PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Amendment thread...


Taco John
12-13-2007, 01:47 PM
For those who believe in the 2nd Amendment... I've got a question that I'm curious about -

Does the 2nd Amendment apply to assault rifles? Or just to bolt action rifles?

Cochise
12-13-2007, 01:54 PM
I think that there's a certain point where limitation is warranted, such as automatic fire. I don't see why it should be limited to bolt action though.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 01:56 PM
I think that there's a certain point where limitation is warranted, such as automatic fire. I don't see why it should be limited to bolt action though.

So where is that point, and what's the practical reason for limiting it?

Let me ask it like this: what is the purpose of the second amendment in the first place? Is it antiquated?

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 02:03 PM
So where is that point, and what's the practical reason for limiting it?

Let me ask it like this: what is the purpose of the second amendment in the first place?


IMO itís to protect the first amendment. Iíve been taught that there is a reason why Amendments 1 and 2 are the first ones, itís due to their importance in insuring our freedoms.

Is it antiquated?

No.

pikesome
12-13-2007, 02:06 PM
So where is that point, and what's the practical reason for limiting it?

Let me ask it like this: what is the purpose of the second amendment in the first place? Is it antiquated?

My opinion on the matter is much like my opinion on the 1st. The original amendments are very specific limits/guarantees on/from the Government. The 2nd was to keep the central gov from disarming the populace, preventing another revolution or at the very least preventing the Fed from usurping power from the states. I'm not really big on the concept of the very group we're supposed to be protected from getting to change the rules, the amendments are there to say they can't. Now whether or not it should guarantee individual ownership is more vague but in a country where cars kill far more people and we let people (Paris Hilton for example) stay in jail just long enough to get a meal for DUI, I want a damn good reason why I can't have a gun.

Jenson71
12-13-2007, 02:07 PM
what is the purpose of the second amendment in the first place?

To provide for effective, defensive militia in order to have a secure state.

pikesome
12-13-2007, 02:09 PM
IMO itís to protect the first amendment. Iíve been taught that there is a reason why Amendments 1 and 2 are the first ones, itís due to their importance in insuring our freedoms.


The Supreme Court has mentioned more than once that the order of the amendments isn't based on their importance. Which I think is BS, but not in the eyes of the SC.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 02:09 PM
To provide for effective, defensive militia in order to have a secure state.


So by this answer, it sounds to me then that assault rifles are legitimate, and protected by the 2nd amendment.

pikesome
12-13-2007, 02:11 PM
To provide for effective, defensive militia in order to have a secure state.

This doesn't seem right, the Constitution already mentions the military. Including a stronger passage in the BoRs would be overkill if state security was the only worry.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 02:14 PM
So where is that point, and what's the practical reason for limiting it?

Let me ask it like this: what is the purpose of the second amendment in the first place? Is it antiquated?

I don't really see the problem with things the way they are now. People with clean records can buy whatever kind of guns they want within reason and in many places can carry them on their person if they choose (maybe someday in all states), excepting a few circumstances like bars and whatever. I'm not against background checks, but there's no registration or anything.

I think we have a good system in place. People can reasonably own weapons and make a reasonable defense of themselves against threats to life and limb, but you still don't have people walking around with automatic weapons or grenades or RPGs or anything.

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 02:19 PM
The Supreme Court has mentioned more than once that the order of the amendments isn't based on their importance. Which I think is BS, but not in the eyes of the SC.

Well, itís my opinion but fug the SC on this one. It just makes too much sense that an armed populace helps ensure freedom of speech and freedom of speech helps ensure our right to remain an armed populace. At least to me thatís what makes sense.

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 02:20 PM
Taco, can you tell me what an ďassault rifleĒ is?
Tougher question than you may think as several different definitions have been tossed around.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 02:22 PM
Is it antiquated?

I think that in a sense it is, as are all the other BoR amendments. Ever since the country was transformed from a federation of sovereign states to a centrally governed union, and since the BoR has been applied to State governments as well as the Federal government, they've lost their original meanings to some extent. I don't think the 2nd amendment was originally intended to prevent local governments (including state governments) from regulating firearms and I don't think the 1st amendment was originally intended to prevent the establishment of state religions, but the transformation of our country required these amendments to be re-interpretated against the new reality. I'm not saying that the original interpretation was superior or inferior, just that it's different.

