NationStates Jolt Archive

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in a n18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient.

Don't hold back, now. Tell us how you really feel.

Don't hold back, now. Tell us how you really feel.

Something about guns and people, it seems.

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

so youre saying that no one in the 18th century would suggest that the government would ever have the right to stop someone from owning a gun..... so then WHY would they put in the 2nd ammendment and why would it mean that they are saying that you can own a gun?

if outlawing gun ownership was unthinkable wouldnt that mean that the second ammendment HAS to be about the militias?

im just saying that i think your analysis is off.

It just amazes me that people are so ignorant of history that they can actually convince themselves that the founding fathers wrote the second amendment to legislate gun ownership and not state militia's. There was no gun control in this country until the 20th century and not until the late 20st century was there even a debate over personal firearms ownership. Yet people actually try and say that the second amendment was written to deal with this.

Like I said, it would be like writing an amendment to say you have the right to own chairs or a lamp. That's how people of the era rightfully viewed guns.

Obviously I meant to say that the founding fathers would not even conceive of having to write a law to protect a person's right to own a gun.

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

So what are you saying? That the 2nd Amendment meant that people could only have guns if they are in a state run millita? or that its not about guns and its really about peeople owning the front legs of a bear?

Obviously I meant to say that the founding fathers would not even conceive of having to write a law to protect a person's right to own a gun.

Epic fail.

Yes, yes they would -- the European monarchs were pretty happy to round up weapons caches to protect their own power, and the founding fathers knew damn well that the governments feared an armed populace.

They had every reason to do so.

BUT

Initially, you're right, though -- most of the Federalists didn't want to put a bill of rights in because they didn't find it necessary, and they were afraid it would be construed as a "this is all you have" list. It wasn't until the Anti-Federalists started bitching that it was intro'd. I mean, that's the point of the Ninth and Tenth -- to say that "this isn't everything."

Edit: OMG TEIM WARPZ

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

Agreed.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

I don't agree here, people should never be persecuted for having different beliefs.

So what are you saying? That the 2nd Amendment meant that people could only have guns if they are in a state run millita? or that its not about guns and its really about peeople owning the front legs of a bear?

No, he's saying the amendment was to protect the right to be part of a militia - and for those militias to exist.

I disagree, strongly. The 1st ten amendments don't require silly-ass "interpretation" - they say EXACTLY what they mean.

And the second amendment, after stating the REASON they felt it was needed, very clearly states "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's meaning is exactly what it says.

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

Maybe violating the rights of the mentally deficient with a gun would help.

Common law - contract law - an agreement in writing of the expectations of the parties involved - stop changing the agreement because I no longer agree.

You can have my firearm if you can pry it from my cold dead hand.

Isn't the militia to be called out to protect the citizens - why would we hire blackwater to do that?

The mental deficient part was obviously a joke. I'm saying that people that think the founding fathers sat around talking about taking away a person's musket are stupid.

It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

on the contrary the English civil war has it as a cause (or at least my old history teacher had informed me, on further look I see nothing)

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

well personally i think they should extend the 2nd amendment and let anyone over the age of 30 buy anything they want ranging from a pistol to an RPG...
just kidding ;) but it would be cool and it cuts down on crime cus if everyone has a gun who are you gonna rob

so youre saying that no one in the 18th century would suggest that the government would ever have the right to stop someone from owning a gun..... so then WHY would they put in the 2nd ammendment and why would it mean that they are saying that you can own a gun?

if outlawing gun ownership was unthinkable wouldnt that mean that the second ammendment HAS to be about the militias?

im just saying that i think your analysis is off.

That, that is quality.

"This code... I can't crack it. But the solution must be the words "Three blind mice." Why? Because the code MEANS "Three blind mice!"

That's your logic, and it brightened my day somewhat.

Two hundred years ago, a gun was a tool, not a weapon. Well, OK, it was a weapon, but so is a hammer, and for the most part, the image of "gun" has changed from "tool" to "weapon." And there are a lot of people out there who believe guns should be banned, or at least tightly restricted.

It almost makes me wonder if, since there's such a wide variety of opinion of guns and a large potential for people to develop a fear of firearms en masse (picture how many people are afraid of snakes and spiders today,) we ought to work on amending the Second Amendment so that it's a. better worded, and b. leaves gun laws up to the states. Most states wouldn't put too many restrictions on them, and there will probably be gun-free areas for people who want them.

it would be cool and it cuts down on crime cus if everyone has a gun who are you gonna rob

the bank? :p

well personally i think they should extend the 2nd amendment and let anyone over the age of 30 buy anything they want ranging from a pistol to an RPG...
just kidding ;) but it would be cool and it cuts down on crime cus if everyone has a gun who are you gonna rob

The guy with the RPG. Those things sell for loads of cash.

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

Yep, it's about the Militia.... Of course the militia, as federally defined is all males in good standing 18 or older up to 45; and state definitions include males even younger (as low as 15-16)... Remember, the concept of the militia of the time was (and still is in most states) all abled bodied males between certain ages.... IOW, the PEOPLE are the MILITIA... The very wording of the amendment deals with this... "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The amendment uses THE PEOPLE's right to arms in direct connection to a "militia".

on the contrary the English civil war has it as a cause (or at least my old history teacher had informed me, on further look I see nothing)

Teh Glorious Revolution, English Bill of Rights and all that. (1689).

I forget where I found this, which pisses me off, but I had it saved on my computer.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

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

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

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

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

"In reply to your numbered questions:

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

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

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

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

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

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

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

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

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

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

"Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment. If the guns are taken out of the hands of the people and only the pigs have guns, then it's off to the concentration camps, the gas chambers, or whatever the fascists in America come up with. One of the democratic rights of the United States, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, gives the people the right to bear arms. However, there is a greater right; the right of human dignity that gives all men the right to defend themselves."

-Huey P. Newton, The Black Panthers

----------------

Question: "In the history of the Panthers there have been a number of shootouts. Are you now de-emphasizing the role of gunplay in the revolution?"

Huey Newton: "I'm always very careful not to apologize for any defensive measure and not to mix it up with aggression. And I would never view the Vietnamese defense of their homeland as mere violence. Our Panther defense is a tool to get rid of the violence and aggression. I'm against all wars. I'm for world disarmament; the party is also. But we're not pacifists. We think that it's time to organize the people in the United States, which of course the authorities are very upset about. We want peace. But, in certain situations, I won't guarantee that I won't use means that the people think are necessary, wholly necessary and efficient, to bring about liberation. And if I were to tell you anything else, I'd be dishonest with you."

"I hope that America will stop acting violently so it will no longer be necessary for the people of the world to defend themselves. And we hope that the people will require America to stop the violence and not dwell upon criticizing those who decide to defend themselves. I think it's critical to talk about the helpless victim and his defense rather than to talk about the blood and the aggression of the true criminal, that is, the American fascist forces. I would say that we are advocates of the abolitional war--we don't want war, but war can only be abolished through war. In order to get rid of the gun, it becomes necessary to take up the gun. Chairman Mao stated that political power grows through the barrel of a gun. Just as the Chinese understand Mao's statement, I say power grows through the barrel but it culminates in the ownership of land and institutions by the people."

--------------------

If you can't see the fact, FACT, that if we as "civilized people" ban guns we will A) Have no defense against the state or the power structure that any given second would rather you have you in chains is completely idiotic. Huey is right - Remember, the first act of dictators is to abolish gun laws "for the betterment of the people." In popular historical knowledge, one can see this in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain. B) The fact, again FACT, that you will only drive underground the gun sales and force them into a black market without regulation. Haven't you noticed that criminals can get their hands on guns easily should they want one?

It's really cute that you, original poster, liken the second amendment to a right to own a chair. You have to understand that the founding fathers actually understood the hard facts of government and governments tendencies to undermine the population. I'm not saying they were great people, I'm merely stating a fact. In fact, in case you haven't read them may I suggest reading the Federalist Papers by Thomas Jefferson. Particularly his words on a central bank (FYI - The Federal Reserve). Particularly his words on corporations. And all of a sudden you'll soon understand their foresight and intelligence when writing that Bill Of Rights.

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

If I may repeat, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, that the second amendment was likely put in place to prevent the government from taking the guns of the people. I understand the ideas that to them guns were like chairs in terms of ownership rights, but if a government feared the people's chairs, they would be taken away too. The point was so that way when another revolution was necessary (as Jefferson thought) the people would be able to fight.

