More horseshit! You plainly stated that the National Guard is today’s militia when attempting to counter my assertion that the militia was dependent on the people having arms, as the Second Amendment does indicate. There was no taking it out of context, you’re just still struggling to save face.
Here’s were those opposed to the right of the people to keep and bear arms become childish in their arguments.
“Well, if you can have a gun, then I can have a bomb.” “nyaa - nyaa.”
The line has already been drawn. (Now, pay real close attention, Blow, it’s really not all that hard to comprehend.) In America, we have “freedom of speech”, but, as they say, you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. Well, that’s not exactly right. You can yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, there just has to be a fire. See, it’s not the “speech” that is prohibited, it is the act of endangerment that is prohibited.
While American’s have the right to keep and bear arms, they don’t have a right to endanger an innocent person by aiming a gun at them. But, like it is permissible to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater as long as there is a fire, it is permissible to aim a gun at one who is posing a danger to you or another innocent.
As for Bombs, they are regulated because of the inherent danger they pose to innocents.
We’re getting far afield of the point here. O.K., you’re a “shoot first, ask questions later” kind of guy; fine -that wasn’t my point at all. I absolutely didn’t intend “threatening and murder” as a complete list of everything you can do with a gun, and I’m sorry I let myself get drawn into that sidetrack.
So let’s get back to the point, shall we? The point was that nobody is using their guns to fight oppression. Several in this thread have argued that they need a gun just in case they ever have to fight oppression. Yet they cite other things they would use the gun for. I say the “fighting oppression” part is just an excuse used in order to make a false case for 2nd Amendment protection. Have you actually used your gun to repel an armed invasion of your state by either the federal government or a foreign power? No, I didn’t think so.
Wow, somebody’s sure got his hackles up. Please don’t hurt me. IMO, anyone who declares that he does not wish to rely on the police is by definition taking the law into his own hands. I’m not requiring anyone to stand anywhere and get beaten, robbed, stabbed, or murdered. It’s already been shown earlier in this thread that the cases of such things actually being thwarted because the victim had a gun are very rare.
I need to back-up for a moment to allow me to clear something up.
Technically you’re right, (Gosh, I hate to admit that.) but you’re not as right as you think you are. See, both factions believed in the principle of the Bill of Rights and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The Federalists’ point-of-view was that a bill of rights was not necessary. According to the Federalists, if a power wasn’t enumerated in the Constitution, then the FedGov could not assume that power.
The Anti-Federalists, on the otherhand, were wary of a government’s tendency to usurp powers not specifically denied it, and insisted on the addition of the Bill of Rights.
The Anti-Federalists, as it turned out, were correct in their mistrust of those who have the audacity to annoint themselves as the elite who know what’s best for society.
Actually, what you are saying makes no sense. And I only have to say it once.
You say “within the law”. So this argument is dependent on whether owning a gun is within the law. If your state currently has a law preventing you from owning a gun, then using a gun is not within the law.
What you seem to be suggesting is that rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are guaranteed by any means necessary, at the discretion of the individual, even if the means used violates a law. So can I legally rape any woman I want under the guise of “pursuit of happiness”? Can I murder a police officer under “liberty”? Can I steal someone else’s kidneys if I need them to live? It’s just a silly argument; you have rights, but don’t have unlimited discretion to pursue any and all means to that end.
Razor, I’m done with you. You’re just repeating the same things over and over even after I’ve refuted them. I’m not interested in debating with someone who just talks past me.
Machetero, the Democrats’ stance is only ironic IF you believe guns are a “liberty”. But most Democrats don’t believe that.
Don’t quote me out of context. I thought that was pretty clear.
I think the National Guard is perfectly capable of handling that. They really don’t need folks to bone up on guns at home before they join up.
I have done nothing of the kind. My position is that such decisions are left up to each state legislature. I don’t particularly like it, but that’s how our Constitution reads. If I had my druthers, I’d choose a world where guns don’t exist. Obviously, that’s not how things are.
