SarumanRex wrote:
Important nitpick:
Throughout the body of the Constitution prior to the Amendments, ALL nouns, even common nouns like “Manner” and “Effect”, were capitalized. Non-capitalized nouns did appear in the Bill of Rights, but they were applied inconsistently. The fact that “State” is capitalized in the 2nd Amendment does not, by itself, automatically indicate that it means “State” as in “The Several States”.
“Shall not be infringed” does not mean “may not be regulated in any way, shape or form.” If you’ll recall, the Constitution also states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” yet there are rules against shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater and slander. The framers were likely using “infringed” in a now-archaic sense, meaning “defeated” or “invalidated”.
**
Covered this above. You have the holding more or less right. The Supreme Court had to decide whether, under the Second Amendment, a person had the right to own a sawed-off shotgun. The Court said that, unless the defendant could show that the weapon was conducive to the goals of the militia, the Second Amendment didn’t cover it. The Court was merely refusing to give judicial notice to the sawed-off shotgun as a proper weapon for the militia.
**
Well, the word “Arms” is capitalized too. If you’re so knowledgeable, tell us why that’s the case.
(rest of post snipped)
Ugh. I’m tired. More tomorrow.
I’ll respond to Boris B. out of respect, as he (she?) is a long-time poster of noted intelligence and reasonableness, and has most likely read at least *some[/]i of the 2nd amendment debates posted here before.
Constitution of the United States, Art. I, sec. 8, par. 16
This paragraph doesn’t do more than it says: authorizes Congress to organize arm and discipline the militia.
Militia(noun)
[Latin, military service, from milit-, miles]
First appeared circa 1660
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Boris, you, me, the guy next door and the lady across the street are the militia.
The FF were leary of a large standing army (in modern terms, the Armed Forces taken as a whole) because they realized a fundamental human truth that hasn’t changed since the days back when Hammurabi was thinking about writing down all of the myriad laws of Babylon:
Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
The ability of the citizen militia to be able to not only withstand but to defeat the regular forces any would-be tyrant could conceivably muster and command was fore in their thinking; a quick perusal of The Federalist Papers, especially #29, will easily support my contention.
The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 says the following concerning the militia:
Bolding mine.
By law a citizen of this country doesn’t have to line up and be counted like cattle to keep their recognized, Constitutionally enshrined right to keep and bear arms. Even the people who have never been in the military (but are not conscientious objectors) are parts of the unorganized militia.
To Saruman: you are an ass. You are not interested in facts. If you were, you would have already looked up the relevant resources for yourself. God knows a back search of this message board alone would reveal enough gun-control debates to keep you interested and reading for days at least. A simple search of Cecil’s archives would yield two concise articles, penned by Cecil, concerning the 2nd, with moderately worded yet unequivocal pro-gun positions clearly articulated.
I don’t have enough time in my life to try to inform every misinformed pundit like you that wanders in and starts spouting off with uninformed conjecture. Cecil gets paid for it. The moderators are masochistic wierdos. But I’m just a misanthropic (yet informed!) gun owner who is refusing to post the same information again.
Look it up for yourself.
I’ve finally had an old proverb driven home to me:
In this case, informed people can tell the uninformed time and again what the facts are; until the uninformed get off their butts and seek the knowledge for themselves, having searched for the knowledge and spent the time to assimilate it, the knowledge and facts imparted to them for free by others will have no meaning.
ExTank
ExTank, I am not arguing history with you, and I could care less what lies the politicians of the past used to deceive people. I don’t care what anybody said, I only care about what they did (i.e. what they enacted into law). I am pro-gun and I don’t care about empty words from the past, I only care about the realities of the here and now.
Do you deny that there are 20,000 gun control laws in this nation (I got his figure from an NRA spokesperson and I don’t know where he got it but it sounds about right)?
Do you see any practical difference between “regulating” my right to own a gun and “infringing” on my right to own a gun? Who decides what that difference is (i.e. where to draw th line)?
Do you deny that the Supreme Court could have overturned any or all of our gun control laws?