If the amendment meant for the people and the militia to be seen as one, then it would have been written as such. One could easily interpret the comma between "free state" and "the right" to mean "and", since the comma there serves no other purpose that makes grammatical sense. You could argue that it is there to finish the appositive of "being necessary to the security of a free state", but if that is the case then the sentence looses grammatical sense. In most cases the wording is very clear and leaves little room for alternative interpretations, so it is natural to think that because the word "militia" isn't used in place of the word "people" in the second half of the sentence, that the two are separate. Looking at later amendments in the Bill of Rights, it becomes fairly clear that by "militia", the authors were thinking of what we currently call the military; a government force.

The government would never take away its own guns, therefore this amendment protects those of the people. It is pointless to say "the government troops are allowed to use guns", since the government would rely upon said guns to suppress a rebellion. Since this is the case, the amendment should likely be interpreted to mean that the private citizens, civilians if you will, should be allowed to own guns.

:sniper:Please, be careful where you point firearms!:mp5:

It just amazes me that people are so ignorant of history that they can actually convince themselves that the founding fathers wrote the second amendment to legislate gun ownership and not state militia's. There was no gun control in this country until the 20th century and not until the late 20st century was there even a debate over personal firearms ownership. Yet people actually try and say that the second amendment was written to deal with this.

Like I said, it would be like writing an amendment to say you have the right to own chairs or a lamp. That's how people of the era rightfully viewed guns.


Actually, the second amendment is to regualte state militias.

It protects the people's right to bear arms in order to keep militias regulated.

Actually, the second amendment is to regualte state militias.

It protects the people's right to bear arms in order to keep militias regulated.You don't think armed bears would be better at regulating militias? :confused:

You don't think armed bears would be better at regulating militias? :confused:

Perhaps. They never asked me my opinion. I have a lot of good ideas for dealing with problem people. :)

You don't think armed bears would be better at regulating militias? :confused:

DA BEAR CALVARY

Perhaps. They never asked me my opinion. I have a lot of good ideas for dealing with problem people. :)

Lunatic Goofballs/Cthulhu '08!

DA BEAR CALVARYNot all that efficient, actually. I speak from experience:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/toe_dwarves_White_bear_Rider.jpg

Lunatic Goofballs/Cthulhu '08!

Insanity or death. Take your pick. :)

Insanity or death. Take your pick. :)

I'm already insane, so the choice is clear.

I'm already insane, so the choice is clear.

Nah.

I prefer insanity in my citizens. I've never held death in particularly high regard. My running mate doesn't seem to have a preference. So I'm prepared to give a tax break and an assortment of gourmet tacos to anybody who can prove their insanity to a specially trained panel of judges. *nod*

So you argue that within the US Bill of Rights, a document which is dedicated to individual personal freedoms and rights, there is one that is actually dedicated to a states rights?

Doubtful.

Nah.

I prefer insanity in my citizens. I've never held death in particularly high regard. My running mate doesn't seem to have a preference. So I'm prepared to give a tax break and an assortment of gourmet tacos to anybody who can prove their insanity to a specially trained panel of judges. *nod*The judges need to pop out when least expected shouting: "NO ONE EXPECTS THE LOONEY INQUISITION!"

I suggest a different color of robes. Perhaps even clown costumes. *nodnod*

The judges need to pop out when least expected shouting: "NO ONE EXPECTS THE LOONEY INQUISITION!"

I suggest a different color of robes. Perhaps even clown costumes. *nodnod*

"Poke her with the pillows!.... DO YOU CONFESS?!"

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

You bizarrely contradict yourself, making it hard to understand WTF you are saying, let alone respond. On the one hand, you say the 2nd Amendment is about militias and, on the other hand, you say people have the right to own firearms. Are you suggesting that people have the right to own firearms, even though it isn't enumerated in the 2nd Amendment? That at least would make some sense.

Many (if not all) of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights were understood by the Founders to be pre-existing rights that existed prior to their enumeration in the Bill of Rights. That is why there is language like no law "abridging the freedom" of X and "the right of the people ... shall not be violated."

That also explains the existence of the 9th Amendment, which makes clear there are additional rights retained by the people, but not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I have long agreed with the nigh-unanimous position of the judiciary that the Second Amendment was about militias and did not guarantee an individual right to firearm ownership. Arguments here on NS (and other factors I won't go into) have convinced me that view is wrong. It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS has to say about the matter, which will be before them this term.

The judges need to pop out when least expected shouting: "NO ONE EXPECTS THE LOONEY INQUISITION!"

I suggest a different color of robes. Perhaps even clown costumes. *nodnod*

Big wooden mallets would be fitting, I think.

Big wooden mallets would be fitting, I think.But big wooden mallets is not a color... :(

But big wooden mallets is not a color... :(

Why can't big wooden mallets be a color?! Afterall, "RED" has somehow become a flavor.... "What flavor of coolaid would you like?...." "Red..."

But big wooden mallets is not a color... :(

That's more of a sidearm/symbol of office. Like a gavel, but bigger.

You bizarrely contradict yourself, making it hard to understand WTF you are saying, let alone respond. On the one hand, you say the 2nd Amendment is about militias and, on the other hand, you say people have the right to own firearms. Are you suggesting that people have the right to own firearms, even though it isn't enumerated in the 2nd Amendment? That at least would make some sense.

Many (if not all) of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights were understood by the Founders to be pre-existing rights that existed prior to their enumeration in the Bill of Rights. That is why there is language like no law "abridging the freedom" of X and "the right of the people ... shall not be violated."

That also explains the existence of the 9th Amendment, which makes clear there are additional rights retained by the people, but not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I have long agreed with the nigh-unanimous position of the judiciary that the Second Amendment was about militias and did not guarantee an individual right to firearm ownership. Arguments here on NS (and other factors I won't go into) have convinced me that view is wrong. It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS has to say about the matter, which will be before them this term.


what do you think are the most important arguments on either side that might sway the courts opinion?

on a non constitutional basis i dont see the point of passing a law that is being flouted by all segments of society. has the dc gun ban cut down on gun ownership?

I have long agreed with the nigh-unanimous position of the judiciary that the Second Amendment was about militias and did not guarantee an individual right to firearm ownership. Arguments here on NS (and other factors I won't go into) have convinced me that view is wrong. It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS has to say about the matter, which will be before them this term.

CT. Have you read the Certs. provided by the parties on the case? What do you think of the question that SCOTUS will be responding to?

Nah.

I prefer insanity in my citizens. I've never held death in particularly high regard. My running mate doesn't seem to have a preference. So I'm prepared to give a tax break and an assortment of gourmet tacos to anybody who can prove their insanity to a specially trained panel of judges. *nod*

quite simple really, only the insane could think that they are sane.

Passing through this thread, I have read that someone here think that, if everyone have a gun, then crime would drop.
As I remember, USA is the country with the most weapon per habitant rate in the world.
It's also the first Occidental country for violent death and use of guns in crimes. Several thousands each year.

No ?

The only thing you obtain when everyone has a gun, is more violence used by criminals and a lots of people killed by accident.

About restrictions on firearms, I personnaly live in France ( and apologizes for my english ) and have been in Deutschland and Great Britain.
The three have strong laws regulating firearms, and the three have very low criminality, especially violent criminality, compared to United States.

Think of this: during what the media so wrongly called the " Great Revolt " of the banlieus in France, there was a few injuries, but not a single dead.

How many people have been killed during the last great riots in Los Angeles ?

Sorry for being out of the thread, but this kind of comment makes me sad.
Having weapons everywhere is not a protection against an oppressive state, because you can have all the weapons you want, it's stricly no use against a regular modern army who don't care at all about civil rights.
Nothing, nada, zilch.

About the Constitution of USA, yes the historic context was clearly about militias, BUT the text is not so clear, probably because the founding fathers haven't see a futur where everyone could buy sub-machine guns like candy bar...
And, no, the European monarchs don't fear so much weapons in the hand of population, because a regular army was so superior to an armed guerilla that never such a rebellion won.
The French Revolution is the only exception I could think of, and the army wasn't used against the insurgents ( and would have probably not shot on them, but who knows, with such great number of mercenaries )...at the time, most of the farmers own a mousquet, for purpose of defense, for hunting and, mostly, because it was a symbol of virility, as much as having childrens.

This phallocratic symbolism haven't totally disappeared today, as I can say every day with my friends in the army.

Thanks for reading.
My apologizes if it bothered you.

Snippage.

