NationStates Jolt Archive

The 2nd amendment's scope is being questioned, in the first case in 70 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701001.html


Now, I'm hardly a gun fan, but I think people should be able to have weapons, if it's for hunting (especially if it's a tranq gun) or collecting civil war-era weaponry.

But that's just me.

That's...quite worrying.

maybe we can finally decide that the people have the right to own guns. If they rule that it is only for militias, then look for militias form all over the country.

This is perhaps the only topic on which my views have changed, as a result of another's argument. Formerly an advocate of strong gun control, I realized the value of maitaining a "well armed militia" when someone pointed out that if guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

maybe we can finally decide that the people have the right to own guns. If they rule that it is only for militias, then look for militias form all over the country.

It'll probably be like the gun show exception that gun stores are always using. "Well man, we happen to have a real nice, well-regulated militia right in this shop"

That'll be an interesting case. I'll bet that when it makes it to the SCOTUS, they'll find a way to make the case about something other than whether or not individuals have the right to own guns, and I'll bet it has something to do with DC's peculiar situation as a stateless city.

Well, let's shatter the argument of the DC folks right here and right now.

First, it is US Federal Law that all males, aged 18-45 are members of the "unorganized militia", and that guns are permitted to be owned by members of the militia, all males 18-45 have the right to own guns.

Secondly, they DC folks aren't reading the amendment correctly,

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.


When reading this we can see that it states that it is necessary for the states to maintain a militia. As such, in order to permit the states to maintain a militia, the ability of the people to access arms shall not be infringed. The Amendment is twofold, first in the fact that the states need to maintain a militia, and second that the people have the right to bear arms because of the need for the states to maintain a militia. The argument that the states already have the National Guard is irrelevant, because the Amendment is clear, the people have a right to bear arms, regardless of whether or not the state can provide arms for it's militia itself. There's no qualifier, there's just an absolute.

Well, let's shatter the argument of the DC folks right here and right now.

First, it is US Federal Law that all males, aged 18-45 are members of the "unorganized militia", and that guns are permitted to be owned by members of the militia, all males 18-45 have the right to own guns.

Secondly, they DC folks aren't reading the amendment correctly,




When reading this we can see that it states that it is necessary for the states to maintain a militia. As such, in order to permit the states to maintain a militia, the ability of the people to access arms shall not be infringed. The Amendment is twofold, first in the fact that the states need to maintain a militia, and second that the people have the right to bear arms because of the need for the states to maintain a militia. The argument that the states already have the National Guard is irrelevant, because the Amendment is clear, the people have a right to bear arms, regardless of whether or not the state can provide arms for it's militia itself. There's no qualifier, there's just an absolute.That's not an absolute, which is why there's been more or less continuous debate over this amendment for over a century now. My problem is that the amendment is poorly worded--it's as though it's meant to be argued over, which is probably why the SCOTUS has never treated it as they have the rest of the bill of rights. It's the only unincorporated amendment that potentially deals with personal freedoms, and I don't blame SCOTUS for not wanting to address it. That amendment is a rhetorical and grammatical disaster area. I can't tell you what it definitively says and I've got a terminal degree in English.

I personally own a gun. One. Big deal. However, if someone breaks into my home at night it is a big deal and I'm glad that I have the capacity to defend myself. Yay Texas.

I'm going to register for my concealed weapon license eventually, though.

I think people should be free to own any gun they wish, so long as it does not compromise the ability of the police to enforce the law.

IE: a handgun to deter a burglar is fine.

an automatic weapon with armor piercing bullets is not.

That's not an absolute, which is why there's been more or less continuous debate over this amendment for over a century now. My problem is that the amendment is poorly worded--it's as though it's meant to be argued over, which is probably why the SCOTUS has never treated it as they have the rest of the bill of rights. It's the only unincorporated amendment that potentially deals with personal freedoms, and I don't blame SCOTUS for not wanting to address it. That amendment is a rhetorical and grammatical disaster area. I can't tell you what it definitively says and I've got a terminal degree in English.

I think you're right. A lot of the vagueness is probably a result of the drift of the American english dialect.

I think people should be free to own any gun they wish, so long as it does not compromise the ability of the police to enforce the law.

IE: a handgun to deter a burglar is fine.

an automatic weapon with armor piercing bullets is not.

I don't like for guns to be controlled, nay I dislike that they be regulated, but practicality is part of the matter. If we make the weapons illegal to have/use/own I feel that we limit the ideal of the right to bare arms.

*enjoys pun*

*slaps himself for stupidity and spelling*

That's...quite worrying.

Why? Because there is a threat that the clarification of the most ambiguous amendment in the Constitution will not go your way?

I don't like for guns to be controlled, nay I dislike that they be regulated, but practicality is part of the matter. If we make the weapons illegal to have/use/own I feel that we limit the ideal of the right to bare arms.

*enjoys pun*

*slaps himself for stupidity and spelling*

so you think that anyone who wants to can have access to military grade firearms?

You'd change your mind after watching the Podunk, Iowa police force get slaughtered in a gunfight against someone armed with automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets (kevlar? no problem!).

what about more potent equipment, like mortars or grenade launchers? do you think they should be available off store shelves? technically, they are firearms.

and we wouldn't want that right to slaughter infringed, now would we?


I say it again: any firearm that does not compromise the ability of law enforcement to maintain order is fine by me.

That's not an absolute, which is why there's been more or less continuous debate over this amendment for over a century now. My problem is that the amendment is poorly worded--it's as though it's meant to be argued over, which is probably why the SCOTUS has never treated it as they have the rest of the bill of rights. It's the only unincorporated amendment that potentially deals with personal freedoms, and I don't blame SCOTUS for not wanting to address it. That amendment is a rhetorical and grammatical disaster area. I can't tell you what it definitively says and I've got a terminal degree in English.

Such a bizarre sense of comma placement they had...

I think people should be free to own any gun they wish, so long as it does not compromise the ability of the police to enforce the law.

IE: a handgun to deter a burglar is fine.

an automatic weapon with armor piercing bullets is not.

Why not? What if the burglars start wearing armor? Or you are regularly harassed by drive by shooters? How does one weapon "compromise the ability of the police to enforce the law" more than another (assuming it will not be fired at police)? The point I am making is you can't make arbitrary and unfounded differentiations between firearms in order to make your position look less fanatical.

Why not? What if the burglars start wearing armor?

Head shot!

Or you are regularly harassed by drive by shooters?

Most cars are not bullet proof. Bullets can go right through them.

How does one weapon "compromise the ability of the police to enforce the law" more than another? The point I am making is you can't make arbitrary and unfounded differentiations between firearms in order to make your position look less fanatical.

I'm agreeing here? :eek:

so you think that anyone who wants to can have access to military grade firearms?

You'd change your mind after watching the Podunk, Iowa police force get slaughtered in a gunfight against someone armed with automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets (kevlar? no problem!).

what about more potent equipment, like mortars or grenade launchers? do you think they should be available off store shelves? technically, they are firearms.

and we wouldn't want that right to slaughter infringed, now would we?


I say it again: any firearm that does not compromise the ability of law enforcement to maintain order is fine by me.

Like I said: practicality. Make it nearly impossible to get your hands on those weapons. In Texas, we don't have any gun control - for standard calibre and gauge weaponry. However, any abnormally destructive firearms are still available, but one must have registration for those. Thusly, balance.

I'm agreeing here? :eek:

I wasn't addressing you. And no, I was making a statement in the absurd to make my point.

I'm not too well versed in Texas gun laws, though.

Any Texans here?

Such a bizarre sense of comma placement they had...
In my darker moments, I wonder if the Framers did it deliberately, just to fuck with future generations. "Let's see them figure this one out, heh heh heh."

In my darker moments, I wonder if the Framers did it deliberately, just to fuck with future generations. "Let's see them figure this one out, heh heh heh."

One will never know.

The Consitution only allows for militias, not individuals. If people organize into a militia, then it's fine. I'm not saying ban guns, just the Constitution does not protect the individual right to a gun. You could also argue that you're a one-man militia...or include your older children or whatever...

The Consitution only allows for militias, not individuals. If people organize into a militia, then it's fine. I'm not saying ban guns, just the Constitution does not protect the individual right to a gun. You could also argue that you're a one-man militia...or include your older children or whatever...

That's one way of interpreting it. To me, it does give us the right to bear arms if we are in a militia or not.

That's one way of interpreting it. To me, it does give us the right to bear arms if we are in a militia or not.

Then why include anything about militias? That is like saying The first amendment provides for freedom of speech, but not the right to petition the government for redress of government. "But wait," you say, "it specifically says that in the Amendment." Yeah and it specifically mentions militias in the second. It isn't in there for shits and giggles.

Then why include anything about militias? That is like saying The first amendment provides for freedom of speech, but not the right to petition the government for redress of government. "But wait," you say, "it specifically says that in the Amendment." Yeah and it specifically mentions militias in the second. It isn't in there for shits and giggles.

It mentions militias because that was the main form of defence for the US in those days. We had a very poor regular army, and a lot of fighting was done by loosely organized militias. The writers probably shoulda realized that that would change.

Why not? What if the burglars start wearing armor? Or you are regularly harassed by drive by shooters? How does one weapon "compromise the ability of the police to enforce the law" more than another (assuming it will not be fired at police)? The point I am making is you can't make arbitrary and unfounded differentiations between firearms in order to make your position look less fanatical.

there is a very real difference between you typical under-the-bed burglar deterrent, and something that can pass through police kevlar with ease.

the first one is small, and while still lethal, does not make it a guaranteed win for the criminals.

I'd like you to say that i'm drawing an "arbitrary and unfounded differentiations between firearms" after watching a couple of criminals with enough equipment to fight Iwo Jima rob a bank, and in the process, shred the local police and security guards apart.


If the gun gives a criminal a significant advantage over your standard police officer, it should not be available to the general public.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written when most guns were basically the same, IE one shot muzzle loaders. Still, I say the Texans have it right. :mp5:

The Consitution only allows for militias, not individuals.
What do you think "the people" in there means? Does it mean something different from all the other usages of "the people" in the Constitution and the amendments? If so, you'll have to explain why, because THAT is precisely what you're saying.

What do you think "the people" in there means? Does it mean something different from all the other usages of "the people" in the Constitution and the amendments? If so, you'll have to explain why, because THAT is precisely what you're saying.

Because the Constitution is a government document is it illegetimate, in your eyes?

Because the Constitution is a government document is it illegetimate, in your eyes?

Um where did this come from?

Um where did this come from?

BWK is an anarcho-capitalist and finds goverment illegitimate.

BWK is an anarcho-capitalist and finds goverment illegitimate.

In my debates with him, he did not come across as such. What he is saying that if People does not mean the same as it does in the rest of the Constitution, then what does it mean? that is what he is asking. That is not saying that it is illegitimate.

As the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to enable the populace to mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever become necessary, any government restriction on weapons ownership is absurd.

In my debates with him, he did not come across as such. What he is saying that if People does not mean the same as it does in the rest of the Constitution, then what does it mean? that is what he is asking. That is not saying that it is illegitimate.

I understand that, but BWK is an anrchist. It shouldn't matter what the Constitution says because all government activities are innately illegitimate to him.

As the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to enable the populace to mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever become necessary, any government restriction on weapons ownership is absurd.

So grenades, bazookas, and nukes are acceptable civilian items?

As the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to enable the populace to mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever become necessary, any government restriction on weapons ownership is absurd.

The bolded actually occured in a county in Tennessee.

I understand that, but BWK is an anrchist. It shouldn't matter what the Constitution says because all government activities are innately illegitimate to him.

Has he stated that he was an anarchist?

As the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to enable the populace to mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever become necessary, any government restriction on weapons ownership is absurd.

that's not "the whole point"

personal profit (professional hunters)
personal protection (burglar deterrent)
personal entertainment (skeet shooting/'sport' hunting)
or just for collections as a hobby.

none of these require automatic reloading or armor piercing capabilities.

In my debates with him, he did not come across as such. What he is saying that if People does not mean the same as it does in the rest of the Constitution, then what does it mean? that is what he is asking. That is not saying that it is illegitimate.
Tech is just pissed at me for intellectually kicking his ass many, many times. He's just stalking me. Quite childish, really.

At any rate, while governments are illegitimate, there is no issue with me desiring to have the notion of individual rights upheld and the language in the Constitution read as it is, instead of someone trying to change the meaning of a couple words because they don't like the implications. Tech just wants to cloud the issue with his stalking.

Why? Because there is a threat that the clarification of the most ambiguous amendment in the Constitution will not go your way?

The funny thing is that it really isn't very ambiguous to me. *nod*

The Consitution only allows for militias, not individuals.

No, it doesn't.

I suggest you find an English professor and ask him what a "subordinate clause" is.

So grenades, bazookas, and nukes are acceptable civilian items?

Yup.

The bolded actually occured in a county in Tennessee.

Yeah, I know :D

Then why include anything about militias? That is like saying The first amendment provides for freedom of speech, but not the right to petition the government for redress of government. "But wait," you say, "it specifically says that in the Amendment." Yeah and it specifically mentions militias in the second. It isn't in there for shits and giggles.

To say that the point of this law is so that the govt. doesn't get stronger then the people want it to.
It doesn't mean that you have to be in a militia at this moment to own a gun, it means that you can own a gun in case you would ever want to join a militia in the future.

To say that the point of this law is so that the govt. doesn't get stronger then the people want it to.
It doesn't mean that you have to be in a militia at this moment to own a gun, it means that you can own a gun in case you would ever want to join a militia in the future.

Actually,


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.



This is saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary in order to keep the militia well regulated.

To say that the point of this law is so that the govt. doesn't get stronger then the people want it to.
It doesn't mean that you have to be in a militia at this moment to own a gun, it means that you can own a gun in case you would ever want to join a militia in the future.

Further, note the modifier "free" in the subordinate (and therefore irrelevant) clause "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"--it's there to guarantee that Congress may not restrict the practical ability to revolt against the State should it cease to be free.

