither requires nor encourages

being necessary to the security of a free state,
so, this militia will be used to defend the rest of the populace in case another country invades or Great Britain attempts to take back the USA

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
so long as they're part of the aforementioned militia

... Seems like the Second Amendment has been twisted, just a bit.

membership in which being a gun owner neither requires nor encourages
This is where you miss something. Going by your interpretation, if GB has guns, the U.S. isn't going to get far without them.

This is where you miss something. Going by your interpretation, if GB has guns, the U.S. isn't going to get far without them.
Of course. Because all technology stems from projectile weapons.

My mistake.

EDIT: By the way, did you not read the bolded section?

In case you missed it, I do believe it said a 'well-regulated militia'.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing in the USA, excluding ex-military personnel.

So, lets dissect this.

Let's!

membership in which being a gun owner neither requires nor encourages

Because the only people who have any business owning guns live on compounds in Idaho?

so, this militia will be used to defend the rest of the populace in case another country invades or Great Britain attempts to take back the USA

Or to protect the people of the US from criminals and their own government.

so long as they're part of the aforementioned militia

... Seems like the Second Amendment has been twisted, just a bit.

You mean like how the First Amendment has been twisted just a bit? How it doesn't actually say anything about freedom of religion?

What an Amendment meant and what it means are two entirely different things.

In both cases, the SCotUS has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual citizens to own and use firearms in their defense and the defense of their neighbors and nation, and that the First Amendment implies a freedom from religion.

Actually the freedom of religion is right there in the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
See?

Of course. Because all technology stems from projectile weapons.

My mistake.


If a country doesn't have weapons(projectile or otherwise) they will not win a war.

Actually the freedom of religion is right there in the first amendment.

See?

Yes. The free excersice of religion. Not freedom of religion.

There is a difference. Subtle, but it's there.

Under one, you get the US as it is today. With the other you get Denmark or Germany, where all college and HS students are required to have taken a course in the state's theology before they graduate.

In answer to the original question:

On every question you need the most reactionary to balance the most radical.

That way you end up with the moderate, which is the best of both worlds.

What an Amendment meant and what it means are two entirely different things.

In both cases, the SCotUS has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual citizens to own and use firearms in their defense and the defense of their neighbors and nation, and that the First Amendment implies a freedom from religion.

*shrug* They're not related, except through the fact that they're both Amendments that have been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Reading 'of' into 'of and/or from' in one Amendment is completely different than deleting the entire first section of another.

Also, I note that the Amendment says 'free state', rather than 'free populace'. They are not one and the same. If someone attempts to overthrow the government, and succeeds, the state is no longer free. If the government attempts to revert to feudalism, then the populace is no longer free.

Simple semantical differences, really. *shrugs again*
Regardless, that's my piece and all I really care to say.

Yes. The free excersice of religion. Not freedom of religion.

There is a difference. Subtle, but it's there.
No, the difference is imagined. It does not specify a religion which you may exercise freely, and therefore, does not restrict you.

Under one, you get the US as it is today. With the other you get Denmark or Germany, where all college and HS students are required to have taken a course in the state's theology before they graduate.
Oh, you mean THIS:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sorry. My bad.

Oh, you mean THIS:

Sorry. My bad.

If the meaning of that was as clear as you seem to think there is, the first case to go before the Supreme Court would not have been one concerning what it meant, exactly.

If a country doesn't have weapons(projectile or otherwise) they will not win a war.

Where did I say that police forces and the government should not have guns?

If you interpreted that from my comment on the absence of guns, I'm sorry for the miscommunication. Guns in the hands of civilians was what was meant.

And regardless, if an intelligence community is performing and not merely sucking up money so they don't lose funding next year, the military will not be needed as a few, well-placed intelligence agents would be able to stop said war from occuring.

In my humble opinion.

You mean like how the First Amendment has been twisted just a bit? How it doesn't actually say anything about freedom of religion?

What an Amendment meant and what it means are two entirely different things.

In both cases, the SCotUS has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual citizens to own and use firearms in their defense and the defense of their neighbors and nation, and that the First Amendment implies a freedom from religion.

You are very confused.

SCOTUS has never so ruled on the Second Amendment. If you think it has, please feel free to cite the case.

I don't know what you mean by "implies a freedom from religion" but I don't think SCOTUS has held any such thing. SCOTUS has upheld the separation of Church and State pursuant to the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

Where did I say that police forces and the government should not have guns?

If you interpreted that from my comment on the absence of guns, I'm sorry for the miscommunication. Guns in the hands of civilians was what was meant.

And regardless, if an intelligence community is performing and not merely sucking up money so they don't lose funding next year, the military will not be needed as a few, well-placed intelligence agents would be able to stop said war from occuring.

In my humble opinion.

But then the counter-intelligence community would be doing nothing but sucking up money.

And what makes cops and soldiers so much more qualified to handle firearms? The fact that they're required to qualify once a year on them? Most civvies who own their own guns choose to 'qualify' multiple times a year. And often to a higher degree than most cops or soldiers.

*shrug* They're not related, except through the fact that they're both Amendments that have been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Reading 'of' into 'of and/or from' in one Amendment is completely different than deleting the entire first section of another.

Also, I note that the Amendment says 'free state', rather than 'free populace'. They are not one and the same. If someone attempts to overthrow the government, and succeeds, the state is no longer free. If the government attempts to revert to feudalism, then the populace is no longer free.

Simple semantical differences, really. *shrugs again*
Regardless, that's my piece and all I really care to say.

You could also read the Department of Justice report that I posted earlier as well as the citations from the US Constitution. As per federal law, all able bodied males from 18 up to 46(?) are automatically members of the militia. The Founding Fathers also considered the entire citizenry to be the militia.

The amendment also says "right of the people" not "right of the state".

If the meaning of that was as clear as you seem to think there is, the first case to go before the Supreme Court would not have been one concerning what it meant, exactly.

What makes you think the first case heard by the Supreme Court concerned the Free Exercise Clause?

Citation?

You are very confused.

SCOTUS has never so ruled on the Second Amendment. If you think it has, please feel free to cite the case.

I don't know what you mean by "implies a freedom from religion" but I don't think SCOTUS has held any such thing. SCOTUS has upheld the separation of Church and State pursuant to the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

Bah. Right now I'm just trying to hold out until reinforcements arrive. (Or until someone on the other side slips up significantly enough for me to take it and run with it. :p)

If the meaning of that was as clear as you seem to think there is, the first case to go before the Supreme Court would not have been one concerning what it meant, exactly.
The internet doesn't seem to have this, so I'm gonna need the name of the case to get any further.
And I knew you were talking about civilian guns. Since the 2nd amendment mentions a militia, I'd assumed that the civilians would have to use said guns in some type of war.
EDIT:The first paragraph is in response to Jerusalas, the second to Lydania.

The internet doesn't seem to have this, so I'm gonna need the name of the case to get any further.
And I knew you were talking about civilian guns. Since the 2nd amendment mentions a militia, I'd assumed that the civilians would have to use said guns in some type of war.
EDIT:The first paragraph is in response to Jerusalas, the second to Lydania.

My specialization is not Constitutional law, so I'm afraid that I don't know the answer.

My specialization is not Constitutional law, so I'm afraid that I don't know the answer.

One of the earliest was Dredd Scott.

I just want to say: I love these threads. They are perfect opportunities for me to use my Magic the Gathering(tm) cards.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/MTG%20Forum/GunBan.jpg

A number of people in this forum seem to think that the millions upon millions of guns are going to miraculously vanish in the face of a ban. I suggest you consider how pot, heroin, cocaine, and other illegal drugs have all vanished in the United States in the face of a ban.

As far as needing defense:

All clauses and amendments to the constitution need to be defended. Each one has been attacked in history - each word and phrase challenged. The number of ingrates on this forum who have no idea how many times that the American people have nearly lost sections of their freedom is staggering. Study history. It is the only way you can avoid repeating it.

One of the earliest was Dredd Scott.

No nation has a bright, proud future. Unless you're from Moon Nation 01.

EDIT: That was a slight typo. :x I meant to say this:

'No nation has a bright, proud past. Unless you're from Moon Nation 01.'

The Supreme Court has demonstrated time and time again that has no fucking clue what it is talking about.

I'm sick and tired of people constantly deferring to the Supreme Court rather than coming up with their own arguments. It's revolting.

Yes. It is so much better to ignore the over 200 years of Supreme Court caselaw and just give your own half-assed interpretations. Just because the Constitution itself gives the authority to interpret the Constitution to the Supreme Court doesn't mean anything. :rolleyes:

In the U.S, perhaps.
I should note however that the safest COUNTRYS in the world are the ones that have banned guns.
And the black market may soar, but it will never reach the point the legal market is today.

And I should note that you are wrong. There are numerous countries w/ much stricter gun control than the US that have significantly higher murder and crime rates. Russia, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, etc. Even the UK's violent crime rate is nothing to brag about.

Yet there are countries w/ much less restrictive laws that have very low crime, switzerland, Finland, etc. Crime in the US has been dropping even w/ the firearm laws becomimg much less restrictive.

Still care to claim causality?

No nation has a bright, proud future. Unless you're from Moon Nation 01.

What I meant was DS was an early "individual rights" case.

And Dredd Scott doesn't have anything to do with freedom of religion, not to mention it's null and void now with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.
EDIT: OOHHH.

My specialization is not Constitutional law, so I'm afraid that I don't know the answer.

Then try not to make stuff up. You've made assertions that are untrue and unsupportable.

Then try not to make stuff up. You've made assertions that are untrue and unsupportable.

I'd say, "Welcome the the Forums," but I know you've been here longer than I have. :p

One of the earliest was Dredd Scott.

Um. Dred Scott v. Sanford wasn't until 1857.

The earliest Supreme Court cases are from 1790. Chisholm v. Georgia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?2+419), 2 U.S. 419 (1793) is often considered the earliest important Supreme Court case.

I'd say, "Welcome the the Forums," but I know you've been here longer than I have. :p

I am used to it.

But there is a different between being wrong or ignorant and making stuff up. Please refrain from the latter.

And I should note that you are wrong. There are numerous countries w/ much stricter gun control than the US that have significantly higher murder and crime rates. Russia, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, etc. Even the UK's violent crime rate is nothing to brag about.

Yet there are countries w/ much less restrictive laws that have very low crime, switzerland, Finland, etc. Crime in the US has been dropping even w/ the firearm laws becomimg much less restrictive.

Still care to claim causality?
Can't find stuff on this either way. Need source.

Just some fact for those of you who are still afraid of guns.
http://www.clintongunban.com/
Take the quiz. And yes, I am a member of the NRA
also, try nra.org

Um. Dred Scott v. Sanford wasn't until 1857.

The earliest Supreme Court cases are from 1790. Chisholm v. Georgia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?2+419), 2 U.S. 419 (1793) is often considered the earliest important Supreme Court case.

Thanks for the link. I'll have to read up on that later. I've had a long couple of days.

I just want to say: I love these threads. They are perfect opportunities for me to use my Magic the Gathering(tm) cards.

/snip/

You know, you're not the only one with those.

