Historically in other countries that have instituted gun control and in cities and states in the US that have done so, we have found that each successive step slices away one more sliver of rights until we end up like those poor folks in Washington, D.C. and Chicago. Had gun-control cronies not proven to us that their definition of ‘compromise’ is always one step closer to a total ban than we already are, perhaps we wouldn’t believe that they see it as the death of a thousand slices.
Then again, they’d have to shut their yaps and quit saying things like ‘this is only a step on the way to a total ban.’
I think all one needs to do is look at the crime rates in cities that have total or near total bans on civilian firearms ownership. Washington, D.C. has been the murder capital more than once, as has Gary, Indiana which is markedly similar to Chicago in terms of firearms restriction (at least from what I remember).
Los Angeles, New York City, these are places with high violent crime rates where ordinary people are almost entirely forbidden to carry a firearm for protection (unless you happen to be rich, famous, or a politician), so I’d say that banning firearms hasn’t made anyone safer.
I heard somewhere that real freedom is the ability to say ‘No.’ and back it up with force.
The baseball bat? The thing that is a scaled down, slimmer, easier to swing version of a club? Do you know what clubs were used for?
To each his own, I guess. Frankly, if the major league hardware were legal I don’t think there’d be a huge civilian demand anyway. Sure, an F-16 might be cool to have in my garage, but I don’t fly and I don’t have 36 million bucks to blow on the thing.
You mean the bill of rights? The version I’m familiar with mentions a right to bear arms after a reference to “a well regulated militia.” Let’s assume for a moment that the right to bear arms need in now way be related to a regulated militia, there is still no mention of .50 rifles. There’s some latitude there, as the framers probably intended.
For those who love semantics: note that the “right to bear arms” is not just in proximity to “well regulated militia” it’s in the same damn sentence. I think regulation was always part of the plan.
It’s also pretty clear from their correspondence and commentary that they didn’t intend for “well-regulated” to mean “subject to goverment control or oversight.” They meant “organized and trained.”
What about the second clause in the Second Amendment? “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” That sure looks like it says “the people” and not “the militia” to me. The reference to a militia is extraneous, it exhibits the reasoning behind providing us the right to bear arms.
Also, regarding your post to me, Exgineer , I would worry more about corporations buying up military hardware. It might be a little on the sci-fi side, but a rich corporation with its own, modern army could potentially be a very frightening thing.
For the love of fuck, Krebbs, Amendments 1 through 10 are the Bill of Rights. If you didn’t dissect the clause to only the portion you want to read, you would see that we are talking about the exact same sentence:
“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.”
Why do you have to bring up that amendment? It has no bearing on the existence of my right to keep and bear arms. I’m sick of hearing about the Second Amendment, quite frankly.
I’m not. I’m not in a militia either. I don’t consider membership in one to be a prerequisite for gun ownership, and I believe that view is borne out in the Second. We could form a militia if we needed too, but to do so we need the guns. Guns first, then milita; not the other way around.
“Shall not be infringed” is extremely strong languge. If the Second Amendment were interpreted as broadly as the First is no gun control law would be constitutional.
Waverly , a clause is a fragment of a sentence that includes a subject and predicate (read verb if it suits you). I knew we were talking about the same sentence, but was stating that the militia part is the reasoning behind the right. The right is stated in the second clause; the first clause (“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,”) explains why this right is necessary.
No one said a clause had to be a fragment. What are you getting at? In fact, the clause you extract is not a fragment.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but let’s use just plain ol’ common sense. If someone sets a scope or frame of reference, inserts a comma (,) and then defines an action, I’m not about too run to far afield with the application of that action. Let’s try it.
“The SDMB, being a haven for critical thinking, members shall abstain from being dense.”
Clearly, the only real concern is for members not acting dense while at the SDMB. Guest are affected to a lesser extent, and everyone is free to do what they wilt when elsewhere.
I realize that last post wasn’t particularly clear. I think a clearer wording of the 2nd that preserves the framers’ intent would be something like this:
“The people have a right to form in militia at need. To ensure their ability to do so, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Note that it says “arms” and not “guns”. To me that means anything from a pen knife to an aircraft carrier. Not that it matters much; I consider the 2nd Amdt to be an unnecessary reiteration of rights I already had.
Why, because they are visually similar? That’s pretty Lamarkian. The first baseball ‘bats’ were nothing more than sticks. The club like appearance arose not from a desire to beat someone to death, but to increase the chances of a hit and therefore scoring. If all sticks are clubs, you better ban trees.
Waverly , “clause” is also a term used in grammar. I was talking about grammatical clauses, not legal ones.
Of course the only concern in this statement is for members. You use the term members. If it said “the citizens of the United States” instead of members, the concern would be for the citizens of the United States. When every single amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights refers to “the people” it means “the citizens of the United States”. Why is the Second Amendment different?
FYI, I actively train with a militia group here in Ohio. (Here’s our web site.) But I agree 100% with your statement; even if I didn’t train with the militia I would still have a right to keep and bear arms. Heck, I would still have a right to keep and bear arms if the Second Amendment never existed. Which is one of the I never bring up the amendment to justify my right to keep and bear arms.
I know what the definition of a clause is. I’m not sure where I’ve shown that I don’t, and I don’t see how it is germane to either the thread or this particular facet of the discussion. If you want to brush up on grammar, go back and look up the definition of a fragment.
You completely miss the point here. Is “members shall abstain” in any way affected by “The SDMB”. I think it is. Whether members are directly equivalent to citizens is a complete non sequitur. If I was feeling less generous, I’d consider it outright obfuscation.
Now I see that people are claiming their rights with or without a 2nd amendment. I’m not sure I’m prepared to argue this, but why put so much effort into arguing the 2nd amendment’s meaning only to state it is extraneous anyway? For what it’s worth, no rights are self evident enough that we can all agree on them unless someone takes the time to document and enforce them.
I’ll concede the clause part. “The right of the people…” could be a complete sentence.
However, I did explain (and adequately, IMHO) why the militia portion of the amendment is significant, but not necessary to the amendment. It in no way modifies who “the people” are, or the amendment would read “the right of its members”.
It’s pretty clear who “the people” are in every single amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. This language is used for a reason in the Second Amendment and it means every single citizen of the US. And the Supreme Court agrees with me.
Yes, a well regulated militia. A well regulated militia, regulated NOT by the federal government of the United States. To avoid tyranny by an overly-powerful government. What would be the point of a “well-regulated militia” being run and regulated by the very people said militia was supposed to protect the people from?
Please do look up various Supreme Court dissents on the second amendment. While a minority, they tend not to agree with your position.