Crime in the UK wasn't effected by the gun bans. In fact, it's come to light that they are having to not record crimes to say it's "dropping". Finland and Switzerland have high ownership rates and crime rates similar to the rest or WE. Russia, Mexico, and South Africa have low ownership and very high crime. Most crime in the US is committed in Urban areas w/ gangs and by prior criminals.

Insanity or death. Take your pick. :)

No, silly. I meant running mates.

Think of it:

Lunatic Goofballs, President of the United States
Cthulhu, Vice President of the United States
Loki, Speaker of the House
Khorne, Secretary of State

I am no expert on American Law, but all I can say is this: the it seems as if the United States doesn't need gun control it needs bullette control.

Guns don't kill people, it's the sharp mettle projectiles that come out of them that do.

No, silly. I meant running mates.

Think of it:

Lunatic Goofballs, President of the United States
Cthulhu, Vice President of the United States
Loki, Speaker of the House
Khorne, Secretary of State

Can I be Secretary of Defense?

Passing through this thread, I have read that someone here think that, if everyone have a gun, then crime would drop.
As I remember, USA is the country with the most weapon per habitant rate in the world.
It's also the first Occidental country for violent death and use of guns in crimes. Several thousands each year.

No ?

The only thing you obtain when everyone has a gun, is more violence used by criminals and a lots of people killed by accident.

About restrictions on firearms, I personnaly live in France ( and apologizes for my english ) and have been in Deutschland and Great Britain.
The three have strong laws regulating firearms, and the three have very low criminality, especially violent criminality, compared to United States.

Think of this: during what the media so wrongly called the " Great Revolt " of the banlieus in France, there was a few injuries, but not a single dead.

How many people have been killed during the last great riots in Los Angeles ?

Sorry for being out of the thread, but this kind of comment makes me sad.
Having weapons everywhere is not a protection against an oppressive state, because you can have all the weapons you want, it's stricly no use against a regular modern army who don't care at all about civil rights.
Nothing, nada, zilch.

About the Constitution of USA, yes the historic context was clearly about militias, BUT the text is not so clear, probably because the founding fathers haven't see a futur where everyone could buy sub-machine guns like candy bar...
And, no, the European monarchs don't fear so much weapons in the hand of population, because a regular army was so superior to an armed guerilla that never such a rebellion won.
The French Revolution is the only exception I could think of, and the army wasn't used against the insurgents ( and would have probably not shot on them, but who knows, with such great number of mercenaries )...at the time, most of the farmers own a mousquet, for purpose of defense, for hunting and, mostly, because it was a symbol of virility, as much as having childrens.

This phallocratic symbolism haven't totally disappeared today, as I can say every day with my friends in the army.

Thanks for reading.
My apologizes if it bothered you.

You make a very interesting point, but you have to keep in mind that the US is a vastly different country from Europe in terms of geography, demographics, and legally (to name just a few) and what works in Europe may not work in the US.

For starters, the US has a long, sparsely populated, porous border that Europeans would tremble at. 700,000 people, more than our annual average population growth rate, enter illegally through this border every year, making it a perfect location to smuggle illegal arms across the border. By outlawing guns, the criminals would all still have them, but no one else would. And this is one of a number of reasons.

Today guns are just as important for defending yourself from other criminals as well as from the dangers of the government. And with 100 million+ registered guns, no foriegn power could dream of occcupying us. Not that that's a real danger, but still...

CT. Have you read the Certs. provided by the parties on the case?

No.

I've read the question granted for certiorari and I've glanced at the petitioner's petition for certiorari.

Do you have a good link handy to the various briefs?

What do you think of the question that SCOTUS will be responding to?

I think it is interesting, but I don't read anything from the tea leaves. What are your thoughts?

Just for those reading at home, SCOTUS will rule on the following question:
Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
(link (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/112007pzr.pdf))

Cat Tribe, I didn't think I could be anymore clear.

I don't believe the Second Amendment covers individual gun ownership because the very idea of the government telling you that you can't own a firearm would never even cross the minds of people at the time. It would be like saying that you need to pass a law that says people have the right to own chairs.

And they were right. Gun laws are ridiculous. They only serve criminals. Much like drug laws are ridiculous. They only serve criminals.

Cat Tribe, I didn't think I could be anymore clear.

I don't believe the Second Amendment covers individual gun ownership because the very idea of the government telling you that you can't own a firearm would never even cross the minds of people at the time. It would be like saying that you need to pass a law that says people have the right to own chairs.

1. It isn't my fault that you were less than clear. As I correctly guessed, you seem to be saying that there is a right to own firearms, but it is not codified in the Second Amendment.

2. As I explained, the idea that gun rights were pre-existing is hardly a novel one. Do you know that many Founders, including James Madison (at least for a while), thought that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because all of those rights were already held by the people?

3. Others on here are better qualified to speak to this than I, but the notion of a government limiting it's people's right to armaments was not unheard of at the time the Second Amendment was passed.


And they were right. Gun laws are ridiculous. They only serve criminals. Much like drug laws are ridiculous. They only serve criminals.

I never said otherwise. Although to say all "gun laws" are wrong is rather silly. Some restrictions on "gun rights" are eminently reasonable and are consistent with the Constitution.

No.

I've read the question granted for certiorari and I've glanced at the petitioner's petition for certiorari.

Do you have a good link handy to the various briefs?

As a matter of fact I do. Oodles of linkage:

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html

Have fun.



I think it is interesting, but I don't read anything from the tea leaves. What are your thoughts?

Just for those reading at home, SCOTUS will rule on the following question:
Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
(link (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/112007pzr.pdf))

My opinion (and hope) is that it sounds that SCOTUS is already looking at it as an "individual right" and will uphold the Appellate ruling on firearms in the home.

It reads like they agreed on the wording to accept the "individual right" viewpoint w/o completely negating all firearm laws w/o individual cases. The only major one that I can know of that would be endangered following that ruling would be the Chicago Handgun ban (w/ a few smaller locales that did that as well).

the bank? :p

but the dudes there have guns:sniper::sniper::mp5::mp5:

The guy with the RPG. Those things sell for loads of cash.

but he'll blow you away

Cat Tribe, I didn't think I could be anymore clear.

I don't believe the Second Amendment covers individual gun ownership because the very idea of the government telling you that you can't own a firearm would never even cross the minds of people at the time. It would be like saying that you need to pass a law that says people have the right to own chairs.

And they were right. Gun laws are ridiculous. They only serve criminals. Much like drug laws are ridiculous. They only serve criminals.

Except for the fact that gun control laws date back to the 1300's

(don't have a handy link for that, if I find it I'll post it)

Yeah and you can find much older laws that deal with the right to own a horse or many other things.

Sure it's been written down somewhere at some time, but I don't understand why people can look at the time and think that the Second Amendment was written to restrict or allow gun ownership. I repeat there was no gun laws in this country until the 20th century.

Nah.

I prefer insanity in my citizens. I've never held death in particularly high regard. My running mate doesn't seem to have a preference. So I'm prepared to give a tax break and an assortment of gourmet tacos to anybody who can prove their insanity to a specially trained panel of judges. *nod*

I work at the post office. I'd say that proves my insanity.


Why do so many mailmen go crazy?

"Because the mail never stops. It just keeps coming and coming and coming. There's never a letup, It's relentless. Every day it piles up more and more, but the more you get out, the more it keeps coming. And then the bar code reader breaks. And then it's Publisher's Clearinghouse day..."

Can I be Secretary of Defense?

Here you go!

http://www.pecorfamily.com/Blog_202006_2D06_2D21_20Fence.jpg

*abolishes nonsensical second amendment*

Yeah and you can find much older laws that deal with the right to own a horse or many other things.

Sure it's been written down somewhere at some time, but I don't understand why people can look at the time and think that the Second Amendment was written to restrict or allow gun ownership. I repeat there was no gun laws in this country until the 20th century.

You continue to ignore that the Bill of Rights addresses personal and individual freedoms. Why, exactly, would they include an amendment relating to states rights in an article meant to address individual rights?

ETA: Actually, of the 13 originally proposed amendments, only the two not relating to individual rights were ratified at that time: Congressional apportionment and congressional compensation (ratified in 1992)

Yeah and you can find much older laws that deal with the right to own a horse or many other things.

Sure it's been written down somewhere at some time, but I don't understand why people can look at the time and think that the Second Amendment was written to restrict or allow gun ownership. I repeat there was no gun laws in this country until the 20th century.

You're wrong.