My guess as to the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was, as someone already mentioned, to keep the federal government from disarming the citizens to the detriment of the ability of the states to defend themselves from a potential power grab by the feds. Since this power grab has essentially already taken place, the amendment and its original purpose have been overcome by events (and in that sense, antiquated).

patteeu
12-13-2007, 02:29 PM
Well, itís my opinion but fug the SC on this one. It just makes too much sense that an armed populace helps ensure freedom of speech and freedom of speech helps ensure our right to remain an armed populace. At least to me thatís what makes sense.

That makes sense to me too, but it is difficult to draw a line. Most people don't have a problem outlawying private ownership of Stinger missiles and Apache helicopter gunships, but advanced weapon systems like those would be even more effective at preventing the government from taking away the freedom of the citizenry. IOW, the rationale for limiting ownership of certain types of weapons is exactly the opposite of the rationale that you've given for maintaining an armed populace as a hedge against despotism.

I guess these seemingly contradictory rationales can be justified by the seemingly contradictory goals of providing a hedge against despotism on the one hand and preventing situations that are just too dangerous to the public in general on the other.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 02:32 PM
I don't really see the problem with things the way they are now. People with clean records can buy whatever kind of guns they want within reason...

The question that I'm asking is, what defines "within reason."

pikesome
12-13-2007, 02:34 PM
That makes sense to me too, but it is difficult to draw a line. Most people don't have a problem outlawying private ownership of Stinger missiles and Apache helicopter gunships, but advanced weapon systems like those would be even more effective at preventing the government from taking away the freedom of the citizenry. IOW, the rationale for limiting ownership of certain types of weapons is exactly the opposite of the rationale that you've given for maintaining an armed populace as a hedge against despotism.

I guess these seemingly contradictory rationales can be justified by the seemingly contradictory goals of providing a hedge against despotism on the one hand and preventing situations that are just too dangerous to the public in general on the other.

One way to look at it might be that, armed with rifles and pistols, it would take a significant portion of the populace to rise up. A large enough group to give it a certain "legitimacy" as a rebellion. Letting people own Stingers and Apaches would mean that a smaller group, those who could afford them, could counter lack of numbers.

I'm not sure I'd like to use this as an argument but it's one aspect to consider.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 02:41 PM
Taco, can you tell me what an ďassault rifleĒ is?
Tougher question than you may think as several different definitions have been tossed around.


Well, to *me*, personally, the definition doesn't matter. I think the second amendment protects all firearms, assualt rifles or not. But I maintain the original intent view of the 2nd amendment, not the unconstitutionally expanded role of the federal government.

But most people don't see it this way. And the line in the sand seems to be assault rifles.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 02:41 PM
The question that I'm asking is, what defines "within reason."

Maybe automatic fire. That seems like a good place to draw the line.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 02:42 PM
Maybe automatic fire. That seems like a good place to draw the line.


Why? What is your read on the intention of the 2nd amendment?

Brock
12-13-2007, 02:53 PM
"Militia" indicates you are entitled to keep and bear the typical "militia" weapons that are the standard of the day.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 02:56 PM
"Militia" indicates you are entitled to keep and bear the typical "militia" weapons that are the standard of the day.


Hmmm... I would enterpret that to mean that whatever the National Guard of the day is using is what the citizens should be able to own. Would you agree with that interpretation of what you said?

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 02:59 PM
Well, to *me*, personally, the definition doesn't matter. I think the second amendment protects all firearms, assualt rifles or not. But I maintain the original intent view of the 2nd amendment, not the unconstitutionally expanded role of the federal government.

But most people don't see it this way. And the line in the sand seems to be assault rifles.

Fair enough I guess.
How about this, with an application and evaluation process proportional to the type of weapon being purchased, an individual could own anything up to a nuke. ;)

banyon
12-13-2007, 03:02 PM
IMO itís to protect the first amendment. Iíve been taught that there is a reason why Amendments 1 and 2 are the first ones, itís due to their importance in insuring our freedoms.

No.

That sounds nice to tell a 10th grade civics class, but how do you explain the placement of the 3rd amendment?

Brock
12-13-2007, 03:05 PM
Hmmm... I would enterpret that to mean that whatever the National Guard of the day is using is what the citizens should be able to own. Would you agree with that interpretation of what you said?