Just some fact for those of you who are still afraid of guns.
http://www.clintongunban.com/
Take the quiz. And yes, I am a member of the NRA
also, try nra.org


Nothing like citing the NRA to support the NRA. :rolleyes:

I am used to it.

But there is a different between being wrong or ignorant and making stuff up. Please refrain from the latter.

Not my fault I have a faulty memory.

I remember reading about a court case which included arguements in the late '90s (1999?) that the Second Amendment meant that only the National Guard should have firearms. But I don't recall which level of court that was at (I assumed that it was SCotUS) and I recall that the court landed against that interpretation.

From my arguements against the Religious Right about the 'out of control' SCotUS (before Bush got his nominees on it. Now they've miraculously shut up about it. At least here), I recall two of the earliest cases being those which laid the foundation for 'freedom of religion' and giving SCotUS judicial review. I just don't recall specifics.

Thanks for the link. I'll have to read up on that later. I've had a long couple of days.

Heaven forbid. :eek: :)

I wasn't suggesting you should read Chisholm. Just saying it is one of the earliest Supreme Court cases.

The case isn't relevant to the First or Second Amendment. If you truly care what it is about, just read the Wikipedia summary. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm_v._Georgia

It would be really great if the "gun people" would read the constitution. It actually defines "militia". The militia is a military unit that has it's officers under the governors of the states.

Article1 Section 8 Congress shall have the power......
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress


The Militia is NOT anyone with $100 to buy a gun. It is NOT to overthrow the government, but TO "suppress Insurection". The Militia is TRAINED by the Feds under Officers appointed by the States.

I don't understand how some people seem to believe that owning a gun equals liberty.

If the government really wanted to become a totalitarian dictatorship, they'd just get use the gun registration information to find out who they had to kill first in order to take over easier.

Which is precisely why civilian-owned weapons of any sort should not be registered with the government in the first place!

Not my fault I have a faulty memory.

I remember reading about a court case which included arguements in the late '90s (1999?) that the Second Amendment meant that only the National Guard should have firearms. But I don't recall which level of court that was at (I assumed that it was SCotUS) and I recall that the court landed against that interpretation.

Actually, it is the overwhelming majority view that the Second Amendment refers to state or collective right and not to an individual right to own firearms.

My position on this is in shift, but I will document the matter for others.
Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8615677&postcount=278)
link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8622863&postcount=366)
link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8626734&postcount=392)

You'll find the Fifth Circuit has upheld an individual right to bear arms in dicta in one case. The other 11 regional US Courts of Appeals have all held there is no individual right. People disagree about the interpretation of Milller and SCOTUS has not ruled directly on the Second Amendment since then.

From my arguements against the Religious Right about the 'out of control' SCotUS (before Bush got his nominees on it. Now they've miraculously shut up about it. At least here), I recall two of the earliest cases being those which laid the foundation for 'freedom of religion' and giving SCotUS judicial review. I just don't recall specifics.

OK. Now you are changing what you were saying.

Definitely some of the earliest cases are about the power of judicial review.

I cannot say when the first Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause case was decided off the top of my head. I believe there were some cases in the early 1800s, however. (I won't go into the history of Separation of Church and State caselaw, as that is a seperate subject than this thread.)

It would be really great if the "gun people" would read the constitution. It actually defines "militia". The militia is a military unit that has it's officers under the governors of the states.

Article1 Section 8 Congress shall have the power......
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress


The Militia is NOT anyone with $100 to buy a gun. It is NOT to overthrow the government, but TO "suppress Insurection". The Militia is TRAINED by the Feds under Officers appointed by the States.

Well, it's rather funny that Congress has never made any laws in relation to militias.

Well, it's rather funny that Congress has never made any laws in relation to militias.
Sure they did. They set up the National Guard under the Governors, and it can be called out by the feds in times of insurection or invasion. Just like the constitution says.

Even if they didn't. The Constitution is clear--the militia is under the State government, receiving training required by the feds. NOT a bunch of people with no training under the government. Or a bunch of people that can't be called out BY the government. It doesn't say they are REQUIRED to have a militia. It says IF there is one, this is the way it will work.

Sure they did. They set up the National Guard under the Governors, and it can be called out by the feds in times of insurection or invasion. Just like the constitution says.

Even if they didn't. The Constitution is clear--the militia is under the State government, receiving training required by the feds. NOT a bunch of people with no training under the government. Or a bunch of people that can't be called out BY the government. It doesn't say they are REQUIRED to have a militia. It says IF there is one, this is the way it will work.

WRONG.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

There are two types of milita: The unorganized, and the organized. The milita consists of all able bodied males 17-45. The unorganized form is defined as any able-bodied male not a member of the organized militia. This goes back to even the earliest forms of nation-states. If a hypothetical enemy invaded, any man without religious exemption could expect to be called upon to serve by his locality.

Therefore, there is always a militia so long as there are young male citizens. As any citizen could hypothetically be called upon to fight, it is rightful that he be allowed weapons so he can serve that role. Though it is not a plausible scenario in our modern world, it is still law.

Anyways, do you honestly think that the intention of the founders was to ban guns at all? Everyone owned them during that time, it is part of the reason the colonies secured their freedom. It wasn't well-armed and equipped soldiers that won the war, it was a group of rag-tag farmers and tradesmen, merchants and lawyers, who, with more often than not little more than hunting muskets that stood up to one of history's finest militaries.

WRONG.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

There are two types of milita: The unorganized, and the organized. The milita consists of all able bodied males 17-45. The unorganized form is defined as any able-bodied male not a member of the organized militia. This goes back to even the earliest forms of nation-states. If a hypothetical enemy invaded, any man without religious exemption could expect to be called upon to serve by his locality.

Therefore, there is always a militia so long as there are young male citizens. As any citizen could hypothetically be called upon to fight, it is rightful that he be allowed weapons so he can serve that role. Though it is not a plausible scenario in our modern world, it is still law.

Anyways, do you honestly think that the intention of the founders was to ban guns at all? Everyone owned them during that time, it is part of the reason the colonies secured their freedom. It wasn't well-armed and equipped soldiers that won the war, it was a group of rag-tag farmers and tradesmen, merchants and lawyers, who, with more often than not little more than hunting muskets that stood up to one of history's finest militaries.

Um. When did the officially "unorganized" militia become a "well regulated" militia? Hmmm?

Moreover, the question is not whether it was the intention of the Founders to ban all guns. The question is whether it was the intention of Founders to forbid regulation or banning of guns. There is a big difference.

EDIT: BTW, if Congress passed a law defining "speech," would it change the meaning of the First Amendment?

WRONG.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

There are two types of milita: The unorganized, and the organized. The milita consists of all able bodied males 17-45.

it was a group of rag-tag farmers and tradesmen, merchants and lawyers, who, with more often than not little more than hunting muskets that stood up to one of history's finest militaries.
At the time nearly all of the population lived within 100 miles of the frontier. There was no way to fund enough police and military to enforce law. Therefore there was a mandatory draft. Everyone was trained. That way the one law official could at a moment's notice, draft a trained group to enforce laws. An untrained group would be worse than nothing. A trained posse in other words.

Yes, the US invented guerilla war. But there is a difference when you're in power and when you're out. It's great to have insurgents when you're out of power. It's bad when you're in power. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, a very weak government held power. They certainly didn't want any challenges to that power. It would be stupid to authorize an untrained force that could overthrow that government.

NOTICE:

Article1 Section 8 Congress shall have the power......
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasions;

Um. When did the officially "unorganized" militia become a "well regulated" militia? Hmmm?

Moreover, the question is not whether it was the intention of the Founders to ban all guns. The question is whether it was the intention of Founders to forbid regulation or banning of guns. There is a big difference.

EDIT: BTW, if Congress passed a law defining "speech," would it change the meaning of the First Amendment?

Congress and state legislatures have passed laws defining speech in numerous forms. In many states, it is illegal to use "fighting words". In scope of the Constitution, that makes sense, because the Freedom of Speech was most likely to mean that one has the right to express his opinion verbally or non verbally on matters, such as critiquing the government, or stating that he thinks yellow is best color in the world.

The state and Congressional legislatures have the right to pass laws as long as they do not violate the Constitution. Congress is well within its means to define what terms in the Constitution mean unless a law is challenged. Until there is a Supreme Court legal challenge, the Federal law defining a militia stands.

BTW, the meaning of the term, "Well-regulated", has changed since the 18th century. IIRC. "Regular" often means means "in working order", not necessarily "conforming to rules". A regulated thing could be something is made so that it is in working order according to Dictionary.com. A "Well-regulated" milita would be a militia that can do its job of defending the state. A milita with no weapons would be useless. A milita that is well and in working order, being necessary to a free state, should have access to weapons. The people who would compose this militia should therefore have access weapons.

To interpret "Well-regulated" meaning "government regulated", you have to throw out the rest of the amendment, namely "the right for individuals to keep and bear arms will not be infringed". That is a statement in and of itself. The earlier parts in the admendment are merely support for this statement.

At the time nearly all of the population lived within 100 miles of the frontier. There was no way to fund enough police and military to enforce law. Therefore there was a mandatory draft. Everyone was trained. That way the one law official could at a moment's notice, draft a trained group to enforce laws. An untrained group would be worse than nothing. A trained posse in other words.

Yes, the US invented guerilla war. But there is a difference when you're in power and when you're out. It's great to have insurgents when you're out of power. It's bad when you're in power. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, a very weak government held power. They certainly didn't want any challenges to that power. It would be stupid to authorize an untrained force that could overthrow that government.

NOTICE:

Article1 Section 8 Congress shall have the power......
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasions;

The very definition of "insurrection" is contrary to your writing. It is the duty of the people to overthrow a government that violates the social contract, as was the basis of our Declaration of Independence, not a legally binding document, but one that clarifies the Founders' positions. It is hard to believe that those men, as a whole, would think it wrong for the people to organize and fight back if the US government in some way became overbearing and threatening to the lives of citizens . For example, a President or government. institution that seeks to suppress liberties is itself causing an insurrection, as it is going against the established order. Insurgencies needn't be from the bottom.

The Admendments were AMENDMENTS to the original Consitution, and were necessary because the remaining colonies would not ratify it without those provisions. The states were at this time almost like independent nations and the union was a shaky deal, they wanted the right to be able to fight back against a corrupt union.

Congress and state legislatures have passed laws defining speech in numerous forms. In many states, it is illegal to use "fighting words". In scope of the Constitution, that makes sense, because the Freedom of Speech was most likely to mean that one has the right to express his opinion verbally or non verbally on matters, such as critiquing the government, or stating that he thinks yellow is best color in the world.

The state and Congressional legislatures have the right to pass laws as long as they do not violate the Constitution. Congress is well within its means to define what terms in the Constitution mean unless a law is challenged. Until there is a Supreme Court legal challenge, the Federal law defining a militia stands.

BTW, the meaning of the term, "Well-regulated", has changed since the 18th century. IIRC. "Regular" often means means "in working order", not "conforming to rules". A regulated thing is something is made so that it is in working order. A Well-regulated milita would be a militia that can do its job of defending the state. A milita with no weapons would be useless. A milita that is well and in working order, being necessary to a free state, should have access to weapons. The people who would compose this militia should therefore have access weapons.