There were gun laws well before that. Most of them involving disarming blacks.

http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

There. Cited sources for pre-20th gun laws.

I thank you for the answers.

For my external point of view, the second amendment is about individuals, not militias, because it's written like this.

There's also a second problem, who is the mass of guns already in the place, more than 100 millions, you say, and I remember studies saying that there's possibly twice this number in reality.
You can't change this in a few years, of course, and it's an issue to solve on the very long term.

As a protection against an invasion, it's, on my opinion, a nonsense.
France in 1940 get more than 8 millions weapons in circulation ( for a population of 40 millions ), the average Kypros citizen possessed 6 guns, half the Polish family own at least one, the same for Norway...doesn't think it helped them to really hit occupation forces of a relentless state who have not a public opinion who cares about war losses, and who murder 50 civilians hostages for each soldiers lost...
The Resistance's of thoses countries makes there most crippling blows in intelligence gathering operations and, in few cases, planed fightings, with Allied support and modern weapons airdropped ( the insurrection of Varsaw, the "great day" and the Liberation of Paris in France, Tito's guerilla...)

Yes, there's a great difference, the vaste majority of thoses guns where old hunting rifles, but the vast majority of weapons in circulation in US today are small calibers, handgun, pistols, no ?
Or there is so much weapons of war category ?
I really don't know at all.

About Switzerland the criminality exploded in the 90's, with the massive immigration of former Yugoslavians citizens...giving a point tu Jullianus II.

For UK, could I have links about the studies saying that the officials have to " forget " some crimes in order to keep the numbers in line ?
I'm interested, and if you have by the way studies about the social reinsertion programms and funds in UK, it would be perfect.

And, I don't forget that all countries have specificities, yes America face an immigration boom unseen since the last century...and remember that the first was rather violent.

Yeah and you can find much older laws that deal with the right to own a horse or many other things.

Sure it's been written down somewhere at some time, but I don't understand why people can look at the time and think that the Second Amendment was written to restrict or allow gun ownership. I repeat there was no gun laws in this country until the 20th century.

Honestly, what's your point? That men who lived and died two and a half centuries ago weren't thinking about gun laws when they wrote a law about guns?

Durrrr!

Actually they wrote the laws to allow the militia's because owning gun is common sense.

This will be the last time I address that. I don't think it could be an clearer.

Durrrr!

Actually they wrote the laws to allow the militia's because owning gun is common sense.

This will be the last time I address that. I don't think it could be an clearer.

And you're wrong. This will be the last time I address that.

It never ceases to amaze me the deranged, convoluted, ignorant, bizzare bullshit that people who post on here think is so clever and obvious.

The definition of a state is a coercive public apparatus which has a monopoly on organized violence in it's territory. Having 'private' individuals with weapons, with intentions possibly contrary or against the collective will of the state, is at best dangerous, more accurately treasonous. Only the police and military should have weapons, anything else is unpatriotic and liberalistic.

It never ceases to amaze me the deranged, convoluted, ignorant, bizzare bullshit that people who post on here think is so clever and obvious.

This is the internet. Stop being surprised. :p

The definition of a state is a coercive public apparatus which has a monopoly on organized violence in it's territory. Having 'private' individuals with weapons, with intentions possibly contrary or against the collective will of the state, is at best dangerous, more accurately treasonous. Only the police and military should have weapons, anything else is unpatriotic and liberalistic.

"Patriotism" and "treason" have separate definitions in the USA than they do in Despotisms of your type.

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.
The chair thing crossed yours. Without an amendment guaranteeing your right to own chairs, there's no safeguard against future legislation depriving you of chair ownership.

Plus, you seem to be defining a right as something that exists independently of law. That's not really a defensible position.
People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous.
When discussing what the meaning of an amendment is, it is only helpful to examine that actual wording of the amendment (since that's all that matters):
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.
One can't twist wording. One can only interpret the text literally, or not. And literally, the amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The use of the definite article before people is interesting, and probably the best tool you have for arguing that this isn't a blanket right of people, generally, to keep and bear arms.

Actually they wrote the laws to allow the militia's because owning gun is common sense.
There is no such thing as common sense.

You're projecting intent upon the authors of the amendment.

Furthermore, nothing in the amendment allows for the creation of militia.

Wow, the ignorance displayed in this thread is atrocious. I'm not sure if you folks are actually US citizens or not, or perhaps you dont' know much about US history.

When the British came to take the colonists weapons away (sparking the Battle of Lexington - you know, the whole "The British are coming!" bit from Paul Revere), they were doing so because those muskets were effectively modern "Assault rifles". The controlling British faction believed that because the British military existed in the colonies, there was no need for the colonists to own such highly dangerous, advanced weaponry. The same reasoning exists today - liberals and ignorant right wingers want to make sure the only weapons people have are handloaded pistols or bolt action rifles, instead of "modern" military weapon - and "modern" is a stretch of the term considering the rifle in use today by the US military has been around for *almost* 50 years now with few improvements, none of them breakthrough.

This doesn't even touch on the fact that these weapons are rarely used in any type of crime (unless you count the ones committed by relatively innocent, private citizens that don't know it's a crime - carrying loaded magazines next to their weapon on the way to the gun club, etc). Typically speaking, criminals will not spend $2000 on a rifle to go rob a bank.

An organization called VPC (vpc.org, I believe) also wants to Federally ban the .50 BMG - which was developed during or just after WWI as an anti-tank round. They believe it is such a dangerous weapon that terrorists could use it to make a plane into a bomb, or a tanker truck, etc. There may be some truth to that, but I seriously doubt you would ever be able to get away with committing a crime like that. Not even beginning to mention that the rifles that fire those cartridges, alone, cost over $3000 for a simple bolt-action, single-shot version.

Bottom line, Pandora's Box has been opened, probably over a millenia ago by the Chinese. It's both sad, and distressing, that the public would want a heavily armed police and standing military force and an unarmed public. If anyone wants to know how well that works, go ask some Warsaw Ghetto survivors, or the folks out in Burma.

As I said in another thread - I'm all for gun control. As long as those restrictions are applied to our military and our police.

I repeat there was no gun laws in this country until the 20th century.

False premise.

Although the common law has long protected the right to self-defense, the use of guns has always been subject to broad regulation. The most significant regulation of firearms in the eighteenth century, at a time of high concern about military preparedness, more often required than prohibited the possession of firearms—the states in the exercise of their military authority required members of their militias to own and present arms. See Saul Cornell & Nathan DeDino, A Well-Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 487, 508-09 (2004); [U.S. v. ]Miller, 307 U.S. at 179-82; see also Act of May 2, 1792, ch. XXVIII, 1 Stat. 264 (second federal Militia Act). But that obligation and any concomitant right to own a gun were frequently conditioned on an oath of loyalty, as the states commonly forbade possession of arms by those unwilling to swear their allegiance. See Cornell & DeDino, supra, at 506-07 (citing Act of Mar. 14, 1776, ch. VII, 1775-1776 Mass. Acts 31; Act of Apr. 1, 1778, ch. LXI, § 5, 1777-1778 Pa. Laws 123, 126).

Despite the need for a readily armed citizenry evidenced by the militia laws, state laws regulated gun possession and uses. See id. at 510-12. For example, Massachusetts prohibited Boston citizens from keeping loaded firearms in their homes. Act of Mar. 1, 1783, ch. XIII, 1783 Mass. Acts 218 (providing for fine and forfeiture for anyone keeping a loaded firearm in “any Dwelling-House, Stable, Barn, Out-house, Ware-house, Store, Shop or other Building”). Pennsylvania and Delaware passed acts prohibiting the firing of guns in cities and towns. Act of Feb. 9, 1750, ch. CCCLXXXVIII, 1750-1751 Pa. Laws 108; Act of Feb. 2, 1812, ch. CXCV, 1812 Del. Laws 522.