Not necessarily limited to what the National Guard is using. If the standard light weapon of the US Army is an M-16, then you are entitled to keep and bear up to and including an M-16. That's what it says to me.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 03:08 PM
Not necessarily limited to what the National Guard is using. If the standard light weapon of the US Army is an M-16, then you are entitled to keep and bear up to and including an M-16. That's what it says to me.



You and I see eye to eye on this issue.

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 03:10 PM
That sounds nice to tell a 10th grade civics class, but how do you explain the placement of the 3rd amendment?

:hmmm: Tough one.
Could the right to privacy be construed as a right not to arm yourself or speak your mind if you so chose?
Donít remember enough from ď10th grade civicsĒ. Thatís been a day or two ago. ;)

Taco John
12-13-2007, 03:10 PM
Cochise? I haven't been able to get you to weigh in on this question yet...


Why? What is your read on the intention of the 2nd amendment?

Cochise
12-13-2007, 03:39 PM
Cochise? I haven't been able to get you to weigh in on this question yet...

Sorry. I'm at work.

My read on it is what I said. A general right to own and possess weapons. My opinion was that anything below an automatic weapon is reasonable.

The right I don't think is intended to be absolute, but like most other rights, it is intended to be unabridged insofar as it does not cross over a compelling government interest, such as protecting the lives of a lot of people from a high degree of peril.

Rights have always had boundaries drawn around them by strict scrutiny, even the most sacred ones.

SBK
12-13-2007, 03:40 PM
I do think this country would be a lot safer if we were all carrying guns around.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 03:48 PM
I do think this country would be a lot safer if we were all carrying guns around.

Even the threat of it would help! ;)

oldandslow
12-13-2007, 03:54 PM
I really think it lies in the definition of "arms." Technology has passed the amendment, imo. Do I want someone to bug me about my shotgun or deer rifle - heck no.

On the other hand I do not believe Taco John has a right to a bazooka as his argument would indicate...

Take this far enough and you could claim the right to a nuclear weapon.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 03:59 PM
On the other hand I do not believe Taco John has a right to a bazooka as his argument would indicate...



If bazookas are banned, only criminals will have them...

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:03 PM
Sorry. I'm at work.

My read on it is what I said. A general right to own and possess weapons. My opinion was that anything below an automatic weapon is reasonable.

The right I don't think is intended to be absolute, but like most other rights, it is intended to be unabridged insofar as it does not cross over a compelling government interest, such as protecting the lives of a lot of people from a high degree of peril.

Rights have always had boundaries drawn around them by strict scrutiny, even the most sacred ones.



You think the second amendment was written for the purpose of generally having the right to own and possess weapons? So basically, you adopt the general democrat position on the second amendment.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 04:04 PM
I think we all have a right to our own silos.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:07 PM
I think we all have a right to our own silos.



I think that one is pushing it... I think the right to keep and bear arms should be to the point that they are more or less controlled in your "arms."

Cochise
12-13-2007, 04:12 PM
You think the second amendment was written for the purpose of generally having the right to own and possess weapons?

You asked "to what does the second amendment apply". I replied with an opinion on what was reasonable.

I gave no response on this question because it was never asked what I thought the second amendment was written for. I was asked what my read on it was, i.e., what I think the interpretation should be, unless I misunderstood.

My understanding is that it didn't originally have to do with private citizens' rights to own weapons, but the right of states to maintain a military force separate from the national force. Presumably the framers didn't think private ownership of weapons was an issue at all.

Chief Faithful
12-13-2007, 04:17 PM
I think that in a sense it is, as are all the other BoR amendments. Ever since the country was transformed from a federation of sovereign states to a centrally governed union, and since the BoR has been applied to State governments as well as the Federal government, they've lost their original meanings to some extent. I don't think the 2nd amendment was originally intended to prevent local governments (including state governments) from regulating firearms and I don't think the 1st amendment was originally intended to prevent the establishment of state religions, but the transformation of our country required these amendments to be re-interpretated against the new reality. I'm not saying that the original interpretation was superior or inferior, just that it's different.

My guess as to the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was, as someone already mentioned, to keep the federal government from disarming the citizens to the detriment of the ability of the states to defend themselves from a potential power grab by the feds. Since this power grab has essentially already taken place, the amendment and its original purpose have been overcome by events (and in that sense, antiquated).