To interpret "Well-regulated" meaning "government regulated", you have to throw out the rest of the amendment, namely "the right for individuals to keep and bear arms will not be infringed". That is a statement in and of itself. The earlier parts in the admendment are merely support for this statement.

Um. You just misquoted the Second Amendment.

But you really believe that Congress defines the terms of the Constitution? Isn't that going a bit far just to support your silly "militia" argument?

If tomorrow Congress passed a law defining the militia as the national guard and only the national guard, would your right to bear arms evaporate?

FYI, speaking of words changing. What does it mean to "bear arms"?

The Admendments were AMENDMENTS to the original Consitution, and were necessary because the remaining colonies would not ratify it without those provisions. The states were at this time almost like independent nations and the union was a shaky deal, they wanted the right to be able to fight back against a corrupt union.

You do realize this supports the state's rights point of view on the Second Amendment.

But you really believe that Congress defines the terms of the Constitution? Isn't that going a bit far just to support your silly "militia" argument?

They certainly have that power, why else could they have the right to limit cursing, inciting violence through speech, or fighting words? Sometimes Congress passes laws that violate the scope of the Constitution, and the Court can stop that. There's nothing in the Consitution that bans defamation, but we can certainly construe the meaning of the First Amendment, and Congress can pass a law saying that it is not free speech.


If tomorrow Congress passed a law defining the militia as the national guard and only the national guard, would your right to bear arms evaporate?

Technically, yes, until a Supreme Court case challenged Congressional definitions.

FYI, speaking of words changing. What does it mean to "bear arms"?

Typo.

EDIT: BTW, if Congress passed a law defining "speech," would it change the meaning of the First Amendment?

Yes. Because it is a non-linear process. Federal courts never strike down a law without comment, so in doing so they would further re-define speech: much like happened around WWI.

And, without doubt, such a case would be quoted ad nauseam in respect of what the "first ammendment" really means.

/positivist.

Typo.

The Second Amendment is a typo?

You do realize this supports the state's rights point of view on the Second Amendment.

No, it merely explains why people would have the need to insert a provision that would allow them to assemble with arms against an enemy of the state, whether it be a rogue Governor, President, or invading force. They were afraid of a Federal Government controlling their state through corrupt means. It is the 10th Amendment that declares that all powers not delegated to the Feds go to the states. Given that the 2nd is a Federal level right, it is not a State's Rights issue any more than letting a black person vote is.

The Second Amendment is a typo?

Uhuh,

Like the ninth. Robert Bork told me that. An ink blot or something.

No, it merely explains why people would have the need to insert a provision that would allow them to assemble with arms against an enemy of the state, whether it be a rogue Governor, President, or invading force. They were afraid of a Federal Government controlling their state through corrupt means. It is the 10th Amendment that declares that all powers not delegated to the Feds go to the states. Given that the 2nd is a Federal level right, it is not a State's Rights issue any more than letting a black person vote is.

You misunderstand what I mean by the "state's right" point of view. The prevailing court view of the Second Amendment is that it protects a state's right to a militia and not an individual right to own firearms. All your arguments about how the Founders were concerned about a state being able to defend itself supports that view.

The Second Amendment is a typo?

I thought you were commenting on a spelling error or something.

The 2nd goes 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.

I merely dissected each of the terms in the statement in order to give clarification as to what they mean.

Uhuh,

Like the ninth. Robert Bork told me that. An ink blot or something.

:cool:

I thought you were commenting on a spelling error or something.

The 2nd goes 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.

I merely dissected each of the terms in the statement in order to give clarification as to what they mean.

And I asked what the meaning of "to keep and bear arms" meant at the time the Second Amendment was written.

BTW, as the Second Amendment has never been incorporated, it is still a valid states' rights issue in the other sense of those terms. As it stands, states have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit. link (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23)

You misunderstand what I mean by the "state's right" point of view. The prevailing court view of the Second Amendment is that it protects a state's right to a militia and not an individual right to own firearms. All your arguments about how the Founders were concerned about a state being able to defend itself supports that view.

It lends a backing to the argument that they wanted local people to have access to weapons to defend themselves from tyranny or other threat. The greatest threat, to them, was at the Federal level, no doubt. But the point I was trying to make was that none of those men would be opposed to the concept of the people deposing a violent or corrupt mayor who was persecuting people in their homes, or regional official who did that, or even higher. It is very unlikely in our lives such a thing would happen now where things would be so bad that a person would need to assemble friends to stop a violent force within the state, but during those times it was a real possibility and it explains why that right is a right of "the people" and not of the state.

BTW, as the Second Amendment has never been incorporated, it is still a valid states' rights issue in the other sense of those terms. As it stands, states have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit.

That's true, because there is a reasonable scope to the second amendment. Maybe the people don't need access to an atomic bomb, or a rocket launcher, so that's understandable. No state, however, will try to completely ban firearms to lawful and upstanding citizens. The Court would strike it down.

Actually, it is the overwhelming majority view that the Second Amendment refers to state or collective right and not to an individual right to own firearms.

Then the majority is wrong, isn't it?

They certainly didn't want any challenges to that power. It would be stupid to authorize an untrained force that could overthrow that government.

Wrong.

You know what you're forgetting?

These people were serious about liberty. Several times, they came out and said "Hey, we're going to try to set up a government that will leave you alone, but if we fuck up, feel free to kill us."

It is very unlikely in our lives such a thing would happen now where things would be so bad that a person would need to assemble friends to stop a violent force within the state,

It happened in the lifetime of several people alive today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens

i'd like to see the NRA and any similar organisation in other countries disbanded and their leaders arrested as potential terrorists - they are armed and they have an extremist political agenda, thats more reason to call them terrorists than half the people in guantanamo probably.

Here's what bothers me:

I don't personally have anything against guns. I don't particularly like or dislike them. I've never owned one, never really wanted to, but I've also never had reason to be personally afraid of a gun. I grew up in a region where hunting is popular, so I can at least partly understand why somebody might want to own a rifle. I've lived in some rotten neighborhoods, so I can at least partly understand why somebody might want to own a handgun for personal protection.

Guns don't really bother me. Yet gun advocates often bother me a great deal.

Why? I don't know. It just always seems like the people who are most strongly supporting "gun rights" are the very people who I would prefer NOT have weapons at their disposal. They're people who I think probably shouldn't be allowed around sharp things, let alone guns.

Hell, look at Charlton Heston. That dude is creepy. The idea of a steady, average, normal citizen owning a gun doesn't freak me out, but the idea of Charleton Heston owning one is down right disturbing.

I am perfectly willing to accept that the "gun nuts" out there are just a small and annoyingly vocal minority. But they're scary enough to poison my impression of gun advocates as a whole. And I'm somebody who doesn't have anything against guns to start with.

I think that people who like guns and who want to protect gun rights need to realize that there are a great many people just like me. We don't actually have a problem with the right to own a gun. We don't really think about guns much, and don't particularly care if some other citizen feels like keeping one in their own home. But we are scared shitless by the people we see advocating gun ownership. We are freaked out by the twitchy borderline types that talk about prying firearms from cold, dead hands.

Please don't accuse us of being horrible people when we get nervous about gun ownership. Don't assume that we are trying to violate your rights, or ruin your fun, or oppress you. We don't want to fuck you over, really we don't. We're doing exactly what you are doing: trying to balance our personal feelings about guns with the realities of living shoulder to shoulder with a whole lot of people who often don't agree with us. And our side isn't the one coming to the discussion packing heat. :)

Why do groups like the NRA and certain groups of the Christian Right support the 2nd Amendment so vehemently, and yet turn about and accuse groups such as the ACLU of being anti-American. To them I have a question.

Since when was our right to bear arms the most important aspect of citizenship? I though our nation was SUPPOSED to be known for it's freedom of religion, speech, assembly and press...

Our government, being the gung-ho, patriotic and nationalistic group that it is, (with no small part being that arms companies practically pay their salaries, and that they also have a boner for military spending), AREN'T going to take your guns away. But they ARE currently taking away other rights. You claim to uphold the Constitution, and yet you let them get away with that?

I know it is little more than a rhetorical statement, but do groups like these know that their priorities are more than a little skewed? I'm just putting that out there.

I have included a poll, I would like to know what you think.

I think all groups in interest of protecting the rights enumerated (and not enumerated) within the Constitution need to exist as a check against the removal of those rights. I too do not understand why any group concerned with the protection of our natural liberties would discount other liberties in favor of their own "pet" ones... But as long as other groups exist to fill that which they fall short on, I have no overall beef with any.

Mmm...beef.

Noone understands the second amendment anymore. All they see is "right to bear arms" without reading the first half of the god damn sentence. The second amendment has to do with the right of state militias to exist and protect the people from their government, not your right to just plain own a gun. Unfortunately, state militias dont exist anymore (or at least on the scale they used to in the 1800s), so the issue of a regular citizen owning a gun has nothing to do with the second amendment.

Wrong.

You know what you're forgetting?

These people were serious about liberty. Several times, they came out and said "Hey, we're going to try to set up a government that will leave you alone, but if we fuck up, feel free to kill us."
Article1 Section 8 Congress shall have the power......
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasions;


I have to repeat. the constitution defines militia, how it works and what it was for. If as you say they wanted the people to be able to overthrow their government, why didn't they say the militia was to AID insurection? NO, they said the militia was to SUPPRESS insurection.

For God's sake,

no matter what firearms are legal, the US military will always have better ones and more of them (and more skills in using them)

That's why I support legalising personal artilery, and even personal WMDs if that's what it takes to restore ballance to the system.

gun control laws have usually failed to prevent armed revolutions in many countries

You know full well it's impossible to cite a revolution that didn't happen.

people are not going to be as responsible with their bazookas and tanks as idealists would hope

MAD's worked pretty well in preventing WWIII so far. Why shouldn't we expect it to work just as well on the individual level?

I don't support handgun or rifle bans, but come on, let's be realistic.

Being realistic is agknowledging that no matter what you do, your rights will be taken away by the government because it is in the best interests of the government to do so, and they have more power than their citizenry. Being realistic is accepting your yoke and being a good little slave. I refuse to be realistic.

No, the purpose of gun ownership is defence from criminals. The government is there to protect citizens from each other. This means limiting extreme firepower to the military.

So the military don't count as criminals when they come and try to seaze your lands, and try to tell you what to do? Of course they don't count as criminals but that's only because they have the backing of the "legitimate" lawmaking body of the land. They're still acting like pirates and warlords if they behave like that though.
I would imagine that the real outcome of the application of this 2nd Amendment would be a Swiss or Finnish-style system, in which all civilian men get military training and then the right to own a gun. This way, if the country is attacked, they can efficiently band together to repel the attack.
I could support that, especially since an armed and trained populus is going to be more capable of demanding it's rights from it's government with the ability to back up its threats with actions.
The American Revolution was a war between Great Britain, France, and the entity that would later become the USA, with GB opposing the other two.

True.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

=====
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.
=====

Okay.

So, lets dissect this.