In the next century, as concerns about military preparedness waned and fears of violent crime grew, state legislatures began to regulate weapons more heavily. By the time of the Civil War, the City of Washington and the states of Alabama, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia had banned concealed weapons. See Act of Nov. 18, 1858, Laws of the City of Washington 418; Act of Feb. 1, 1839, no. 77, 1839 Ala. Laws 67; Act of Feb. 10, 1831, ch. XXVI, § 58, 1831 Rev’d Laws of Ind. 180, 192; Cornell & DeDino, supra, at 513-14 (citing Act of Mar. 18, 1859, 1859 Ohio Laws 56; Act of Feb. 2, 1838, 1838 Va. Acts ch. 101, 76). Several states, like Tennessee, went further, banning entirely the sale of any concealable weapon, including all pistols “except such as are used in the army and navy of the United States, and known as the navy pistol.” Act of Jan. 27, 1838, ch. 137, 1837-1838 Tenn. Pub. Acts 200; see Act of Apr. 1, 1881, no. XCVI, 1881 Acts of Ark. 191; Act of Dec. 25, 1837, 1837 Ga. Laws 90.
(link (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/heller_cert_petition.pdf), pdf pgs. 34-35)

Insanity or death. Take your pick. :)

Which one is which?

Here you go!

http://www.pecorfamily.com/Blog_202006_2D06_2D21_20Fence.jpg

Thank you :cool:

It never ceases to amaze me the deranged, convoluted, ignorant, bizzare bullshit that people who post on here think is so clever and obvious.

It never ceases to amaze me the caustic, sarcastic, deprecating and ultimately repetitive responses you post to people's threads and actually think are original.

Plus, you seem to be defining a right as something that exists independently of law. That's not really a defensible position.

Sure it is. Hence natural rights.


When discussing what the meaning of an amendment is, it is only helpful to examine that actual wording of the amendment (since that's all that matters):
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.

One can't twist wording. One can only interpret the text literally, or not. And literally, the amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Once can't twist wording. But apparently one can completely ignore the opening wording, which clearly relates said arms ownership to the operation of militias.

Sure it is. Hence natural rights.

Once can't twist wording. But apparently one can completely ignore the opening wording, which clearly relates said arms ownership to the operation of militias.

That's right. And since the militia is made up of the people w/ arms supplied by them, they have a right to keep and bear them.

I for one do not object to people's right to arm bears!

That's right. And since the militia is made up of the people w/ arms supplied by them, they have a right to keep and bear them.


Agreed. And how many American gun-owners are members of citizen militias?

Agreed. And how many American gun-owners are members of citizen militias?

Well, according to US Law all able-bodied male citizens 17 to 45 who are not on active duty with any branch of the United States Armed Forces, and all female citizens who are members of the National Guard.

Well, according to US Law all able-bodied male citizens 17 to 45 who are not on active duty with any branch of the United States Armed Forces, and all female citizens who are members of the National Guard.

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

Well I'll be! You Americans have some crazy laws.

Does that mean that men over the Age of 45 and women who are not in the National Guard have no right to bear arms?

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

Well I'll be! You Americans have some crazy laws.

Does that mean that men over the Age of 45 and women who are not in the National Guard have no right to bear arms?

Only if you claim that the Second Amendment only upholds the notion that only the militia can have weapons.

Only if you claim that the Second Amendment only upholds the notion that only the militia can have weapons.

Not exactly. I am claiming that the Second Amendment upholds the notion that only militia members have a RIGHT to have weapons.

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

Well I'll be! You Americans have some crazy laws.

Does that mean that men over the Age of 45 and women who are not in the National Guard have no right to bear arms?

That's just the Federal law. Several states have more broad definitions in their constitutions (yes, each state has one) along w/ a few state run non-national guard militias. If you go by original intent by the writings of the Founding Fathers, they meant for it to cover everyone. Over time, the laws then got increased to exclude blacks, then groupings, then weapons associated w. mobsters, with the final devolution being that it was a "states right" (even though states don't have rights) and the "collective rights" view.

The Supreme Court decision is going to decide the issue of the DC laws in relation to a non-direct militia involvement.

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

Well I'll be! You Americans have some crazy laws.

Does that mean that men over the Age of 45 and women who are not in the National Guard have no right to bear arms?

Note that some states define their militias differently. For example:

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

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-32-509

edit: And an example of a non-National Guard but still state-run militia such as Kecibukia mentioned

http://www.mivdf.org/

That's just the Federal law. Several states have more broad definitions in their constitutions (yes, each state has one) along w/ a few state run non-national guard militias. If you go by original intent by the writings of the Founding Fathers, they meant for it to cover everyone. Over time, the laws then got increased to exclude blacks, then groupings, then weapons associated w. mobsters, with the final devolution being that it was a "states right" (even though states don't have rights) and the "collective rights" view.

The Supreme Court decision is going to decide the issue of the DC laws in relation to a non-direct militia involvement.

Yep, in Virginia, the Militia is composed of ALL abled bodied citizens (including resident aliens awaiting citizenship) between the ages of 16 and 55.

Not exactly. I am claiming that the Second Amendment upholds the notion that only militia members have a RIGHT to have weapons.

If you read the Federalist Papers, debates on the Constitution, etc. it was laid out clearly that the militia consists of the people. So, since all the people are considered part of the militia, they all have the right to weapons.

Back in the day, there were numerous "private" militias that trained and equipped themselves, some even including artillery. These could be called up by the states and would sometimes even volunteer in other states (as in the case of the Mexican-American War of 1845).

It was considered perfectly normal.

If you read the Federalist Papers, debates on the Constitution, etc. it was laid out clearly that the militia consists of the people. So, since all the people are considered part of the militia, they all have the right to weapons.

Back in the day, there were numerous "private" militias that trained and equipped themselves, some even including artillery. These could be called up by the states and would sometimes even volunteer in other states (as in the case of the Mexican-American War of 1845).

It was considered perfectly normal.

That was then. This is now. It is clear that the militia is no longer defined as "the people".

Those that believe that the second amendment is useless drivel need to realize something. Its 2 in the morning. Your lying there, your wife next to you, your kids sleeping soundly down the hall. All is peaceful. Suddenly, you hear a noise. You step out to see what it is. Holy crap! its a crackhead whose got a knife! He says he's gonna kill you, rape your wife, then kill her and your kids in front of you. Now here are your choices:
A)Talk him out of it.
B) Try to fight him off, get the knife away from him.
C) go catatonic.
D) Pump 15 rounds of hollow point .45 ACP bullets into his doped up body, killing him and perfectly within your rights.

What would you choose?

That was then. This is now. It is clear that the militia is no longer defined as "the people".

How is it "clear"? We've even just shown you various laws that still include it as such. That's only a small selection.

Here's the Department of Justice take on it from 2006:

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

And the Congressional Paper on the right from 1982:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

Those that believe that the second amendment is useless drivel need to realize something. Its 2 in the morning. Your lying there, your wife next to you, your kids sleeping soundly down the hall. All is peaceful. Suddenly, you hear a noise. You step out to see what it is. Holy crap! its a crackhead whose got a knife! He says he's gonna kill you, rape your wife, then kill her and your kids in front of you. Now here are your choices:
A)Talk him out of it.
B) Try to fight him off, get the knife away from him.
C) go catatonic.
D) Pump 15 rounds of hollow point .45 ACP bullets into his doped up body, killing him and perfectly within your rights.

What would you choose?

You lock yourself in the bedroom and call the police.

How is it "clear"? We've even just shown you various laws that still include it as such. That's only a small selection.


All the laws I have seen so far include only able-bodied citizens between certain ages. So at least some of "the people" are excluded.

Those that believe that the second amendment is useless drivel need to realize something. Its 2 in the morning. Your lying there, your wife next to you, your kids sleeping soundly down the hall. All is peaceful. Suddenly, you hear a noise. You step out to see what it is. Holy crap! its a crackhead whose got a knife! He says he's gonna kill you, rape your wife, then kill her and your kids in front of you. Now here are your choices:
A)Talk him out of it.
B) Try to fight him off, get the knife away from him.
C) go catatonic.
D) Pump 15 rounds of hollow point .45 ACP bullets into his doped up body, killing him and perfectly within your rights.

What would you choose?

You could also buy an alarm system so that crackheads can't get into your house in the first place. Probably a bit safer than keeping a handgun around the house.

All the laws I have seen so far include only able-bodied citizens between certain ages. So at least some of "the people" are excluded.

So you didn't even look at the articles I posted.

Well, according to US Law all able-bodied male citizens 17 to 45 who are not on active duty with any branch of the United States Armed Forces, and all female citizens who are members of the National Guard.

Note that some states define their militias differently. For example:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-32-509

edit: And an example of a non-National Guard but still state-run militia such as Kecibukia mentioned

http://www.mivdf.org/

Although I've switched sides on the issue of gun rights, this argument still rings hollow to me. Not the least of which because it equates the official "unorganized militia" with "a well-regulated militia." Pray tell how something unorganized is well-regulated.