The new reality also includes the SC stating it is not the responsibility of the police to place themselves in harms way to defend the individual citizen. They have also ruled it is permissable for an individual to self defense. Thus, while the original intent my be antiquated the new reality also has a need for citizens to posses firearms for self defense.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:23 PM
You asked "to what does the second amendment apply".

Seriously? That's what you think I asked?

ROFL

Holy shit! Not even close. I'm pretty sure I understand to what the second amendment applies: guns. That wasn't ever in question. What I asked you was: "What is your read on the intention of the 2nd amendment?" Ie. Why did the founders go out of their way to ensure we have an armed society?

"To what does the second amendment apply!" hahahaha!



I gave no response on this question because it was never asked what I thought the second amendment was written for. I was asked what my read on it was, i.e., what I think the interpretation should be, unless I misunderstood.

My understanding is that it didn't originally have to do with private citizens' rights to own weapons, but the right of states to maintain a military force separate from the national force. Presumably the framers didn't think private ownership of weapons was an issue at all.

So you think the second amendment doesn't apply to private ownership, but state ownership of weapons? This is the most leftist definition I've heard of the second amendment IN THE HISTORY of involvement in second amendment discussions. It completely ignores the whole part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

kcfanXIII
12-13-2007, 04:34 PM
For those who believe in the 2nd Amendment... I've got a question that I'm curious about -

Does the 2nd Amendment apply to assault rifles? Or just to bolt action rifles?


the founding fathers wanted to make sure we could rise up if need be. i believe the only type of fire arm that is completely illegal, are automatic weapons. there are ways around the assault rifle ban.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:46 PM
the founding fathers wanted to make sure we could rise up if need be. i believe the only type of fire arm that is completely illegal, are automatic weapons. there are ways around the assault rifle ban.


If you believe that the second amendment was written to enable the citizens to rise up if they needed to against a tyranical government, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the founders intended the citizens to be able to match the government's manned firepower.

Brock
12-13-2007, 04:48 PM
I really think it lies in the definition of "arms." Technology has passed the amendment, imo. Do I want someone to bug me about my shotgun or deer rifle - heck no.

On the other hand I do not believe Taco John has a right to a bazooka as his argument would indicate...

Take this far enough and you could claim the right to a nuclear weapon.

A bazooka is not a standard infantry weapon. It is a specialty weapon, as is a .50 cal machine gun, a recoilless rifle, etc.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 04:48 PM
Seriously? That's what you think I asked?

ROFL

Holy shit! Not even close. I'm pretty sure I understand to what the second amendment applies: guns. That wasn't ever in question. What I asked you was: "What is your read on the intention of the 2nd amendment?" Ie. Why did the founders go out of their way to ensure we have an armed society?

"To what does the second amendment apply!" hahahaha!

I was talking about this:


Does the 2nd Amendment apply to assault rifles? Or just to bolt action rifles?

I think that a plain reading of the text of the second amendment says it applies as I stated there. I think it also can and should be logically extended to private ownership, even if that's not what they meant, which is possible.

It make have been that it was not a forseeable problem that the government would grab everyone's guns. In those days many people needed them to feed their families and it might have been unthinkable that the government would ever outlaw them.


This is the most leftist definition I've heard of the second amendment IN THE HISTORY of involvement in second amendment discussions. It completely ignores the whole part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is why I was reluctant to participate in this tedious exercise after I saw what you were up to, which is obviously to cast anyone besides Ron Paul as leftist on gun rights.

It says, "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."

It depends on what they meant by "the people". Does it mean the populace of the several states have the right to bear arms collectively in the form of a militia, or does it mean the individual on a private basis?

It seems to me you could read it both ways, that they meant the individuals too, or that they didn't address the topic but you could derive the right from the logical outworkings of this one, as the courts have over the years. At the end of the day I supposed there's not a difference on how you arrived at the right so long as you affirm it.

kcfanXIII
12-13-2007, 04:54 PM
If you believe that the second amendment was written to enable the citizens to rise up if they needed to against a tyranical government, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the founders intended the citizens to be able to match the government's manned firepower.


yes, i just didn't want to come across as radical.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:56 PM
yes, i just didn't want to come across as radical.



Of course not. Nobody wants to look "fringe," am I right?