Ok, so, where will the Police be when you are being attacked, or breaking into your house in the middle of the night? So, only the police and the military should be armed? Will there be an officer at every corner available to protect you 24/7? I was a police officer for 8 years, and it did not happen. I did run into a few major crimes in progress, but I can count them with both hands.

By definition and action, the police is a reactionary force. 99% of the times, they will get there after the bad guy is long and gone. Why? Because someone has to call 9-1-1 or the emergency number to report the crime. A very good 9-1-1 center can process and dispatch a call in about 2 minutes. That means, from the time the phone is answered to the time that units are being dispatched. It takes the city police an average of 3-5 minutes to respond to an emergency or crime in progress. So, from the time that the call is made, it will be anywhere from 5-7 minutes. And if it happens to be rush hour, we may have to add another 2 minutes. If you live in the rural county area, it may take the sheriff deputy about 10-15 minutes to get to your emergency.

Also remember, that the US is the only country in the world that guarantees their citizens the right to bear arms. The original Militia, and the current Militia, is defined under US law as:

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

* (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
* (b) The classes of the militia are -
o (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
o (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia.

While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.

Reference Links:

Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13 -- United States Code

There is only one ruling about the 2nd Amendment by the US Supreme Court:
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)[1], is the only Supreme Court of the United States decision to directly address the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that the NFA was not in conflict with the Second Amendment, writing:

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.

The Court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected.

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:

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.

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)[1], is the only Supreme Court of the United States decision to directly address the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution...The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.



So, our founding fathers in the US were very specific about the people being armed, after all, the original US Army or Continental Army composed of regular persons with their weapons. Of course, other thoughts about our right to keep and bear arms by our fathers:

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense... -- John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.

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


As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. -- Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington

The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the government, not to the society; as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms and no possible disadvantage. -- Joel Barlow, Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe: Resulting From the Necessity and Propriety of a General Revolution in the Principle of Government (London, 1792, 1795 and reprint 1956).


And what have other said about it?

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be possible. -- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guarenteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob. -- Malcolm X, in Malcolm X at 337, J. Clarke ed. (New York, N.Y., 1969)

It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law. -- Malcolm X, March 12, 1964

f guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government --and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws. -- Edward Abbey in Abbey's Road, p.39 (Plume, 1979)

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. -- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. -- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon, 1942

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power. -- Yoshimi Ishikawa, author of Japanese best-seller Strawberry Road

I like automatic weapons. I fought for my right to use them in Vietnam. -- Oliver Stone, 1994

I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Today's liberals wish to disarm us so they can run their evil and oppressive agenda on us. The fight against crime is just a convenient excuse to further their agenda. I don't know about you, but if you hear that Williams' guns have been taken, you'll know Williams is dead. -- Walter Williams, Professor of Economics, George Mason University.

The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an 'equalizer.' Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. -- Edward Abbey

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. -- William Burroughs, The War Universe, taped conversation (published in Grand Street, no. 37; reprinted in Painting and Guns, 1992, in a slightly different form).

To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form. -- Roy Innis, National Chairman of Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), The Washington Post, September 5, 1988

Some princes, so as to hold securely the state, have disarmed their subjects.... But when you disarm them, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred against you. And because the government cannot remain unarmed, it follows that the government turns to hired police. Therefore a wise prince has always distributed arms to the general population. -- Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 20 (L. Ricci translation, pg. 105, 1952)


I should also mention, when I was a cop, it was not the honest law abiding citizen that I feared. It was the same persons that we kept arresting every other day, that I knew would be armed.

If any one wishes to discuss this issue further, just TG me, and I will be glad to.

Vic

Tech is just pissed at me for intellectually kicking his ass many, many times. He's just stalking me. Quite childish, really.

Yep, BWK "kicked my ass" using the the techniques that make even some market anarchists and libertarians disdain him. I respect libertarians such as Europa, Vittos,and Neu Leonstein but I must say that BWK is just nuts.

In my darker moments, I wonder if the Framers did it deliberately, just to fuck with future generations. "Let's see them figure this one out, heh heh heh."

I suspect they were enjoying the benefits of Mr. Washington's white lightning at the moment...

Nothing's going to happen, and no one's taking my vintage 1930 Mosin-nagant from me. It'l stay in the corner of my room where it belongs. :D

Sadly, the second amendment *IS* ambiguously worded.

It is not clear from the amednment itself whether or not it means 'the people' in general and whether or not it means the RKBA in the context of well-regulated militia service.

The traditional reading seems to be that civilians have some fundamental right to bear arms in a private sense, and this is what I believe in and agree with.

I am in favor of a limited gun control regime much along the lines of the current NFA and the classes of prohibited persons in the gun control act.

I'm not too well versed in Texas gun laws, though.

Any Texans here?

I am a Texan, as well as a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. However, I had an incident about a week ago that has been troubling me ever since.

I went to a well-established, reputable gun store to buy a new gun; nothing too fancy- just a Ruger .264 calibre rifle. Being only 18, I had never registered a weapon before, and so I started on the form while the clerk rang up my total. As I handed him my driver's license for verification, I remembered that I my ID expired a week or so back, and therefore was not valid. I was nervous, so I didn't say anything about it.

The clerk took the ID and began entering the info into the computer. When he got down to the "Expiration Date" section, he quickly looked at the ID, looked at me, double-took the ID, looked around the store, looked at the computer, and said (under his breath) "Ah, fuck it..."

Five minutes later, I was driving home with my new rifle. How can someone buy a gun without identification? Gun control is a joke in Texas- in case you didn't notice, I wasn't even subject to the three-day "holding period" that supposedly gives the goverment time to make sure I haven't killed anyone lately. :sniper:

True story. True and terrifying, if you ask me.

You guys have a waiting period for longarms? Heck, when I went to pick up my rifle, they just did the instant backround check while they rang up my total, and I drove home with it the same day.

You guys have a waiting period for longarms? same day.


Supposedly, with some loophole about gun shows.

I am a Texan, as well as a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. However, I had an incident about a week ago that has been troubling me ever since.

I went to a well-established, reputable gun store to buy a new gun; nothing too fancy- just a Ruger .264 calibre rifle. Being only 18, I had never registered a weapon before, and so I started on the form while the clerk rang up my total. As I handed him my driver's license for verification, I remembered that I my ID expired a week or so back, and therefore was not valid. I was nervous, so I didn't say anything about it.

The clerk took the ID and began entering the info into the computer. When he got down to the "Expiration Date" section, he quickly looked at the ID, looked at me, double-took the ID, looked around the store, looked at the computer, and said (under his breath) "Ah, fuck it..."

Five minutes later, I was driving home with my new rifle. What the hell is going on? Gun control is a joke in Texas- in case you didn't notice, I wasn't even subject to the three-day "holding period" that supposedly gives the goverment time to make sure I haven't killed anyone lately. :sniper:

True story. True and terrifying, if you ask me.

Nationally, the 5-day waiting period is not necessary under law. The waiting period was originally the time it took to run a background check. With the advent of the NICS, the National Instant Check System, the check is instant and therefore no wait is necessary.

The relevant portions of the gun control act and Brady bill are still enforced in texas, because they are enforced by the federal government.

For the purpose of verifying your identity, an expired ID is probably sufficient. It is unlawful to sell a gun to a prohibited person, and assuming your ID was genuine, it was enough to get your name to feed into the NICS and determine whether or not you were prohibited.

Plus, you probably signed a paper certifying the gun was for yourself, and that you were not a prohibited person. If you lied on that form, you go to prison, not the store employees.

This is perhaps the only topic on which my views have changed, as a result of another's argument. Formerly an advocate of strong gun control, I realized the value of maitaining a "well armed militia" when someone pointed out that if guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

That's bogus thinking. The fact is that allowing people to have guns does not protect the people from their government because only teh government has tanks and FA-18s and trident submarines and rocket propelled grenades... unless you want people to own those, too.

-Snip-

I know what you mean.

I went to the gun show a couple months ago and got me a new rifle. No backround check of any sort, and I didn't even have to show a receipt to the cop when I was leaving.

What really bothered be though is how many mac-10s, tec-9s (you know, lil' people killers) were laying around, and that people who bought them wouldn't require a backround check.

That's bogus thinking. The fact is that allowing people to have guns does not protect the people from their government because only teh government has tanks and FA-18s and trident submarines and rocket propelled grenades... unless you want people to own those, too.

So a large domestic force armed with only firearms and improvised weapons cannot defeat a smaller, better equipped, more high tech force?

...

I know what you mean.

I went to the gun show a couple months ago and got me a new rifle. No backround check of any sort, and I didn't even have to show a receipt to the cop when I was leaving.

What really bothered be though is how many mac-10s, tec-9s (you know, lil' people killers) were laying around, and that people who bought them wouldn't require a backround check.

A mac 10 and a tec 9 arent any more dangerous than any other pistol. High capacity magazines can be bought for most handguns and rifles. If they were fully-automatic, they wouldnt have been cheap or for sale without a background check.

This is perhaps the only topic on which my views have changed, as a result of another's argument. Formerly an advocate of strong gun control, I realized the value of maitaining a "well armed militia" when someone pointed out that if guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

Indeed, and if the government use them against un armed civilains on mass, they will instantly loose all creadablity. It wont work.

There is no need for the citzenry to own guns. The UK proves this. As does most of Europe.

Indeed, and if the government use them against un armed civilains on mass, they will instantly loose all creadablity. It wont work.

There is no need for the citzenry to own guns. The UK proves this. As does most of Europe.

If governments "lost credibity" (who needs credibility when you have a monopoly on violence?) when they used force against their subjects, oppressive regimes would not exist anywhere.


Clearly not the case, sorry.

I know what you mean.

I went to the gun show a couple months ago and got me a new rifle. No backround check of any sort, and I didn't even have to show a receipt to the cop when I was leaving.

What really bothered be though is how many mac-10s, tec-9s (you know, lil' people killers) were laying around, and that people who bought them wouldn't require a backround check.

Because of my family's small outfitting business, I often work sales booths at gun shows (or "Hunter Extravaganza"s :p ). The munitions dealers are so occupied with sales incentives of bottom lines to think twice about criminal discrimination.

The scary part is that the no-gooders know this, and the sad part is that sellers know that the no-gooders know.

i'm very happy that ireland doesnt allow the gardai have guns. population would drop very fast.

Indeed, and if the government use them against un armed civilains on mass, they will instantly loose all creadablity. It wont work.
Unless you have a brutal dictatorship like the USSR or North Korea.


There is no need for the citzenry to own guns.
Who are you to decide what everyone else needs? Wannabe dictator much?

No, it doesn't.

I suggest you find an English professor and ask him what a "subordinate clause" is.
If it were that simple, we wouldn't have been having this debate for the last hundred years. :rolleyes:

So a large domestic force armed with only firearms and improvised weapons cannot defeat a smaller, better equipped, more high tech force?

...
You're making the assumption that, in the case of a US uprising, that the citizenry would join en masse.

Unless you have a brutal dictatorship like the USSR or North Korea.



Neither one of which has, or had, much credibility.

Great strawman..."but...but...if the government outlaws guns, and it turns into a brutally repressive regime, how will the people defend themselves???"

If the government turns into a brutally represive regime small firearms won't help much against tanks and teargas. Likewise there isn't necessarily a connection between the two, unless you want to call great britain a brutally repressive regime.

If the government turns into a brutally represive regime small firearms won't help much against tanks and teargas. Likewise there isn't necessarily a connection between the two, unless you want to call great britain a brutally repressive regime.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/maps/640x480_iraq_postwar.jpg

Neither one of which has, or had, much credibility.
Did to the people who lived there.


Great strawman
No strawman at all.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/maps/640x480_iraq_postwar.jpg

well most of those were done by explosions, not handguns. I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment has not been interpreted to include IEDs

If the government turns into a brutally represive regime small firearms won't help much against tanks and teargas.

Which is why *ANY* government restriction on civilian ownership of weapons is absurd, and is why the Second Amendment to the US Constitution prevents Congress from making such restrictions.

well most of those were done by explosions, not handguns. I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment has not been interpreted to include IEDs

Homemade explosives, to be exact. Plus whatever can be stolen from caches and armories.

Point is, a large scale insurgency with nothing but firearms and whatever other weapons they can steal or improvise can be effective against the tanks and teargas of a occupational and tyrannical force.

Which is why *ANY* government restriction on civilian ownership of weapons is absurd, and is why the Second Amendment to the US Constitution prevents Congress from making such restrictions.

because it's perfectly rational for a government to legally allow its citizens to privatly own tanks, stealth jets, and nuclear warheads.

No problems with that at all

I think the reason no one has responded to Bubabalu's post is because it is so complete you can't fight against it.

I don't think that the original framers of the Constitution ever conceived of the idea that the individual would not be able to bear arms. Was not the point of this Bill of Rights to guarantee rights to the people, to allay the fears of those that believed the government would be able to gain too much power?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And to think a simple 'and' between state and the would have fixed any problems.

Which is why *ANY* government restriction on civilian ownership of weapons is absurd, and is why the Second Amendment to the US Constitution prevents Congress from making such restrictions.
Your second assertion does not necessarily follow from the first. Just because an action is absurd does not make it unconstitutional.

If the government turns into a brutally represive regime small firearms won't help much against tanks and teargas.

What do you mean to prove by this?

Isn't some form of weaponry better than none at all? Do we not have a better chance at fighting a government-gone-mad with guns than with our bare hands?

Neither one of which has, or had, much credibility.

Great strawman..."but...but...if the government outlaws guns, and it turns into a brutally repressive regime, how will the people defend themselves???"

If the government turns into a brutally represive regime small firearms won't help much against tanks and teargas. Likewise there isn't necessarily a connection between the two, unless you want to call great britain a brutally repressive regime.

China and the tianemen(sp?) square comes to mind. There have been many examples throughout history that proved even better technology will fail when used against a bitter populace. Examples include the American revolution, the Vietnam war and even Iraq to an extent.

Since I hold that an armed civilian populace could overthrow a tyrannical government, I find my justification for the 2nd Amendment there. And while I certainly dont consider britain brutal and repressive- they have intruded far more on their citizens than I think I would have tolerated.

Your second assertion does not necessarily follow from the first. Just because an action is absurd does not make it unconstitutional.

I did not claim it did.