All right, but we'll do it my way.

the right
Since rights are posessed by individuals rather than governments (according to the usage of that word throughout the constitution), this sentence must be talking about an individual right.

of the people
If there was any ambiguety before, this should clear it up. It is a right "of the people". Not a right of the militia as you've ignorantly claimed. How you see this ambiguety is beyond me. The term "people" throughout the constitution is consistently used to speak of the people as separate from their government, not speaking of them only when they are a part of their government, or dependent on their government.

to keep and bear arms
Whoever this right applies to, arms means weapons, and the right to own and carry weapons is what's being discussed.

shall not be infringed
Pretty simple. This right cannot be infringed. According to the ammendment, the right discussed herein cannot be in any way weakened or limited by the government. This part, taken in broader context means that the right cannot be limited to government sponsored military personel, nor can it be limited to rifles and exclude handguns. It cannot put a limit on caliber, or any of the sort of anti-constitutional measures instatuted in such laws as the Brady Bill.

Now on to your baby, the dependent clause:
A well regulated milita
Did you know that the militias that the colonies used to rebel against Great Brittain were illegal under british law? Of course you did. Militias are not a tool of the central government like the national guard.

being necessary to the security of a free state
I believe you've put too much emphasis on the word state, and that would be the crux of the problem. The word state is modified by the word free. A free state is one in which its citizenry are able to exersise their political and civil rights. Without that option, a state ceases to be free.

The security of a free state is defended by its people, not by their government. The aforementioned militias, when the word is taken in the context of the time, actually reffer to all able-bodied citizens (excluding slaves, women, and children, all of whom were second class citizens, and thus exempt from the responsibilities of national defence). These militas are to, as the various military oaths clearly state, defend their country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

... Seems like the Second Amendment has been twisted, just a bit.
Yep. People like you just can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that a dependent clause is subordinate to the independent clause when the two are conjoined with a comma.

Further your side of this issue completely ignores the context of the second ammendment as a part of the larger bill of rights, which in every other instance is used to limit the powers of the government and guarentee individual rights.
That's true, because there is a reasonable scope to the second amendment. Maybe the people don't need access to an atomic bomb, or a rocket launcher, so that's understandable. No state, however, will try to completely ban firearms to lawful and upstanding citizens. The Court would strike it down.
So long as the federal government asserts it's right to have and use nuclear weapons, I'll support that the same right exists for the individual.
i'd like to see the NRA and any similar organisation in other countries disbanded and their leaders arrested as potential terrorists - they are armed and they have an extremist political agenda, thats more reason to call them terrorists than half the people in guantanamo probably.
And thus your side finally says what it truly means. Supporting constitutional rights is apparently the very definition of terrorism.
Noone understands the second amendment anymore.

I agree. People can be woefully ignorant.

All they see is "right to bear arms" without reading the first half of the god damn sentence.

First does not mean most important. The dependent clause doesn't negate the independent clause.

The second amendment has to do with the right of state militias to exist and protect the people from their government, not your right to just plain own a gun. Unfortunately, state militias dont exist anymore (or at least on the scale they used to in the 1800s), so the issue of a regular citizen owning a gun has nothing to do with the second amendment.
I disagree. If that were the case, the ammendment would not have refference "the people". If your interpretation of original intent were accurate, the ammendment would have specifically talked about the rights of the states to form independent militas.

Still, I think that there is some positive news in that you are talking about the purpose of the milita being to protect the people form their government. That at least does get to the spirit of what the second ammendment is all about.

"It is the duty of every free citizen to rise up and violently defend his people against his government."

Article1 Section 8 Congress shall have the power......
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasions;

1) I'm not talking about militia; I'm talking about individuals
2) Even in the case of militias, they are referring to Insurrection against liberty, not necessarily against the [i]state[i]. And in fact, if the state was in insurrection against the liberty, it is to fight the state.

Please take some time to learn what they meant, subhuman.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

You misunderstand what I mean by the "state's right" point of view. The prevailing court view of the Second Amendment is that it protects a state's right to a militia and not an individual right to own firearms. All your arguments about how the Founders were concerned about a state being able to defend itself supports that view.
you have three cases that SCOTUS has come up with directly concerning the 2nd amendment. One of them(Miller) does not in any way, shape, or form support the state's rights hypothesis. That one happens to be the most recent.All that decision states is that because the weapon was not shown to be a militarily useful weapon, the court could not rule in favor of the defendant. If that court had felt the states' rights hypothesis was the correct one, they would never have brought up the need for the weapon to be militarily useful and instead of remanding the case, would have said so, thus fully denying the defendants claims to using the 2nd amendment as a defense. The other two cases were decided by the same court post-reconstruction after the civil war. The 1st case(cruickshank) concerned the right of blacks to carry weapons and the attempts of the whites in the area to deny them that right. The 2nd case(Presser) 10 year was by the same court. Therefore, unless the court was going to reverse itself, thus giving them uppity blacks the right to carry firearms and defend themselves, of course they were going to give out the same decision. Not to mention that Presser involved much more than 2nd amendment. It's primary focues was not whether people could own and carry guns, but whether a bunch of idiots could run around in the city streets brandishing loaded long arms. I'm sorry, but unless there's an insurrection going on you don't need to be doing that. There's also the fact that the latter two cases were based off of the slaughterhouse cases, which were poor decisions in their own right and had jack all to do with the 2nd. No other supreme court cases have directly concerned themselves with the issues of incorporation and the idea of individual v. collective rights.

The reason why "the people" is used in this amendment is because any able-bodied individual can join the militia. When they joined, they were expected to be carrying a firearm of their own.

The reason why "the people" is used in this amendment is because any able-bodied individual can join the militia. When they joined, they were expected to be carrying a firearm of their own.
Actually, every able bodied person between the ages of 18-45 is the militia. Just because the state doesn't train it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Actually, every able bodied person between the ages of 18-45 is the militia. Just because the state doesn't train it doesn't mean it isn't there.

That, of course, depends on the state.

The organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject to state military duty as provided in this act.

That, of course, depends on the state.

Actually Federal law. Some states have provisions as well though.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html


TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Prev | Next

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
Release date: 2005-07-12

(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.

And since I've already stated the FACT that the wiki article has generalized very broadly and you used it to associate the NRA w/ christian conservatives you are implying that the correllation is proving the causality. It doesn't state anything about "lobbying" either. You implied that those who support the 2nd are religious bigots w/o showing any direct connection. Is the best you have a Wiki article?

Here's the ATF list of state firearm laws:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/statelaws/22edition.htm

and a link showing CCW progression:

www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

I don't recall saying anything about 'bigots' (Strawman number one). I merely commented on fundamental churches. I still haven't said anything about 'causality' (Strawman number two), and I don't see why you would think the one DOES 'cause' the other... or which one causes which?

I acknowledge the fact that Wiki generalised broadly, and so, in it's way, did the religious site.

But, that is OKAY, because 'broad generalisation' was what I was looking for... I was showing a geographical tendency for the strongholds of one, to be (also) the strongholds of the other.

You haven't managed to illustrate, in any way, that the Southern and Western states tend towards fundamental religion... and you haven't managed to show that Southern and Western states tend towards 'gun-freedom' - which I would think would be something of a given for the NRA strongholds.

I don't recall saying anything about 'bigots' (Strawman number one). I merely commented on fundamental churches. I still haven't said anything about 'causality' (Strawman number two), and I don't see why you would think the one DOES 'cause' the other... or which one causes which?

You keep claiming "strawman" when you did equate religious bias towards gays and being pro 2nd. You also need to read up on correlation=causality.

I acknowledge the fact that Wiki generalised broadly, and so, in it's way, did the religious site.

But, that is OKAY, because 'broad generalisation' was what I was looking for... I was showing a geographical tendency for the strongholds of one, to be (also) the strongholds of the other.

and yet by using 'genralizations' that aren't necessarily true, your whole arguement falls apart.

You haven't managed to illustrate, in any way, that the Southern and Western states tend towards fundamental religion... and you haven't managed to show that Southern and Western states tend towards 'gun-freedom' - which I would think would be something of a given for the NRA strongholds.

And being that I wasn't the one trying to show those things, it looks like the 'strawman' here is from you.

If you actually have some evidence to present besides a Wiki article and loose correlations, please present it.

You keep claiming "strawman" when you did equate religious bias towards gays and being pro 2nd. You also need to read up on correlation=causality.


I suggested that fundamentalist attitudes and NRA affiliation are likely to be geographically linked. I didn't say one caused the other.

Why do I need to read up on "correlation=causality"? Correlation does not equate to causality. The 'cause' of BOTH behaviours could be radioactivity in the water, for all I know. Which is why I'm not discussing the cause.


and yet by using 'genralizations' that aren't necessarily true, your whole arguement falls apart.


How are they not true?

I have shown a source that suggests a tendency towards less gun restriction in Southern and Western states.

If you can disprove that evidence, then do so - it stands until you knock it down... that's just how debate works.

I have shown a tendency towards fundamental religion in the Southern and Western states. Again - if you can't kill that evidence... it stands.

It doesn't HARM this case, that the evidence is 'generalised'. The point I'm debating is ALSO 'generalised'. So - so long as I can show evidence that 'generally' supports my argument, my argument stands.


And being that I wasn't the one trying to show those things, it looks like the 'strawman' here is from you.

If you actually have some evidence to present besides a Wiki article and loose correlations, please present it.

You miss the point. You don't get to 'discredit' a source because you don't LIKE it. If you can find EVIDENCE that overturns what I have stated, you can kill MY evidence.

UNTIL you find that evidence, my sources are assumed to be 'pertinent'.

you have three cases that SCOTUS has come up with directly concerning the 2nd amendment. One of them(Miller) does not in any way, shape, or form support the state's rights hypothesis. That one happens to be the most recent.All that decision states is that because the weapon was not shown to be a militarily useful weapon, the court could not rule in favor of the defendant. If that court had felt the states' rights hypothesis was the correct one, they would never have brought up the need for the weapon to be militarily useful and instead of remanding the case, would have said so, thus fully denying the defendants claims to using the 2nd amendment as a defense. The other two cases were decided by the same court post-reconstruction after the civil war. The 1st case(cruickshank) concerned the right of blacks to carry weapons and the attempts of the whites in the area to deny them that right. The 2nd case(Presser) 10 year was by the same court. Therefore, unless the court was going to reverse itself, thus giving them uppity blacks the right to carry firearms and defend themselves, of course they were going to give out the same decision. Not to mention that Presser involved much more than 2nd amendment. It's primary focues was not whether people could own and carry guns, but whether a bunch of idiots could run around in the city streets brandishing loaded long arms. I'm sorry, but unless there's an insurrection going on you don't need to be doing that. There's also the fact that the latter two cases were based off of the slaughterhouse cases, which were poor decisions in their own right and had jack all to do with the 2nd. No other supreme court cases have directly concerned themselves with the issues of incorporation and the idea of individual v. collective rights.

Gee, you guys make it hard to agree with you.

I have come around to the individual rights point of view, but it still is not supported by the caselaw.

Miller did not turn on whether it was a military style weapon, but rather on whether its possession "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

The case was not remanded for a determination of whether it was a military style weapon. That is simply fantay on your part.

Miller and his co-defendant had faced criminal charges. The district court had dismissed those charges. The Supreme Court reversed that dismissal and remanded for the charges to go forward.

There is a reason why there are scores of Second Amendment cases and all but one in dicta agree that Miller held for collective rights. Scores of judges (including SCOTUS in Lewis) over the past 60-odd years have not all interpreted Miller wrong.