It’s interesting how you guys keep trying to portray this as the people vs. the Feds, yet the NRA spends most of its time lobbying against state gun-control laws, and the O.P. (remember him?) was talking about a state law. The only details about federal laws given in this thread that I can remember is Razor’s continued harping on this Lautenberg Amendment, which he says isn’t even a 2nd Amendment issue anyway, but rather an “ex post facto” issue. (By the way, I seriously doubt his interpretation is correct.)
Wow, you really missed the point here. I don’t believe that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual’s right to personal self-defense. I am of the opinion that it refers to Colonial militias of a type that don’t exist anymore. It does NOT refer to personal self-defense. IMO, the NRA is wrong, and are are misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment. I absolutely agree with you that they attach a lot of importance to it. I understand why they are doing so, and I think they are wrong in doing so.
I think the corollary to that would be if, let’s say Nebraska decided to form a state militia, and the U.S. Army confiscated the weapons possessed by the Nebraska state militia. THEN, the Second Amendment would have some bearing on the issue.
No, the principle of a well-regulated militia is NOT the same as people having a gun under their pillow or hidden in their glove compartment. Not the same at all.
You used “I think” as an argument for your position. That’s not sufficient. You can’t turn it around and claim I have to prove you wrong.
The words “well-regulated” makes it clear that we’re not just talking about a bunch of dudes who happen to have guns. And I already provided cites to show that the original colonies did not all allow anyone to have a gun. Show me a cite that proves EVERY citizen was allowed to own a gun in ALL of the colonies, and that none of the state militias had any kind of organization whatsoever, and then we can talk.
You’re the one who’s trying to make the point, why don’t you tell me? The only point I made was that in today’s militia, one is not required to bring one’s own gun. Why is everyone trying to make more of it than that?
Ding, ding, ding! Exactly! Each state makes its own laws regarding gun control. So why does the NRA keep trying to fuck with that? Why do gun advocates keep saying that states should be barred from passing laws?
Sorry, the quote of mine you included and responded to with “stop it” included to actions of mine. I was simply confused about which one you objected to. I am trying not to take your statements out of context.
Yes, possibly. But the point is that the militia as envisioned by the founding fathers was not simply the state run army. Just because the National Guard does not ask recruits to bring their own guns does not mean that the ammendment (the first clause that is) cannot be applied to the people just as (or at least in a similar way) the second clause is.
Well I understand the confusion. I am not talking about federal anti gun legislation. I am talking about state gun legislation. And I think that the Second Ammendment does apply. At least to some extent.
Sorry if I did. I though you said you did not understand the importance attached to the Second Ammendment. If I missed a modifying clause in your post I appologize.
Certainly that is arguable. But it does seem to support a right to keep and bear arms in some context.
Well, this gets closer to my question. Are you saying that the militai as envisioned by the founding fathers “do not exist” or that they are not used? I’m not sure Ive seen good evidence that the state militia were considered solely state organizations. Did I miss it?
No, not exactly the same. But quite similar.
No, not at all. I am not trying to prove you wrong. I am simply stating my understanding of the issue with an eye to querying you on your understanding. I was not using I think as an argument, simply as context for my question. I am not asking you to disprove any assertion of mine. I am quite happy acknowledging my assertion as opinion. I am merely asking that you help me cure my ignorance. IF ignorance it is.
Well, only if you use the modern usage of regulated. In context, the phrase means something closer to well trained. However, the founding fathers knew that they could not require military service of all able bodied citizens. Therefore, they simply asked that the government not disarm them. That is, ideally, they wished for the United States to have a well equiped well “regulated” defence force AND to avoid the expense and dangers of a standing army. The comprimise was to acknowledge the rights of citizens to “keep and bear arms”.
Well, posing question is such absolute language is fun, but hardly adds to the descussion. I am not claiming that the constitution grants “EVERY” citizen a right to own a gun. Neither am I suggesting that “NO” state can organize its militia in “any kind of orgaization whatsoever”. I am merely asking why you think that the second ammendment “only” applies to state run organizations. Or, short of that, what exactly you think milita means in the ammendment’s context.
[QUOTE]
You’re the one who’s trying to make the point,
[QUOTE]
Well, no, I’m not sure that is the case. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me that the collective rights position relies on the idea that the “militia” spoken of in the ammendment is exclusively a state run organization. That is it does not consist of every able bodied citizen. Otherwise, it seems that the individual rights advocates have a point. All I am trying to get at is if you have some good cites indicating that this interpretation of “militia” is correct.