Do you deny that these laws have been used to prosecute and imprison thousands of people?
Do you think that none of these people ever tried to appeal their conviction on 2nd amendment grounds?
Do you think many of them won such an appeal?
Do you think the NRA would spend so much time and money lobbying Congress if they could count on the SC to overturn gun control legislation (the way they overturned school prayer laws and anti-pornography laws and a host of other 1st amendment issues).
Why don’t 1st amendment proponents need to lobby congress the way the NRA does?
Do you think that anyone else in the world, who doesn’t know you, is happy that you own a gun?
Do you think politicians who make pro-gun speeches (now or in the past) are happy that you own a gun?
Do you think we would have more than 20,000 gun control laws right now if there was no 2nd amendment?
Do you deny that the 2nd amendment has been useless in trying to prevent gun control laws from being enforced?
Do you deny that if the entire 2nd amendment had been, “The right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, we wouldn’t need the NRA to defend our gun ownership rights today?
Why do you think the FF didn’t make the whole 2nd amendment, “The right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”?
What do you think the word “State” means and why does it appear in the 2nd amendment? (I concede that the fact it is capitalized doesn’t mean much, but the only other time they use the word State in the Bill of Rights is in reference to the (then) 13 United States.)
Do you think the reason that there are millions of guns in this country has anything to do with the 2nd amendment or is it because millions of gun owners vote and support candidates who pander to their desire to defend themselves?
Do you think the 2nd amendment protects us from the banning of all privately owned firearms?
These aren’t rhetorical questions, I may be an ass, but I want answers. I am just arguing common sense here, not historical or philosophical points.
Saruman, I don’t think I see what you’re arguing… I mean, the vast majority of your questions can be answered with a single sentence… “There’re a lot of liberals in the country.” That eliminates all the questions dealing with the Supreme Court and other law matters…
To me, that’s like saying “Do you think anyone else in the world, who doesn’t know you, is happy that you own a TV?” I, for one, certainly don’t fear anyone for having a gun. In fact, I sort of like that idea. It means that there’re a lot of other people out there who can enjoy the fun of a good firearm. To me, a gun is a tool, which can be used for constuctive or deconstructive purposes, OR it can be used for recreation. Hey, Extank, wanna go rifle shooting sometime? (You can come, too, if you want to, Saruman, and Max Torque, and anyone else who feels like pumping a few bullets into an old stuffed animal 
Now that I think about it, we should invite Joey_Blades along, too.)
Now, it’s late, and I’ve been formulating a long post to put up here, but at 1:15 AM I’m not exactly the King of Articulation, so I’ll put it off. But frankly, Saruman, you’re making much ado about nothing, my friend.
Your post gives great evidence that the militia is no different than averge civilian gun-owners, but I this was an assumption of my post to begin. You have simply made explicit what I was leaving implicit about the definition of the militia. The clause I cited gives the Congress the power to organize and discipline private gun-owners, much more clearly than anything in the Second Amendment. That’s all I was saying.
S. Rex keep saying he doesn’t think the constitution and its writers ever intended for a revolution to put down a corrupt government. I’m surprised nobody has taken this to task yet…but fear not. 
First of all is the most obvious argument, based purely on historical fact and the actions (not writings and opinions) of the founders of this nation:
Simply, the fact that we are not British subjects. They showed through their actions that they favor revolution to throw off unjust rulers.
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? I think that states it pretty clearly. In case you haven’t, here is part of it:
It seems to me fairly clear that the men who founded the United States strongly favored both an armed population AND revolution against their government when that government becomes oppressive and unjust. They rose up against an oppressive government and overthrew it. Seems their actions and their words were pretty well in sync, wouldn’t you say? To be completely honest, I’m getting tired of this debate. I’m getting tired of people blindly spouting what they hear on the news without checking facts, of people saying what the founders “meant” when we can very easily read what they said and did, of people who are all too excited to sacrifice my liberty on the altar of their convenience, all in the name of “safety” or “the children” or because “it’s not necessary”. Well, I’ll tell you what…You don’t want to own a gun? Not a problem. Don’t buy one. If you have one you don’t want, I’ll be glad to dispose of it for you, at no charge. But don’t you dare try to take mine away from me. People are in such a rush to surrender their rights because they think it will make the country safer, when in reality, they are like sheep lining up to be sheared and slaughtered, and at the same time volunteering the same fate for all the rest of us.
