[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
So let me see if I have this. If the Supreme Court were to rule, and rule in favor of this more restrictive interpretation, then according to the foregoing, firebrand pamphleteer, we should be using our guns as a final check on Federal power?[/quote]
Yes, Molon Labe!
mike
[quote]None of those men you mentioned attended the Constitutional Convention, they may be founders of the country but are NOT FRAMERS of the Constitution. If you had read the Constitution the names of those who attended should be listed in the back. Thus, their quotes have ZERO bearing on the Second Amendment.
[/quote]
True they weren’t there. Most of them were kept out. Most prominent anti-federalists of the time such as Patrick Henry refused to be a part simply because they were supposed to be reforming the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. They had no right to throw it out and most anti’s refused to attend because the Constitution was created by men who didn’t have the right to scrap the AoC. They timed the Constitutional Convention at a time when Jefferson and Adams were both out of the country.
The AoC took five years to ratify, while the much more powerful constitution took months. Unfortunately we in America have grown up with this sort of Constitution worship that has blinded us to taking a critical look at it. As Lysander Spooner said, “[paraphrasing]The Constitution has either provided for the government we have today or has been powerless to stop it.”
Frankly, what we really need is another Constitutional Convention to rewrite the damn thing to weed out the watery language of the document, particularly the 10th and the 16th amendments. But if we had a ConCon now all bets would be off and we’d be damn near Communists here. Then again, we could get a start on it now by pressing our reps to pass the http://libertyamendment.org/ .
mike
[quote]PGreen711 wrote:
None of those men you mentioned attended the Constitutional Convention, they may be founders of the country but are NOT FRAMERS of the Constitution. If you had read the Constitution the names of those who attended should be listed in the back. Thus, their quotes have ZERO bearing on the Second Amendment. Read LBRTRN’s responses to the thread that’s why he quotes James Madison, because he is the father of the Constitution and actually was there.
Your philosophical arguments about what a government should and shouldn’t do, and self defense etc. don’t mean much as far as the Second Amendment is concerned they are clearly your ideas that cloud any objective view you could take towards the Constitution.
There is at the very least an equal amount of evidence that the law only applies to state militias, as there is that the law applies to individual citizens.
The Second Amendment can be interpreted to apply collectively that is argument enough. That’s why there was a discussion going on until you came and starting talking in absolutes, calling people who look at things objectively liars.
[/quote]
Mikeyali’s post directly below yours answers your nonsense about the founders and the bill of rights.
As far as my beliefs, they are shared by the vast majority of this country. That is why guys like Al Gore have repeatedly told anti-gun Democrats to shut up about gun control…it costs them elections.
I’m willing to look at plenty of things objectively, but not when it comes to rights endowed me by the Creator in a free society. I wonder if a guy who prattles as loudly as you do takes such an “objective” look at other fundamental human rights such as free speech?
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Herein lies my concern. DC is not a state, but rather federal territory with none of the sovereignty or supposed sovereignty of the individual states. As such it can be ruled essentially with a despotic iron fist if congress so wished. My fear is that an upheld gun ban there however would be used as precident to future gun bans in states.
mike[/quote]
All the more reason to live in a state that clearly grants the individual the right to keep and bear arms. From the NH constitution:
[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. December 1, 1982
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
So let me see if I have this. If the Supreme Court were to rule, and rule in favor of this more restrictive interpretation, then according to the foregoing, firebrand pamphleteer, we should be using our guns as a final check on Federal power?[/quote]
When ALL ELSE fails, vote from the rooftops.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
So let me see if I have this. If the Supreme Court were to rule, and rule in favor of this more restrictive interpretation, then according to the foregoing, firebrand pamphleteer, we should be using our guns as a final check on Federal power?
Yes, Molon Labe!
mike[/quote]
Realistically, the US government will never be able to seize privately owned firearms en masse. The logistics and human cost would be too great.
Canada, a much more Socialistic society than ours, tried this to some extent with a gun registry. The cost spiraled out of control and most of the country still ignored such an absurd idea.
Privately owned guns are in the hands of an estimated 80 million Americans and the right is deeply entrenched in our history. A number of politicians have advocated for gun confiscation, but they
are complete buffoons who never thought out the reality of what they are saying.