The best you possibly claim about Miller is that the sentence about judicial notice makes it ambiguous.

Actually Federal law. Some states have provisions as well though.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html


TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Prev | Next

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
Release date: 2005-07-12

(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.

Again, this is fallacious.

the unorganized militia != a well-regulated militia

Congress does not define the terms of the Second Amendment. Unless you want to concede that Congress could change the definition of militia to included only s311(b)(1).

Gee, you guys make it hard to agree with you.

I have come around to the individual rights point of view, but it still is not supported by the caselaw.

Miller did not turn on whether it was a military style weapon, but rather on whether its possession "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

That's stretching it CT, especially w/ the responsibilities of the militia listed in the constitution.

The case was not remanded for a determination of whether it was a military style weapon. That is simply fantay on your part.

Miller and his co-defendant had faced criminal charges. The district court had dismissed those charges. The Supreme Court reversed that dismissal and remanded for the charges to go forward.

W/o a defendant or his legal representative present, it should be noted.

There is a reason why there are scores of Second Amendment cases and all but one in dicta agree that Miller held for collective rights. Scores of judges (including SCOTUS in Lewis) over the past 60-odd years have not all interpreted Miller wrong.

So what about police obligations in regards to the protection of citizens? I recall you making some scathing remarks on that even thought legal precedent was followed.

The best you possibly claim about Miller is that the sentence about judicial notice makes it ambiguous.

No, that it was a weak case w/o a defendant, filled w/ cultural bias, and little regard for the actual uses of particular firearms.

Even you have to admit that the judiciary has been anti-gun and has used the "no reasonable relationship" line to include or try and include effectively every firearm type.

Again, this is fallacious.

the unorganized militia != a well-regulated militia

Congress does not define the terms of the Second Amendment. Unless you want to concede that Congress could change the definition of militia to included only s311(b)(1).


And we could go back and forth as to the definition of "regulated" in comparison to the usage then.

The Virginia declaration of rights defined a "well regulated militia" as "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms."

Pretty bad comparison there Bolol...

I am a NRA member and I am certainly not part of the RR.

1) I'm not talking about militia; I'm talking about individuals
2) Even in the case of militias, they are referring to Insurrection against liberty, not necessarily against the [i]state[i]. And in fact, if the state was in insurrection against the liberty, it is to fight the state.

Please take some time to learn what they meant, subhuman.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.
Do you get a dime for every Ayn Rand book you sell?

I suggested that fundamentalist attitudes and NRA affiliation are likely to be geographically linked. I didn't say one caused the other.

Why do I need to read up on "correlation=causality"? Correlation does not equate to causality. The 'cause' of BOTH behaviours could be radioactivity in the water, for all I know. Which is why I'm not discussing the cause.

And yet you have not shown in any way that they ARE georgaphically linked.



How are they not true?

I have shown a source that suggests a tendency towards less gun restriction in Southern and Western states.

If you can disprove that evidence, then do so - it stands until you knock it down... that's just how debate works.

I have shown a tendency towards fundamental religion in the Southern and Western states. Again - if you can't kill that evidence... it stands.

And I showed you evidence that showed less gun restriction in "coastal" areas of some states and that the southern states didn't have "less gun restriction" until recently. It's nice to know you aren't reading.

I also don't care about the tendancy towards religion.

It doesn't HARM this case, that the evidence is 'generalised'. The point I'm debating is ALSO 'generalised'. So - so long as I can show evidence that 'generally' supports my argument, my argument stands.

Yet you haven't shown it. You haven't shown anything as to NRA membership. Only a couple of links that I've already shown to be not accurate.



You miss the point. You don't get to 'discredit' a source because you don't LIKE it. If you can find EVIDENCE that overturns what I have stated, you can kill MY evidence.

UNTIL you find that evidence, my sources are assumed to be 'pertinent'.

I've already shown the evidence. You're assumptions are just that.

That's stretching it CT, especially w/ the responsibilities of the militia listed in the constitution.

Which are directly discussed by the Court in Miller and form part of the basis of the decision. No stretch at all.

The Court says (emphasis added):

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

W/o a defendant or his legal representative present, it should be noted.

Completely irrelevant to the precedent.

So what about police obligations in regards to the protection of citizens? I recall you making some scathing remarks on that even thought legal precedent was followed.

Actually I disagreed that the Castle Rock v. Gonzales case followed from precedent.

It is hard to find a point of law of controversy on which the courts have so overwhelmingly (nigh unanimously) agreed for so long. That does not make the courts right about that point. But it makes claim the opposite is obvious rather silly.

No, that it was a weak case w/o a defendant, filled w/ cultural bias, and little regard for the actual uses of particular firearms.

Now you aren't arguing about what Miller held. Merely that it shouldn't be followed. Note: the Court has cited Miller in Lewis.

Even you have to admit that the judiciary has been anti-gun and has used the "no reasonable relationship" line to include or try and include effectively every firearm type.

Nice how you redefine "uniformly disagrees with the NRA" into "anti-gun."

Firearm types is not the issue. Never has been.

Again, the issue is whether a particular individual's possession of a firearm "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Don't overestimate the importance of the next sentence re lack of judicial notice --- particularly as the cited case is about the Second Amendment being a militia right.

And we could go back and forth as to the definition of "regulated" in comparison to the usage then.

And the meaning of "to bear arms."

The Virginia declaration of rights defined a "well regulated militia" as "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms."

You think that helps you?

And yet you have not shown in any way that they ARE georgaphically linked.
Yes, he has.
And I showed you evidence that showed less gun restriction in "coastal" areas of some states and that the southern states didn't have "less gun restriction" until recently. It's nice to know you aren't reading.
"Not until recently" doesn't matter. As long as it is now, then there is a correlation between gun supportion and religiosity.


I also don't care about the tendancy towards religion.


Huh?


Yet you haven't shown it. You haven't shown anything as to NRA membership. Only a couple of links that I've already shown to be not accurate.


How have you shown his links to be inaccurate?




I've already shown the evidence. You're assumptions are just that.

Oooh, nice ad hominem. I want to use it.
Infact, I will.

He's already shown the evidence. Your assumptions are just that

I read to page three and stopped.
Maybe I'm outta context.
But, has anybody ever thought that the gun restrictions aren't to stop you from stopping 'the man' from taking control, but to prevent everybody from killing eachother, particularly those whackjobs who would be very dangerous w/ an AK?

I dunno.
Makes sense to me.
Although I guess in some Darwinian sense, letting everybody have all the fully-autos and so forth that they want would breed a better stock of American. Or leave lots of room for Canada to move in. Haha.

</random considerations>

Yes, he has.

"Not until recently" doesn't matter. As long as it is now, then there is a correlation between gun supportion and religiosity.

Huh?

How have you shown his links to be inaccurate?


Oooh, nice ad hominem. I want to use it.
Infact, I will.

He's already shown the evidence. Your assumptions are just that

Thank you, my friend... I really did wonder if I was just being unreadable...

Which are directly discussed by the Court in Miller and form part of the basis of the decision. No stretch at all.

The Court says (emphasis added):

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

So it has to do w/ a military job but not military weapons CT?



Completely irrelevant to the precedent.

It is completely relevant. There was no defense to present a case. How could you call that irrelevant?



Actually I disagreed that the Castle Rock v. Gonzales case followed from precedent.

And I disagree that Miller followed precedent yet the SCOTUS felt it followed precedent in both cases. It's just that nickle and dime thing that keeps eroding away.

It is hard to find a point of law of controversy on which the courts have so overwhelmingly (nigh unanimously) agreed for so long. That does not make the courts right about that point. But it makes claim the opposite is obvious rather silly.

I didn't claim that CT. I state that most cases rely on Miller as a precedent even w/ all its failings as a case.



Now you aren't arguing about what Miller held. Merely that it shouldn't be followed. Note: the Court has cited Miller in Lewis.

I've argued plenty of times that what Miller held was incorrect.



Nice how you redefine "uniformly disagrees with the NRA" into "anti-gun."

I didn't say that. It disagrees w/ the intent of the founding fathers, which you've stated you recognize.

Firearm types is not the issue. Never has been.

Again, the issue is whether a particular individual's possession of a firearm "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Of which Miller was technically a member by law. Now you're in the wrong. They specifically mentioned that it was about short barrelled shotguns"

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."



Notice that" Absence of any evidence"? Wouldn't you say there being no defendant to present evidence would make that relevant?

And the meaning of "to bear arms."

Fine, show me a counter-meaning.



You think that helps you?

Yes. It clearly shows a mindset and usage.

There are several examples on both sides of the aisle where even organizations support issues that form a paradox or even contradiction with its core beliefs. For example, the ACLU supports hate-crime legislation. I oppose hate crime legislation on civil liberties grounds. As I see it, government has a duty to punish only the crime, and avoid if at all possible the person's particular beliefs. (besides, violent crime is, by definition, hate crime). I may disapprove of what that person believes, but those beliefs are that person's business, and singling him out for his beliefs is a violation of his right to privacy. This inherent contradiction is made worse by the fact that the ACLU routinely goes to bat for the rights of criminals (on the death penalty, for example).

Of course, the obvious reason for this intellectual vacancy is demographical. The ACLU is supported by religious, racial, and political minorities which would benefit from hate crime legislation. Unfortunately, these people cannot intellectually extend the protection they enjoy to those who are their enemies. Their support of the ACLU is one of convenience, not of intellectualism. Therefore, the ACLU must compromise its intellectual mindset for political reality.

Why do groups like the NRA and certain groups of the Christian Right support the 2nd Amendment so vehemently, and yet turn about and accuse groups such as the ACLU of being anti-American. To them I have a question.

Since when was our right to bear arms the most important aspect of citizenship? I though our nation was SUPPOSED to be known for it's freedom of religion, speech, assembly and press...

Our government, being the gung-ho, patriotic and nationalistic group that it is, (with no small part being that arms companies practically pay their salaries, and that they also have a boner for military spending), AREN'T going to take your guns away. But they ARE currently taking away other rights. You claim to uphold the Constitution, and yet you let them get away with that?

I know it is little more than a rhetorical statement, but do groups like these know that their priorities are more than a little skewed? I'm just putting that out there.

I have included a poll, I would like to know what you think.

1. The NRA and the Religious Right are not the same.

2. The NRA and the ACLU often co-operate on issues.

3. The NRA and other Second Amendment groups serve a useful purpose, just as the ACLU does.

I happen to agree more with the ACLU than the NRA, but they are not mutual exclusive.

Yes, he has.

"Not until recently" doesn't matter. As long as it is now, then there is a correlation between gun supportion and religiosity.

Huh?

How have you shown his links to be inaccurate?


Oooh, nice ad hominem. I want to use it.
Infact, I will.

He's already shown the evidence. Your assumptions are just that

He used a Wiki article to make some generalizations and assumptions .

I used the actual laws and the history of the progression of said laws in the various states.

Have a nice day.

I agree there are certain restrictions. I have few problems w/ the 1934 acts heavily restricting fully-auto weapons. You'll find that common among most firearm owners. Groups like the NRA are valuable and continue to gain support when politicians constantly try to make even more restrictive laws that have been shown not to have any effect on crime and only punish citizens, etc. I'm sure the ACLU wouldn't take up a case defending someone who , for example, yelled "Fire" in a theatre.