If you read the Federalist Papers, debates on the Constitution, etc. it was laid out clearly that the militia consists of the people. So, since all the people are considered part of the militia, they all have the right to weapons.


This is a much better argument, although it is still slightly deceptive in that debates and writings that occurred prior to the existence of the Second Amendment and relate to the Constitution without the Bill of Rights are used to define terms used in the Second Amendment.

I note, however, that the term "militia" was used in the Constitution prior to the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15-16.

You lock yourself in the bedroom and call the police.

Warren v District of Columbia.

In this case, Three women were raped and brutalized for 14 hours. The police showed up once but left after five minutes w/o even checking the house and then never bothered to show up again even after several more phone calls. It was determined in a lawsuit that the police have no obligation to protect the individual.

You could also buy an alarm system so that crackheads can't get into your house in the first place. Probably a bit safer than keeping a handgun around the house.

So everyone can afford an alarm system? Priced them recently?

Those that believe that the second amendment is useless drivel need to realize something. Its 2 in the morning. Your lying there, your wife next to you, your kids sleeping soundly down the hall. All is peaceful. Suddenly, you hear a noise. You step out to see what it is. Holy crap! its a crackhead whose got a knife! He says he's gonna kill you, rape your wife, then kill her and your kids in front of you. Now here are your choices:
A)Talk him out of it.
B) Try to fight him off, get the knife away from him.
C) go catatonic.
D) Pump 15 rounds of hollow point .45 ACP bullets into his doped up body, killing him and perfectly within your rights.

What would you choose?
I choose to avoid bad hypotheticals.

So you didn't even look at the articles I posted.

I looked. I obviously haven't read through in detail yet, because they are quite lengthy. Nothing I saw so far changed my mind.

I looked. I obviously haven't read through in detail yet, because they are quite lengthy. Nothing I saw so far changed my mind.

Of course it won't. Because you already have your mind made up and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.

Although I've switched sides on the issue of gun rights, this argument still rings hollow to me. Not the least of which because it equates the official "unorganized militia" with "a well-regulated militia." Pray tell how something unorganized is well-regulated.

Just for clarity's sake, I'm not making an argument here, I'm just throwing out information.

So everyone can afford an alarm system? Priced them recently? As a matter of fact, I have. Didn't cost me that much more than an ACP would have.

Warren v District of Columbia.

In this case, Three women were raped and brutalized for 14 hours. The police showed up once but left after five minutes w/o even checking the house and then never bothered to show up again even after several more phone calls. It was determined in a lawsuit that the police have no obligation to protect the individual.

In Canada, police do have an obligation to the individual, and can be held liable for that kind of negligence. Maybe you should change your laws.

He says he's gonna kill you, rape your wife, then kill her and your kids in front of you. Now here are your choices:

Lol at him as he has clearly overdosed and would have a hard time hitting me with that knife.

Promptly proceed to knock the knife out of his hand (using say, a kitchen utensil of some kind) and then call the cops.

Of course it won't. Because you already have your mind made up and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.

No. But apparently you've jumped to a conclusion without having any idea of who I am, what I believe, or how important this issue is to me.

This is a much better argument, although it is still slightly deceptive in that debates and writings that occurred prior to the existence of the Second Amendment and relate to the Constitution without the Bill of Rights are used to define terms used in the Second Amendment.

I note, however, that the term "militia" was used in the Constitution prior to the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15-16.

Certainly. The papers, et al should be used to determine the mindset behind the BOR wording and justification as the FF"s used them to argue the issue (Hamilton in Federalist 84 for example). Along w/ these are the English BOR and the Virginia Declaration of Rights which were all used as justifications and sources.

It was determined in a lawsuit that the police have no obligation to protect the individual.

I suggest getting rid of your police or revamping their duties, because that right there is a clear lack of priority.

No. But apparently you've jumped to a conclusion without having any idea of who I am, what I believe, or how important this issue is to me.

Well, when the preface of an article state an individual right and the other states it bluntly in the conclusion along w/ modern references, that along w/ a long history of debating this issue, shows me that this will devolve into a "our system is better than yours" thing w/ pages of arguments on minutia.

I suggest getting rid of your police or revamping their duties, because that right there is a clear lack of priority.

Among the "gun nuts", the mentality is referred to as the "only ones" since a regular anti-gun argument is that the authorities should be the only ones armed even when abuse by the authorities is rampant such as w/ Chicago's SOS unit that was just disbanded.

Agreed.



I don't agree here, people should never be persecuted for having different beliefs.

QFT. I agree with you, although unfortunately not everybody else does. The South Islands, with his designations of "correct/incorrect thought", comes to mind.

You bizarrely contradict yourself, making it hard to understand WTF you are saying, let alone respond. On the one hand, you say the 2nd Amendment is about militias and, on the other hand, you say people have the right to own firearms. Are you suggesting that people have the right to own firearms, even though it isn't enumerated in the 2nd Amendment? That at least would make some sense.

Many (if not all) of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights were understood by the Founders to be pre-existing rights that existed prior to their enumeration in the Bill of Rights. That is why there is language like no law "abridging the freedom" of X and "the right of the people ... shall not be violated."

That also explains the existence of the 9th Amendment, which makes clear there are additional rights retained by the people, but not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I have long agreed with the nigh-unanimous position of the judiciary that the Second Amendment was about militias and did not guarantee an individual right to firearm ownership. Arguments here on NS (and other factors I won't go into) have convinced me that view is wrong. It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS has to say about the matter, which will be before them this term.

He's not contradicting himself. In a convoluted manner he's saying that:

1.the amendment wasn't about the right to own guns
2.everybody in the 18th century felt they had that right anyway
3.they wouldn't have needed to have the government tell them that
4.the amendment is actually about militias
5.people are incorrect if they think it isn't about militias
6.he's upset if people think otherwise

I choose to avoid bad hypotheticals.

And urban areas of the United States no doubt.

Although I've switched sides on the issue of gun rights, this argument still rings hollow to me. Not the least of which because it equates the official "unorganized militia" with "a well-regulated militia." Pray tell how something unorganized is well-regulated.

Well, the argument was merely on the composition of the militia in general... Though I would argue there is nothing which sets "unorganized" and "well regulated" at odds, constitutionally speaking. The militia (organized and unorganized) may be called to defend the people at points, and it is this reason why "A well regulated militia" is considered necessary to the security of a free state... It is therefore the intent of the amendment to ensure the "people" who are potential components of the "well regulated militia" (ie, that which is called into service) not be denied the right to hold arms, which would be (as people and arms) be brought into service to protect the people in general. Constitutionally speaking, the second amendment does not differentiate between "the people" and "a well regulated militia"... And the further laws seem to do nothing but to subdivide the "militia" into differing categories. In fact, it can be argued that defining the composition of the militia by law, is a form of "regulating" its components, and therefore meaning even the UNorganized militia is therefore part of the overall regulated militia.

Cat Tribe, I didn't think I could be anymore clear.

I don't believe the Second Amendment covers individual gun ownership because the very idea of the government telling you that you can't own a firearm would never even cross the minds of people at the time. It would be like saying that you need to pass a law that says people have the right to own chairs.

And they were right. Gun laws are ridiculous. They only serve criminals. Much like drug laws are ridiculous. They only serve criminals.

...and theft laws only serve thieves and if there were no laws there'd be no criminals (and no attorneys).

Well, when the preface of an article state an individual right and the other states it bluntly in the conclusion along w/ modern references, that along w/ a long history of debating this issue, shows me that this will devolve into a "our system is better than yours" thing w/ pages of arguments on minutia.

Again, you are jumping to conclusions.

The one article, in the intro, clearly acknowledges that there are at least three schools of though on this matter and that each has received at least some support from the courts.

It is also clear that the authors each have their own strong pre-conceived notions and are trying to marshall arguments to support their positions.

My interest in this is merely academic as a matter of legal construction. I don't really much care one way or the other.

Not exactly. I am claiming that the Second Amendment upholds the notion that only militia members have a RIGHT to have weapons.

That's what I meant -- that I was talking about them having the right was implied.

And, of course, I disagree with you. :P I posted a grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment awhile back in this thread, and the grammar says that it's an individual right. The context also supports the idea that its an individual right -- I mean, all but the tenth amendment in the bill of rights is about individual rights (the tenth is only excluded because it talks about the states as well as the people.)

Hopefully, in the time this debate has been going on the crackerhead has been dealt with. If not, you should kick his ass and if the police haven't arrived, go around to the Chief of Police's house and kick his ass.