They both follow from the fact that a citizenry armed with small arms has little chance against a modern government military.

Originally, a militia was formed of a bunch of citizens organizing for self-defense. Militiamen were armed with their own weapons - when the call to arms went out, you took old Betsy off the mantlepiece and went out to join your fellow militia.

Today, one could actually make an argument that based on that language, in order for a militia to be an effective military force today, then it should be OK for private citizens to own any kind of small arms - including assault rifles, RPGs, surface-to-air missiles, and heavy machine guns.

"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"

Um. Did anyone else catch this? Is this really the goal? I realize this might hijack a little, but it was in the title story. Are we now conveying the authority to edit the Constitution to the Supreme Court? I say if they try they should be hanged for treason. I mean, judicial review was already a usurped authority. Why not let em slide in a little more?

What do you mean to prove by this?

Isn't some form of weaponry better than none at all? Do we not have a better chance at fighting a government-gone-mad with guns than with our bare hands?

it depends on what you mean by "chance". Are we going to defeat a soldier with a handgun versus our hands? more likely sure.

Are we going to shoot down a fighter jet or tank with a handgun verus not with our bare hands? It doesn't make much of a difference.

More to the point, you're forgetting a very simple issue. If the only justification of the amendment is to protect ourselves if the united states turns into a government gone mad, then we really don't need the amendment at all. The US government can't "go mad" without violating a whole bunch of the constitution. And if the government suddenly gets it in its head to burn the constitution and disregard the supreme law of the land, what makes you think it's gonna care about the 2nd amendment?

You don't need the 2nd to protect yourself against a brutal regime, because the united states CANT become a brutal regime without violating the constitution, and if the tyrannical government of the united states decided to overthrow the rest of the constitution, you really think they're gonna keep the part that lets you have guns?

Um. Did anyone else catch this? Is this really the goal? I realize this might hijack a little, but it was in the title story. Are we now conveying the authority to edit the Constitution to the Supreme Court?

No we're giving the authority to interpret the constitution to the supreme court.

I say if they try they should be hanged for treason. I mean, judicial review was already a usurped authority. Why not let em slide in a little more?

Oh please.

Since I hold that an armed civilian populace could overthrow a tyrannical government, I find my justification for the 2nd Amendment there. And while I certainly dont consider britain brutal and repressive- they have intruded far more on their citizens than I think I would have tolerated.

I'll repeat what I said.

You don't need the 2nd to protect yourself against a brutal regime, because the united states CANT become a brutal regime without violating the constitution, and if the tyrannical government of the united states decided to overthrow the rest of the constitution, you really think they're gonna keep the part that lets you have guns?

The 2nd amendment is irrelevant for that purpose as long as the government follows the constitution. If the government stops following the constitution, then it'll take away that right.

Um. Did anyone else catch this? Is this really the goal? I realize this might hijack a little, but it was in the title story. Are we now conveying the authority to edit the Constitution to the Supreme Court? I say if they try they should be hanged for treason. I mean, judicial review was already a usurped authority. Why not let em slide in a little more?

Judicial review is a good power for them though, and they'd be next to a useless body without. Best to have three competing branches as opposed to four. The president and congress wouldnt likely care for constitutionality without such a check.

Um. Did anyone else catch this? Is this really the goal? I realize this might hijack a little, but it was in the title story. Are we now conveying the authority to edit the Constitution to the Supreme Court? I say if they try they should be hanged for treason. I mean, judicial review was already a usurped authority. Why not let em slide in a little more?It's hyperbole from the lawyer from the side opposed to the lawsuit.

I'll repeat what I said.

You don't need the 2nd to protect yourself against a brutal regime, because the united states CANT become a brutal regime without violating the constitution, and if the tyrannical government of the united states decided to overthrow the rest of the constitution, you really think they're gonna keep the part that lets you have guns?

Thats all well and good, but why already be disarmed already when such a thing occurs? The 2nd amendment is a guard against such action. To throw out the constitution would be a cause for insurection, at which point further orders would be ignored- but only as long as the populace can resist.

I think you give "government" too much credit. They are not some solid entity. They are composed of citizens as well. You really think every soldier would agree to march across his own state and kill the resistance?

there is a very real difference between you typical under-the-bed burglar deterrent, and something that can pass through police kevlar with ease.

the first one is small, and while still lethal, does not make it a guaranteed win for the criminals.

I'd like you to say that i'm drawing an "arbitrary and unfounded differentiations between firearms" after watching a couple of criminals with enough equipment to fight Iwo Jima rob a bank, and in the process, shred the local police and security guards apart.

So? What if the weapons are never aimed at police or never intended to? Oh look, your argument falls apart when it is assumed they will be used legally.

The US government can't "go mad" without violating a whole bunch of the constitution. And if the government suddenly gets it in its head to burn the constitution and disregard the supreme law of the land, what makes you think it's gonna care about the 2nd amendment?
True, a mad government won't care. But why sit back and let them take our civil liberties now? Should we just give up freedom of speech while we're at it? According to your reasoning, it doesn't really matter that we have any constitutional rights, since the government could take them away any time it felt like going balistic.

Your argument disregards the fact that the Bill of Rights is in place to stop the government from getting to that over-powerful position in the first place. Who is to say that the presence of arms in civilians-- like the presence of free presses-- is not a deterant?

In other words, keep the speed bumps; it'll make the wanna-be-speeder less inclined to speed.

You don't need the 2nd to protect yourself against a brutal regime, because the united states CANT become a brutal regime without violating the constitution, and if the tyrannical government of the united states decided to overthrow the rest of the constitution, you really think they're gonna keep the part that lets you have guns?

::double looks:: I do believe this says the exact same thing as the first paragraph. ::laugh:: But I think I like the wording of this one better.

True, a mad government won't care. But why sit back and let them take our civil liberties now? Should we just give up freedom of speech while we're at it? According to your reasoning, it doesn't really matter that we have any constitutional rights, since the government could take them away any time it felt like going balistic.

Not the same thing though. People are arguing here that we must have the second amendment to defend ourselves if the government goes corrupt. Which is somewhat odd because if the government goes corrupt, they're taking the 2nd amendment rights away.

Nobody argues that we need the first amendment because if the government goes corrupt we'll defend ourselves by giving them a stern talking to. It's not an argument that it keeps the government from becomming corrupt, but rather that it will help STOP a corrupt regime. Which is funny because I promise you if there is ever a dictatorship installed in the country, the first thing to go is private weapon ownership.


Your argument disregards the fact that the Bill of Rights is in place to stop the government from getting to that over-powerful position in the first place. Who is to say that the presence of arms in civilians-- like the presence of free presses-- is not a deterant?

In other words, keep the speed bumps; it'll make the wanna-be-speeder less inclined to speed.

That might be a bit more valid an argument, but it begs the question if an armed citizenry is really what stops a rebellion. I dunno if a few citizens with guns is the one thing holding us from anarchy here, or even really that strong a consideration.


::double looks:: I do believe this says the exact same thing as the first paragraph. ::laugh:: But I think I like the wording of this one better.

I repeat myself a lot. Generally I think I'm not being clear so I try to find better ways of saying it. Which is is why I repeat myself a lot.

I'll repeat what I said.

You don't need the 2nd to protect yourself against a brutal regime, because the united states CANT become a brutal regime without violating the constitution, and if the tyrannical government of the united states decided to overthrow the rest of the constitution, you really think they're gonna keep the part that lets you have guns?

The 2nd amendment is irrelevant for that purpose as long as the government follows the constitution. If the government stops following the constitution, then it'll take away that right.

The idea is if that the people will already have the guns once it starts taking away rights, ideally the people revolt as soon as the right to have guns is taken away, and not 5 years later when the right to free speech is revoked.

I'm personally not a big fan of handguns.

I think if everyone had swords it would be a better world. Gang warfare would be so much safer and more entertaining to innocent bystanders.

Not the same thing though. People are arguing here that we must have the second amendment to defend ourselves if the government goes corrupt.

I think that's a perfectly legitimate argument. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are both a deterrant, and a possible weapon against, a corrupt government.

Besides, why make an evil-government's job easier now? Why pave the road for them?

Nobody argues that we need the first amendment because if the government goes corrupt we'll defend ourselves by giving them a stern talking to.
And when they mow us down with machine guns, we won't even have a pistol to defend ourselves with. You need some sort of protection if you are going to open your trap (to a malicious government; I do not argue that this is the case now.)

Which is funny because I promise you if there is ever a dictatorship installed in the country, the first thing to go is private weapon ownership.

Do you notice how much this does not help your argument? If denying citizens the right to own guns is the first thing a corrupt government will do, then isn't it a little suspicious when the government tries to deny us the right to privately own guns?

I dunno if a few citizens with guns is the one thing holding us from anarchy here, or even really that strong a consideration.

It is not the 2nd ammendment alone, but the strength of all of the Bill of Rights collectively. Like the proverb of the chopsticks: One chopstick alone is easy to break, but many chopsticks together are stronger.

Also, if it is not really that strong of a consideration, then why would it be the first thing a corrupt government would get rid of?

I believe the ability of the populace to fight back is definitely a consideration when deciding whether to annoy that populace or not.


I repeat myself a lot. Generally I think I'm not being clear so I try to find better ways of saying it. Which is is why I repeat myself a lot.

::laugh:: You're great.

Does anyone else enjoy the irony of the Right-wing gun nuts being supported by groups like the "commies" at the ACLU?

I noted that, yeah.

Does anyone else enjoy the irony of the Right-wing gun nuts being supported by groups like the "commies" at the ACLU?

I thought the ACLU has always maintained that the 2nd Amendment applies only (in modern times) to the National Guard.

Have they changed their position?

I thought the ACLU has always maintained that the 2nd Amendment applies only (in modern times) to the National Guard.

Have they changed their position?

No, they haven't changed their position. You were wrong in assuming what their position was. They've always been pro-gun rights.

Does anyone else enjoy the irony of the Right-wing gun nuts being supported by groups like the "commies" at the ACLU?

Not all "Gun nuts" are fundies, myself, and most of my friends that own guns, are Libertarians.

Not all "Gun nuts" are fundies, myself, and most of my friends that own guns, are Libertarians.

And I'm a democratic socialist, according to my nation.

Um. Did anyone else catch this? Is this really the goal? I realize this might hijack a little, but it was in the title story. Are we now conveying the authority to edit the Constitution to the Supreme Court? I say if they try they should be hanged for treason. I mean, judicial review was already a usurped authority. Why not let em slide in a little more?

you do realize that that was exactly what the founders had in mind, right?

a constitution that could be changed, modified... amended, if you will... as things changed over time and society (and technology) changed.

They didn't want things to be set in stone, because the only way to change anything in that case it to destroy the whole system.

could you imagine having to write a new constitution every time we wanted to change anything? much better just to write up amendments that modify what is already written.

So? What if the weapons are never aimed at police or never intended to? Oh look, your argument falls apart when it is assumed they will be used legally.

I wish I lived in whatever universe you do:
the universe where it is feasible to assume that nobody will ever shoot at a police officer.

welcome to the real world: people take up handguns that are more powerful then they need to be for any rational purpose, and use it to punch a hole through the body armor of your local boys in blue.

Not all "Gun nuts" are fundies, myself, and most of my friends that own guns, are Libertarians.

I never said you were all Fundies; I didn't even imply it. Believe me, if you're familiar with me at all, you know that if I mean Fundies, I'll say Fundies.

I wish I lived in whatever universe you do:
the universe where it is feasible to assume that nobody will ever shoot at a police officer.

welcome to the real world: people take up handguns that are more powerful then they need to be for any rational purpose, and use it to punch a hole through the body armor of your local boys in blue.
Irrelevant. I am making an absurd argument due to your arbitrary division in what firearms should be allowed to people. Your argument is that because one type of gun is less deadly than another, it is ok for people to have it. How is my argument any more absurd and what universe are you living in?

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

The emphasis above is my own, as it is the rationale for this amendment and requires careful attention. Should Everyman be armed a tyrranical government and corrupt leaders could never conquer the populace.

Our duty and right as citizens is abundantly clear:

"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

and also:

"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

Pray tell how a citizenry can be expected to fulfill this obligation to safeguard freedom, and therefore a free state, without arms?

Take it from Ghandi:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”


To best understand what was meant by our Founding Fathers, I'll allow them to speak their own peace:

Jefferson

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

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

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." to John Cartwright, 1824

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." 1803

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." in letter to William S. Smith, 1787


Samuel Adams

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788


James Madison

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist, Number 46

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." The Federalist, Number 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." Proposed Amendments to the Constitution June 8, 1789

"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands"

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."


Alexander Hamilton

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." Federalist #28

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." Federalist #29


George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."


George Mason
"Father of the Bill of Rights"

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."



Ben Franklin

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759


Patrick Henry

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." Virginia's U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention

"Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia is put in the hands of Congress?" 3 Elliot Debates 48.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

"Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.


Thomas Paine

"...[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775


Elbridge Gerry

"Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

93,
J.

Irrelevant. I am making an absurd argument due to your arbitrary division in what firearms should be allowed to people. Your argument is that because one type of gun is less deadly than another, it is ok for people to have it. How is my argument any more absurd and what universe are you living in?

why do you keep saying that my position is 'arbitrary'?

the purpose of the police is to protect the people of the nation from criminal elements of society. If the police don't have any way to stop a rampaging gunman because his firearms are too powerful, how do you expect the police to do their jobs?

yes, there is a line: guns on one side of that line are fine to be sold, and guns on the other are not.

that line is determined by the ability of the police to effectively combat a criminal weilding that weapon.

please: tell my how this is, in any way, arbitrary or illogical.

I just want to address the point that some people are making about not needing AP ammo. Most centerfire rifle cartridges are capable of punching a hole through body armor (except if the armor has the hard trauma plates). This includes popular hunting calibers, such as .223 (5.56mm), 30-06, .308, 7mm, etc.

Personally, I hope that the SCOTUS shoots down the DC handgun ban as unconstitutional, as I believe the 2nd amendment applies to individuals (and apparently, the DOJ does too: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm).