–End of rant (for now)–
That’s an impressive list of quotes but it seems like Henry and Jefferson are out of place. Madison is quite germane though.
Amazing that anyone gleaned any coherent meaning out of my ramblings last night; modesty compels me to say that I am largely in the company of people more literate and well-read than myself here on this message board, which makes the stinkers all the more evident for their contrast.
Sauruman: I get cranky when I miss my naps (a sure sign of encroaching senescence), so my post was probably more vitriolic than I truly intended or felt.
Other than the point Boris was trying to elicit and I pounded home, I was trying to indicate that just about every point that has been raised so far has been extensively covered in many previous gun-control threads.
Some of us are just getting tired of reiterating the same-old same-old every couple of weeks when someone new pops up with the same tired old drivel; if we get testy and snap at the newbies, then they damned well need to develop thicker skin if they wanna hang with this crowd.
You clearly indicated that you aren’t interested in what was said back when; you’re more grounded in the present.
But to answer your questions:
No. I don’t have exact numbers, but I can’t refute the numbers one way or the other.
Certainly. Regulation with rigorous enforcement keep guns out of the hands of violent recidivists, habitual substance abusers, the criminally insane and the merely mentally incompetent, among others. Infringement keeps guns out of the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who wish merely to defend themselves or enjoy the shooting sports.
Reasonable people can come to reasonable compromise; but until the “BAN ALL GUNS” crowd chill their rhetoric and recognize the right of law abiding citizens to partake of the activities listed at the end of #2, no compromise will be reached.
Only if those cases had come before them on appeal, as one might be set to do. But the SC doesn’t have the power of Judicial Review of proposed or pending Legislation, so any gun control law enacted by Congress and signed into Law by the Pres. will have to first be exercised and then challenged, and make its way up through the system for the SC to rule yea or nay on its constitutionality.
No. Nor do I deny that thousands have been wrongfully prosecuted and imprisoned due to creative interpretations of these laws by ambitious Federal Agents looking to pad their records come promotion time.
Well, if they had the money, while sitting in prison, after all of their assets have been confiscated, to hire a lawyer to push the issue, but many have copped to “Conspiracy” charges after having been bled dry of financial resources by the bottomless treasury of the almighty U.S. Attorney General’s Office.
See #6. Then check out the status of U.S. v. Emerson.
The NRA isn’t a legal aid foundation (the Second Amendment Foundation, however, is. Attorney Gerry Spence defended Randy Weaver pro bono at the request of the S.A.F.). As I stated above, the ATF, FBI and the U.S. AG are aware of how thin many of their “gun charges” are, which is why many defendants are offered lesser “Conspiracy” charges with stiff fines and forfeiture of property and assets. Kinda hard to argue 2nd Amendment issues with no gun charges on your record.
Because the media comes together with the ACLU right behind them whenever it comes to anything other than the 2nd!! It’s called hypocrisy.
I’m not concerned about the world; it’s not covered by The Constitution of the United States. As to how other people feel about complete strangers owning guns, I dunno. Go ask them. I couldn’t care less about other law abiding citizens owning guns; I welcome it, and embrace them all as my fellow citizens.
Well, my Congressman and both of my Senators don’t seem too bothered by it, nor does my Governor. Considering that they are gun owners, I think they may feel similar to how I do: if you’re a law abiding citizen and mind your Ps & Qs, no problem.
No, one would suffice. “The sale, transfer, transportation or possession of firearms by private individuals is expressly forbidden.”
Yes, I do! Reread #s 5, 6 & 8.
No. If that were the case, the NRA would simply be what it was originally chartered to be: an organization to promote firearm safety, marksmanship and the shooting sports (which are still its primary functions!)