The confiscations in NO were blatantly illegal as they didn't have warrants, refused to give receipts, and then denied they had them. It was only after threats to indict the Mayor and Police Chief that they (the city) "discovered" them.

There have also been recent cases of abuses by the BATFE (shock) profiling women and minorities at gun shows along w/ harrassment. Neither the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, or any other group stood up for those who were being harrassed.
Was the ACLU asked? You seem to take the position that the ACLU only supports so-called "left wing" cases. That's crap.

He used a Wiki article to make some generalizations and assumptions .

I used the actual laws and the history of the progression of said laws in the various states.

Have a nice day.

And, your laws and history of progression did what? Refuted the claim that Southern and Western states tend to be those with the loosest gun-control?

Provided evidence suggesting a different distribution of NRA 'strength'?

Why do groups like the NRA and certain groups of the Christian Right support the 2nd Amendment so vehemently, and yet turn about and accuse groups such as the ACLU of being anti-American. To them I have a question.

Since when was our right to bear arms the most important aspect of citizenship? I though our nation was SUPPOSED to be known for it's freedom of religion, speech, assembly and press...

Our government, being the gung-ho, patriotic and nationalistic group that it is, (with no small part being that arms companies practically pay their salaries, and that they also have a boner for military spending), AREN'T going to take your guns away. But they ARE currently taking away other rights. You claim to uphold the Constitution, and yet you let them get away with that?

I know it is little more than a rhetorical statement, but do groups like these know that their priorities are more than a little skewed? I'm just putting that out there.

I have included a poll, I would like to know what you think.


What good is having any rights at all ? Unless of course you have a gun to make sure no one can take them away .

" A covenant without a sword is just words "

The Bill of rights is the covenant.
The second ammendment is the SWORD .
I'm a lifetime member of the NRA BTW and could care less about any organized religion . I also contribute at times to the ACLU . They serve a purpose . its dumb to pigeon hole people .

He used a Wiki article to make some generalizations and assumptions .

I used the actual laws and the history of the progression of said laws in the various states.

Have a nice day.
He has proved that where religious nuts live, gun nuts live also.
You have proved that it wasn't always like that.
His argument was that where religious nuts live, gun nuts live also.
Thus, you proving that it wasn't always like that has no bearing on the argument as long as it's like that NOW.

There are several examples on both sides of the aisle where even organizations support issues that form a paradox or even contradiction with its core beliefs. For example, the ACLU supports hate-crime legislation. I oppose hate crime legislation on civil liberties grounds. As I see it, government has a duty to punish only the crime, and avoid if at all possible the person's particular beliefs. (besides, violent crime is, by definition, hate crime). I may disapprove of what that person believes, but those beliefs are that person's business, and singling him out for his beliefs is a violation of his right to privacy. This inherent contradiction is made worse by the fact that the ACLU routinely goes to bat for the rights of criminals (on the death penalty, for example).

Of course, the obvious reason for this intellectual vacancy is demographical. The ACLU is supported by religious, racial, and political minorities which would benefit from hate crime legislation. Unfortunately, these people cannot intellectually extend the protection they enjoy to those who are their enemies. Their support of the ACLU is one of convenience, not of intellectualism. Therefore, the ACLU must compromise its intellectual mindset for political reality.

Meh. Hate crime legislation merely increases the penalties for some crimes due to intent. Intent has pretty much always been used to determine degree of offense and punishment.

There is nothing contradictory about the ACLU's position on this issue.

Was the ACLU asked? You seem to take the position that the ACLU only supports so-called "left wing" cases. That's crap.

And nowhere did I say that. The OP was making a comparison to the NRA and the ACLU in the area of particular rights claiming that the NRA opposed all but the 2nd.

And, your laws and history of progression did what? Refuted the claim that Southern and Western states tend to be those with the loosest gun-control?

Provided evidence suggesting a different distribution of NRA 'strength'?


I live in Philadelphia ..Pennsyslvania . What gun laws ??? Just in case you
need to look PA. is in the North East of the United States . New Jersey is the communist part of the US .
Gun controll laws are a mixed bag in the US , state by state depending on the population density and Urban to farm/ suburb ratio . in fact it kinda actually makes some sense . If the NRA was as good as people claim New Jersey wouldnt exist .

And, your laws and history of progression did what? Refuted the claim that Southern and Western states tend to be those with the loosest gun-control?

Provided evidence suggesting a different distribution of NRA 'strength'?

No, it showed that the "coastal" states weren't "for more gun control" while many southern and western states had more restrictive laws.

That refutes your "evidence".

He has proved that where religious nuts live, gun nuts live also.
You have proved that it wasn't always like that.
His argument was that where religious nuts live, gun nuts live also.
Thus, you proving that it wasn't always like that has no bearing on the argument as long as it's like that NOW.

It hasn't "always" been like that nor is it like that "now".

He hasn't "proved" anything.

Kecibukia,

I could continue to play devil's advocate against your positions, but I've already expressed agreement with the ultimate conclusion that the Second Amendment should protect an individual right to bear arms.

You do seriously misread Miller, but nevermind.

Although I believe in a right to possess firearms, it still bothers me that so many canards are marched out in support of that right.

Religouse "nuts" live everywhere . Thats like saying gun nuts live every place that has oxygen . Or grass or trees ...

Kecibukia,

I could continue to play devil's advocate against your positions, but I've already expressed agreement with the ultimate conclusion that the Second Amendment should protect an individual right to bear arms.

You do seriously misread Miller, but nevermind.

Although I believe in a right to possess firearms, it still bothers me that so many canards are marched out in support of that right.

I know. I get cheesed at them as well.
I just wish that you'ld take a less hostile tone towards the non-fanatics. I tend to get confrontational. I'll work on that.


I still think that Miller is a weak case though . :)

I beg to differ. That only works if you have a legitimate source. Wiki is not legit.
And why not? Because you say so?

*snip*
Deregulate all .22-caliber firearms. The .22LR is already the prime weapon of choice for murders in the US: laws restricting them obviously don't seemt to be doing much. As is, the few restrictions that do exist only impede legitimate ownership, so boot 'em.
*snip*

Say what? How, exactly, do you figure that?

It hasn't "always" been like that nor is it like that "now".

He hasn't "proved" anything.
Yes he has, at least relatively.
On that site you showed with the right to carry pictures:
You'll notice that the farther northeast you go, the more restrictive the laws get, with the exception of California.
In states with big cities, these cities often influence politics more then the rest of the state. So that explains California.

Yes he has, at least relatively.
On that site you showed with the right to carry pictures:
You'll notice that the farther northeast you go, the more restrictive the laws get, with the exception of California.
In states with big cities, these cities often influence politics more then the rest of the state. So that explains California.

Now try looking again. The farthest NE has very loose laws. Most of the "may issue" states are only restrictive in the heavy urban areas like LA and NYC. The less urban areas have more CCW issues. That shows that the generalizations from the Wiki article are false.

That's why I support legalising personal artilery, and even personal WMDs if that's what it takes to restore ballance to the system.

Now on to your baby, the dependent clause:
A well regulated milita
Did you know that the militias that the colonies used to rebel against Great Brittain were illegal under british law? Of course you did. Militias are not a tool of the central government like the national guard.

being necessary to the security of a free state
I believe you've put too much emphasis on the word state, and that would be the crux of the problem. The word state is modified by the word free. A free state is one in which its citizenry are able to exersise their political and civil rights. Without that option, a state ceases to be free.

I disagree. If that were the case, the ammendment would not have refference "the people". If your interpretation of original intent were accurate, the ammendment would have specifically talked about the rights of the states to form independent militas.
"
You would feel freer with everyone having WMD's??

There is nothing that says a militia is a nongovernmental body. They didn't need to mention the states in the amendment because they already defined the militia in the body of the constitution.

Article 1 Section 8

Congress shall have the power....
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectivly, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article 2 Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Cheif of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, ....


The states control the militia under rules set down by Congress. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Militias. How much plainer do you want it.


Next, the militias were not illegal under British Law. They existed from the first settlers of the colonies. They couldn't legally rebel against the Crown as they did in the Revolution. But they most certainly DID legally exist for the same reason the second amendment was passed. It was impossible economically to defend the frontier with police and soldiers. When a crime took place or a war started, the Officers had every able bodied man trained in military tactics. The Officer simply formed a posse, or trained military unit. Since it would be impractical to have a storehouse full on guns that may never be used, the men brought their own guns.

If you want to be in the militia, then you have to be trained by the govenment. If you want the original militias then you are arguing for a universal draft, where every man is trained and serves the government in times of illegal activity or war. Just like the Nat. Guard does today.

You would feel freer with everyone having WMD's??

There is nothing that says a militia is a nongovernmental body. They didn't need to mention the states in the amendment because they already defined the militia in the body of the constitution.

Article 1 Section 8

Congress shall have the power....
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectivly, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article 2 Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Cheif of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, ....


The states control the militia under rules set down by Congress. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Militias. How much plainer do you want it.


Next, the militias were not illegal under British Law. They existed from the first settlers of the colonies. They couldn't legally rebel against the Crown as they did in the Revolution. But they most certainly DID legally exist for the same reason the second amendment was passed. It was impossible economically to defend the frontier with police and soldiers. When a crime took place or a war started, the Officers had every able bodied man trained in military tactics. The Officer simply formed a posse, or trained military unit. Since it would be impractical to have a storehouse full on guns that may never be used, the men brought their own guns.

If you want to be in the militia, then you have to be trained by the govenment. If you want the original militias then you are arguing for a universal draft, where every man is trained and serves the government in times of illegal activity or war. Just like the Nat. Guard does today.


Now if you read the thread, by federal law and most states, males 18-45 are automatically members of the militia. Seems the states and congress are falling down on the job.

I read to page three and stopped.
Maybe I'm outta context.
But, has anybody ever thought that the gun restrictions aren't to stop you from stopping 'the man' from taking control, but to prevent everybody from killing eachother, particularly those whackjobs who would be very dangerous w/ an AK?

I'm not interested in the intent; I'm interested in the effects.

Any government act that serves to diminish the capability of an individual to defend himself from overbearing state power is illegitimate, regardless of what it was intended to do.

Furthermore, it's not government's place to stop crimes beforehand; rather, it is to punish the transgressors afterwards.

Now if you read the thread, by federal law and most states, males 18-45 are automatically members of the militia. Seems the states and congress are falling down on the job.

Automatically part of the "unorganized," not the "well regulated," militia.

I'm saddened that you claim the Constitution is definited by blatantly sexist statutes.

If those statutes said only black women were in the militia, would that still define the the Second Amendment.

I'm not interested in the intent; I'm interested in the effects.

Any government act that serves to diminish the capability of an individual to defend himself from overbearing state power is illegitimate, regardless of what it was intended to do.

Furthermore, it's not government's place to stop crimes beforehand; rather, it is to punish the transgressors afterwards.

That's not what you said earlier:

Government is there to defend you from criminals.

I'm not interested in the intent; I'm interested in the effects.

Any government act that serves to diminish the capability of an individual to defend himself from overbearing state power is illegitimate, regardless of what it was intended to do.