/snip

I must admit I am a little disappointed. I saw your name and was expecting sparks of gargantuan proportions. :D

I just want to address the point that some people are making about not needing AP ammo. Most centerfire rifle cartridges are capable of punching a hole through body armor (except if the armor has the hard trauma plates). This includes popular hunting calibers, such as .223 (5.56mm), 30-06, .308, 7mm, etc.

Personally, I hope that the SCOTUS shoots down the DC handgun ban as unconstitutional, as I believe the 2nd amendment applies to individuals (and apparently, the DOJ does too: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm).

If it shoots the DC gun ban down then legally, the SF ban goes down with it.

I must admit I am a little disappointed. I saw your name and was expecting sparks of gargantuan proportions. :D

Hehe. I was just getting warmed up. :D


If I had my way, I'd get rid of certain portions of the NFA and GCA, so that individuals could own select fire weaponry, short barrel rifles, or short barrel shotguns without a $200 tax stamp for each NFA part. I do agree that destructive devices need to be regulated, though (I'd hate the idea of my downstairs neighbor putting an RPG round through his ceiling and into my apartment :eek:).

why do you keep saying that my position is 'arbitrary'?

the purpose of the police is to protect the people of the nation from criminal elements of society. If the police don't have any way to stop a rampaging gunman because his firearms are too powerful, how do you expect the police to do their jobs?

yes, there is a line: guns on one side of that line are fine to be sold, and guns on the other are not.

that line is determined by the ability of the police to effectively combat a criminal weilding that weapon.

please: tell my how this is, in any way, arbitrary or illogical.

A cop with no weapon or body armor can't effectively combat some one with a handgun.

If it shoots the DC gun ban down then legally, the SF ban goes down with it.

IIRC, the SF ban got struck down already, due to it conflicting with CA state law.

IIRC, the SF ban got struck down already, due to it conflicting with CA state law.

I think you are right but I do not know if its on appeal.

(and apparently, the DOJ does too: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm).

Don't make such assumptions as to waht the DOJ believes. The DOJ is the legal arm of the federal government. its job is to protect the legal interests of the government. It doesn't matter what individuals in the DoJ believe, the job of the DOJ is to work for the government, and to devend the actions of the government.

so the DoJ makes legal arguments that defend the position of the federal government, nothing more really. To say those in the DoJ have a particular, personal opinion on the matter is to not really understand what it means to be an attorney.

A cop with no weapon or body armor can't effectively combat some one with a handgun.

and that's why cops have handguns and body armor. :rolleyes:

If it shoots the DC gun ban down then legally, the SF ban goes down with it.

SF ban's gone already--state court struck it down.

Some people don't seem to understand that handguns are not useful military weapons.

The only way to defend a country against oppression is with rifles.

Rifles penetrate an order of magnitude better than pistols and are an order of magnitude more accurate.

As much as I like handguns, and as useful as they are for civilian self defense, they are not suited for any sort of 'defense of liberty' in the sense the doom-and-gloom camp intends when it talks about weapons as a defense of freedom.

and that's why cops have handguns and body armor. :rolleyes:

Not all cops have body armor, but if a gun counters a gun, what makes some one with something more powerful than a handgun any more powerful against police, don't police guns protect them?

As much as I like handguns, and as useful as they are for civilian self defense, they are not suited for any sort of 'defense of liberty' in the sense the doom-and-gloom camp intends when it talks about weapons as a defense of freedom.

Bingo. Which is why I'm saying that having a few citizens with handguns isn't gonna help too much if the government decides to go all Naziesq on us.

As much as I like handguns, and as useful as they are for civilian self defense, they are not suited for any sort of 'defense of liberty' in the sense the doom-and-gloom camp intends when it talks about weapons as a defense of freedom.

Yet the Founding Fathers did not write "...the right of the people to keep and bear rifles shall not be infringed."

Military officers are given a sidearm because they can be invaluable on the battlefield, particularly if engaged with an enemy in close quarters. It a bit difficult to bring a rifle to bear when the beasts are upon you. /doom-n-gloom]

hehehe. HOOR's at 69 posts. /spam

Will a regular handgun round penetrate body armor? No, but when you're being shot at, you run for cover, armor or not.

As far as I'm concerned, the for civilian weapon ownership gets drawn at silencers and anything that goes boom. Automatics? A waste of money and only good for dick-flailing. A semi-automatic rifle in the hands of a trained and competent shooter is much more effective than a nutjob who points his brand new AK-47 at a target and wastes thirty rounds of ammo in two seconds.

Remember, people: it's where you put the first round that counts the most, not what's your RPM.

I own a 9mm handgun which I keep locked up in a lock box. I'm getting extremely tired of them trying to take my right to own it away because of what other people have or might do.

Bingo. Which is why I'm saying that having a few citizens with handguns isn't gonna help too much if the government decides to go all Naziesq on us.

Exactly.

Rifles can prevent preventable tyranny, but pistols are useless to that end. Any argument for the RKBA being based on resistance to tyrannical government necessarily undermines the case for handguns.

Bingo. Which is why I'm saying that having a few citizens with handguns isn't gonna help too much if the government decides to go all Naziesq on us.

Exactly.

Rifles can prevent preventable tyranny, but pistols are useless to that end. Any argument for the RKBA being based on resistance to tyrannical government necessarily undermines the case for handguns.

Exactly.

Rifles can prevent preventable tyranny,

OK, so we can prevent the preventable tyranny, now it's just the unpreventable kind we have to worry about.

Rifles can prevent preventable tyranny, but pistols are useless to that end. Any argument for the RKBA being based on resistance to tyrannical government necessarily undermines the case for handguns.

Both weapons are best suited to different purposes and function synergistically to best protect the citizen.

It's pretty funny that in the whole glorious document ya'll can only find this one instance where the Founding Fathers obviously screwed up and you, of course, know better.

OK, so we can prevent the preventable tyranny, now it's just the unpreventable kind we have to worry about.

Exactly, if it is a tyranny of the great majority over the minority, especially one motivated by some deep antipathy, the majority would be willing to absord the losses the minority might inflict with rifles if it meant exterminating them. In short, if tyranny becomes popular, it is irresistable.

In a country like the US, i dont think we need to worry about any genuine tyranny to begin with, but widespread rifles are nevertheless an insurance policy.

It's pretty funny that in the whole glorious document ya'll can only find this one instance where the Founding Fathers obviously screwed up and you, of course, know better.

Please stick to what I've actually said with your "pithy comments" there ace.

The constitution has plenty of other ambiguities, but the structure of the 2nd amendment makes it especially prone to exactly the kind of debate which is had over it now.

It's difficult to parse out what, with any fidelity to reality, you're trying to say in that post, but I hope what I've written above suffices.

The constitution has plenty of other ambiguities, but the structure of the 2nd amendment makes it especially prone to exactly the kind of debate which is had over it now.


The structure, yes, but the definition of "arms" seems fairly explicit. Pistols date back to the sixteenth century so they were certainly known to the Founding Fathers when the amendment was written. If the writer's intention was to limit the ability of the people to keep and bear rifles then they would certainly have said so but they do not.

<3,
Ace

The structure, yes, but the definition of "arms" seems fairly explicit. Pistols date back to the sixteenth century so they were certainly known to the Founding Fathers when the amendment was written. If the writer's intention was to limit the ability of the people to keep and bear rifles then they would certainly have said so but they do not.

<3,
Ace

And again, the point is missed...

Don't make such assumptions as to waht the DOJ believes. The DOJ is the legal arm of the federal government. its job is to protect the legal interests of the government. It doesn't matter what individuals in the DoJ believe, the job of the DOJ is to work for the government, and to devend the actions of the government.

so the DoJ makes legal arguments that defend the position of the federal government, nothing more really. To say those in the DoJ have a particular, personal opinion on the matter is to not really understand what it means to be an attorney.

I didn't mean to imply that every individual at the DOJ believes that, merely that the DOJ's official position is that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. I just happened to word it in the wrong way.

As the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to enable the populace to mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever become necessary, any government restriction on weapons ownership is absurd.

That was precisely what the founding fathers had in mind when the Constitution was drafted. It is the 2nd Amendment that makes things like the Declaration of Independance possible. They believed the civilian populace should have access to the same weaponry as the military in order to defend their liberties. In fact, most of the weapons carried by the civilian militias of the colonies were better than the standard issue rifles used by the British soldiers. Originally, the regular army was never supposed to be as large as it is. Defense of the nation was supposed to be done mainly by the civilian militias. Not until we get closer to the Civil War do we see a big increase in the regular army.

the purpose of the police is to protect the people of the nation from criminal elements of society. If the police don't have any way to stop a rampaging gunman because his firearms are too powerful, how do you expect the police to do their jobs?


Sorry, but the job of the police is not to protect the people of the nation from criminal elements of society. There was a ruling in the US by the US Supreme Court that said that protection from the police is not a right. The job of the police is to enforce the law, and to serve papers from the courts. A police officer in the US cannot arrest you unless they see you committ a crime, or they have an order for arrest (issued by a judge for failing to appear in court) or an arrest warrant (issued by a magistrate).

When you are arrested, the officer must take you before a magistrate, who will decide if the officer had suficient probable cause to arrest you.

neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989).

Anyway, you get the drift.

And for those of you that think that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard.....

1. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

2. That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

3. That despite the 1990 case Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich vs. Department of Defense, where the Supreme Court ruled specifically that the National Guard is under federal orders and the state governor cannot object, the National Guard is still, in fact, a state militia.

By the way, has anyone wondered which country in the world has the largest amount of fully automatic weapons in the hands of its citizens? Switzerland. Thats right. Their military reservists keep their military weapons with their ammo kit at their house, so they will be able to respond immediately when called out, instead of having to report to their armory. Same with Israel.

I didn't mean to imply that every individual at the DOJ believes that, merely that the DOJ's official position is that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. I just happened to word it in the wrong way.

well sure, but as I said, the DOJ's official position is what the federal government's official position is.

The DOJ never really has an "official position" on anything (I know a bit about the DOJ, having worked for them for a time). They don't really take positions on much, on their own initiative. In essence...they're lawyers who work for their client (the federal government) their position is, by the definition of being lawyers, the position of their "client"

"A well regulated"--------WHO does the regulating? Does "well regulated" mean "No regulation"?

"A well regulated"--------WHO does the regulating? Does "well regulated" mean "No regulation"?

Seems to me that "well regulated" is the opposite of "no regulation."

"A well regulated"--------WHO does the regulating? Does "well regulated" mean "No regulation"?

That line refers to being an effective (trained, supplied) force. It does provide a case for some kind of training and certification before guns are issued, but it provides no defense for direct restriction whatsoever.

That line refers to being an effective (trained, supplied) force. It does provide a case for some kind of training and certification before guns are issued, but it provides no defense for direct restriction whatsoever.
But the question is, what do we mean by regulation today? After all, to try to read the minds of the Framers is not only impossible, it's useless, because, as we've seen in this thread, we don't live in a society where a militia holds the same position as it did in the 18th or 19th centuries. So to try to apply the meaning of the word "regulate" at that time to our current situation seems, well, silly.

But the question is, what do we mean by regulation today? After all, to try to read the minds of the Framers is not only impossible, it's useless, because, as we've seen in this thread, we don't live in a society where a militia holds the same position as it did in the 18th or 19th centuries. So to try to apply the meaning of the word "regulate" at that time to our current situation seems, well, silly.


If you believe that, then why dont you try to change the federal law? As long as every male between 18-45 is a member of the US federal militia, the 2nd amendment is proper and makes sense. If you remove that, you can truly argue the constitution protects only the militia members.

Frankly though, I have other reasons to support the 2nd amendment, and I'd not like to see militias as the only ones who hold such a right. Sometimes they frighten me, very extreme and resolute people.

Dont forget that we have not had a military attack on our homesoil for a very long time. That, and our military is in a position to be shadowed by others. We cant always trust that our federal government can bail us out on every occasion.

If you believe that, then why dont you try to change the federal law? As long as every male between 18-45 is a member of the US federal militia, the 2nd amendment is proper and makes sense. If you remove that, you can truly argue the constitution protects only the militia members.

Except I don't believe that to be true. I am no member of the militia, I have no duty. At best, at this time, I am only a potential future militia member, that is all.

Someone may have posted this but it seems to me that back in 1787, when the 2nd Amendment was written, gun ownership in the United States was not that large. Certainly people on the frontier had weapons but a great many in the more settled areas on the coast did not.

That line refers to being an effective (trained, supplied) force. It does provide a case for some kind of training and certification before guns are issued, but it provides no defense for direct restriction whatsoever.

The Federalist #29 dismissed the idea of training as unrealistic for the total citizenry. We seem to have failed in a crucial test, however. That same Federalist indicates that a standing army is a real danger to liberty, as opposed to the "far-fetched" idea that a militia could ever be a tool for despots.

Except I don't believe that to be true. I am no member of the militia, I have no duty. At best, at this time, I am only a potential future militia member, that is all.

Not believing it doesnt make it false, it is federal law. I ask you though: I dont believe that age is the greatest determinent of knowledge, but if you are young enough to not have that obligation- can you really trust your feelings on the matter?

Someone may have posted this but it seems to me that back in 1787, when the 2nd Amendment was written,

1789 =P Ratified in 1791

Bill of Rights was written after the constituion, which is why they are, in fact, amendments.

Not believing it doesnt make it false, it is federal law. I ask you though: I dont believe that age is the greatest determinent of knowledge, but if you are young enough to not have that obligation- can you really trust your feelings on the matter?

I am well into the range of selective service you jackass. My point is, I am not a member of the militia until I am called into it. Until such time as the selective service is activated and I am drawn into it, I am not a member of any militia. I can not be given orders, can not be armed by state, and can not be considered part of any military group.

I am a civilian, not part of any militia. As I said, I am at best a potential future militia member. Not potential until I reach the age of 18, potential to the point that I am not, until brought in. And that hasn't happened.

You say it's federal law? Please cite.

1789 =P Ratified in 1791

Bill of Rights was written after the constituion, which is why they are, in fact, amendments.