Because then the 3rd Amendment would have been about the right of the states to form militias. But they combined them both and called it the 2nd.
If the 1st can encompass 4 individual rights and an express prohibition against Congress, the 2nd can certainly include both the right of the individual states to form militias and the right of the people (who ARE “the militia”) to keep and bear arms.
The capitalized “State” in the 2nd has been uniformly interpreted to be a “term of art”, encompassing the entire government as a whole, both Federal and state levels inclusive. It wasn’t a specific reference to any particular body politic.
No. I think that there are millions of guns in this country because prior to the recent (1900s+) trend of Liberal political thought that has been trying since F.D.R. to reinterpret a Constitution in such a way as too let them do whatever they damned well please, Constitutionality be damned, there was little or no need for broad, sweeping Federal gun control laws!
Could it have been the fact that the individual right was so widely recognized, so clearly assumed by not only the people but also by the Law of the land that no further exposition was deemed necessary? And only the desire of power hungry liberal politicos to disarm the masses for easier control has led us into the Constitutional quagmire that we currently face?
And BTW, I’m not the lunatic fringe you are most likely going to acuse me of being (if not you, then someone else on this message board will certainly step up to the plate and take a swing at me!). Well, maybe where F.D.R. is concerned. But on the law and the history of the 2nd Amendment, I’m dead on with the vast majority of legal thought, past present and hopefully future.
ExTank
“When in doubt, reload and shoot 'em again!”
Amazing that anyone gleaned any coherent meaning out of my ramblings last night; modesty compels me to say that I am largely in the company of people more literate and well-read than myself here on this message board, which makes the stinkers all the more evident for their contrast.
Sauruman: I get cranky when I miss my naps (a sure sign of encroaching senescence), so my post was probably more vitriolic than I truly intended or felt.
Other than the point Boris was trying to elicit and I pounded home, I was trying to indicate that just about every point that has been raised so far has been extensively covered in many previous gun-control threads.
Some of us are just getting tired of reiterating the same-old same-old every couple of weeks when someone new pops up with the same tired old drivel; if we get testy and snap at the newbies, then they damned well need to develop thicker skin if they wanna hang with this crowd.
You clearly indicated that you aren’t interested in what was said back when; you’re more grounded in the present.
But to answer your questions:
No. I don’t have exact numbers, but I can’t refute the numbers one way or the other.
Certainly. Regulation with rigorous enforcement keep guns out of the hands of violent recidivists, habitual substance abusers, the criminally insane and the merely mentally incompetent, among others. Infringement keeps guns out of the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who wish merely to defend themselves or enjoy the shooting sports.
Reasonable people can come to reasonable compromise; but until the “BAN ALL GUNS” crowd chill their rhetoric and recognize the right of law abiding citizens to partake of the activities listed at the end of #2, no compromise will be reached.
Only if those cases had come before them on appeal, as one might be set to do. But the SC doesn’t have the power of Judicial Review of proposed or pending Legislation, so any gun control law enacted by Congress and signed into Law by the Pres. will have to first be exercised and then challenged, and make its way up through the system for the SC to rule yea or nay on its constitutionality.
No. Nor do I deny that thousands have been wrongfully prosecuted and imprisoned due to creative interpretations of these laws by ambitious Federal Agents looking to pad their records come promotion time.
Well, if they had the money, while sitting in prison, after all of their assets have been confiscated, to hire a lawyer to push the issue, but many have copped to “Conspiracy” charges after having been bled dry of financial resources by the bottomless treasury of the almighty U.S. Attorney General’s Office.
See #6. Then check out the status of U.S. v. Emerson.
The NRA isn’t a legal aid foundation (the Second Amendment Foundation, however, is. Attorney Gerry Spence defended Randy Weaver pro bono at the request of the S.A.F.). As I stated above, the ATF, FBI and the U.S. AG are aware of how thin many of their “gun charges” are, which is why many defendants are offered lesser “Conspiracy” charges with stiff fines and forfeiture of property and assets. Kinda hard to argue 2nd Amendment issues with no gun charges on your record.