Well, this is not the only point you were trying to make vis a vis the militia in the Second Ammendment. Surely you were trying to draw the conclusion that no individual right to keep and bear arms exists. Or am I wrong about that?
No gun advocate has every advocated that. Not one. (How’s that for absolute language :))
The point is that every state has rights to limit gun ownership and use in some ways. However, it seems (from a simple reading of the 2nd) that they do not have the right to eliminate gun ownership. Why is it that anti gun advocates refuse to see current gun laws as laws and insist that anything short of outright bans are equivilant to wild west anarchy?
<OK, don’t get in a huff. That last question was meant tounge in cheek>
Well, you would have to quote where he made such a claim. If I ma not mistaken, he simply said that the second ammendment does not gurantee a right to self defence with guns. It seems a very reasonable argument to me. I may not agree with the conclusion that therefore the second ammendment does not guarantee a right to keep arms, but I can see how you could argue the the second ammendment does not, itself, guarantee a right to self defence with guns.
Amusing how your counter argument are all examples that would be outside of the law, which was exactly what I said would and should not be the case. At not point did I ever say you had unlimited discretion.
So, to make this clear, you have no problem with somebody be granted a right to which they have no expectation of being able to maintain or use within the law?
I.e. in this case the right to life, but they have no expectation of being able to maintain that life within the law. In particular, when their life is going to be unlawfully denied from them that they have no right to defend their life within the law.
Do me a favor and read it again, because you are really missing the point. The examples I gave are illegal BECAUSE THAT’S MY POINT. The “right to life” is not equivalent to the “right to own a gun”. They may be equivalent in your mind, but I assure you that’s the only place. A right given in the Declaration of Independence doesn’t mean you automatically get to do something illegal in supposed furtherance of that right. So if it’s illegal for you to have a gun, you can’t simply claim your “right to life” as justification for disobeying the law. And if you claim that the law is improper because of your right to life, then that’s circular reasoning. That’s like saying “I can rape because I’m pursuing happiness, and my actions are legal because you can’t pass a law against rape if it infringes on my right to right to pursue happiness.” I really don’t think this could be any more clear, so I hope you get it now.
I don’t remember saying that.
So you think a gun is the only way to defend the right to life? That’s absurd. That’s most likely in the Declaration of Independence in reference to the government taking your life. IOW, the government ought not to have the power to arbitrarily execute people. Some examples of countries that infringed on this right: Nazi Germany; Stalinist Russia; Iraq; North Korea; Afghanistan; etc. (betcha there’s a lot of guns in those countries, too.) I seriously doubt that “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was intended to explicitly sanction gun-ownership.
May I ask a question? You folks seem to be very familiar with the laws regarding guns.
Though your interpretation seems to fall on two sides of the fence.
Did Chicago pass a law that required registration of handguns? Was this retro-active, or was that only for newly purchased guns?
And did Chicago then stop/refuse to issue new registrations? Making handguns illegal to buy because they could not be registered?
I think California did something similar with ‘Assault Weapons/Rifles’ didn’t they?
Is this true? If it is, I think it goes way beyond the slippery slope argument and would call it darn right sneaky. And simply a way to get around the 2nd amendment. Guns are legal as long as they are registered. Registration is no longer available.
I think that’s a real sticking point with gun owners. If I was asked to register my guns, I would have to think long and hard about it.
I said you are trying to portray this as the people vs. the Feds, which is what you did when you said:
So don’t try to squirm out of it. That is, unless you think all the states are “inside washington”. I think Washington would be pretty darn crowded if that were the case. You provided no examples of how “washington” is acting to bring about this agenda, and now you’re trying to pretend you never said it. You guys are all starting to disgust me with your cheesy debating tactics.
Well take it up with Razor then; it was his point.
Obviously. And that context would be a “well-regulated militia”.
Here’s what I’m saying: You guys made the point that in Colonial times, soldiers may have had to provide their own guns when they participated in their various state militias. I don’t know if you proved it, but it sounds reasonable to me, I think it’s a good point, and I’m assuming you’re right about that. HOWEVER, it is not the case NOW, that soldiers need to provide their own guns. You can’t say, “I need a gun because I’m in the militia”; thus you can’t invoke the 2nd Amendment.
