The Miller ruling, as flawed as it was, did establish that what is most protected is the right to keep and bear weapons that are suitable for militia use. The most obvious, common sense reading of this would mean this to include whatever weapon is standard issue to a common soldier.
The AR-15 is under attack, because it bears a similarity to the M-16, which is the current standard weapon that we issue to our common soldiers. The M-16 is not a fraudulently-defined “assault weapon” like the AR-15 is; it is a true assault rifle, capable of both semiautomatic operation, and, depending on the variant, either three-shot burst, or fully-automatic operation. This is the weapon that, according to any rational reading of the Miller and Heller decisions, we, the common people, are most entitled to be able to keep and bear.
Ironically, the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was upheld in the Miller ruling, in connection with later legislation, makes it nearly impossible for a common citizen to “legally” acquire or possess an M-16.
That’s what the Amendment process is for. If there’s something that our society determines is wrong with the Constitution as it currently stands, we have this process by which to correct and update it.
Otherwise, yes, the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the other extant amendments, are absolute and “set in stone”.
It is valid to use the Amendment process to change the Constitution, as deemed necessary. It is never legitimate to simply disregard any part of the Constitution, because we don’t agree with it.
If the gun control movement had any vestige of honor or legitimacy, then they would seek to put their desired policies in place by amending the Constitution; and not by trying otherwise to get legislation passed that overtly violates it.
I’m reasonably sure that was the training arm of the NRA’s attitude at the time, too. And the US Military’s. Guns are dangerous objects that can kill if you are not careful. Just to be sure, check out the NRA’s official Gun Safety Rules. Nope, not a word there I can argue with, though they avoid this brand new “controversy” by using neither “weapon” nor “firearm,” just “gun.” Another word with multiple, confusing meanings. Despite Gunny Hartman’s attempted clarification, I assume “gun” means “cannon.” :rolleyes:
It seems to have come out of nowhere and has an awful lot of people suddenly espousing it. Is it a recently-published NRA talking point?
First, are you under the impression that we haven’t already broken the Second Amendment’s cherry? Try using your FOID card to buy a functional Stinger anti-aircraft missile launcher or a Boys 20mm anti-tank rifle with ammunition. Plenty of regulation exists, and there’s plenty more to come.
Second, there would be no need for amendment if the first half of it weren’t so generally ignored. A “well regulated militia” is not a rabble that meets down at the range to drink, shoot, and complain about Obama, Biden, or who? Nancy Pelosi? The single most-ignored, by both sides, woman in the country? No, the “gun nut” crowd, of whom I know plenty, is no more a well-regulated militia than the Crips or Bloods.
The first half of the amendment is ignored because it is a prefatory statement. “A purple shirt, being necessary to the esthetic taste of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is just as valid. The Supreme Court thought so and ruled as such. The “militia” argument is dead and will never come back no matter how hard you guys push it.
Then why if, as Bob Blaylock puts it, the anti-gun control movement had any vestige of honor or legitimacy, don’t they push to have this irrelevancy purged from the Constitution?
And really, your “purple shirt” argument is embarrassingly lame. The Framers did not include that as some fluff that could be ignored. When they said “militia” they meant a “militia,” and if some members of the Supreme Court managed to mangle it to suit their desire that it mean something else, well, it wouldn’t be the first time they got overturned by a later court.
Because his argument is ridiculous and I acknowledged it as such.
No, it’s not ridiculous. A descriptive justification of the right does not negate, circumscribe, or otherwise abridge the right. Great, the Founding Fathers thought the militia was important. That it may no longer be so doesn’t negate the right actually enshrined in the amendment.
As for the possibility of overturning Heller/McDonald, it will never happen. A right Incorporated to the states has never, ever, not once, been overturned. It’s a done deal. The funny thing is that all those decisions do is guarantee that the people of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t preclude any of the various forms of gun control short of complete or de facto bans. To completely eliminate that right you would have to repeal the amendment (which will never happen), but anything else is OK subject to judicial review (which will certainly come when any law is passed and challenged).
Pooling our resources to get better services than if we fended for ourselves is just the opposite of abdicating responsibility. We’re being more responsible both for ourselves and everyone else. “Abdicating responsibility” is just plain false.
Nope. It’s a strawman. It assumes I have a need for personal security and defense even when I don’t. Salesman ask things like that to open their spiel. If someone asked me that question IRL, I’d want to know what product he was selling and what agenda he was pushing. So what are you selling?