Furthermore, it's not government's place to stop crimes beforehand; rather, it is to punish the transgressors afterwards.

Sheesh. Don't you even bother to be consistent? Let alone sane.

Automatically part of the "unorganized," not the "well regulated," militia.

I'm saddened that you claim the Constitution is definited by blatantly sexist statutes.

If those statutes said only black women were in the militia, would that still define the the Second Amendment.

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be 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 entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "
--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be 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 entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "
--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

Tut, tut.

You know full well that The Federalist Papers are not addressing the Second Amendment. They came before the Second Amendment. You cite Cohens v. Virginia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0019_0264_ZO.html), 19 U.S. 264 (1921) out of context. The Court specifically referred to the Federalist as an an authority on the original Constitution.

Furthermore, that quote undermines your notion that just anyone with a gun is part of the well regulated militia. To the contrary, it says that to be a well regulated militia people must undergo "under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions" "to a degree of perfection" -- which the author notes would be a serious inconvenience.

Tut, tut.

You know full well that The Federalist Papers are not addressing the Second Amendment. They came before the Second Amendment. You cite Cohens v. Virginia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0019_0264_ZO.html), 19 U.S. 264 (1921) out of context. The Court specifically referred to the Federalist as an an authority on the original Constitution.

Furthermore, that quote undermines your notion that just anyone with a gun is part of the well regulated militia. To the contrary, it says that to be a well regulated militia people must undergo "under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions" "to a degree of perfection" -- which the author notes would be a serious inconvenience.

Hmm, just for the sake of discussion Cat, let us suppose that the collectivist view is a correct one.

In that case, wouldn't the states themselves have the right to define the militia (i.e. 'regulate' it) and thereby have the power to define for themselves what constitutes the appropriate amount of gun control? In other words, federal firearms law are null and void in the event that they conflict with more liberal state laws. (The supremecy clause being overridden in this specific instance owing to the fact that the second ammendment is an ammendment).

Possibly, of course, many state laws would have to be re-enacted with a 'militia purpose' clause to pass muster. But that's not a big deal. Further, shouldn't other states grant comity because of the full faith and credit, or the privileges and immunties, clauses?

Just idly speculating.

Tut, tut.

You know full well that The Federalist Papers are not addressing the Second Amendment. They came before the Second Amendment. You cite Cohens v. Virginia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0019_0264_ZO.html), 19 U.S. 264 (1921) out of context. The Court specifically referred to the Federalist as an an authority on the original Constitution.

Furthermore, that quote undermines your notion that just anyone with a gun is part of the well regulated militia. To the contrary, it says that to be a well regulated militia people must undergo "under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions" "to a degree of perfection" -- which the author notes would be a serious inconvenience.

No, I'm not citing it out of context. It was 1821 BTW and was discussing the 11th amendment. The quote states that to make a "well regulated" militia would not work but says nothing about who are members of the militia. It states "all the militia".

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped "

Alexander Hamilton Federalist, No. 29


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Hmm, just for the sake of discussion Cat, let us suppose that the collectivist view is a correct one.

In that case, wouldn't the states themselves have the right to define the militia (i.e. 'regulate' it) and thereby have the power to define for themselves what constitutes the appropriate amount of gun control? In other words, federal firearms law are null and void in the event that they conflict with more liberal state laws. (The supremecy clause being overridden in this specific instance owing to the fact that the second ammendment is an ammendment).

Possibly, of course, many state laws would have to be re-enacted with a 'militia purpose' clause to pass muster. But that's not a big deal. Further, shouldn't other states grant comity because of the full faith and credit, or the privileges and immunties, clauses?

Just idly speculating.

Let me be clear: despite my advocacy at times, I have changed positions and am now in the individual rights camp.

Nonetheless, your speculation is interesting. Only the well-regulated militia would qualify still. Your idea of a reverse supremacy is interesting, but it would only apply where the federal law interferred with "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated [state] militia."

And the right is not be an individual one to assert, but only one that could be asserted by the state against the federal government. Individuals lack standing.

Neither full faith and credit nor privileges and immunities apply because -- as you note yourself each state has an individual right to define its own militia.

There are cases out there that discuss some of the nuiances as the collectivist view is the nigh unanimous view of the appellate courts.

Let me be clear: despite my advocacy at times, I have changed positions and am now in the individual rights camp.

That is funny. Mostly because having read many of your posts with interest, I have become convinced that the collectivist view is probably the correct one. I'm still for individual ownership of firearms of course, but I no longer believe that the source of this is the constitution. (Though I stand by my statement that miller is ambiguous in that respect).

Nonetheless, your speculation is interesting. Only the well-regulated militia would qualify still. Your idea of a reverse supremacy is interesting, but it would only apply where the federal law interferred with "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated [state] militia."

Yah, that's why I said there would probably have to be re-enactments of current legislation to reflect a 'militia' purpose. Granted it's arguable either way, and largely depends upon how you choose to define 'regulated' and 'efficiency'. Probably, however, any bill with sufficient precatory language could go a long way to addressing this concern.

And the right is not be an individual one to assert, but only one that could be asserted by the state against the federal government. Individuals lack standing.

I don't dispute this. However, surely an individual could interpose this interpretation as a defense in the case that he or she was charged under federal law. (Possibly: and only under circumstances where the law had been re-enacted with the needed language, which would of course require state involvement at some level).

Neither full faith and credit nor privileges and immunities apply because -- as you note yourself each state has an individual right to define its own militia.

Yah, I know. I'm thinking along the lines of public policy &c however. I can drive my new hampshire car in california, despite it not meeting emissions standards. Something like that. As I said, I'm an idle speculator, so I haven't really fleshed this out.

There are cases out there that discuss some of the nuiances as the collectivist view is the nigh unanimous view of the appellate courts.

Like I said, though I don't agree with it, that probably the de facto state of things. Of course, my opion is that people should vote more anyway, so it's their own fault.

Unfortunately, state militias dont exist anymore (or at least on the scale they used to in the 1800s), so the issue of a regular citizen owning a gun has nothing to do with the second amendment.

State Militias do exist on pretty heavy scales, contrary to your (unfounded) belief:

"The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age." (COV 44-1)

And this is not the "National Guard" as some would have it, the "National Guard" is not the "Militia" they are two seperate entities: the Code of Virginia defines the "National Guard" in 44-2:

"The National Guard shall consist of the regularly enlisted militia and of commissioned and warrant officers..."

Therefore members of the National Guard are those "commissioned", "warranted" or "enlisted" from the "Militia" which is before defined as everyone who is a Citizen (or intended) between 16 and 55... Legally speaking "Person" == "Citizen" == "Militia"... Infringing the rights of the people, infringes the rights of the state militia, and infrining the rights of the state militia infringes the right of the people, because there is little differentiation between the two.

Hmm, just for the sake of discussion Cat, let us suppose that the collectivist view is a correct one.

In that case, wouldn't the states themselves have the right to define the militia (i.e. 'regulate' it) and thereby have the power to define for themselves what constitutes the appropriate amount of gun control? In other words, federal firearms law are null and void in the event that they conflict with more liberal state laws. (The supremecy clause being overridden in this specific instance owing to the fact that the second ammendment is an ammendment).

Possibly, of course, many state laws would have to be re-enacted with a 'militia purpose' clause to pass muster. But that's not a big deal. Further, shouldn't other states grant comity because of the full faith and credit, or the privileges and immunties, clauses?

Just idly speculating.

No. Article I and II explicitly put control of arming, overseeing, and calling out the militia for defined purposes in the hands of the legislative and executive branch of the federal government. It's one of the enumerated powers of Congress and the President.

Really, I see people as being fully entitled to own guns, but protected under Ninth Amendment provisions rather than Second Amendment provisions, and subject to reasonable necessity that the NRA simply isn't willing to countenance. If you are willing to accept that the average Joe with an ought-six is part of the militia, then you grant his right to a weapon, but you also give the Congress the specific right to define what he is armed with, since it is their power to arm the militia. You also put him under the control of the President for calling out the use of such weapon, since he is the one in command of the militia. So the only way to rigidly secure rights, IMO, is to attach it to the Ninth Amendment.

State Militias do exist on pretty heavy scales, contrary to your (unfounded) belief:

"The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age." (COV 44-1)

And this is not the "National Guard" as some would have it, the "National Guard" is not the "Militia" they are two seperate entities: the Code of Virginia defines the "National Guard" in 44-2:

"The National Guard shall consist of the regularly enlisted militia and of commissioned and warrant officers..."

Therefore members of the National Guard are those "commissioned", "warranted" or "enlisted" from the "Militia" which is before defined as everyone who is a Citizen (or intended) between 16 and 55... Legally speaking "Person" == "Citizen" == "Militia"... Infringing the rights of the people, infringes the rights of the state militia, and infrining the rights of the state militia infringes the right of the people, because there is little differentiation between the two.


I would hardly call the National Guard a militia, as they would have reacted to the massive infringement of rights the US government has been doing to its people.

And, wow, one state. Thats such a large scale..almost even a larger scale than when it used to be in EVERY state.

Now if you read the thread, by federal law and most states, males 18-45 are automatically members of the militia. Seems the states and congress are falling down on the job.
What the Constitution says is IF there is a militia, it is under the States, regulated by the Feds. It does not say there MUST be a militia. It does NOT say a militia is REQUIRED. Some States didn't have militias. It says how a militia will opperate IF there is a Militia.

Saying EVERYONE is in the militia may be in some state laws, but is NOT in the Constitution. Therefore is not relevent if there is NO Militia.

Should Congress decide a Militia is needed, Then and ONLY then will the universal draft be relevent.

No. Article I and II explicitly put control of arming, overseeing, and calling out the militia for defined purposes in the hands of the legislative and executive branch of the federal government. It's one of the enumerated powers of Congress and the President.


I guess ammendments are pointless then...

I'm not interested in the intent; I'm interested in the effects.

Any government act that serves to diminish the capability of an individual to defend himself from overbearing state power is illegitimate, regardless of what it was intended to do.

Furthermore, it's not government's place to stop crimes beforehand; rather, it is to punish the transgressors afterwards.
That’s the kind of anti-statism that makes my day just a little bit brighter.

Now try looking again. The farthest NE has very loose laws. Most of the "may issue" states are only restrictive in the heavy urban areas like LA and NYC. The less urban areas have more CCW issues. That shows that the generalizations from the Wiki article are false.

Are you having problems with the word 'tend'?

It doesn't imply anything absolute... only 'tendency'.

Southern and Western states TEND to be more firearm permissive. If a couple of south-western states oppose that line, or a couple of north-east staes support, it doesn't invalidate the TENDENCY.

What the Constitution says is IF there is a militia, it is under the States, regulated by the Feds. It does not say there MUST be a militia. It does NOT say a militia is REQUIRED. Some States didn't have militias. It says how a militia will opperate IF there is a Militia.

Saying EVERYONE is in the militia may be in some state laws, but is NOT in the Constitution. Therefore is not relevent if there is NO Militia.

Should Congress decide a Militia is needed, Then and ONLY then will the universal draft be relevent.

Now pay attention. It has been posted several times. Federal law states there IS a militia.

Are you having problems with the word 'tend'?

It doesn't imply anything absolute... only 'tendency'.