Not sure what your point is. If you care to explain it clearly and provide evidence to back it up, I’ll consider it.
No, not even similar.
Uh, yeah - it wasn’t the only point I was trying to make ever in my life - duh. Do me a favor and please quit arguing just for argument’s sake. Follow the train of thought and stop quoting one sentence of mine and saying, “Gosh, how can I zing him on this?” If you want to discuss the topic, fine, but let’s not play little weasely “trap the other guy” games, o.k.?
I don’t feel like we’re on the same page at all here. Every gun advocate here is saying that they ought to have a Constitutional right to have a gun, and that states shouldn’t be able to infringe on that right. I have no idea what your point is here. I’m guessing you’re playing some sort of semantic game like saying you don’t want to bar states from passing gun-control laws, but rather using some word besides “bar”. So whatever you wish to call it, would you not agree that the gun advocates in this thread don’t want their states to pass gun-control laws? And that you believe you have a constitutional right that supersedes the power of states to regulate guns? Because if you don’t believe that, then that puts us in agreement, and this debate is over.
So it is my opinion that your 2nd Amendment rights do not supersede the state’s power to enact gun regulations. Do you agree or disagree?
First of all, in this context, states have powers, not rights. Again I ask, where do you draw the line? Can felons be denied guns? Can the mentally-challenged be denied guns? If so, who decides the exact I.Q. figure under which the gun is denied? Can a state ban all guns except B.B. guns? Allow only rifles and no handguns? Or how about this - pass a law that says only policemen can own guns; that doesn’t eliminate gun ownership. Once you give states the power to regulate guns, who gets to decide how much they can regulate them? Are you O.K. with states having the power to regulate guns in any way the legislature sees fit? I don’t think you speak for all gun advocates.
Uhh… you might just reading a little more clearly and make less assumptions, blowero. I never ever said or implied to the right to life equals to the right to a gun. I didn’t even say that the right to life equates to the right to defend yourself with a gun. What I said was that the right to life includes with it, by pure common sense or by law here in Canada, the right to self defense. If you agree, then fine, point resolved, if not the please explain why not.
Ok, blowero, I think I have offended you somehow. I am not trying to trick you or trap you or use any weird debating tactics to twist your words. I did not imply that your point about the militia was your only point at all. Simply that it was more expansive than merely a sugestion that we no longer need to take guns to National Guard service. Let me make a couple points and then you can have the last word in this thread. Its probably gone on long enough.
My point regarding the nature of the militia. Many gun rights activists claim that the militia is “every able bodied man…”. And that therefore the ammendment can be viewed as applying to the people in the first clause and the second. Specifically, this argument suggests that the first clause and second are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it seems to me, that holding one clause to completely erradicate the other is somewhat silly. To be clear, however, I think that both sides of this debate are guilty of this error to some extent. Clearly the founding father did not mean National Guard when they wrote the ammendment. However, neither did they mean “the people” when they wrote “militia”. My point is that there is some definition of milita which is compatible both the idea of a State run defence force and the idea of an individual right.
Well, to be fair, I did not make that point. Also, I’m not sure the Second Ammendment can be interpreted that way. It does not say that every member of the militia shall have a gun, it simply says that their right to a gun shall not be infringed. Also, as I suggested above, the militia is not the National Guard. The National Guard has not replaced in entirety the militia. So, I think we can say “I am in the militia, so I should have a right to own a gun.”
I’m sorry if I missed this question earlier. The line seems pretty simple in most cases. Convicted criminals above a certain class (felons certainly, but perhaps some violent misdemeanors should apply as well) should not be able to buy or posses guns legally. Certain types of weapons should not be ownable by anyone. What exactly these crimes are, how to check on a prospective gun buyer, and for which weapons they apply, is a good issue for legislative debate. Whether or not law abiding citizens should be able to own firearms at all, however, is not.