Quibbler. :rolleyes: And the 2nd is really the 4th, there were two before it and the current 1st. One was the "no Congressional pay raise during the current session" one and I forgetted the other one. So there. Nyah. :p

Someone may have posted this but it seems to me that back in 1787, when the 2nd Amendment was written, gun ownership in the United States was not that large. Certainly people on the frontier had weapons but a great many in the more settled areas on the coast did not.

Have you any figures on this? Im quite sure that even up to the late 1800's, A gun was as common a household Item as a kitchen table. Of course, I have nothing but "truthiness" to back this up, but you dont seem to have any facts either at the time.

The Federalist #29 dismissed the idea of training as unrealistic for the total citizenry. We seem to have failed in a crucial test, however. That same Federalist indicates that a standing army is a real danger to liberty, as opposed to the "far-fetched" idea that a militia could ever be a tool for despots.Which is a perfect example of how our society has changed so much that we can't depend solely on the arguments of the Framers to interpret the Constitution. I doubt Hamilton could have imagined the military-industrial complex as it exists today, and yet it's impossible to displace it. The US can't exist without a standing army, no matter the threat to individual liberty that it imposes. So how do we reconcile those two problems?

I am well into the range of selective service you jackass. My point is, I am not a member of the militia until I am called into it. Until such time as the selective service is activated and I am drawn into it, I am not a member of any militia. I can not be given orders, can not be armed by state, and can not be considered part of any military group.

I am a civilian, not part of any militia. As I said, I am at best a potential future militia member. Not potential until I reach the age of 18, potential to the point that I am not, until brought in. And that hasn't happened.

You say it's federal law? Please cite.

There is no need for insults. I misread you, a simple correction was all that was needed.

Here is the federal law. Its title 10 of us code. The source in Cornell Law School online:

"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."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

From the same source, the difference between N. Guard and militia:

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.

There is no need for insults. I misread you, a simple correction was all that was needed.

Here is the federal law. Its title 10 of us code. The source in Cornell Law School online:

"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."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html


Problem with that is the following:

(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.

Since I am neither national guard or the naval militia, I am part of the "unorganized militia".

Now is the unorganized militia a well regulated one or not? Considering it's unorganized it would suggest that it lacks regulation. And since this is not the "well regulated militia" that the constitution requires, all of us poor saps in the unorganized militia (note, which includes everyone not mentioned in b1) are not bound by the 2nd amendment which applies to the formation of a regulated militia.

Which is a perfect example of how our society has changed so much that we can't depend solely on the arguments of the Framers to interpret the Constitution. I doubt Hamilton could have imagined the military-industrial complex as it exists today, and yet it's impossible to displace it. The US can't exist without a standing army, no matter the threat to individual liberty that it imposes. So how do we reconcile those two problems?
First, we need to recognize that I'm no expert. There's probably more than enough contradictory material around. But it doesn't matter much what the consensus was in 1789.

Second, I don't know. Clearly, the DoD is at the beck and call of the government for any purpose. Maybe this fact, alone, has ended any pretense that we have about being a government of the people.

Maybe what we need to do is just give up and try to find a benign bunch of rulers.

Have you any figures on this? Im quite sure that even up to the late 1800's, A gun was as common a household Item as a kitchen table. Of course, I have nothing but "truthiness" to back this up, but you dont seem to have any facts either at the time.

And I have nothing but a middle-aged memory for this. It wasn't recently that I heard or read this. I'll look some more.

Problem with that is the following:



Since I am neither national guard or the naval militia, I am part of the "unorganized militia".

Now is the unorganized militia a well regulated one or not? Considering it's unorganized it would suggest that it lacks regulation. And since this is not the "well regulated militia" that the constitution requires, all of us poor saps in the unorganized militia (note, which includes everyone not mentioned in b1) are not bound by the 2nd amendment which applies to the formation of a regulated militia.

You are misreading the 2nd amendement, the militia cannot be well regulated if it possesses no arms. The second part of the second amendment is the right, the first part is the justification. That is my interpretation in any case. And removing and challenging laws on technicalities is a good way to destroy decent ones. I do not think the 2nd amendment should be nessecary to protect private ownership of arms, just as I dont think the 1st amendment should be nessecary to protect free speech.


Edit: Oh yeah, and the National guard wasnt formed until 1903, meaning: Yes, the 2nd amendment covered the unorganized militia before it even covered the national guard.

First, we need to recognize that I'm no expert. There's probably more than enough contradictory material around. But it doesn't matter much what the consensus was in 1789.

Second, I don't know. Clearly, the DoD is at the beck and call of the government for any purpose. Maybe this fact, alone, has ended any pretense that we have about being a government of the people.

Maybe what we need to do is just give up and try to find a benign bunch of rulers.

I'm guessing we're probably closer in agreement than usual on this subject. :)

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.

end of story.

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.

end of story.

oh thank god you showed up, we've already wasted 11 pages just fucking around apparently. :rolleyes:

oh thank god you showed up, we've already wasted 11 pages just fucking around apparently. :rolleyes:

Oh, I know, thank you for noticing my absolute brilliance (no need for praise:) )...I apologize to all of you for not getting here sooner and ending this little, uniformed fiasco. I'll do better next time. You can all go along your merry way now for the discussion has ended, see my previous post.

oh thank god you showed up, we've already wasted 11 pages just fucking around apparently. :rolleyes:

Well, it's only four pages if you max out the posts per page. ;)

An interesting little thing about the comma's.

Here's how it's printed in the US Statutes at Large:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144

An interesting little thing about the comma's.

Here's how it's printed in the US Statutes at Large:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144

Were the other commas in the original? Because that's the only one that matters--the one that was ratified. The reason I make this distinction is because if the other commas weren't there to begin with, then the Courts wouldn't have pissed away all this time debating the issue.

Were the other commas in the original? Because that's the only one that matters--the one that was ratified. The reason I make this distinction is because if the other commas weren't there to begin with, then the Courts wouldn't have pissed away all this time debating the issue.

Sure they would have. We have courts today saying that taking private property to sell to businesses is the original intent of "public interest"

It is in one of the original documents(there's more than one 'original', and many were destroyed in 1812) but is not uniform as the Statutes attests and according to the LOC journal. As for punctuation, another SCOTUS case can be used:

HAMMOCK v. FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO, 105 U.S. 77 (1881)

In the argument before us attention was called to the fact that between the words in sect. 49, 'to hear and determine motions,' and the words 'to dissolve injunctions,' there appears a comma; and that was, to some extent, relied on as showing that a judge in vacation could hear and determine motions of every kind, not simply those relating to matters specially defined in that section. While the comma after the word 'motions,' if any force be attached to it, would give the section a broader scope than it would otherwise have, that circumstance should not have a controlling influence. Punctuation is no part of the statute. Lord Kenyon, C. J., in Doe v. Martin (4 T. R. 65), said that courts in construing acts of Parliament or deeds should read them with such stops as will give effect to the whole. Sedgwick's Constr. Stat. and Const. Law (2d ed.), 223, note a; Bouvier's Law Dic. 347, 402. The general rule is well illustrated in Barrington's Statutes (4th ed.), 438, note x; Price v. Price, 10 Ohio St. 316; Cushing, &c. v. Worrick, 9 Gray (Mass.), 382; Geiger's Estate, 65 Pa. St. 311; and Hamilton v. Steamer R. B. Hamilton, 16 Ohio St. 428. In the last case it was said: 'But for the punctuation, as it stands, there could be little doubt but that this was the meaning of the legislature. Courts will, however, in the construction of statutes, for the purpose of arriving at the real meaning and intention of the law-makers, disregard the punctuation,
or repunctuate, if need be, to render the true meaning of the statute.

Which is a perfect example of how our society has changed so much that we can't depend solely on the arguments of the Framers to interpret the Constitution. I doubt Hamilton could have imagined the military-industrial complex as it exists today, and yet it's impossible to displace it. The US can't exist without a standing army, no matter the threat to individual liberty that it imposes. So how do we reconcile those two problems?

The point is that these rights are to be regarded as intrinsic because that is the only way to sufficiently protect them from a tyrannical government. The best defense for any nation is an armed populace who have a sufficient cache of arms and ammunition to overthrow the government if needed. Success breeds complacency and the USA has been quite successful at forging a novel new nation that hold the rights of the individual above those of the government. We forget in our complacency how real the threat of tyranny is but must always be prepared to counter.

Again, in order to safeguard these liberties the populace must have the power to overthrow their government and this threat of overthrow must be ever present in the minds of our leaders. In this way the citizenry can reinforce the principle that the government derives it power from the consent of the governed. To be given freedom does not make one free - freedom must be attained, freedom must be hard won.

"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them." -Samuel Adams

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason

To reiterate, this radical notion suggests - no, insists - that The People are best equipped to safeguard their Liberties and not the government, because all governments have one common goal: to enslave people, to greater or lesser degrees, in accord with some plan or program. Only armed with the foresight of our Founding Fathers and the passion and determination to defend ourselves from the inevitable degradation of the state can we expect to win victory after victory, in an unending war, for the security of essential liberties.

These essential liberties enshrined within The Constitution can and should be understood by appeal to the writings of those who wrote it - not only because they did not have the privilege of being born and raised in times of relative peace and so their writings necessarily show the wisdom of men who have been oppressed by tyranny and emerged victorious from beneath its pall but because they impart the urgency to secure & proclaim these rights as immutable.

It is only once you remove yourself from your present circumstances and come to understand the world as it was when the foundational document of our nation was written that you can understand the necessity of dangerous freedom over safe tyrrany.

J.

-snip-

Well said. Im no fan of slippery slope arguments, but there is something to be said for having some foresight. It is the nature of government to expand itself. It is the duty of the people to resent it.

Now is the unorganized militia a well regulated one or not? Considering it's unorganized it would suggest that it lacks regulation. And since this is not the "well regulated militia" that the constitution requires, all of us poor saps in the unorganized militia (note, which includes everyone not mentioned in b1) are not bound by the 2nd amendment which applies to the formation of a regulated militia.

From http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm :


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

A militia, composed of the entire body of free men, to defend the Liberties of The People by definition cannot be "well-regulated" by the government because it serves to protect the Liberties of The People from the government.

J.

*snip for brevity* It is only once you remove yourself from your present circumstances and come to understand the world as it was when the foundational document of our nation was written that you can understand the necessity of dangerous freedom over safe tyrrany.

J.

I'll give you dangerous freedom over safe tyranny, since that's what we've been beating Criik about the head with in the Patriot Act thread. I wonder if an armed citizenry actually could overthrow a tyrannical US government, given that the government has all the really fun weapons, as I think someone said in here.

But you said it in that we need to consider the time in which the Amendment itself was written. In those days, when communication was so slow, the government could move to seize strong points, arsenals, forts, etc., and be entranched before the citizens awoke. Now, communication is so instantaneous, the news would be all over the world in and hour.

The point is that these rights are to be regarded as intrinsic because that is the only way to sufficiently protect them from a tyrannical government. The best defense for any nation is an armed populace who have a sufficient cache of arms and ammunition to overthrow the government if needed. Success breeds complacency and the USA has been quite successful at forging a novel new nation that hold the rights of the individual above those of the government. We forget in our complacency how real the threat of tyranny is but must always be prepared to counter.

Again, in order to safeguard these liberties the populace must have the power to overthrow their government and this threat of overthrow must be ever present in the minds of our leaders. In this way the citizenry can reinforce the principle that the government derives it power from the consent of the governed. To be given freedom does not make one free - freedom must be attained, freedom must be hard won.

"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them." -Samuel Adams

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason

To reiterate, this radical notion suggests - no, insists - that The People are best equipped to safeguard their Liberties and not the government, because all governments have one common goal: to enslave people, to greater or lesser degrees, in accord with some plan or program. Only armed with the foresight of our Founding Fathers and the passion and determination to defend ourselves from the inevitable degradation of the state can we expect to win victory after victory, in an unending war, for the security of essential liberties.

These essential liberties enshrined within The Constitution can and should be understood by appeal to the writings of those who wrote it - not only because they did not have the privilege of being born and raised in times of relative peace and so their writings necessarily show the wisdom of men who have been oppressed by tyranny and emerged victorious from beneath its pall but because they impart the urgency to secure & proclaim these rights as immutable.

It is only once you remove yourself from your present circumstances and come to understand the world as it was when the foundational document of our nation was written that you can understand the necessity of dangerous freedom over safe tyrrany.

J.



You, are indeed an intellegent person. Very, very, few people understand this, good job explaining that.

But you said it in that we need to consider the time in which the Amendment itself was written. In those days, when communication was so slow, the government could move to seize strong points, arsenals, forts, etc., and be entrenched before the citizens awoke. Now, communication is so instantaneous, the news would be all over the world in and hour.

I'm sorry, I'm really trying but my overworked cerebral processing facility isn't extracting your meaning. Could you restate for my feeble brain? :confused:

J.

I'm sorry, I'm really trying but my overworked cerebral processing facility isn't extracting your meaning. Could you restate for my feeble brain? :confused:

J.

I think what he means is that with informations speed these days, a rebel force in the US in modern times would still have somewhat of an upperhand, the fact that all the infromation they need would be readily available, just as fast as any federal army.

The 2nd amendment's scope is being questioned, in the first case in 70 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701001.html


Now, I'm hardly a gun fan, but I think people should be able to have weapons, if it's for hunting (especially if it's a tranq gun) or collecting civil war-era weaponry.

But that's just me.

But..my guns! Maybe I should create a one man militia!

I think what he means is that with informations speed these days, a rebel force in the US in modern times would still have somewhat of an upperhand, the fact that all the infromation they need would be readily available, just as fast as any federal army.

Ah! My thanks!

In that case, good point!

J.

Then why include anything about militias? That is like saying The first amendment provides for freedom of speech, but not the right to petition the government for redress of government. "But wait," you say, "it specifically says that in the Amendment." Yeah and it specifically mentions militias in the second. It isn't in there for shits and giggles.

Here's the problem:

"the right of the people to bear arms" could be taken two ways:

First, it could be taken as a new clause, seperate from all other clauses. Due to this, the right to bear arms is a seperate, and wholy different, right than that of the militia.

Second, it could be taken as an explanatory of the militia, and how the militia is to be maintained.

At least that is how I see it.