You have two choices in such a scenario…demand that everyone turn in lawfully purchased property at “collection centers” or go and take said property by force with governmental agents(of which I am one). The former scenario will probably be ignored by and large and the latter scenario is to nightmarish to consider as many good men will die on both sides for nothing.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Canada, a much more Socialistic society than ours, tried this to some extent with a gun registry. The cost spiraled out of control and most of the country still ignored such an absurd idea.[/quote]
Canada still has the gun registry. Yes the costs have been ridiculous, but that’s because of bureaucratic corruption and incompetence, not an unavoidable side-effect of implementing a gun registry.
It is of course hard to gauge compliance with such a program, as it is difficult to get an accurate count of unregistered firearms, but compliance his believed to be fairly high.
One point that was raised in favor of the registry, was by a policeman that explained that when called to intervene at some location, the police will check the registry to see if any guns are registered at that address. While not foolproof, it does give the police additional information to tailor their tactics for each particular case. The officer claimed that there had been a reduction in accidental shootings, although I haven’t been able to find any supporting reference. The gun registry is still fairly new, I guess we’ll be better able to gauge its worth after some years.
As for the case in D.C., I’ve learned from reading the responses that I’m not familiar at all with the history of your constitution. Some very interesting points made, though.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
or go and take said property by force with governmental agents(of which I am one). The former scenario will probably be ignored by and large and the latter scenario is to nightmarish to consider as many good men will die on both sides for nothing.[/quote]
We’ve kept this marginally clean so be advised I’m not trying to make this a flame war nor make this personal.
I just feel that it is important for guys like you to understand that this is why guys like me take issue with the cops. You’ve essentially admitted that you would go and take guns from law abiding americans by force if so ordered. I think at the point in time that gov’t agents are doing this then they no longer qualify as “good men” but instead are people infringing upon my rights, in which case I will shoot them.
mike
[quote]JD430 wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
None of those men you mentioned attended the Constitutional Convention, they may be founders of the country but are NOT FRAMERS of the Constitution. If you had read the Constitution the names of those who attended should be listed in the back. Thus, their quotes have ZERO bearing on the Second Amendment. Read LBRTRN’s responses to the thread that’s why he quotes James Madison, because he is the father of the Constitution and actually was there.
Your philosophical arguments about what a government should and shouldn’t do, and self defense etc. don’t mean much as far as the Second Amendment is concerned they are clearly your ideas that cloud any objective view you could take towards the Constitution.
There is at the very least an equal amount of evidence that the law only applies to state militias, as there is that the law applies to individual citizens.
The Second Amendment can be interpreted to apply collectively that is argument enough. That’s why there was a discussion going on until you came and starting talking in absolutes, calling people who look at things objectively liars.
Mikeyali’s post directly below yours answers your nonsense about the founders and the bill of rights.
As far as my beliefs, they are shared by the vast majority of this country. That is why guys like Al Gore have repeatedly told anti-gun Democrats to shut up about gun control…it costs them elections.
I’m willing to look at plenty of things objectively, but not when it comes to rights endowed me by the Creator in a free society. I wonder if a guy who prattles as loudly as you do takes such an “objective” look at other fundamental human rights such as free speech?[/quote]
Yeah it lets me know further that Patrick Henry had little to do with the Second Amendment because he wasn’t invited to the Convention.
I believe in god given rights. I’m in agreement with you about the right to bear arms being fundamental. My only argument, which you seem to not be understanding, is that it is at least arguable that the right doesn’t necessarily emanate from the Second Amendment. Again, borrow the Constitution from someone and read it.
I always try to look at things objectivley, of course I respect free speech that’s why I’m here debating what the Constitution means with you. I have never told you not to write, and I think you make some good points. I think you have made up your mind about what YOU believe to be rights endowed by the creator and forced them to fit in a document you haven’t deeply read or tried to understand.
I love it when some say that it is no longer necessary for citizens to own guns for the following reason: 200+ years ago it was more dangerous for people and pioneers who may have lived close to or in the wilderness and had to face bears and Indians. I live in Newark, which might as well be Tombstone. It’s quite obvious that the Founding Fathers believed in an individual’s right to protect himself (and his family) and his property.
A site with a lot of commentary and quotes about the 2nd amendment:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.html
I haven’t read them all (yet), but it quickly becomes clear, as least to me, that the original intent was for ordinary citizens to be able to own firearms so as to be able to insure their own safety and to be capable of removing their government should that ever become a necessity.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
JD430 wrote:
or go and take said property by force with governmental agents(of which I am one). The former scenario will probably be ignored by and large and the latter scenario is to nightmarish to consider as many good men will die on both sides for nothing.