Certainly. But what exactly is a well regulated militia? In an earlier post I thought you agreed that the National Guard is not an exact replacement for the militia in the context of the Second Ammendment. If so, what is a well regulated militia? Does it not consist of every able bodied male, and some females as indicated in federal law? Or at least the ones with no criminal records? I’m really not trying to trap you or trick you. If you have a good argument why the National Guard is the only context whithin which a person can participate in a “well regulated militia” then can you point to it? The only ones I’ve seen simply assert that the “well regulated militia” is the National Guard. It seems like there needs to be more to back up that assertion. As someone who seems to agree with it, I thought you might have more information than me in that regards.
5)Lastly a minor point:
I’m not trying to squirm out of anything. I did in fact say “washington forces” when I should have said something more expansive like gun control advocates, gun grabbers, or perhaps simply forces in government. I am certainly guilty of overly flowery language. And I appologize if it lead to any confusion. But I sincerly did not mean to suggest that the OP was refering to federal legislation or that federal legislation was the only, or even the most important issue in the gun control debate.
What did I say that was “more expansive” than that? And I’d like to know what I said, not what people inferred.
In fact, I would be loathe to make any kind of comparison between Colonial militias and the National Guard, because I’m fairly ignorant as to how it is organized. Isn’t the National Guard a federal entity? I’m really not sure, to tell you the truth. If it’s federal, then obviously we can’t compare it to the concept of a state-run militia that vies for power against the federal government.
And I think you make a good point. I said early on in this thread that I realize there is controversy surrounding the Second Amendment. Surely you agree that the case could be argued either way?
I agree, and IMO that’s what many gun proponents are doing. They take the second clause and divest it completely from the first clause, then say, “Look - it says this…” That’s just silly. As for me, I don’t think either clause eradicates the other. They are quite simply to be read as a sentence, just as they were written. The first clause doesn’t eradicate the second clause, it includes it. They are part of the same thought.
I disagree. Only some gun advocates are guilty of that error.
Not unless they had a time machine.
Allright - I heartily agree.
I disagree; not in this day and age. I just don’t see being in a militia as being the same thing as having a gun under your pillow.
And I never said it did.
Again, it says “a well regulated militia being necessary…” their right to a gun shall not be infringed. Not the same thing at all.
I don’t see how you can draw that conclusion from the premises you presented.
That’s a good argument.
Talk about putting words in my mouth.:rolleyes: I guess my evil twin must have used the words “rabidly anarchistic”
I appreciate the specific link (I wish more people here would extend that simple courtesy, rather than linking to entire websites or 15-page essays or the like). But I don’t think your link is making the case that you intended. I see three items:
1.) Vote Draws Near On Bill (S. 659/S. 1806) To Stop
Frivolous Lawsuits Against Firearms Industry - NRA is supporting a bill to disallow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
2.) Get The Truth About The Clinton Gun Ban - NRA opposes continuation of gun-control measures. In fact, if you follow the link on this one, the NRA is defending semi-automatic assault weapons.:eek:
3.) Betrayal In Wisconsin: Fight To Override Veto Fails By One Vote - same complaint as OP in this thread; NRA criticizes governor for vetoing law allowing CCW, and criticizes legislature for not overriding.
I said the NRA consistently opposes all gun regulations, and these examples support my point. However, if it makes you happy, I will revise my statement, and say that the NRA consistently opposes almost all gun regulations. I imagine people could dig up some token examples where the NRA supported a gun-control measure (maybe in order to preempt a tougher measure, or for P.R. purposes). It doesn’t change the fact that they are against any kind of gun control.
Yes, but already you’re proclaiming that certain classes of people should not be allowed to own guns. If you say that, then aren’t you really saying that we don’t have an absolute Constitutional right to own a gun? Aren’t you really saying that it’s up to each state’s own discretion?
Not sure what you mean by “as indicated in federal law”. If you’re saying “militia” is equivalent to “people”, I’ll have to disagree with you on that. It’s my understanding that the original order of the clauses in the 2nd Amendment were reversed, in order to put more emphasis on “militia”, and less on “people”. If the two words are equivalent, what would be the point of that?