Because the media comes together with the ACLU right behind them whenever it comes to anything other than the 2nd!! It’s called hypocrisy.
I’m not concerned about the world; it’s not covered by The Constitution of the United States. As to how other people feel about complete strangers owning guns, I dunno. Go ask them. I couldn’t care less about other law abiding citizens owning guns; I welcome it, and embrace them all as my fellow citizens.
Well, my Congressman and both of my Senators don’t seem too bothered by it, nor does my Governor. Considering that they are gun owners, I think they may feel similar to how I do: if you’re a law abiding citizen and mind your Ps & Qs, no problem.
No, one would suffice. “The sale, transfer, transportation or possession of firearms by private individuals is expressly forbidden.”
Yes, I do! Reread #s 5, 6 & 8.
No. If that were the case, the NRA would simply be what it was originally chartered to be: an organization to promote firearm safety, marksmanship and the shooting sports (which are still its primary functions!)
Because then the 3rd Amendment would have been about the right of the states to form militias. But they combined them both and called it the 2nd.
If the 1st can encompass 4 individual rights and an express prohibition against Congress, the 2nd can certainly include both the right of the individual states to form militias and the right of the people (who ARE “the militia”) to keep and bear arms.
The capitalized “State” in the 2nd has been uniformly interpreted to be a “term of art”, encompassing the entire government as a whole, both Federal and state levels inclusive. It wasn’t a specific reference to any particular body politic.
No. I think that there are millions of guns in this country because prior to the recent (1900s+) trend of Liberal political thought that has been trying since F.D.R. to reinterpret a Constitution in such a way as too let them do whatever they damned well please, Constitutionality be damned, there was little or no need for broad, sweeping Federal gun control laws!
Could it have been the fact that the individual right was so widely recognized, so clearly assumed by not only the people but also by the Law of the land that no further exposition was deemed necessary? And only the desire of power hungry liberal politicos to disarm the masses for easier control has led us into the Constitutional quagmire that we currently face?
And BTW, I’m not the lunatic fringe you are most likely going to acuse me of being (if not you, then someone else on this message board will certainly step up to the plate and take a swing at me!). Well, maybe where F.D.R. is concerned. But on the law and the history of the 2nd Amendment, I’m dead on with the vast majority of legal scholarship, past, present and hopefully future.
ExTank
“When in doubt, reload and shoot 'em again!”
Amazing that anyone gleaned any coherent meaning out of my ramblings last night; modesty compels me to say that I am largely in the company of people more literate and well-read than myself here on this message board, which makes the stinkers all the more evident for their contrast.
Sauruman: I get cranky when I miss my naps (a sure sign of encroaching senescence), so my post was probably more vitriolic than I truly intended or felt.
Other than the point Boris was trying to elicit and I pounded home, I was trying to indicate that just about every point that has been raised so far has been extensively covered in many previous gun-control threads.
Some of us are just getting tired of reiterating the same-old same-old every couple of weeks when someone new pops up with the same tired old drivel; if we get testy and snap at the newbies, then they damned well need to develop thicker skin if they wanna hang with this crowd.
You clearly indicated that you aren’t interested in what was said back when; you’re more grounded in the present.
But to answer your questions:
No. I don’t have exact numbers, but I can’t refute the numbers one way or the other.
Certainly. Regulation with rigorous enforcement keep guns out of the hands of violent recidivists, habitual substance abusers, the criminally insane and the merely mentally incompetent, among others. Infringement keeps guns out of the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who wish merely to defend themselves or enjoy the shooting sports.
Reasonable people can come to reasonable compromise; but until the “BAN ALL GUNS” crowd chill their rhetoric and recognize the right of law abiding citizens to partake of the activities listed at the end of #2, no compromise will be reached.
Only if those cases had come before them on appeal, as one might be set to do. But the SC doesn’t have the power of Judicial Review of proposed or pending Legislation, so any gun control law enacted by Congress and signed into Law by the Pres. will have to first be exercised and then challenged, and make its way up through the system for the SC to rule yea or nay on its constitutionality.