You make a very interesting point, but you have to keep in mind that the US is a vastly different country from Europe in terms of geography, demographics, and legally (to name just a few) and what works in Europe may not work in the US.

For starters, the US has a long, sparsely populated, porous border that Europeans would tremble at. 700,000 people, more than our annual average population growth rate, enter illegally through this border every year, making it a perfect location to smuggle illegal arms across the border. By outlawing guns, the criminals would all still have them, but no one else would. And this is one of a number of reasons.

Today guns are just as important for defending yourself from other criminals as well as from the dangers of the government. And with 100 million+ registered guns, no foriegn power could dream of occcupying us. Not that that's a real danger, but still...

Europe's not a country, it's a continent of quite varied countries, some of whom (the English-speaking ones) incorporate some American and Canadian jurisprudential decisions and vice-versa.

They have more than 700,000 illegals to worry about. G.W. is trying to force the 80 million muslims of Turkey onto them. Additionally, Italy and Spain's respective coastlines are forever seeing illegal immigrants landing on them from Africa.

It's also true that what works in the US might not work in Europe.Something that might have been considered before Southern California exported its political correctness garbage to Europe.They now have to worry about offending anyone rather than rounding up Islamic extremists and sending home African illegals.

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

If you examine the original text of the Constitution you will realize that's wrong. In the original Constitution, the authors meant to include this right in "the existing text of the Constitution. The Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all which are individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government tyranny." They didn't end up including this in the constitution because some people feared that listing rights would restrict rights to only the enumerated ones.

Not only that, but the original text was supposed to be:

"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."

The text was later changed due to the clause on religiously scrupulous people.

I quote from here:
http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/original-2nd-amendment/

And if you don't trust that website, look at the original text yourself.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227
It's in the 9th paragraph there.

They definitely did believe that their right to bear arms could be infringed. It was happening in England. Infringements in England were the source of many of the amendments.

That's what I meant -- that I was talking about them having the right was implied.

And, of course, I disagree with you. :P I posted a grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment awhile back in this thread, and the grammar says that it's an individual right. The context also supports the idea that its an individual right -- I mean, all but the tenth amendment in the bill of rights is about individual rights (the tenth is only excluded because it talks about the states as well as the people.)

And it was a good grammatical analysis. I'm just not sure it was a good legal one. It is a principle of legal interpretation that words are interpreted by reference to the surrounding words. It is also a principle of legal interpretation that a phrase should not be interpeted so as to render words meaningless. And that is effectively what is being done. I have difficulty with any interpretation that effectively ignores the part about well-regulated militias.

And it was a good grammatical analysis. I'm just not sure it was a good legal one. It is a principle of legal interpretation that words are interpreted by reference to the surrounding words. It is also a principle of legal interpretation that a phrase should not be interpeted so as to render words meaningless. And that is effectively what is being done. I have difficulty with any interpretation that effectively ignores the part about well-regulated militias.

A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.... Since the militia is the body of the people, their right to bear arms (which already existed) shall not be infringed, seeing how the body of the people ARE in fact the militia... And when called upon to defend the state, are "well-regulated" (that is subordinate to the civil authorities), bringing their arms (which they have previous right to bear) with them.

I'll make the Republic Party supporters a deal: we'll respect your little gun hobby when you decide to respect the rest of the Constitution; most notably the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments.

I'll make the Republic Party supporters a deal: we'll respect your little gun hobby when you decide to respect the rest of the Constitution; most notably the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments.

Hmph... How about EVERYONE respect ALL of the amendments... I refuse to accept compromise, I don't care what side of the fence you are or are not on.

A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.... Since the militia is the body of the people, their right to bear arms (which already existed) shall not be infringed, seeing how the body of the people ARE in fact the militia... And when called upon to defend the state, are "well-regulated" (that is subordinate to the civil authorities), bringing their arms (which they have previous right to bear) with them.


And this is where we keep going round and round w/ him. We've already shown a legal, historical, and grammatical analysis of the amendment yet any support for the individual right is being dismissed as biased while no opposing evidence has been presented by him.

I stand by my conclusion.

Hmph... How about EVERYONE respect ALL of the amendments... I refuse to accept compromise, I don't care what side of the fence you are or are not on.

Hear hear!

Else us peasants will be raising pitchforks and torches.

I'll make the Republic Party supporters a deal: we'll respect your little gun hobby when you decide to respect the rest of the Constitution; most notably the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments.

Why would 2nd Amendment supporters not support the others?

Why would 2nd Amendment supporters not support the others?

The gunfire causes a lot of collateral damage...so there usually isn't much left to support.

The gunfire causes a lot of collateral damage...so there usually isn't much left to support.

...I don't get it. :confused:

...I don't get it. :confused:

Despite agreeing with your question of why 2nd amendment supporters would not support the other amendments, I decide to post a statement which I thought was not particularly witty, in order to....do something..less productive with my life. :confused:

Despite agreeing with your question of why 2nd amendment supporters would not support the other amendments, I decide to post a statement which I thought was not particularly witty, in order to....do something..less productive with my life. :confused:

Oh. Does this make you WinRAR?

I think it does.

Oh. Does this make you WinRAR?

I think it does.

You are all WinRARs in my book.

Except for a select few of you(plural) whom I will not name out of kindness.. and the fact that I don't have a book.

Awww...you is winRAR too. Infact, you're winRAR v3.71.

Awww...you is winRAR too. Infact, you're winRAR v3.71.

You can be the winRAR millenium edition, if you can handle the honour.

You can be the winRAR millenium edition, if you can handle the honour.

I don't know if I can handle that...

I can handle the Honor of the Millennium Edition, however...;)

Epic fail.

Yes, yes they would -- the European monarchs were pretty happy to round up weapons caches to protect their own power, and the founding fathers knew damn well that the governments feared an armed populace.

They had every reason to do so.

BUT

Initially, you're right, though -- most of the Federalists didn't want to put a bill of rights in because they didn't find it necessary, and they were afraid it would be construed as a "this is all you have" list. It wasn't until the Anti-Federalists started bitching that it was intro'd. I mean, that's the point of the Ninth and Tenth -- to say that "this isn't everything."

Edit: OMG TEIM WARPZ

The main idea was to make a document that could grow with the expanding nation. These guys were definetly planning ahead and wanted us to make interpretations based on what was going on. People get too damn traditionalistic.

The main idea was to make a document that could grow with the expanding nation. These guys were definetly planning ahead and wanted us to make interpretations based on what was going on. People get too damn traditionalistic.

Well, yes, but with interpreting the Constitution, you can take a lesson from interpreting the Bible (non-Christians not-withstanding).

From the Christian perspective, the Bible is the Word of God meant to transcend time and be relevant to all periods. The Constitution was dictated by the Founders of our nation, and is meant to last to be relevant to all periods (albeit not in the same manner as the Bible, but the point stands.)

Now, the Bible is vague when looked at piece-by-piece. The Constitution -- especially this well-loved second amendment -- seems to be vague when looked at piece-by-piece.

So, what do you do to look for the Bible? You look at the time period it was written in, and you look at commentaries. For the Bible, we have the church fathers, and other major theologians to look back on. For the Constitution? Look at the time period, in this case, why stuff is where, and who wrote about it in that time.

And what happens with the interpretations of the Bible? The ones disliked by the establishment are denounced as heresies, and as for the Constitution, supporters of an altering point of view are labelled either as fascists or red-necks.

Them moral of this story? The Founding Fathers are looking down and laughing their asses off at the clusterfuck they created for their own amusement.

The mental deficient part was obviously a joke. I'm saying that people that think the founding fathers sat around talking about taking away a person's musket are stupid.How ironic. First of all, a well regulated militia was included to allow people to keep arms. Remember at the time the western areas of the country were a great concern and if they told people that they could not have guns then people would flick off the government and go about their days, but if they tried to take them then the people would do a good old fashioned angry mob. You have to also note that the founding fathers wanted to limit the powers of the government as much as they can and give the people the power to defend themselves from tryanny, many of the founding fathers believed in the theory that if the government failed in its duty to the people utterly then the people would have the right to overthrow that government. As well, the memory of British rule was still fresh and the Cons. was written in order to prevent any abuses by the government and also remember nearly every singal thing in the Cons. wss included due to their own experinces under the British. Furthermore, do not think the founding fathers just threw amendments on a piece of paper to look nice, to them these were very serious issues and deciding what things were on it took literally months to do.