I'll give you dangerous freedom over safe tyranny, since that's what we've been beating Criik about the head with in the Patriot Act thread. I wonder if an armed citizenry actually could overthrow a tyrannical US government, given that the government has all the really fun weapons, as I think someone said in here.

But you said it in that we need to consider the time in which the Amendment itself was written. In those days, when communication was so slow, the government could move to seize strong points, arsenals, forts, etc., and be entranched before the citizens awoke. Now, communication is so instantaneous, the news would be all over the world in and hour.


Well, the main strength of a rebellion is scope. A strong rebellion would include hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people from around the states. Now consider who serves in the military: Normal men and women, with family and friends. What would be the reaction if these men and women either were forced to shoot a crowd with the possibility of loved ones within it, or learned that their loved ones are killed? Soldier are not autonomous machines, but people. I'm not sure how long the military could fight a war against citizens before the soldiers lost morale.

Well, the main strength of a rebellion is scope. A strong rebellion would include hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people from around the states. Now consider who serves in the military: Normal men and women, with family and friends. What would be the reaction if these men and women either were forced to shoot a crowd with the possibility of loved ones within it, or learned that their loved ones are killed? Soldier are not autonomous machines, but people. I'm not sure how long the military could fight a war against citizens before the soldiers lost morale.

Dont forget the element of geurilla warfare combined with government inefficiency. Geurilla warfare is almost impossible to train people to fight against, as any citizen they encounter everyday could just up and attack them. Also dont forget a single large $.75 rifle round can permanently disable a quarter-billion dollar jet.

I dont think we need revolution in the US now, but I think it is certainly doable, we just have to filter out the zealots who plan to be king afterwards.

I believe in the right to bear arms if it is a rifle. If it is a pistol then no. Pistols can be easily concealed and are more prevalent in crime than rifles. Rifles are more for hunting and self defense.

However, I find the laws in place regulating the use of pistols are more than adequate than any universal ban.

I believe in the right to bear arms if it is a rifle. If it is a pistol then no. Pistols can be easily concealed and are more prevalent in crime than rifles. Rifles are more for hunting and self defense.

However, I find the laws in place regulating the use of pistols are more than adequate than any universal ban.

Pistols are also just as useful in self-defense.

It doesn't take hundreds of thousands of rebels to overthrow or foment rebellion within any country. See Iraq among the many examples.

It doesn't take hundreds of thousands of rebels to overthrow or foment rebellion within any country. See Iraq among the many examples.

Truth. But it helps. :)

That line refers to being an effective (trained, supplied) force. It does provide a case for some kind of training and certification before guns are issued, but it provides no defense for direct restriction whatsoever.

Then WHO says what the training needs to be and WHO provides those supplies and decides what the supplies are? WHO makes the "certification"?

From http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm :




A militia, composed of the entire body of free men, to defend the Liberties of The People by definition cannot be "well-regulated" by the government because it serves to protect the Liberties of The People from the government.

J.

Then how, precisely do we define this "well regulated" militia, because by definition of the 2nd the "right to bear arms" is for the purposes of establishing a well regulated militia.

No well regulated militia and the reasoning behind having the right ot bear arms is no longer relevant.

Then WHO says what the training needs to be and WHO provides those supplies and decides what the supplies are? WHO makes the "certification"?

Then the states need to be the ones doing the training and have failed to do so for quite some time.

Then WHO says what the training needs to be and WHO provides those supplies and decides what the supplies are? WHO makes the "certification"?

It has already been said much better than I can say it. The clause was meant as a defense of liberties. It makes no sense that the government was meant to provide the regulation if this is indeed the case. One could argue though, that it is the responsibility of each citizen that forms the militia to have himself prepared for the defense of his liberties.

Then how, precisely do we define this "well regulated" militia, because by definition of the 2nd the "right to bear arms" is for the purposes of establishing a well regulated militia.

No well regulated militia and the reasoning behind having the right ot bear arms is no longer relevant.

You have that wrong. The establishment of a well regulated militia is dependant on an armed populace but it is not the only justification for one.

(no armed populace = no well regulated militia) /= (no well regulated militia = no armed populace)

Then how, precisely do we define this "well regulated" militia, because by definition of the 2nd the "right to bear arms" is for the purposes of establishing a well regulated militia.

No well regulated militia and the reasoning behind having the right ot bear arms is no longer relevant.

I dont mean to go off topic, but what exactly are your motivations? Do you simply want those on my side of the aurgument to concede a defeat by logic, or do really want the second amendment removed for the purpose of seizing firearms on some scope?

It was a fear of Madison (I think) that including a bill of rights would make the American citizens think they only possessed those rights. Even without the second amendment -certainly an odd choice to be in the top ten- wouldnt the american people still have a right to possess weapons? I think that they would .

Then WHO says what the training needs to be and WHO provides those supplies and decides what the supplies are? WHO makes the "certification"?

Why, the citizens, of course!

J.

Then how, precisely do we define this "well regulated" militia, because by definition of the 2nd the "right to bear arms" is for the purposes of establishing a well regulated militia.

No well regulated militia and the reasoning behind having the right ot bear arms is no longer relevant.

Have you read anything else that I have written?

J.

EDIT: *points up* Oh, yeah, and thems guys, too!

Bingo. Which is why I'm saying that having a few citizens with handguns isn't gonna help too much if the government decides to go all Naziesq on us.

Which is why government may not legitimately place *any* restrictions on civilian weapons ownership.

I dont mean to go off topic, but what exactly are your motivations? Do you simply want those on my side of the aurgument to concede a defeat by logic, or do really want the second amendment removed for the purpose of seizing firearms on some scope?

It was a fear of Madison (I think) that including a bill of rights would make the American citizens think they only possessed those rights. Even without the second amendment -certainly an odd choice to be in the top ten- wouldnt the american people still have a right to possess weapons? I think that they would .

Why do you assume I have some grander motivation. My motivation is simple, to have a bit of a discussion on the 2nd amendment. My position is...I don't think it says what you think it says, or, at very least, that it can be interpreted a few different ways.

Now, however, it is not my job to do that interpretation in a formal way, and the way SCOTUS comes out is...well...the way it comes out.

Do I think the right to have a gun should be a fundamental right? No, not in the slightest.

Do I think, for better or worse, that it IS a right? Well...probably, not certain though, but likely. And while i may not agree that it should be a constitutional right...I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it.

I don't think gun ownership should have been a constitutional right. But if it is...well...it is. I do get a bit bothered however, and find it a tad disingenuous of those who quote the constitution where it says "see, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" you can't infringe it!

Well the first amendment says "congress shall pass no law" which isn't true at all. Try yelling fire in a movie theater. "shall pass no law" doesn't truly mean NO law, and "shall not be infringed" isn't absolute either.

Which is why government may not legitimately place *any* restrictions on civilian weapons ownership.

which as I said is absolute bullshit. Forgive me if I question the wisdom of legalizing private ownership of tanks, stealth fighter jets and nuclear warheads.

Well, the main strength of a rebellion is scope. A strong rebellion would include hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people from around the states. Now consider who serves in the military: Normal men and women, with family and friends. What would be the reaction if these men and women either were forced to shoot a crowd with the possibility of loved ones within it, or learned that their loved ones are killed? Soldier are not autonomous machines, but people. I'm not sure how long the military could fight a war against citizens before the soldiers lost morale.
If the soldiers wouldn't be willing to use force, you wouldn't need a rebellion in the first place. Or you could simply use non-violent resistance (:eek:).

Alternatively, I think the fate of the Vietcong (destroyed in the Tet Offensive) or the Shia uprising against Saddam after Desert Storm gives you a good idea what would happen.

The insurgency in Iraq at the moment targets mainly other Iraqis. When it goes against US Soldiers the weapons of choice aren't rifles but RPGs and roadside bombs (which I don't believe you have stocked in your backyard, do you).

And the Taliban have Pakistan to return to and a woefully understrength enemy. And still, every time there is an engagement they get their arses kicked horribly.

I believe in the right to bear arms if it is a rifle. If it is a pistol then no. Pistols can be easily concealed and are more prevalent in crime than rifles.

Even if it were true, how is it relevant?

How is safety--of the public at large or of the police--more important than the ability to overthrow a burdensome government?

which as I said is absolute bullshit. Forgive me if I question the wisdom of legalizing private ownership of tanks, stealth fighter jets and nuclear warheads.

So what?

The populace must be able to compete on at least an equal, if not superior, footing if it is to be able to overthrow the state.

So what?

The populace must be able to compete on at least an equal, if not superior, footing if it is to be able to overthrow the state.

so....what? How about that letting "the populace" compete on equal footing with the state would rapidly lead to the end of the state.

Because letting the kazinski's and mcveighs, let alone the richard reeds and osama bin laden's of this world legally aquire napalm, sarin and anthrax is, in what version of reality, a "good idea"?

Even if it were true, how is it relevant?

How is safety--of the public at large or of the police--more important than the ability to overthrow a burdensome government?

because we don't really have the right to take to the streets mob rule style and murder people because we payed more than we wanted to in taxes?

If the soldiers wouldn't be willing to use force, you wouldn't need a rebellion in the first place. Or you could simply use non-violent resistance (:eek:).

Alternatively, I think the fate of the Vietcong (destroyed in the Tet Offensive) or the Shia uprising against Saddam after Desert Storm gives you a good idea what would happen.

The insurgency in Iraq at the moment targets mainly other Iraqis. When it goes against US Soldiers the weapons of choice aren't rifles but RPGs and roadside bombs (which I don't believe you have stocked in your backyard, do you).

And the Taliban have Pakistan to return to and a woefully understrength enemy. And still, every time there is an engagement they get their arses kicked horribly.


What the fuck are you talking about, you have no clue. You need to retake a history lesson about the vietnam war my freind.

so....what? How about that letting "the populace" compete on equal footing with the state would rapidly lead to the end of the state.

Because letting the kazinski's and mcveighs, let alone the richard reeds and osama bin laden's of this world legally aquire napalm, sarin and anthrax is, in what version of reality, a "good idea"?

They get it anyway.

They get it anyway.

yeah that's a great justification..:rolleyes:

What the fuck are you talking about, you have no clue. You need to retake a history lesson about the vietnam war my freind.
The Vietcong was pretty much annihilated during the Tet Offensive, which was a political victory for it, but a crushing defeat militarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_offensive#Effect_on_the_Viet_Cong_and_North_Vietnam
The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory. The Viet Cong's operational forces were effectively crippled by the Offensive. Many Viet Cong who had been operating under cover in the cities of South Vietnam revealed themselves during the Offensive and were killed or captured. The organization was preserved for propaganda purposes, but in practical terms the Viet Cong were finished. Formations that were referred to as Viet Cong were in fact largely filled with North Vietnamese replacements. In reality, this change had little effect on the war, since North Vietnam had no difficulty making up the casualties inflicted by the war.[14] The National Liberation Front (the political arm of the Viet Cong) reformed itself as the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, and took part in future peace negotiations under this name.

The Communist high command did not anticipate the psychological effect the Tet Offensive would have on America.[15] For example, the attack on the U.S. Embassy was allocated only 19 Viet Cong soldiers, and even the expenditure of this force was considered by some VC officers to be misguided. Only after they saw how the U.S. was reacting to this attack did the Communists begin to propagandize it. The timing of the Offensive was determined by the hope that American and South Vietnamese forces would be less vigilant during the Tet holiday.

My firearms are vital to the defence of my life and of my home. Two attempted break ins have been prevented by my owning of many firearms. Without them, my safety is greatly diminished. A criminal could come into my home and take my life with little resistance if I was not armed.

The Vietcong was pretty much annihilated during the Tet Offensive, which was a political victory for it, but a crushing defeat militarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_offensive#Effect_on_the_Viet_Cong_and_North_Vietnam

wikipedia is crap sorry, too many people edit history the way they want to go.......

The Viet Cong/North Vietnamese knew exactly what they were doing......The NVA general in charge of the war has said they knew they didn't need to win any battles with the US but in the end they would win the war because the US public would not accept the continued loss of life......for the Vietnamese who had fought continuously since the Japanese invasion then the French after there was no intention of ever losing the war, a foreign invader doesn't have the same motivation and isn't willing to pay the price....

Essentially, the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to keep the government from disarming the civilian populace. In old Europe at the time, it was a favorite technique of oppressive governments to make guns illegal, so that only the ruling party had all the guns.

This way, people couldn't feel too safe to dissent. So the United States Constitutional Convention decided that it was important to make sure that the populace was capable of defending itself against an oppressive government.

However, this was written back when it took over a minute to load and fire a single shot. And arms laws are often violated by gangs and criminals, of course.

I personally have no opinion on the second amendment. In a perfect world, there would be no need for guns, and a government wouldn't be oppressive. Instead, we have a world where people try to kill each other over the most trivial things, and the government is being kept off by some members of congress from passing arms restrictions.

Honestly, I think that we're at a point where it's a bigger problem keeping the second amendment than doing away with it, but I think that you should still be allowed to own a musket ;-)

By the way, if you disagree with me, that's great. I love debates, and live for it. But I ask for some degree of respect. I'll treat you with the same.

The Vietcong was pretty much annihilated during the Tet Offensive, which was a political victory for it, but a crushing defeat militarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_offensive#Effect_on_the_Viet_Cong_and_North_Vietnam

ok, well, first of all, you used wikipedia, honestly, they are not accurate in I'd say about 40% of there information. The Vietcong were not crushed in the Tet offensive, niether was the NVA. They were defeated, but they came back as hard as ever in the next few years. I'd like to point out the fact (if you didn't know) that the war continued on until 1975, when the Communists won. Thats right, the all powerful US lost. The VietCong and NVA resurged quickly after the losses of Tet. I know plenty of people that were there, who got shot by them, or took shrapnel from them, after 1968, that can assure you this. You don't understand the Vietnam war at all, The Vietnamese didn't care about how badly they beaten battle after battle byt he US. They cept fighting. There are many many more instances than Tet in Vietnam where the US just totally racked up the body count on the Vietnamese. But It didn't mean shit. Because the strategy of Dau Traung beats the strategy of a war of attrition any day. Just killing a shit load of people will not win you a war. War is much more complex than that. I could go on much longer, but i'd have to write a book....