No. Nor do I deny that thousands have been wrongfully prosecuted and imprisoned due to creative interpretations of these laws by ambitious Federal Agents looking to pad their records come promotion time.
Well, if they had the money, while sitting in prison, after all of their assets have been confiscated, to hire a lawyer to push the issue, but many have copped to “Conspiracy” charges after having been bled dry of financial resources by the bottomless treasury of the almighty U.S. Attorney General’s Office.
See #6. Then check out the status of U.S. v. Emerson.
The NRA isn’t a legal aid foundation (the Second Amendment Foundation, however, is. Attorney Gerry Spence defended Randy Weaver pro bono at the request of the S.A.F.). As I stated above, the ATF, FBI and the U.S. AG are aware of how thin many of their “gun charges” are, which is why many defendants are offered lesser “Conspiracy” charges with stiff fines and forfeiture of property and assets. Kinda hard to argue 2nd Amendment issues with no gun charges on your record.
Because the media comes together with the ACLU right behind them whenever it comes to anything other than the 2nd!! It’s called hypocrisy.
I’m not concerned about the world; it’s not covered by The Constitution of the United States. As to how other people feel about complete strangers owning guns, I dunno. Go ask them. I couldn’t care less about other law abiding citizens owning guns; I welcome it, and embrace them all as my fellow citizens.
Well, my Congressman and both of my Senators don’t seem too bothered by it, nor does my Governor. Considering that they are gun owners, I think they may feel similar to how I do: if you’re a law abiding citizen and mind your Ps & Qs, no problem.
No, one would suffice. “The sale, transfer, transportation or possession of firearms by private individuals is expressly forbidden.”
Yes, I do! Reread #s 5, 6 & 8.
No. If that were the case, the NRA would simply be what it was originally chartered to be: an organization to promote firearm safety, marksmanship and the shooting sports (which are still its primary functions!)
Because then the 3rd Amendment would have been about the right of the states to form militias. But they combined them both and called it the 2nd.
If the 1st can encompass 4 individual rights and an express prohibition against Congress, the 2nd can certainly include both the right of the individual states to form militias and the right of the people (who ARE “the militia”) to keep and bear arms.
The capitalized “State” in the 2nd has been uniformly interpreted to be a “term of art”, encompassing the entire government as a whole, both Federal and state levels inclusive. It wasn’t a specific reference to any particular body politic.
No. I think that there are millions of guns in this country because prior to the recent (1900s+) trend of Liberal political thought that has been trying since F.D.R. to reinterpret a Constitution in such a way as too let them do whatever they damned well please, Constitutionality be damned, there was little or no need for broad, sweeping Federal gun control laws!
Could it have been the fact that the individual right was so widely recognized, so clearly assumed by not only the people but also by the Law of the land that no further exposition was deemed necessary? And only the desire of power hungry liberal politicos to disarm the masses for easier control has led us into the Constitutional quagmire that we currently face?
And BTW, I’m not the lunatic fringe you are most likely going to acuse me of being (if not you, then someone else on this message board will certainly step up to the plate and take a swing at me!). Well, maybe where F.D.R. is concerned. But on the law and the history of the 2nd Amendment, I’m dead on with the vast majority of legal scholarship, past, present and hopefully future.
ExTank
“When in doubt, reload and shoot 'em again!”
Amazing that anyone gleaned any coherent meaning out of my ramblings last night; modesty compels me to say that I am largely in the company of people more literate and well-read than myself here on this message board, which makes the stinkers all the more evident for their contrast.
Saruman: I get cranky when I miss my naps (a sure sign of encroaching senescence), so my post was probably more vitriolic than I truly intended or felt.
Other than the point Boris was trying to elicit and I pounded home, I was trying to indicate that just about every point that has been raised so far has been extensively covered in many previous gun-control threads.
Some of us are just getting tired of reiterating the same-old same-old every couple of weeks when someone new pops up with the same tired old drivel; if we get testy and snap at the newbies, then they damned well need to develop thicker skin if they wanna hang with this crowd.
You clearly indicated that you aren’t interested in what was said back when; you’re more grounded in the present.