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:59 PM
This is why I was reluctant to participate in this tedious exercise after I saw what you were up to, which is obviously to cast anyone besides Ron Paul as leftist on gun rights.

Actually, that's not the goal of this thread, though you're definitely leftist on guns. The goal of this thread was to get people's opinions out in the open, as the Supreme Court is about to make one of the most critical decisions of our time (possibly in all of American history) on this matter.



It says, "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."

It depends on what they meant by "the people". Does it mean the populace of the several states have the right to bear arms collectively in the form of a militia, or does it mean the individual on a private basis?

It seems to me you could read it both ways, that they meant the individuals too, or that they didn't address the topic but you could derive the right from the logical outworkings of this one, as the courts have over the years. At the end of the day I supposed there's not a difference on how you arrived at the right so long as you affirm it.


Definitely leftist.

kcfanXIII
12-13-2007, 05:07 PM
Of course not. Nobody wants to look "fringe," am I right?

i've got no beef admitting i'm way to the right on this one. but to say any one man has a right to a nuclear bomb, is fringe to say the least.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:22 PM
i've got no beef admitting i'm way to the right on this one. but to say any one man has a right to a nuclear bomb, is fringe to say the least.


I don't believe that the constitution guarantees the right to own a nuclear bomb.

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 05:23 PM
So by this answer, it sounds to me then that assault rifles are legitimate, and protected by the 2nd amendment.


I believe they are. I don't recall anything in that amendment, limiting it to black power cap and ball long rifles.


There is also a distinct difference between an "assault rifle" as many against them would classify them and a fully automatic machine gun.


I think I have the right to own a semi automatic, AR15 or SKS if I wish, as a non-fellon. There is a difference between those and military grade weaponry.

Do I need a Military spec .50 sniper rifle? Probably not, but if there isn't a reason I shouldn't own it....why not?

Should Joe Citizen own a mac10 or an M16? I don't think so.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:29 PM
I believe they are. I don't recall anything in that amendment, limiting it to black power cap and ball long rifles.


There is also a distinct difference between an "assault rifle" as many against them would classify them and a fully automatic machine gun.


I think I have the right to own a semi automatic, AR15 or SKS if I wish, as a non-fellon. There is a difference between those and military grade weaponry.

Do I need a Military spec .50 sniper rifle? Probably not, but if there isn't a reason I shouldn't own it....why not?

Should Joe Citizen own a mac10 or an M16? I don't think so.


That's what I'm saying. So let me ask you this... If you wanted to own an assaut rifle (semi auto or otherwise), do you think it's reasonable or even constitutional for the government to limit the size of your clip?

banyon
12-13-2007, 05:31 PM
I don't believe that the constitution guarantees the right to own a nuclear bomb.

Why not? Let's say we can make a suitcase sized one. Then you can "carry it in your arms" as you put it earlier. Why should we draw the line there?

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:39 PM
Why not? Let's say we can make a suitcase sized one. Then you can "carry it in your arms" as you put it earlier. Why should we draw the line there?


The minute I wrote that, I realized that technology makes that definition obsolete. My answer to that is that you can't "aim" a nuclear weapon at an individual target without an catastrphic amount of collateral damage.

banyon
12-13-2007, 05:48 PM
The minute I wrote that, I realized that technology makes that definition obsolete. My answer to that is that you can't "aim" a nuclear weapon at an individual target without an catastrphic amount of collateral damage.


Our military has been working on "tactical nukes" for over a decade now.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:49 PM
Our military has been working on "tactical nukes" for over a decade now.


Nukes cause a lingering effect, no matter how tactical.

But if you want to make the argument that the second amendment provides for the right to bear nukes, I'm all ears. I disagree, but I'm willing to listen.

banyon
12-13-2007, 05:59 PM
Nukes cause a lingering effect, no matter how tactical.

But if you want to make the argument that the second amendment provides for the right to bear nukes, I'm all ears. I disagree, but I'm willing to listen.

I'm not making that argument. I'm trying to get you to articulate a rationale for drawing a line.

You're trying to make a Constitutional argument. What principle do you base it on?

HolyHandgernade
12-13-2007, 06:25 PM
Here's an essayon the subject:

In 1781 in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX, Thomas Jefferson described the militia: "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

In 1787 the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia for the purpose of writing a constitution for the people of America. This is what they wrote:



We the people of the United States, in Order to form

a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure

domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,

promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings

of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain

and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States

of America.