We’ve kept this marginally clean so be advised I’m not trying to make this a flame war nor make this personal.
I just feel that it is important for guys like you to understand that this is why guys like me take issue with the cops. You’ve essentially admitted that you would go and take guns from law abiding americans by force if so ordered. I think at the point in time that gov’t agents are doing this then they no longer qualify as “good men” but instead are people infringing upon my rights, in which case I will shoot them.
mike
[/quote]
I’m not sure where you are going with all of that.
Read what I wrote again. I didnt say I would do it, I said it would happen. Personally, I would resign before forcibly disarming honest citizens because a socialist government said so. However, I know others who would probably follow through on what they were told and they are indeed good men, regardless of how you saw them at the time they knocked on your door.
[quote]PGreen711 wrote:
JD430 wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
None of those men you mentioned attended the Constitutional Convention, they may be founders of the country but are NOT FRAMERS of the Constitution. If you had read the Constitution the names of those who attended should be listed in the back. Thus, their quotes have ZERO bearing on the Second Amendment. Read LBRTRN’s responses to the thread that’s why he quotes James Madison, because he is the father of the Constitution and actually was there.
Your philosophical arguments about what a government should and shouldn’t do, and self defense etc. don’t mean much as far as the Second Amendment is concerned they are clearly your ideas that cloud any objective view you could take towards the Constitution.
There is at the very least an equal amount of evidence that the law only applies to state militias, as there is that the law applies to individual citizens.
The Second Amendment can be interpreted to apply collectively that is argument enough. That’s why there was a discussion going on until you came and starting talking in absolutes, calling people who look at things objectively liars.
Mikeyali’s post directly below yours answers your nonsense about the founders and the bill of rights.
As far as my beliefs, they are shared by the vast majority of this country. That is why guys like Al Gore have repeatedly told anti-gun Democrats to shut up about gun control…it costs them elections.
I’m willing to look at plenty of things objectively, but not when it comes to rights endowed me by the Creator in a free society. I wonder if a guy who prattles as loudly as you do takes such an “objective” look at other fundamental human rights such as free speech?
Yeah it lets me know further that Patrick Henry had little to do with the Second Amendment because he wasn’t invited to the Convention.
I believe in god given rights. I’m in agreement with you about the right to bear arms being fundamental. My only argument, which you seem to not be understanding, is that it is at least arguable that the right doesn’t necessarily emanate from the Second Amendment. Again, borrow the Constitution from someone and read it.
I always try to look at things objectivley, of course I respect free speech that’s why I’m here debating what the Constitution means with you. I have never told you not to write, and I think you make some good points. I think you have made up your mind about what YOU believe to be rights endowed by the creator and forced them to fit in a document you haven’t deeply read or tried to understand.
[/quote]
My God man. Then please tell me who you believe the Second Amendment may apply to(the government?). I wait with bated breath.
PGreen and anyone else who is interested, this is probably the most serious piece of scholarship in existence about the second amendment and it affirms an individual’s right to keep and bear arms:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#1
The answer to this question is not found by simply reading the Constitution, but by a thorough historical examination of the subject, which this document contains.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
PGreen and anyone else who is interested, this is probably the most serious piece of scholarship in existence about the second amendment and it affirms an individual’s right to keep and bear arms:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#1
The answer to this question is not found by simply reading the Constitution, but by a thorough historical examination of the subject, which this document contains.[/quote]
From this would you go as far as to say that all able bodied men of suitable age should have to own a gun? Do you think people should be allowed to own sawed-off shotguns, RPG’s and the like? Because those are guns that are probably suitable for combat. Do you think the right is so absolute that felons should be able to own guns? Do you think women should be allowed to own guns?
That is also a legal memorandum representing a position, while certainly well researched on the side they represent they are pretty cursory when they describe the otherside, as persuasive legal writing should be. It simply generalized about what they say without really citing too much. Basically it only explained why they are right and then said people on the other side believe X.
I would agree with the memo that most of the scholarship points to individual rights, but I still think it is arguable that the Second Amendment right doesnt apply to all individuals of a state.
I am not called upon from time to time to train and defend my state, eventhough I am an able bodied male of suitable age, does it apply to me? If it doesn’t then my right to own a gun would probably stem from the Ninth Amendment, which is the most overlooked and under referenced Amendment in the Constitution (probably because it is so vague, but whatever).
Like I said I’m in agreement with you about the right to bear arms being fundamental, I would just like to examine the evidence on my own objectively before I claim that there is NO way it does or does not emenate from the Second Amendment.