EDIT:
that, and the body count figures are very very innacurate, in vietnam the US military foolishly went by a quota system. They figured, well, the more dead enemy, the more we were winning. So US soldiers often exagerated figures to make there superiors happy, I was talking to one vet, and bassically, he said after one engagement, we counted 6 Vietcong dead, well, in the report, 6 suddenly became 12.

wikipedia is crap sorry, too many people edit history the way they want to go.......
Okay, so you can show me then what the Vietcong did after the Tet Offensive? :rolleyes:

And besides, the article quotes its sources.

The NVA general in charge of the war has said they knew they didn't need to win any battles with the US but in the end they would win the war because the US public would not accept the continued loss of life...
Source?

And besides, I used the Vietcong as an example of a well-regulated militia and its chances against a proper military. The NVA doesn't count, since it's an actual military, the support of which an American militia fighting the US Military couldn't count on.

Why, the citizens, of course!

J.

So you are contending that "well regulated" is defined by every person as they see fit.

If that is true then any of us can define "well regulated" as the ability to pull a trigger, regardless of intelligence, age, sanity, criminal record. The individual citizen can put together any gang of thugs and declare by their own definition that they are a militia and that the rules of the gang (which could include killing someone to prove you can do it) are the legitimate regulatory rules. Such a gang, by your reasoning is, according to the 2nd, a "well regulated militia" and therefore has an unlimited right to anything that goes boom.

wikipedia is crap sorry, too many people edit history the way they want to go.......

The Viet Cong/North Vietnamese knew exactly what they were doing......The NVA general in charge of the war has said they knew they didn't need to win any battles with the US but in the end they would win the war because the US public would not accept the continued loss of life......for the Vietnamese who had fought continuously since the Japanese invasion then the French after there was no intention of ever losing the war, a foreign invader doesn't have the same motivation and isn't willing to pay the price....

Exactly. It didn't matter how badass the US military was, or how many people were killed. The NVA and Vietcong were ALWAYS in control. And created these situations themselves.

Okay, so you can show me then what the Vietcong did after the Tet Offensive? :rolleyes:

And besides, the article quotes its sources.


Source?

And besides, I used the Vietcong as an example of a well-regulated militia and its chances against a proper military. The NVA doesn't count, since it's an actual military, the support of which an American militia fighting the US Military couldn't count on.

The Vietcong rebuilt and came back, they cept fighting, do you know what Dau Traugn is? if you don't, go back to history class.

ok, well, first of all, you used wikipedia, honestly, they are not accurate in I'd say about 40% of there information.
Again, the article quotes its sources.

The Vietcong were not crushed in the Tet offensive, niether was the NVA. They were defeated, but they came back as hard as ever in the next few years.
The NVA did. The Vietcong did not.

The NVA was the regular Northern Army. The Vietcong was an insurgency group, much like the militia being proposed here. It came out of hiding for a full-scale attack at the Tet Offensive, and it got its arse handed to it.

After that it only really existed as a department of the NVA, no longer as a popular insurgency. They sent guys from the north to fill the ranks, the recruits no longer came from the south. In the context of this discussion, that should serve as plenty enough evidence.

I'd like to point out the fact (if you didn't know) that the war continued on until 1975, when the Communists won. Thats right, the all powerful US lost.
How stupid do you think I am?

The NVA won the war. The Vietcong did not.

You don't understand the Vietnam war at all, The Vietnamese didn't care about how badly they beaten battle after battle byt he US. They cept fighting.
The dead ones did not!

Again, the article quotes its sources.


The NVA did. The Vietcong did not.

The NVA was the regular Northern Army. The Vietcong was an insurgency group, much like the militia being proposed here. It came out of hiding for a full-scale attack at the Tet Offensive, and it got its arse handed to it.

After that it only really existed as a department of the NVA, no longer as a popular insurgency. They sent guys from the north to fill the ranks, the recruits no longer came from the south. In the context of this discussion, that should serve as plenty enough evidence.


How stupid do you think I am?

The NVA won the war. The Vietcong did not.


The dead ones did not!


Ok, I do not care a damn what you read in Wikipedia. I know several people, who were in that war, ok? and first of all, your from Germany, You don't know what that war did to people here. The US soldiers I know, that were actually in the war, (not reading it on wikipedia) continued to fight a lot of Vietcong AND NVA till the US started drawing soldiers out. And when Siagon fell in 75' It was a tank with the *vietcong flag, NOT the NVA flag, the rolled into the US embassy.

If we are going to fight Nam in this thread, then let's fight Bushnam. By definition of the NRA, every citizen of Bushnam should own all the firepower they want and form whatever militias they want and kill whoever they want to defend whatever they want.-----------D___! That's exactly what they are doing! The US has won! We have instilled the freedoms of the US in Bushnam!

which as I said is absolute bullshit. Forgive me if I question the wisdom of legalizing private ownership of tanks, stealth fighter jets and nuclear warheads.

none of those are firearms, which is what the 2nd amendment protects, not all weapons of war. Plus, tanks, WMD's, jets, ect. all cost more than most americans make in a lifetime, so they wouldn't be able to get them anyway.

...do you know what Dau Traugn is?
That's not how it is spelt. ;)

Again, the political or military doctrines of the NVA don't really matter as far as the example of a popular insurgency is concerned. The Vietcong as a popular movement suffered a defeat at Tet that it never recovered from. They replaced the losses with people from the outside.

A US Militia would not have that advantage - coming out in a big offensive would result in its destruction.

Ok, I do not care a damn what you read in Wikipedia. I know several people, who were in that war, ok?
Who can tell a southern farmer turned Vietcong from a northern party member turned Vietcong?

and first of all, your from Germany, You don't know what that war did to people here.
I happen to be in Australia, which has a surprisingly large number of Vietnam Vets itself, and I've spoken to one of them.
But hey, they probably never mentioned that in whatever school you happened to go to. :rolleyes:

The US soldiers I know, that were actually in the war, (not reading it on wikipedia) continued to fight a lot of Vietcong AND NVA till the US started drawing soldiers out. And when Siagon fell in 75' It was a tank with the *vietcong flag, NOT the NVA flag, the rolled into the US embassy.
Okay, I'll say it one last time.

The Vietcong post Tet was no longer a popular movement recruiting from the south. Losses were replaced both by drawing from regular NVA units and volunteers from the north, ie essentially from the outside. While the two were two fairly seperate movements before Tet, afterwards Vietcong units were essentially special NVA units. When Vietcong tanks (how can a popular militia have tanks all of a sudden?) rolled into Saigon that was a front for propaganda purposes to show that the south had expelled the invaders and its unjust government. In fact, the units were NVA with different uniforms. In fact, the north had conquered the south.

As an organised militia like the one envisaged by the would-be revolutionaries in this thread, the Vietcong was essentially destroyed during the Tet Offensive. What followed had the same name, but was a different organisation, and that was only possible because they had a "foreign" backer, which the US Militia would not have (presumably).

That's not how it is spelt. ;)

Again, the political or military doctrines of the NVA don't really matter as far as the example of a popular insurgency is concerned. The Vietcong as a popular movement suffered a defeat at Tet that it never recovered from. They replaced the losses with people from the outside.

A US Militia would not have that advantage - coming out in a big offensive would result in its destruction.


Who can tell a southern farmer turned Vietcong from a northern party member turned Vietcong?


I happen to be in Australia, which has a surprisingly large number of Vietnam Vets itself, and I've spoken to one of them.
But hey, they probably never mentioned that in whatever school you happened to go to. :rolleyes:


Okay, I'll say it one last time.

The Vietcong post Tet was no longer a popular movement recruiting from the south. Losses were replaced both by drawing from regular NVA units and volunteers from the north, ie essentially from the outside. While the two were two fairly seperate movements before Tet, afterwards Vietcong units were essentially special NVA units. When Vietcong tanks (how can a popular militia have tanks all of a sudden?) rolled into Saigon that was a front for propaganda purposes to show that the south had expelled the invaders and its unjust government. In fact, the units were NVA with different uniforms. In fact, the north had conquered the south.

As an organised militia like the one envisaged by the would-be revolutionaries in this thread, the Vietcong was essentially destroyed during the Tet Offensive. What followed had the same name, but was a different organisation, and that was only possible because they had a "foreign" backer, which the US Militia would not have (presumably).

How dare you insult me by saying I learned this in a US school. The School system here is such shit that some kids leave thinking we won that fucking war. Everything I learned that wasn't something worthless, I learned outside on my own. Now yes, the Vietcong did get the shit kicked out of them in Tet, and so did the NVA, But the Vietcong when they came back, wasn't only NVA in another uniform. Esspecailly after Mai Leigh. The Vietcong was always being supported by the North, and after Tet they continued. And the US still had a problem trying to put down the VC insurgency after Tet. Tet changed nothing but more dead militarily. The phycological effects are obvious.

Anyways, a US militia that were like the Vietcong, could succseed in an open campaign like Tet, If they let the guerrila war go on long enough. They'd have to wear down the US military might for probably a decade, but they could do it. The problem the the actual VC, is they went into the pinnacle of US firepower. And got slaughtered, the US didn't fair to perfect either, the cong killed quite a many americans in those months. Then they got back on there feet, and cept at the old guerrila tactics,

none of those are firearms, which is what the 2nd amendment protects,

Find the word "firearms" in the 2nd. It's not there. It merely states "arms". So what constitutes "arms"?

Essentially, the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to keep the government from disarming the civilian populace. In old Europe at the time, it was a favorite technique of oppressive governments to make guns illegal, so that only the ruling party had all the guns.

This way, people couldn't feel too safe to dissent. So the United States Constitutional Convention decided that it was important to make sure that the populace was capable of defending itself against an oppressive government.

However, this was written back when it took over a minute to load and fire a single shot. And arms laws are often violated by gangs and criminals, of course.

I personally have no opinion on the second amendment. In a perfect world, there would be no need for guns, and a government wouldn't be oppressive. Instead, we have a world where people try to kill each other over the most trivial things, and the government is being kept off by some members of congress from passing arms restrictions.

Honestly, I think that we're at a point where it's a bigger problem keeping the second amendment than doing away with it, but I think that you should still be allowed to own a musket ;-)

By the way, if you disagree with me, that's great. I love debates, and live for it. But I ask for some degree of respect. I'll treat you with the same.


My brother-in-law would disagree with you, about needing firearms in a perfect world. He happens to like the taste of venison, and he can't always get a deer into bow range. And personally, I wouldn't mind owning an inline muzzleloader rifle (as long as it's one of the more modern inline models), but I also like my AR-15.

My brother-in-law would disagree with you, about needing firearms in a perfect world. He happens to like the taste of venison, and he can't always get a deer into bow range.

"I like to eat deer" does not = "I need a gun". Last time I checked, venison can be bought. Want, yes. Desire, sure. But need? 'course not.

I like a good steak, I don't go out to the pasteur with a bolt action.

"I like to eat deer" does not = "I need a gun". Last time I checked, venison can be bought. Want, yes. Desire, sure. But need? 'course not.

I like a good steak, I don't go out to the pasteur with a bolt action.

Exactly where is it possible to purchase venison in the store? I have NEVER seen any supermarket in CT selling venison. Also, hunting is about more than shooting an animal. It's about being outdoors, enjoying nature, and seeing the wildlife in its natural habitat. The meat in the freezer is just the icing on the proverbial cake.

Exactly where is it possible to purchase venison in the store? I have NEVER seen any supermarket in CT selling venison. Also, hunting is about more than shooting an animal. It's about being outdoors, enjoying nature, and seeing the wildlife in its natural habitat. The meat in the freezer is just the icing on the proverbial cake.You may have to find a specialty meat market, but you can get it in stores--easier in some places than others. Which is not to say that I think you shouldn't be allowed to hunt for it on your own if you wish. I'm personally very middle ground on firearm ownership and registration.

Exactly where is it possible to purchase venison in the store? I have NEVER seen any supermarket in CT selling venison.

It's hard to find, but there are plenty of retailers online, many in the northeast.

Also, hunting is about more than shooting an animal. It's about being outdoors, enjoying nature, and seeing the wildlife in its natural habitat. The meat in the freezer is just the icing on the proverbial cake.

All of which very well and good. However one can commune with nature without having to blow a small hole in part of it.

None of which in any way supports the idea of "I need a gun". It might justify WANTING one, but certainly not needing one. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing really against hunting per se, but I don't think it justifies HAVING TO HAVE a gun. You don't need to kill something to feel part of nature, and the meat from what you killed can be found elsewhere.

The only time you might be able to justify NEEDING a gun for the purposes of hunting is if it's actually the only way to economically feed yourself/your family.

It's hard to find, but there are plenty of retailers online, many in the northeast.



All of which very well and good. However one can commune with nature without having to blow a small hole in part of it.

None of which in any way supports the idea of "I need a gun". It might justify WANTING one, but certainly not needing one.

Considering my brother-in-law and sister are still on dial-up with a Pentium2, ordering online isn't an option (my hair went gray while waiting for their computer to boot up and connect to the internet, the last time I was over there). And yes, my brother-in-law could commune with nature without killing a deer, but my brother-in-law, sister, and their children all enjoy the taste of venison.

As to needing a firearm to put food on the table, you are right that it isn't needed. But as I said before, if my brother-in-law wants venison in the freezer, most years he needs a rifle or shotgun to do it.

edit: Doh! you edited it while I was typing my post.

edit: Doh! you edited it while I was typing my post.

heh, I'm sneaky like that. As I said, I don't have a problem with hunting per se, it's just not rarely NEEDED. It can be shown to actually be a need if, as I said in edit, it's actually the only way to economically feed yourself.