ARTICLE I



Section 1.



All legislative Powers herein shall be vested in a

Congress of the United States, which shall consist of

a Senate and House of Representatives. ....



Section 8.



The Congress shall have the power To lay and collect

Taxes, .... to provide for calling forth the

Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress

Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for

organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and

for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the

Service of the United States, reserving to the

States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,

and the authority of training the Militia according

to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ....



ARTICLE II



Section 1.



The executive Power shall be vested in a President

of the United States of America. ....



Section 2.



The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the

Army, and Navy, and of the Militia of the several

States, when called into actual Service of the United

States; ....



ARTICLE III



Section 1.



The judicial Power of the United States, shall be

vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior

Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain

and establish. ....



ARTICLE IV



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United

States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and

all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the

Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme

Law of the Land; and the Judges of every State shall

be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws

of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.



The Senators and Representatives before

mentioned , and the Members of the several State

Legislatures, and all executive and judicial

Officers, both of the United States and of the

several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation

to support this Constitution; but no religious Test

shall ever be required as a qualification to any

Office or public Trust under the United States.



In 1791 the Constitution was amended to include the second

amendment: " 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."



In 1801 in his first annual message President Jefferson

said: "We should at every session continue to amend the defects

... in the laws regulating the militia, ...."



In 1806 in his sixth annual message: "The criminal attempts

of private individuals to decide for their country the question

of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized

hostilities , should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed."



In 1808 in his eighth annual message: "for a people who

are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed

militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on

us, at every meeting to revise the condition of the militia, and

to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at

every point of our territories exposed to invasion."



In a January 26, 1811, letter to Destutt de Tracy, Jefferson

wrote that the governor of each state is " constitutionally the

commander of the militia of the State."



In other words, the "well regulated Militia" of the Second

Amendment is the same state militia of Articles I and II of the

Constitution. It is very clear that the Founding Fathers (1)

gave Congress power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern the

state militias and (2) made the President Commander in Chief of

the Militia.



In 1916 the National Defence Act provided for drafting the

state militias, which we now call the National Guard, into

United States service under certain circumstances and under

authority granted by the Constitution as approved by the states

in 1788.



Therefore, the current self-proclaimed "militias" (private

armies) have no legal significance or authority under the

Constitution of the United States of America, except for their

right to keep and bear arms as citizens according to the laws of the land.
Copyright 1996 Gene Garman

JohnnyV13
12-13-2007, 06:46 PM
I'm prepared to die for the right of my neighbor with an IQ of 71 to keep and own a nuclear weapon.

JohnnyV13
12-13-2007, 06:56 PM
A bazooka is not a standard infantry weapon. It is a specialty weapon, as is a .50 cal machine gun, a recoilless rifle, etc.

A bazooka is an obsolete anti-tank weapon which (as far as I know) has been ineffective since the Korean War.

The modern equivalent of the bazooka is the shoulder mounted infantry missile.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 07:04 PM
My personal opinion, which I admit is not based on any significant scholarship on the subject, is that the intention of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal government from getting in between the state governments and their citizens when it comes to arms. In other words, the feds wouldn't ban weapons either at the state level or the individual level. They'd leave it up to the states to organize and regulate their own militias as heavy handedly or light handedly as each state chose to do so.

If that interpretation were still operable, I'd say that the SCOTUS should allow Washington DC to ban firearms. However, given that we've decided that the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments, I'd say that the SCOTUS should strike the Washington DC law down.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 07:06 PM
I'm not making that argument. I'm trying to get you to articulate a rationale for drawing a line.

You're trying to make a Constitutional argument. What principle do you base it on?



Individual liberty. I balance it against the individual liberty of those affected by a nuclear weapon. Nobody has the right to pollute the air or water. A nuclear weapon would affect the liberty (in the broad sense of the term) of those around them, even if the nuclear weapon was aimed at a legitimate target (which I'd have a hard time finding a scenario for).

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 08:51 PM
As a Libertarian, who wants the govt out of your home, I'd think you and RonPaul would support every persons right to own whatever weapons they wanted with magazine capacities as large as they can carry.