But to answer your questions:
No. I don’t have exact numbers, but I can’t refute the numbers one way or the other.
Certainly. Regulation with rigorous enforcement keeps guns out of the hands of violent recidivists, habitual substance abusers, the criminally insane and the merely mentally incompetent, among others. Infringement keeps guns out of the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who wish merely to defend themselves or enjoy the shooting sports.
Reasonable people can come to reasonable compromise; but until the “BAN ALL GUNS” crowd chill their rhetoric and recognize the right of law abiding citizens to partake of the activities listed at the end of #2, no compromise will be reached. Who decides? The duly elected Representatives of the People, enacting their constituent’s express will.
Only if those cases had come before them on appeal, as one might be set to do. But the SC doesn’t have the power of Judicial Review of proposed or pending Legislation, so any gun control law enacted by Congress and signed into Law by the Pres. will have to first be exercised and then challenged, and make its way up through the system for the SC to rule yea or nay on its constitutionality.
No. Nor do I deny that thousands have been wrongfully prosecuted and imprisoned due to creative interpretations of these laws by ambitious Federal Agents looking to pad their records come promotion time.
Well, if they had the money, while sitting in prison, after all of their assets have been confiscated, to hire a lawyer to push the issue, but many have copped to “Conspiracy” charges after having been bled dry of financial resources by the bottomless treasury of the almighty U.S. Attorney General’s Office.
See #6. Then check out the status of U.S. v. Emerson.
The NRA isn’t a legal aid foundation (the Second Amendment Foundation, however, is. Attorney Gerry Spence defended Randy Weaver pro bono at the request of the S.A.F.). As I stated above, the ATF, FBI and the U.S. AG are aware of how thin many of their “gun charges” are, which is why many defendants are offered lesser “Conspiracy” charges with stiff fines and forfeiture of property and assets. Kinda hard to argue 2nd Amendment issues with no gun charges on your record.
Because the media comes together with the ACLU right behind them whenever it comes to anything other than the 2nd!! It’s called hypocrisy.
I’m not concerned about the world; it’s not covered by The Constitution of the United States. As to how other people feel about complete strangers owning guns, I dunno. Go ask them. I couldn’t care less about other law abiding citizens owning guns; I welcome it, and embrace them all as my fellow citizens.
Well, my Congressman and both of my Senators don’t seem too bothered by it, nor does my Governor. Considering that they are gun owners, I think they may feel similar to how I do: if you’re a law abiding citizen and mind your Ps & Qs, no problem.
No, one would suffice. “The sale, transfer, transportation or possession of firearms by private individuals is expressly forbidden.”
Yes, I do! Reread #s 5, 6 & 8.
No. If that were the case, the NRA would simply be what it was originally chartered to be: an organization to promote firearm safety, marksmanship and the shooting sports (which are still its primary functions!)
Because then the 3rd Amendment would have been about the right of the states to form militias. But they combined them both and called it the 2nd.
If the 1st can encompass 4 individual rights and an express prohibition against Congress, the 2nd can certainly include both the right of the individual states to form militias and the right of the people (who ARE “the militia”) to keep and bear arms.
The capitalized “State” in the 2nd has been uniformly interpreted to be a “term of art”, encompassing the entire government as a whole, both Federal and state levels inclusive. It wasn’t a specific reference to any particular body politic.
No. I think that there are millions of guns in this country because prior to the recent (1900s+) trend of Liberal political thought that has been trying since F.D.R. to reinterpret a Constitution in such a way as too let them do whatever they damned well please, Constitutionality be damned, there was little or no need for broad, sweeping Federal gun control laws!
Could it have been the fact that the individual right was so widely recognized, so clearly assumed by not only the people but also by the Law of the land that no further exposition was deemed necessary? And only the desire of power hungry liberal politicos to disarm the masses for easier control has led us into the Constitutional quagmire that we currently face?
And BTW, I’m not the lunatic fringe you are most likely going to acuse me of being (if not you, then someone else on this message board will certainly step up to the plate and take a swing at me!). Well, maybe where F.D.R. is concerned. But on the law and the history of the 2nd Amendment, I’m dead on with the vast majority of legal scholarship, past, present and hopefully future.