I was expecting more from you. I showed how a gun can be unequalled by having a bigger gun or more of them. If that’s not right, I’m listening.
From ChickenLegs in this thread…
And from Kable in the Gun Grabbers thread in the Pit…
That’s from three pages in two threads in ten minutes of searching.
I’ve been through this before, but I’ll go once again. Safety is compromised more when anyone has a gun around them. The more guns, the more chance for accidents, misunderstandings, mental blow-ups, road rage shootings, you name it. Add a swaggering, sneering attitude a la George Zimmerman and the odds get bigger.
But you don’t have to ask me. Nine out of ten countries agree: Carrying guns in public shouldn’t be allowed. (It’s probably more like 39 out of 40, but I’m not gonna count.)
You realize that beyond a point a bigger gun is harder to carry, and harder to shoot, and people pretty much always shoot better when they shoot one gun at a time.
Here’s a nice visual for you:
Would you be so kind as to tell us what’s happened to the homicide rate in this country as the map turned blue?
I think he’s only trying to sell you on the idea that he should be able to assess his own risk level and act accordingly, without having someone like you tell him how he should live.
In the complete absence of guns, how safe am I if a 6’2" 260 lb man decides to play “The Knockout Game” with me? Or if four youths surround me and tell me to hand over my wallet and cell phone? Guns don’t just make a big person and a small person equal, they mean that four people are no longer invulnerable against and omnipotent over one person- even if everyone in the scenario is armed.
Despite the outcry over “too many guns”, the fact is that most of those guns stay at home or locked away. The only people who routinely carry are police and security guards, career criminals, and probably less than 2% of the general population who choose to carry regularly. We’ve never actually tried a truly armed society, in which the majority of people in public could be expected to be carrying. Considering the anti’s insistence that “shall issue” would turn every fender bender into a shootout, I for one would have no qualms whatsoever about giving such an experiment a try.
I could counter each of those scenarios with examples where guns are a bad idea, so I don’t think we’ll get anywhere by going down that road. But I’m curious to know if crime is so bad in your area that you have to resort to deadly weapons to defend yourself.
If so few carry in public, there doesn’t appear to be a need to, so why would anyone?
In sixty years, I’ve been involved in one physical altercation (in my late teens, big surprise). I have as much fear of being attacked as I have of being hit by a meteorite. You have considerably more fear in you, apparently. Is that how you want to live?
No one’s telling anyone how to live so get off your whiny high horse. A debate on the Internet isn’t a session in Congress.
So in 60 hears you haven’t needed one. By that do you conclude you’ll never need one, or just that you probably won’t.
Who says I have more fear? I’ve used my gun once to save my life, and I have to say it came in real handy then. I liked guns before, I like them more now. I enjoy shooting them and generally enjoy having them around. Kind of like some enjoy sports cars and like I enjoy my Harley Davidson or my Les Paul guitar. So yes, having guns around is how I want to live.
OK, but I thought you were of the opinion that those of us who like guns should not be able to own the ones we want and certainly not be able to carry them on our person. If that’s true then you really do wish to tell us how to live.
Those who wish to arm themselves for self/homedefense can point to stats on robberies, burglaries, assaults, rapes, etc, and not without some justification.
Those who wish to disarm people for their’s and society’s safety point to gun crime stats, which are, ironically, the lowest they’ve been in nearly half a century.
Who’s the ones being paranoid? “Gun nuts?” I don’t think so.
Advocating that other people lay down their arms is technically called ‘demanding surrender’, which is generally only done during a war.
[sub]Unless you mean to imply that ‘winning the war’ is a ‘peace movement’. :eek:[/sub]
If anyone made that joke previously, I apologize. It was my first thought on reading the first 2 posts. That said, I believe I shall pass on this thread, given that it’s 11 days and 8 pages long. The above joke on the 2[sup]nd[/sup] post begged to be made, however, and I couldn’t resist. Shoot me for it.
In 52 years I have been fortunate enough to never be in a situation where I needed a gun. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen tomorrow. I live in a “good” neighborhood close to the border of a “bad” neighborhood, and according to the weekly police reports robberies and assaults happen regularly within five blocks of my house- occasionally closer. This is the violent crime map: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@mpd/documents/webcontent/wcms1p-114669.pdf
(I live on the left edge of the map near the middle; a quiet week actually).