I don't really see that keeping my .40cal pistol magazine to 9 shots, instead of 13 is going to keep the public any safer, as only a criminal is going to be doing anything contrary. If someone with criminal intent, intends to do mass harm, they're going to go armed to the teeth.

Why, should the liberties of a law abiding citizen be limiting in the amount of personal protection he can own? After all, only the law abiding citizen gives a crap about the law. The criminal is going to black market acquire what they want, regardless of law.


Do I think magazine capacity is the govts place to concern themselves? no. Do I think Joe Citizen should be able to own grenades, land mines and other instruments of war? no. But don't dick with my pumkin cannon.

Radar Chief
12-14-2007, 07:54 AM
A bazooka is an obsolete anti-tank weapon which (as far as I know) has been ineffective since the Korean War.

The modern equivalent of the bazooka is the shoulder mounted infantry missile.

I know what youíre saying but Brock and OnS arenít wrong.
Youíre talking about a Bazooka notice the difference in capitalization? A bazooka has become a sort of euphemism for any shoulder launched anti-armor missile. Itís like the difference between a Jeep and a jeep. Jeep is a specific model of vehicle, while jeep has become a way to describe any of the ľ ton 4X4 vehicles. Land Cruisers have often been referred to as ďjeepsĒ.
Sure bazooka is an old reference, but look at who you were responding too. ;)

banyon
12-14-2007, 08:25 AM
Individual liberty. I balance it against the individual liberty of those affected by a nuclear weapon. Nobody has the right to pollute the air or water. A nuclear weapon would affect the liberty (in the broad sense of the term) of those around them, even if the nuclear weapon was aimed at a legitimate target (which I'd have a hard time finding a scenario for).

This comes from what section of the Constitution?

Brock
12-14-2007, 09:26 AM
A bazooka is an obsolete anti-tank weapon which (as far as I know) has been ineffective since the Korean War.

The modern equivalent of the bazooka is the shoulder mounted infantry missile.

Thanks for the earth-shattering information.

Cochise
12-14-2007, 09:35 AM
Actually, that's not the goal of this thread, though you're definitely leftist on guns.

I don't really care what label I get on a certain issue, that's not an issue for me. Particularly since a label only has meaning when you consider the source (no offense intended). I might be left on capital punishment. Maybe I am left of center on guns - I don't think so.

I expressed some uncertainty as to the original meaning of the text as it was written - personal uncertainty, that is to say - but I also said that the right exists in the same way as anyone else would say it does. I don't see the difference whether it is implicit or explicit.

I don't know how I could be cast as left of center on guns if I am not opposed to private ownership in whatever context of anything other than the full military spec stuff. I am opposed to the 94 assault weapons ban, limits on magazine capacity etc, any sort of registration, or any further expansion of gun control really. I am in favor of concealed carry, etc.

Adept Havelock
12-14-2007, 10:53 AM
I don't know how I could be cast as left of center on guns if I am not opposed to private ownership in whatever context of anything other than the full military spec stuff. I am opposed to the 94 assault weapons ban, limits on magazine capacity etc, any sort of registration, or any further expansion of gun control really. I am in favor of concealed carry, etc.

That's so far to the left it makes Charlton Heston cry. LMAO

Iowanian
12-14-2007, 10:57 AM
I think states should be right to carry for non criminals.

In Iowa, its really the discression of the local sheriff and every county is different.....some use the "may" instead of "shall" issue permits as a reason to not.

An armed society is a polite society.

Cochise
12-14-2007, 02:30 PM
That's so far to the left it makes Charlton Heston cry. LMAO

I know, I'm one step away from being a neosociocommufascist soylent eater.

Adept Havelock
12-14-2007, 04:17 PM
I know, I'm one step away from being a neosociocommufascist soylent eater.

Hey, don't knock Soylent! The new Soylent Green is really tasty! You can't even tell if they changed the recipe.

listopencil
12-15-2007, 07:50 PM
I believe the 2nd Amendment empowers citizens to arm themselves in order to become soldiers if the need arises. Take a good look at a modern American infantryman.

Kraut
12-15-2007, 08:28 PM
Hey, don't knock Soylent! The new Soylent Green is really tasty! You can't even tell if they changed the recipe.
:)

listopencil
12-15-2007, 10:00 PM
Good old Jefferson. Always there for a quote:

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."