[quote]PGreen711 wrote:
JD430 wrote:
PGreen and anyone else who is interested, this is probably the most serious piece of scholarship in existence about the second amendment and it affirms an individual’s right to keep and bear arms:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#1
The answer to this question is not found by simply reading the Constitution, but by a thorough historical examination of the subject, which this document contains.
From this would you go as far as to say that all able bodied men of suitable age should have to own a gun? Do you think people should be allowed to own sawed-off shotguns, RPG’s and the like? Because those are guns that are probably suitable for combat. Do you think the right is so absolute that felons should be able to own guns? Do you think women should be allowed to own guns?
That is also a legal memorandum representing a position, while certainly well researched on the side they represent they are pretty cursory when they describe the otherside, as persuasive legal writing should be. It simply generalized about what they say without really citing too much. Basically it only explained why they are right and then said people on the other side believe X.
I would agree with the memo that most of the scholarship points to individual rights, but I still think it is arguable that the Second Amendment right doesnt apply to all individuals of a state.
I am not called upon from time to time to train and defend my state, eventhough I am an able bodied male of suitable age, does it apply to me? If it doesn’t then my right to own a gun would probably stem from the Ninth Amendment, which is the most overlooked and under referenced Amendment in the Constitution (probably because it is so vague, but whatever).
Like I said I’m in agreement with you about the right to bear arms being fundamental, I would just like to examine the evidence on my own objectively before I claim that there is NO way it does or does not emanate from the Second Amendment.
[/quote]
OK. We’re getting somewhere. Since you asked, I’ll try to address your points one by one.
2.RPG’s and other explosives are destructive devices as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NRA and most of its members(myself included) have never lobbied for their possession. However, the statement that an armed populace can’t resist a modern army with mere rifles is patently false. A man with a rifle has been the constant building block of a war effort for the past 300 years, especially when we are talking about guerilla conflicts.
3.Disqualifying felons is fine with me(and the NRA). This issue was also settled in the late 1930s or 1940s if I remember correctly. However, there is a little bit too much extension of certain disqualifying factors going on, such as old misdemeanor domestic violence charges which could literally include yelling at your wife.
4.Of course women should own guns. I know that the argument is that they could not possibly have been considered a part of the militia, but the 14th amendment equal protection clause takes care of that problem.
5.You certainly could be called upon to train and fight if a draft was reinstated.
I can appreciate that you wish to study this topic before reaching a conclusion.
There is certainly nothing wrong with that. I am telling you that after quite a bit of study on my own, I strongly support the view that an individual has the right to keep arms.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
3.Disqualifying felons is fine with me(and the NRA). This issue was also settled in the late 1930s or 1940s if I remember correctly. However, there is a little bit too much extension of certain disqualifying factors going on, such as old misdemeanor domestic violence charges which could literally include yelling at your wife.
[/quote]
Disqualifying felons is a tough one when you consider the fact that getting caught gambling on the internet is a felony sctratches head
mike
[quote]PGreen711 wrote:
There is at the very least an equal amount of evidence that the law only applies to state militias, as there is that the law applies to individual citizens.
[/quote]
I think we saw some evidence up thread that the two were, in those days, one and the same thing. In particular, whatever arms the members of those militias had were typically their own, not furnished by the state. What we now regard as an ambiguity was not ambiguous in their day.
I don’t own a gun, and I’ve got no particular position on gun control, but I have to say that this thing about how guns were only for the militias sounds anachronistic and suspiciously like hair-splitting to me. Whatever the founders’ reasoning, the consequent is very clear: no federal gun control legislation.
They stated it broadly, because they wanted the application to be broad: they envisioned an armed citizenry. If they were fundamentally saying that the states had a right to armed militias, the amendment would have said only that.
Given their motivation, not to mention the wording, you would have to conclude that their prohibition on gun control includes particularly the sort of gun a citizen might use to assist in the event of invasion by organized armed forces, or in the event of civil insurrection. In our era, that would seem to translate to any personal arms, ranging from handguns up to and including ground to air missiles.
If a state or locality opts for gun control, I don’t think the amendment applies. It just says there can’t be federal gun control.
IANAL, but if there is any constitutional juice in this case, it seems to me it will hinge on the special status of the District of Columbia. So what might be tolerable congressional prohibitions for D.C. might be viewed as granted elsewhere, and not set any precedent in a national context.