Southern and Western states TEND to be more firearm permissive. If a couple of south-western states oppose that line, or a couple of north-east staes support, it doesn't invalidate the TENDENCY.

You tried to equate NRA membership/firearm support w/ religious bigotry. You stated that "NRA strongholds" are in S & W states w/ lots of fundamentalism. I showed that firearm opposition was NOT the standard in the states/regions your article used as examples.

You TEND to keep ignoring that and continue to argue your correlation based on a Wiki article and discriminatory stereotypes.

Now pay attention. It has been posted several times. Federal law states there IS a militia.
I'm still pretty sure you have to join a militia to be in a militia.

I'm still pretty sure you have to join a militia to be in a militia.

No. Federal Law states that all males 18-45 are automatically part of the militia. Many, if not most, states also have similar provisions in their constitutions.

You tried to equate NRA membership/firearm support w/ religious bigotry. You stated that "NRA strongholds" are in S & W states w/ lots of fundamentalism. I showed that firearm opposition was NOT the standard in the states/regions your article used as examples.

You TEND to keep ignoring that and continue to argue your correlation based on a Wiki article and discriminatory stereotypes.

"Stated"? A strong word. Suggested, perhaps.

And how is a chart of the states in which fundamentalist churches are most numerous... 'disciminatory' stereotyping?

The whole way through, I have maintained that there is a 'tendency' for religious fundamentalism and leniency regarding firearms, to overlap.

Don't just keep trying to restate my platform, for your benefit... you haven't managed to show that the 'tendency' is false...

As for the comment: "You stated that "NRA strongholds" are in S & W states w/ lots of fundamentalism. I showed that firearm opposition was NOT the standard in the states/regions your article used as examples"... if that actually reads how you MEAN it to read... it's not an argument against anything I've said.

"Stated"? A strong word. Suggested, perhaps.

And how is a chart of the states in which fundamentalist churches are most numerous... 'disciminatory' stereotyping?

The whole way through, I have maintained that there is a 'tendency' for religious fundamentalism and leniency regarding firearms, to overlap.

Don't just keep trying to restate my platform, for your benefit... you haven't managed to show that the 'tendency' is false...

As for the comment: "You stated that "NRA strongholds" are in S & W states w/ lots of fundamentalism. I showed that firearm opposition was NOT the standard in the states/regions your article used as examples"... if that actually reads how you MEAN it to read... it's not an argument against anything I've said.

You haven't even shown the "tendancy" is true except for a stupid Wiki article.

I've shown that firearm support also "tends" to be strong areas that aren't heavily fundamentalist. Therefore your "NRA strongholds " bit is false which IS an arguement against everything you've said.

Keep sidestepping and backstepping. You might have a career in dancing.

You haven't even shown the "tendancy" is true except for a stupid Wiki article.

I've shown that firearm support also "tends" to be strong areas that aren't heavily fundamentalist. Therefore your "NRA strongholds " bit is false which IS an arguement against everything you've said.

Keep sidestepping and backstepping. You might have a career in dancing.

I haven't sidestepped or bactracked:

Here, look, my first ever post in the thread:

"And, the NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds..."

Compared to my recent argument, just a post or so ago:

"The whole way through, I have maintained that there is a 'tendency' for religious fundamentalism and leniency regarding firearms, to overlap..."


Clearly, to claim I sidestep or backtrack, is disingenuous, at best.

You know, there seem to be a few reasons to be in favor of the second amendment. If you happen to like hunting, for instance, you're probably partial to owning a firearm. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a lot of hunters using semi-automatic machineguns or 9mm's. Very few cute and fuzzy woodland creatures get blown to oblivion courtesy of an uzi. And I also don't see a lot of gangbangers utilizing hunting gear.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to just outlaw all the non-hunting gear, and make the people who want to use that stuff be a member of a nice and certified little club or something? Apart from the police and the army, who do you really want to have roam the streets, armed.

Of course, you have the right to protect yourself and your family. I don't see how this concept gives you a licence to kill, however. You are no longer living in the wild west - you are living in a wealthy and well-ordered, stable society. There are a myriad of institutions that exist to keep you and yours safe. What would make society as a whole a better place: scrapping the second amendment, leaving the possession of guns to those sanctioned by the government - or allowing anyone and his/her cousin Betsy to get armed. Sure, you'd claim to sleep easier with a gun under your pillow. You would, knowing it's a given that whomever is going to come a-knocking will bring along a gun.

Just take a look at the people you hang out with, your next of kin, etcetera. How many of those people would you actually want to be armed? (I know ... freaks me out too)

It's pretty obvious that the second amendment is a relic from times long past. At the time it was written, it was intended as a way to make your society more stable - life was a tad more dangerous, society was a lot more spread out, and law enforcement was not as proficient or prevalent. Nowadays, all it does is provide America with a rather sizable deathtoll due to firearm-related accidents alone.

Unless the US has taken to a social darwinist stance, wherein it applauds certain groups of people killing themselves off in record numbers, the second amendment serves no purpose.

With regards to the NRA - if it happens to be a group that brings hunters together to drool over guns, fine. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. That'd mean there is virtually no difference between the NRA and say a [insert brand of car] enthousiast group. As soon as any organization begins to engage in illegitimate actitivies, or starts preaching vigilantism however, there is a problem.

But I'm sure the honorable members of the NRA would never do anything that goes against the laws provided by their government. Or even to take any sort of violent action themselves. That's what terrorists do. And it'd be silly to make that connection, right?

Congradulations, you provoked a response.
You know, there seem to be a few reasons to be in favor of the second amendment.

Quite a few if you take the time to consider the matter. You don't need to agree with them, but it would be nice if you would at least think about our actual arguements and try to discredit them.

If you happen to like hunting, for instance, you're probably partial to owning a firearm. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a lot of hunters using semi-automatic machineguns or 9mm's. Very few cute and fuzzy woodland creatures get blown to oblivion courtesy of an uzi.

This is a red herring. Hunting is just one of several reasons for firearm ownership, and it is the right least relavent to the second ammendment.

Secondly, your lack of understanding of basic firearms categories is disapointing in someone wanting to debate the relative merits of allowing certain weapons. For your education, and that of any other forum member who doesn't know these things, I'll correct these two major oversights.

1. Semi-automatic means that you don't need to manually rack or cock the weapon every time you fire it. The only pistols that aren't semi-automatic anymore are revolvers, and excepting shotguns and bold-action rifles, most rifles fall into this category as well. By definition, you have to pull the trigger once for each shot you take with a semi-automatic weapon.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about this term, possibly people thing that it means that you pull the trigger and a burst of three to five shots come out in rapid succession or somesuch nonsense.

2 9mm is a caliber of ammunition, reffering to the diameter of the bullet. It is quite useful in the capacity of hunting, because the penetration is sufficient to pass through the skull of a large game animal.

And I also don't see a lot of gangbangers utilizing hunting gear.

The weapons your gang bangers use are military style weapons intended to kill other people, which is really closer to the intent of the second ammendment than your hunting tangent.

If we make weapons of self-defence illegal, only criminals will be able to defend themselves. The proper response to criminals with weapons is not to take the weapons away from the law abiding populice, but rather to level the playing field. Since criminals won't voletarily disarm, and the places with the most heavily armed criminals are no man's land for the police, our only option is to arm the people living there to defend themselves.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to just outlaw all the non-hunting gear, and make the people who want to use that stuff be a member of a nice and certified little club or something? Apart from the police and the army, who do you really want to have roam the streets, armed.

You really have no idea what the point of the second ammendment is, do you? You're just like all the other ignorant dolts who think that the only reason to have a gun is hunting. Defence of oneself and one's property is an inalienable right, be the person in question defending himself against criminals, foreign invaders, or his own government.

Of course, you have the right to protect yourself and your family. I don't see how this concept gives you a licence to kill, however.

So we can protect ourselves, but we can't kill to protect ourselves? When a criminal is able to use lethal force, but the law abiding citizen is not, that creates an imballance of power, skewed in the criminal's favor. Our current laws do disagree with your assertion that we aren't allowed to use lethal force. A plea of self-defence, properly proven, can and does get a person off homoside charges.

You are no longer living in the wild west - you are living in a wealthy and well-ordered, stable society. There are a myriad of institutions that exist to keep you and yours safe.

And are those instatutions everywhere all the time? Are they infallable? Cops never avoid certain parts of town because the gang warfare is too dangerous for them? Dirty cops never harrass ordinary civilians? Even if these events are not the norm, they do happen, and the people have a right to defend themselves, not a right to be protected by people who might well be out to get them anyway.

What would make society as a whole a better place: scrapping the second amendment, leaving the possession of guns to those sanctioned by the government - or allowing anyone and his/her cousin Betsy to get armed.

I believe arming everyone would make society a better place.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyrany. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

If only the government has any weapons at all, I get the impression that they have surprisingly little to fear.

Sure, you'd claim to sleep easier with a gun under your pillow. You would, knowing it's a given that whomever is going to come a-knocking will bring along a gun.

If you want to talk about me personally, I am much more concerned that agents of the government will be the dangerous people coming a-knocking than the ordinary psychos out there. Either way, as long as the government is armed, I should be too.

Just take a look at the people you hang out with, your next of kin, etcetera. How many of those people would you actually want to be armed? (I know ... freaks me out too)

All of them. Mutually asured destruction can be a useful detterent. If you know everyone's potentially packing, are you more or less likely to start a fight?

It's pretty obvious that the second amendment is a relic from times long past. At the time it was written, it was intended as a way to make your society more stable - life was a tad more dangerous, society was a lot more spread out, and law enforcement was not as proficient or prevalent.

Law enforcement is still imperfect at best. When I see a police officer, I don't know about you, but my first reaction is, "What could he possibly ticket me for?" rather than, "There's someone who'll protect me if something happens." There are still places the police don't go, mostly in the inner cities, and that alone should be reason enough to discredit your supposition that people can be protected by Big Brother, and so shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves.

Nowadays, all it does is provide America with a rather sizable deathtoll due to firearm-related accidents alone.

Unless the US has taken to a social darwinist stance, wherein it applauds certain groups of people killing themselves off in record numbers, the second amendment serves no purpose.

For the record, I do applaud the stupid people who kill themselves off. It really does improve society as a whole.

With regards to the NRA - if it happens to be a group that brings hunters together to drool over guns, fine. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. That'd mean there is virtually no difference between the NRA and say a [insert brand of car] enthousiast group.

So, you're perfectly happy as long as this group arguing for basic political and civil rights keeps to itself and becomes no more threatening to the status quo than a bake sale?

As soon as any organization begins to engage in illegitimate actitivies, or starts preaching vigilantism however, there is a problem.

But I'm sure the honorable members of the NRA would never do anything that goes against the laws provided by their government. Or even to take any sort of violent action themselves. That's what terrorists do. And it'd be silly to make that connection, right?
The NRA is actuall about protesting the unconstitutional restrictions placed on gun ownership and use imposed by the congress and state laws. Since the supremacy clause puts the constitution above all other laws in the country, the right to keep and bare arms trumps any gun control legislation in terms of legal issues. As such, I would contend that if I owned a LAW in blatent disregard of congressional law, I would still be legally in the right due to the supremacy clause.