A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.... Since the militia is the body of the people, their right to bear arms (which already existed) shall not be infringed, seeing how the body of the people ARE in fact the militia... And when called upon to defend the state, are "well-regulated" (that is subordinate to the civil authorities), bringing their arms (which they have previous right to bear) with them.

Yes. And I initially failed to understand that the people were the militia. I've got that now. But my question now is whether the state can redefined the militia as something less than the entirety of the people, which is what they appear to have done (putting in restrictions on age, and ability). After all, it is the state's security that is invoked to justify the existence of the right, not the people's.

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

So you are in turn saying that BOTH sides of the Second Amendment debate are wrong??? interesting...

I don't know if I can handle that...

I can handle the Honor of the Millennium Edition, however...;)

Oh...botheration...:p

Yes. And I initially failed to understand that the people were the militia. I've got that now. But my question now is whether the state can redefined the militia as something less than the entirety of the people, which is what they appear to have done (putting in restrictions on age, and ability). After all, it is the state's security that is invoked to justify the existence of the right, not the people's.

Well, the didn't place limits on the militia, merely the differentiated components... For example under Federal Law, they divide the militia into two components : (1) organized, males and females who are members of the National Guard (2) unorganized, all male not part of the organized militia, between the ages of 17 and 45... The "militia" however, is still composed of all people trained to arms, it's just not all people may fall under the two defined categories.

Since standing armies are unconstitutional (and only manage to exist through a loophole, whereby congress must renew their complete funding every couple years), the militia is still a necessity for defense of the nation from invasion.

I'm not sure exactly what they meant, but I support the idea of armed citizentry, for one reason above all - defense against tyrants. Trying to enforce your will on the people becomes an order of magnitude harder when the people have guns. And you don't need to have military-grade weapons to do damage. Allow me to provide an example:

The Scene: It is night. Police arrive at a house containing an illegal printing press.

Police open door, barge in
Resistance Guy #1: What's going on here?
Police: We're here to shut down your printing press.
Resistance Guy #2: Like hell you are!
Police: (draws gun) Stand down, citizen!
Resistance Guy #3's Shotgun: Clickety-BOOM! Clickety-BOOM!
(Police drop dead)
Resistance Guy #2: Someone hide the bodies.
Resistance Guy #1: I'll get the truck.
Resistance Guy #3: City landfill?

Now, I do support attempts to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals using methods like background checks. So long as a normal, law-abiding citizen is able to keep a lethal firearm in his house with no legal worries, I'm fine.

The very idea of having to write down that you have the right to own a firearm in the 18th century would be like passing an amendment to say that you have the right to own a chair now. It would completely astound people that the government could actually tell you that you don't have the right to own a weapon. It would never even cross their minds.

People that try and say that the second amendment was written about guns and not the militia are ridiculous. People that think that you shouldn't be able own firearms because it isn't written in bold in an 18th century document should be persecuted by all their fellow citizens for being a mental deficient. You could twist the wording of any amendment to prove what you want.

I am not sure that anybody "tries to say" that the Second Amendment is about guns but not about the militia. Clearly, it mentions both.

I appreciate the view that the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right of US citizens. I concur. However, I am sure that I do not want anybody persecuted for any belief regardless of how silly it may be, such as the belief mentioned in the OP. We all have another right, namely the right to free speech and I do not want people to be persecuted on the basis of their views.

Yes. And I initially failed to understand that the people were the militia. I've got that now. But my question now is whether the state can redefined the militia as something less than the entirety of the people, which is what they appear to have done (putting in restrictions on age, and ability). After all, it is the state's security that is invoked to justify the existence of the right, not the people's.

So we keep the militia as the ultimate check on government tyranny. But then we're going to have it controlled by another government entity? That makes no sense.

So we keep the militia as the ultimate check on government tyranny. But then we're going to have it controlled by another government entity? That makes no sense.

Actually, that is one of the problem in pointing to those militia laws and claiming that, because they broadly include most people, that the right to bear arms belongs to that broad group of people. That argument implies that if the law were changed so that only a narrow group of people belonged to the militia then only that narrow group would have gun rights.

I think it better to avoid that argument altogether and simply maintain the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Well, the didn't place limits on the militia, merely the differentiated components... For example under Federal Law, they divide the militia into two components : (1) organized, males and females who are members of the National Guard (2) unorganized, all male not part of the organized militia, between the ages of 17 and 45... The "militia" however, is still composed of all people trained to arms, it's just not all people may fall under the two defined categories.

I still think you have a problem claiming that the unorganized militia is "well-regulated," but there are bigger problems with your argument.

As you just defined it above, the militia doesn't include everyone trained to arms. It includes those in the organized militia and those in the unorganized militia. Males over 45 and women don't fit the definition of militia.

And it is an even bigger stretch to claim a "well-regulated" militia includes those not part of even the unorganized militia.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the Second Amendment protects individual rights to keep and bear arms. I think it does. I think your militia argument based on statutes doesn't help, however.

A better argument is that the term militia as used in the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, includes all citizens trained to arms.

Actually, that is one of the problem in pointing to those militia laws and claiming that, because they broadly include most people, that the right to bear arms belongs to that broad group of people. That argument implies that if the law were changed so that only a narrow group of people belonged to the militia then only that narrow group would have gun rights.

I think it better to avoid that argument altogether and simply maintain the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That was kinda my point.

So we keep the militia as the ultimate check on government tyranny. But then we're going to have it controlled by another government entity? That makes no sense.

Where does it say that it is to be a check on government tyranny? It merely says that it is necessary to the security of a free state. There are other provisions in place that ensure protection against tyranny by said state.

Well, the didn't place limits on the militia, merely the differentiated components... For example under Federal Law, they divide the militia into two components : (1) organized, males and females who are members of the National Guard (2) unorganized, all male not part of the organized militia, between the ages of 17 and 45... The "militia" however, is still composed of all people trained to arms, it's just not all people may fall under the two defined categories.

My point exactly. They have defined what people are and aren't part of the militia, therefore it is no longer the body of the people.

(Bearing in mind also that I doubt the founding fathers considered women, black people, and various others to actually be "people"; they considered them property. So they probably never meant "the people" as we would understand it today anyway. )


Since standing armies are unconstitutional (and only manage to exist through a loophole, whereby congress must renew their complete funding every couple years), the militia is still a necessity for defense of the nation from invasion.

In theory. But the practical reality is that standing armies are here to stay. You guys have an empire to defend ...

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

I still think you have a problem claiming that the unorganized militia is "well-regulated," but there are bigger problems with your argument.

As you just defined it above, the militia doesn't include everyone trained to arms. It includes those in the organized militia and those in the unorganized militia. Males over 45 and women don't fit the definition of militia.

And it is an even bigger stretch to claim a "well-regulated" militia includes those not part of even the unorganized militia.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the Second Amendment protects individual rights to keep and bear arms. I think it does. I think your militia argument based on statutes doesn't help, however.

A better argument is that the term militia as used in the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, includes all citizens trained to arms.

Well, the second amendment isn't about the rights of the "well regulated militia"; it's about the rights of "the people"... The "well regulated militia" is merely necessary to the liberty of a free state, as per the amendments wording.... The people, in the end would be part of the "militia" as "well regulated" when brought into service of the people/state. I was merely pointing out that the law merely divides the militia into categories.... And indicates who the state would call into service if needed as "the militia"...

My point exactly. They have defined what people are and aren't part of the militia, therefore it is no longer the body of the people.

(Bearing in mind also that I doubt the founding fathers considered women, black people, and various others to actually be "people"; they considered them property. So they probably never meant "the people" as we would understand it today anyway. )



In theory. But the practical reality is that standing armies are here to stay. You guys have an empire to defend ...

Correct, in their original concept they weren't... However, the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments have incorporated such into the "body" of the people... These "people" were the citizens/residents of the states.... Later amendments expanded the membership of this body of "people" to include former slaves, natives, and women.... the "people" haven't changed, but their composition has.

Sure it is. Hence natural rights.
Simply restating the point does not constitute a defense.
Once can't twist wording. But apparently one can completely ignore the opening wording, which clearly relates said arms ownership to the operation of militias.
The opening wording does no such thing. You're ignoring the sentence structure.

The opening clause is offered as justification for the content of the amendment (the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). Justification is unnecessary, but US statute often seems to include it. However, regardless of why the amendment guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, that's exactly what it does. There are no conditions attached.