How dare you insult me by saying I learned this in a US school. The School system here is such shit that some kids leave thinking we won that fucking war. Everything I learned that wasn't something worthless, I learned outside on my own.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to compliment the US school system. :p

Now yes, the Vietcong did get the shit kicked out of them in Tet, and so did the NVA, But the Vietcong when they came back, wasn't only NVA in another uniform. Esspecailly after Mai Leigh. The Vietcong was always being supported by the North, and after Tet they continued. And the US still had a problem trying to put down the VC insurgency after Tet. Tet changed nothing but more dead militarily. The phycological effects are obvious.
Found this one, it's pretty good:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_199810/ai_n8810989

Let's just say we're both right. The VC took a heavy defeat during Tet, and it took them a lot of time and a lot of support from the north to get back on their feet. Ultimately the things an insurgent force like the VC is good at doesn't include out-in-the-open attacks on military installations, so in a one on one fight the money would always be on the military forces. That's clearly supported at the moment in Iraq and Afghanistan as well: Whenever there's an actual battle of sorts going on, the military wins convincingly. The problem is that these victories rarely change the overall situation.

Anyways, a US militia that were like the Vietcong, could succseed in an open campaign like Tet, If they let the guerrila war go on long enough. They'd have to wear down the US military might for probably a decade, but they could do it.
But to have an ongoing guerilla war, you need more than rifles, and you need outside support.

You'd have to have missiles and explosives rather than rifles and handguns, and you'd need the funds and infrastructure to resupply, which has to come from somewhere.

"A well regulated militia" is the armed forces.

At the time, when you needed an army, you got a big bag of money and went out to sign up peasants (no disrespect to the pioneers, but ...)

What they were saying here was "If we need an army to resist a foreign invasion, it would help if they brought their own gun and knew how to use it."

And that simply doesn't apply now. Every man woman and child toting a gun adds up to a fraction of a percent of the firepower the US government has at it's command.

Some people claim the amendment refers to resisting government oppression. In that case it should read "free people" not "free state." In any case, if you update it to "a right to keep and bear strike aircraft, covert surveillance and intercontinental nuclear weapons" you see just how silly that interpretation is.

The amendment is obsolete. Stop sucking up to the forefathers and find a discrete and inoffensive way to outlaw this basic tool of killing.

But to have an ongoing guerilla war, you need more than rifles, and you need outside support.

You'd have to have missiles and explosives rather than rifles and handguns, and you'd need the funds and infrastructure to resupply, which has to come from somewhere.

Ever hear of raiding the enemy's supplies and fertilizer bombs, and other notes of ingenuity? It can be done.

The amendment is obsolete. Stop sucking up to the forefathers and find a discrete and inoffensive way to outlaw this basic tool of killing.

The basic tool of killing is my bare hands, and maybe a nearby rock. People have been killing each other long before guns were around, and we'll be killing each other when they're gone.

Ever hear of raiding the enemy's supplies and fertilizer bombs, and other notes of ingenuity? It can be done.
It sure can, but it's hardly gonna be enough. The VC had supplies from the north, the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents get their stuff from donations by rich Arabs.

Some people claim the amendment refers to resisting government oppression. In that case it should read "free people" not "free state."
Nope.

You're ignoring the modifier "free" before "state". You ensure the security of a free state by overthrowing a corrupt or oppressive state.

In any case, if you update it to "a right to keep and bear strike aircraft, covert surveillance and intercontinental nuclear weapons" you see just how silly that interpretation is.
What's silly about that? The populace MUST be able to compete on an equal, if not superior, footing to government forces.

none of those are firearms, which is what the 2nd amendment protects, not all weapons of war.
No, it protects the right to civilian ownership of all weapons.

Plus, tanks, WMD's, jets, ect. all cost more than most americans make in a lifetime, so they wouldn't be able to get them anyway.
Most, but not all. A modern aircraft carrier runs around 10 billion...Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could easily afford several of those.

Don't forget, too, that corporations are owned by people--and the owners could sell them or their assets off to fund a revolt should they desire it.

because we don't really have the right to take to the streets mob rule style and murder people because we payed more than we wanted to in taxes?

Yes, we are, because taxation is theft. The use of violent force in defense of one's property is just as legitimate as the use of violent force in defense of one's life--because, ultimately, property is life.

Some people claim the amendment refers to resisting government oppression. In that case it should read "free people" not "free state."

Actually no, what was likely meant when they wrote that was defending a free state from a tyrannical Federal government. As Madison wrote in the Federalist #46:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

In a time when standing armies were deemed dangerous, I'm sure he never imagined that the US govt would ever have more troops than the states.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

Anyway, this whole debate is silly. Europeans will never convince Americans to give up their guns, and Americans will never convince Europeans that guns aren't the most terrible thing imaginable.

I think people should be free to own any gun they wish, so long as it does not compromise the ability of the police to enforce the law.

IE: a handgun to deter a burglar is fine.

an automatic weapon with armor piercing bullets is not.

I like this argument. I'm glad we are free to own arms, but think you do have to draw the line at some point. Never could figure out where though, Im going to chew on this one.

Yes, we are, because taxation is theft. The use of violent force in defense of one's property is just as legitimate as the use of violent force in defense of one's life--because, ultimately, property is life.
Please, God, not this ridiculous argument. It's bad enough that we've strayed from the original post to the current level, but can we please stay away from the ludicrous argument that taxation is theft? Taxes are the dues we pay for a stable society. And property is not life either. Plenty of societies managed to get along quite nicely without any concept of property as we conceive it today.

No, it protects the right to civilian ownership of all weapons.


Most, but not all. A modern aircraft carrier runs around 10 billion...Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could easily afford several of those.

Don't forget, too, that corporations are owned by people--and the owners could sell them or their assets off to fund a revolt should they desire it.

Also, don't forget that the "insurgents" in Iraq are doing a pretty darned good job fighting us off with just AK-47s, RPGs, and some IEDs.

Also, don't forget that the "insurgents" in Iraq are doing a pretty darned good job fighting us off with just AK-47s, RPGs, and some IEDs.
Very true, but they got hold of a lot of that material from looting weapons caches that we didn't secure after the invasion, and I believe they're getting resupply from outside Iraq's borders. And then there's the whole problem of "trained" Iraqi troops who have more allegiance to their local leaders than to the Iraqi government. There have been reports of US weapons being used on US troops.

Very true, but they got hold of a lot of that material from looting weapons caches that we didn't secure after the invasion, and I believe they're getting resupply from outside Iraq's borders. And then there's the whole problem of "trained" Iraqi troops who have more allegiance to their local leaders than to the Iraqi government. There have been reports of US weapons being used on US troops.

I imagine much the same would happen in the United States. It would take a long time for the regular army to regain control of the National Guard Armories. And I'm quite sure that the National Guard would have more loyalty to the Constitution, their families, and their State then an obviously tyrannical Federal Government.

And I'm sure the Canadians would help us out incase of tyranny.

I imagine much the same would happen in the United States. It would take a long time for the regular army to regain control of the National Guard Armories. And I'm quite sure that the National Guard would have more loyalty to the Constitution, their families, and their State then an obviously tyrannical Federal Government.

And I'm sure the Canadians would help us out in case of tyranny.

It all depends. How do you overcome the stranglehold the media has on the minds of Americans? And don't for a second think that it would be part of the revolt--corporate ownership means staying in favor of the status quo, not defending the Constitution.

It all depends. How do you overcome the stranglehold the media has on the minds of Americans? And don't for a second think that it would be part of the revolt--corporate ownership means staying in favor of the status quo, not defending the Constitution.

I see your point but will the media keep supporting the Gov't if the Gov't starts shutting them down or blatantly censoring them?

Who's propaganda will be more effective?

Yes, we are, because taxation is theft. The use of violent force in defense of one's property is just as legitimate as the use of violent force in defense of one's life--because, ultimately, property is life.

Oh god, you're one of those people

It all depends. How do you overcome the stranglehold the media has on the minds of Americans? And don't for a second think that it would be part of the revolt--corporate ownership means staying in favor of the status quo, not defending the Constitution.

There would (will?) come a point where even the media cannot control the American public. The average American isn't as dumb as one would believe. I believe that the Media and the government can only push the public so far.

And it's really beginning to show. People are becoming less and less convinced that America is the nation that it has been. And it's definitely beyond Democrats and Republicans. It's the whole system. And people are getting tired of it.

Every American knows, instinctively, how to think for him/herself. It's just been buried in the mountains of filth the government and the media has put out.

There would (will?) come a point where even the media cannot control the American public. The average American isn't as dumb as one would believe. I believe that the Media and the government can only push the public so far.

And it's really beginning to show. People are becoming less and less convinced that America is the nation that it has been. And it's definitely beyond Democrats and Republicans. It's the whole system. And people are getting tired of it.

Every American knows, instinctively, how to think for him/herself. It's just been buried in the mountains of filth the government and the media has put out.

But what level of shit will they have to be covered in--and realized that they're covered in it--before they'll be willing to put their necks at risk? I that we've been spoon-fed shit for so long that most of us don't even realize we've been eating it.

so you think that anyone who wants to can have access to military grade firearms?

Yes.

You'd change your mind after watching the Podunk, Iowa police force get slaughtered in a gunfight against someone armed with automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets (kevlar? no problem!).

No, I wouldn't. No more than I would change my mind on the First Amendment after seeing Michael Moore's slop.

what about more potent equipment, like mortars or grenade launchers? do you think they should be available off store shelves? technically, they are firearms.

Most stores couldn't handle the cost of these weapons and would find them prohibitive to stock, considering the small market. But, if the market is there, the product should be there.

and we wouldn't want that right to slaughter infringed, now would we?

You build that strawman all by yourself, or didjya get some help?

I say it again: any firearm that does not compromise the ability of law enforcement to maintain order is fine by me.

No firearm does so.

But what level of shit will they have to be covered in--and realized that they're covered in it--before they'll be willing to put their necks at risk? I that we've been spoon-fed shit for so long that most of us don't even realize we've been eating it.

But people are beginning to realize it. They're beginning to realize what they're being fed. And many are beginning to spit it out.

Who knows when the majority of Americans will come to the conclusion that the government has become tyrannical enough to be overthrown. I sure as hell don't. Heck, I don't even know when I will put my neck on the line. But I do know that every American has a line that they won't let the government cross.

Oh god, you're one of those people

Yep, someone decided to join the ranks of the irrelevant and delusional this fine morning.

I am always reminded of the archetypal anti-tax patriot, Timothy McVeigh.

Like I said: practicality. Make it nearly impossible to get your hands on those weapons. In Texas, we don't have any gun control - for standard calibre and gauge weaponry. However, any abnormally destructive firearms are still available, but one must have registration for those. Thusly, balance.

The only registration is that required by federal law, i.e., a Class III.

And, I'm in Texas.

The most compelling argument against unlimited weapons ownership (taking for granted for the nonce that the second amendment allows civilian weapon ownership, &c.) is this:

Our other basic rights are not unlimited, there are limits on free speech ("fire" in a crowded theater) and limits on religious freedom (human sacrifice), for instance.

These limitation come from the principle of balancing the right of the individual to speak or practice religion against the right of all other individuals to be safe.

All reasonable and honest adults understand and admit that widespread availability of automatic weapons and dangerous devices makes them much much easier for criminals to get and use.

Minimizing the ammount of machineguns - which are an order of magnitude more dangerous for bystanders and victims of crime than semi-automatic weapons - in petty criminal hands is an aim which justifies restricting civilian ownership of machineguns.

Then why include anything about militias? That is like saying The first amendment provides for freedom of speech, but not the right to petition the government for redress of government. "But wait," you say, "it specifically says that in the Amendment." Yeah and it specifically mentions militias in the second. It isn't in there for shits and giggles.

To show why, here is an analogy;

A literate Congress, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

So grenades, bazookas, and nukes are acceptable civilian items?

Yup.

Try to afford a nuc, though - and, find someone willing to sell it to you...

that's not "the whole point"

personal profit (professional hunters)
personal protection (burglar deterrent)
personal entertainment (skeet shooting/'sport' hunting)
or just for collections as a hobby.

none of these require automatic reloading or armor piercing capabilities.

Broadband is not required either. We can get along perfectly well with 56K dialup.

To show why, here is an analogy;

A literate Congress, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

Dingdingdingdingding!

Somebody would have failed his LSAT, because those two arguments are not parallel or analagous.

A well-regulated militia is not made to be or ensured to be 'well-regulated' by virtue of people owning arms, whereas as a literate congress is made to be or ensured to be literate by virtue of people owning books.

You could, however, have taken a tack which is actually analagous. For instance, the idea of a 'militia' is moot without arms, so you could have come up with something like:

"A well-regulated congress, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to vote and elect congressman shall not be infringed"

The most compelling argument against unlimited weapons ownership (taking for granted for the nonce that the second amendment allows civilian weapon ownership, &c.) is this:

Our other basic rights are not unlimited, there are limits on free speech ("fire" in a crowded theater) and limits on religious freedom (human sacrifice), for instance.

These limitation come from the principle of balancing the right of the individual to speak or practice religion against the right of all other individuals to be safe.

All reasonable and honest adults understand and admit that widespread availability of automatic weapons and dangerous devices makes them much much easier for criminals to get and use.

Minimizing the ammount of machineguns - which are an order of magnitude more dangerous for bystanders and victims of crime than semi-automatic weapons - in petty criminal hands is an aim which justifies restricting civilian ownership of machineguns.
QFT, since it's likely to get lost in the shuffle of this thread. There's an even better example as well. Slander and libel are not protected speech under the first amendment, because of the harm they do to the people being slandered and libeled--the right to free speech is not an absolute one, and neither should be the right to bear arms (however it is interpreted).

Broadband is not required either. We can get along perfectly well with 56K dialup.

I just like the grouping of "automatic reloading". ie trying to link it w/ fully-automatics.

and "armor piercing bullets". Define what is "armor piercing" as any standard rifle round will penetrate most forms of body armor.

Five minutes later, I was driving home with my new rifle. How can someone buy a gun without identification? Gun control is a joke in Texas- in case you didn't notice, I wasn't even subject to the three-day "holding period" that supposedly gives the goverment time to make sure I haven't killed anyone lately.

There is no three-day wait in Texas. Dealers must run a Brady check, but the three day bit is the maximum time for the feds to respond, mainly to accomodate gun shows. If the clearance from the feds takes more than three days, you get the gun.

Gun control is not a "joke" here, it is minimal. Not perfect, but better than most. And, if you want no background check, buy from a private owner, rather than a dealer.

True story. True and terrifying, if you ask me.

Not terrifying at all...