You’re turning things around here. I don’t believe that simply by owning a gun, I am in a “militia”. If I own a basketball, it doesn’t automatically mean I’m on a basketball team. If you contend otherwise, then I will have to disagree with you. I’ve already said this numerous times; I’m not aware of any organizations currently in existence that are equivalent to the kind of “militia” referred to in the 2nd Amendment. In fact, there’s considerable debate even as to the nature of these Colonial militias. You seem to be suggesting that since such militias don’t exist now, we can then just substitute some other meaning for “militia” as we see fit. I disagree with that notion.
Yeah, I’ve heard that argument, but I don’t know if I buy that. Can someone help out with my question as to whether the National Guard is a federal organization? If it is, then I would agree with you that that argument doesn’t hold water. Maybe a better way to put it would be: “We don’t have militias anymore; the closest thing we have to a militia is the National Guard, but it’s not the same thing.”
No, as I said, I don’t necessarily agree with the assertion that the National Guard is the equivalent of Colonial militias. I keep telling you that, and you keep pretending otherwise, and I’m not sure why. Maybe I’m not understanding your point.
Look at it this way: Imagine that Dodo birds were around when the Constitution was written (I know, they weren’t, but just pretend), and there is a clause saying you have a right to eat Dodo bird soup. Now fast forward to the 21st Century - Dodo birds are extinct. If Dodo birds were around, you would still have the right to make Dodo soup; but they’re not around. Well tough titty - you can’t just say, “I’m gonna make Bald Eagle soup because there’s no Dodos and I have a Constitutional right.”
O.K., sorry. I think I get your drift. You’re suggesting a certain climate of gun-control advocacy, but not necessarily talking about federal laws, right?
You’re right. That was the wrong link. Serves me right for posting it without checking it. This is a link to an small paragraph about a gun law which is supported by the NRA but being blocked (at the time) in the Senate. The source article seems to be unavailable. But it does give a small indication that the NRA supports better background checks for gun purchases. I have always understood that the NRA is in favor of instant background checks. They are usually wary of certain background check systems because they are open for abuse. But they are generally in favor of more enforcement of the current gun laws (at least in regards to criminal purchasing and use of guns) rather than new types of gun laws.
I appologize for the erroneous link.
Since I have alrady broken my promise to give you the last word, could you answer this question? Why do you think that the militia as concieved by the colonials (that is every able bodied man) no longer exists. I understand why you believe it is no longer used the way it was then. I agree. We no longer depend on the militia for most of our defence. We no longer depend on it for most of our law enforcement. However, this alone does not seem to me to be proof that it does not exist, nor that it has no legitimate role anymore.
Are you saying that basically a militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state?
I’ll respond to the other stuff if you’d like, but this seems to be the central issue regarding the Second Ammendment.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I don’t believe that militia = every able bodied man. I explained why in great detail. You have created a straw man argument.
I don’t follow you. What organization that exists today are you claiming is equivalent to colonial militias?
No, I don’t believe I said that. I have said that owning a gun for personal self-defense is not equivalent to participating in a state militia to defend against tyranny or foreign invasion. Like I said, owning a basketball does not mean you are on a basketball team. Your strawman has nothing to do with my point.
Don’t know about your link; it’s a little short on details. My understanding of the issue is that the NRA adamantly favors destroying records of background checks after a very short period, which could lead to felons inadvertently getting guns and not being caught.
I don’t think so. They favor destroying the records of non felons who buy guns. But I’ve always heard that they favor prosecuting felons who try to buy guns. You remember the press about the “success” of the Brady bill right? As I remember, for some time after it went into effect, there was a lot of talk about the thousands of felons who were denied guns. But there was little talk (except in NRA friendly places) about the paultry number of those felons who were prosecuted for attempting to buy guns.
As I understand it (I’m sorry I could not find a good site on this, I searched thier web site, and could only find other types of things) but the NRA is quite in favor of denying guns to criminals, and possibly tghe mentally ill. However, they are also concerned about records of such checks being used to round up guns. So, they favor instant background checks with a national database, where the record of the check would be deleted if the person in question was not denied the weapon.
IMO, anyone who declares that he does not wish to rely on the police is by definition taking the law into his own hands. I’m not requiring anyone to stand anywhere and get beaten, robbed, stabbed, or murdered. It’s already been shown earlier in this thread that the cases of such things actually being thwarted because the victim had a gun are very rare.