ExTank
“When in doubt, reload and shoot 'em again!”
Oh, Lordy, Extank (multiple posts aside), I DO have to applaud your balls in taking on that huge list of challenges. I don’t have the frame of mind at the moment to go back through it all and read, but I will, I swear!
But, before I go, I would like to point out to everyone (but primarily Saruman) the idea that, maybe, not all the Founding Fathers were of the same mindset? Maybe some liked Saruman’s idea of gun ownership, maybe some liked Extank’s idea, maybe some felt that we should all staple horseshoes to our eyelids. So when the notion of “original intent” is brought up, the notion of differing mindsets would be the most likely explanation for the obscure wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Thank you Extank, your post was very informative. I don’t think you’re a gun nut (read The Turner Diaries if you want to know my definition of a gun nut). We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not the FF intentionally opened the door to gun control by their choice of wording in the 2nd amendment. I think they feared the very patriots who used violence to put them in power. They feared that one day they could be thought of as tyrants so they paid lip service to gun ownership. They needed the citizens militias to maintain their tenuous grasp on power (in a democracy there is always opposition to the ruling party). They wrote an amendment that prevented the federal gov’t from disarming their supporters. Over the ensuing years the state gov’ts became larger and richer and hired a paid military force to protect them from revolt (i.e. the National Gaurd). The gov’t has no further use for citizens militias and never will again. The right to keep and bear arms is in great jeopardy. I intend to support my right to own a gun through my right to vote and to give financial support to politicians who pander to the pro-gun people. I’ve said all that I wanted to say about gun ownership and the 2nd amendment. I’m sorry if I pissed anyone off as that was not my intent.
Rex
Apologies for the multiple posts (hint, hint Mr. Moderator!)
I was trying around 6:00 PMish to post my reply, and when I hit “Submit Reply”, my computer basically froze up.
So I tried again. And again. And one last time before giving up in disgust and figured I’d come back later.
Oh well.
ExTank
“Ayuh. That got 'em.”
This caught my eye this evening, and I forgot to post it here earlier. It’s strictly op-ed, but I feel it quite accurately illustrates what I see as the perfidy of the gun control forces, and also the thin ice we’re skating out onto in the name of power. The gun grabbers will try to have their way, by hook or by crook. This will end very badly.
ExTank
Extank, that article is decidedly unnerving, not because of the fact that a lot of nutjobs dislike guns (that I find to be merely annoying and even laughable in certain situations), but the recent trend of scapegoating that’s going on in America, this instance being just one example.
It can be pointed out, however, that similar measures were taken to bring about the civil rights’ movement (boycotts, anyone?). But on the other hand, gun ownership and civil rights are two different issues… if the Constitution said “black people and white people aren’t equals”, you can bet your sweet patooty that a new amendment would have been added too nullify it.
My solution I like to offer to gun control advocates is this… get a new amendment in the constitution that counteracts the 2nd, and then you can take my guns as much as you want. Oh, yeah, good luck getting such an amendment passed.
Spoofe, your last paragraph coincides exactly with what Cecil said when the question was put to him in What does the “Right To Bear Arms” really mean?
I really wish the gun-banning crowd here on this meassage board would take the time to see what Cecil has to say about the issue, as his answer is clear, concise and very moderate.
He seems to have no strong personal feelings about gun ownership, giving him a nice intellectual detachment to address the question a lot more rationally than myself, even if I can find no fault with what he says.
ExTank
“I mean, c’mon, folks! Cecil said so!”
SarumanRex wrote:
Yes, I deny that.
Because long before the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the fact that the entire Bill of Rights limits only Federal lawmaking power, not State and Local lawmaking power. It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment that the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments were “extended” to protect individual rights at the State level. And it’s questionable whether, even without the Militia Clause, the Supreme Court would have ruled that the 14th Amendment extended 2nd Amendment lawmaking restrictions to the State level.
From guncite.com