OT: Returning to sanity?

[Yao Sing]

2nd Amendment reality (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/)

I suspect there are more in agreement than against but let's hear some opinions from both sides.

[rogue]

It's very simple here, you can carry an unconcealed gun without a license. Of course carrying in plain site makes Mr. Policeman jumpy and he may stop you to say howdy and ask why you have a gun on you.

To carry it concealed you need to take a class, have your prints run by the FBI and get a concealed handgun license. You can not carry a weapon into a public school, place where alcohol is being served or onto federal property.

[Black Jack II]

This was a sweet deal. The media as stated in a previous thread will be all over it to showcase any situation in a bad light but this was a good day for pro-self defense and pro Constitutional Americans.

[Merryprankster]

The media as stated in a previous thread will be all over it to showcase any situation in a bad light

Whatever:rolleyes:

this was a good day for pro-self defense and pro Constitutional Americans.

Pro consitutional American right here - definitely a victory. The DC gun law clearly violated the 2nd amendment and was unconstitutional on its face. What a STUPID argument that DC brought. No nuance and clearly wrong.

However, for the unbridled 2nd amendment crowd, I'd like to remind them of the FULL 2nd amendment, which the NRA seems to conveniently edit out everytime they invoke it.

"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's not just the back half of the Amendment...it's the WHOLE THING. Regulation is certainly within the spirit and authority of the Amendment. Notice also that the right that shall not be infringed is the right of the people to keep and bear arms....not the right of the people to chose any arms they feel like owning, or the right of the people to be free from registration, or free from ownership tracking, etc.

It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court even decides to hear this case. I doubt they will grant cert. If they do grant cert, expect them to sidestep the central issues.

[Royal Dragon]

not the right of the people to chose any arms they feel like owning, or the right of the people to be free from registration, or free from ownership tracking, etc.

Reply]
Restricting my ability to own a gun in anyway, size or shape is infringement.

[Yao Sing]

However, for the unbridled 2nd amendment crowd, I'd like to remind them of the FULL 2nd amendment, which the NRA seems to conveniently edit out everytime they invoke it.

"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's not just the back half of the Amendment...it's the WHOLE THING.

Nobody is forgetting the first part. It's just that some don't really understand the meaning.

See, here's the good part about the ruling:
"The majority held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent” on enrollment in a militia."

"But the court essentially said the right to bear arms is an individual right for private activities, including self-defense."

That ruling is correct. The right to bear arms idoes not depend on the militia, the militia depends on the right to bear arms. Therefore the right exists outside the militia.

Regulation is certainly within the spirit and authority of the Amendment.

I agree 100% however the regulation pertains to the militia, not personal self-defense. Again, the militia is a subset (males ages 17 - 45 I believe) of the general citizenry that has the right to bear arms.

Notice also that the right that shall not be infringed is the right of the people to keep and bear arms....not the right of the people to chose any arms they feel like owning, or the right of the people to be free from registration, or free from ownership tracking, etc.

Just for argument where do you read a restriction on the types of arms? Security for a free state depends on the militia whose authority stems from civilian ownership of arms which are expected to be on par with the level of the potential threat.

Now, realizing they didn't forsee nukes and Bio/Chem weapons I would agree that some form of restriction and regulation is neccessary. However, what good is a militia with substandard equipment?

Now it's obvious (to me and I'm sure others) that the reasoning for the 2nd is to maintain equilibrium with any potential hostile forces (including from within). It's also obvious that those in control wish to maintain enough of an edge over the general population.

Without that edge they would be forced to follow the will of the people, which is the intent of the 2nd.

It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court even decides to hear this case. I doubt they will grant cert. If they do grant cert, expect them to sidestep the central issues.

Very true.

[Yao Sing]

One more thing to keep in mind, regulation usually takes the form of restriction but it also includes minimum standards, policies and procedures.

Regulating the militia could take the form of requiring a minimum number of firearms (for instance 1 pistol and 1 rifle) as well as policies pertaining to training etc.

[Yao Sing]

Also for reference here's the US Code defining the militia:
10USC section 311 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html)

Plus Bill Of Rights (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm) in case anyone is not familiar with them.

All 10 are restrictions on government, not the people yet the 2nd is incorrectly interpreted as a restriction on the people. Just like all 10 deal with individual rights but some claim the 2nd refers to 'group' rights.

From the linked article:
"Gun control advocates argue that the phrase "well-regulated militia" means that owning a gun is a group right, subject to restriction.

But the court essentially said the right to bear arms is an individual right for private activities, including self-defense."

[Black Jack II]

The media as stated in a previous thread will be all over it to showcase any situation in a bad light

Whatever

My sweet a$$ the media will not be all over a accidental shooting or other tragic event to showcase this as another evil gun owner deal and the failure to ban firearms leading to its end result.

Pssshaa....its done all the time. When does the media ever really talk about anything different than the negative on this subject?:rolleyes:

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

Its job is to preserve and guarantee an individual right for a collective purpose and the militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the specific method the framers chose to ensure the continuation. There is no contrary evidence from the writings of our Founding Fathers or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions against this.

Plus I don't remeber saying anything about unbriddled regulation, ownership tracking or anything like that, don't fit me in with that crowd.

[Merryprankster]

Don't worry, Blackjack, I wasn't lumping you in with the "we should all be allowed to own tanks" crowd.

I was reminding people like RD that while the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon, waiting periods, the type, size and purpose of such weapons, etc, are not exempt from regulation under the 2nd Amendment.

I expect at this point to be subjected to some Jeffersonian, overused phrase. They will forget, of course, that Alexander Hamilton and other folks also had a hand in the constitution's crafting.

Just for argument where do you read a restriction on the types of arms?

I don't. Where do you read that the government can't restrict the types of arms? Or are we going to dance the "expressly granted/implied powers" dance? :p

Security for a free state depends on the militia whose authority stems from civilian ownership of arms which are expected to be on par with the level of the potential threat.


Actually, security for a free state depends on the commitment of the citizens of that state to particular principles of democratic/republican governance. I can arm them all, but without the ideological commitment, the guns mean nothing.

To be fair, I get the point. I also agree that it is an individual right, but that does not mean that it can't be regulated. We have First Amendment guarentees, but you can't incite a riot. You can't yell fire in a theater, etc. Speech can, in fact, be regulated.

RD, regulating types of arms, a registration database, waiting periods, etc, do not infringe on your right to KEEP or to BEAR that arm - or even in going out and purchasing a perfectly serviceable firearm with nothing but a strictly military purpose.

They are perfectly legitimate uses of insterstate commerce powers, IMO. But I don't expect you to agree with me.

[rogue]

I expect at this point to be subjected to some Jeffersonian, overused phrase. They will forget, of course, that Alexander Hamilton and other folks also had a hand in the constitution's crafting.

Ironic that you mention Hamilton in a discussion about gun control.:D

[Black Jack II]

I think a important line is that if you can have access to a firearm, consider your own personality, your willingness to be trained, and your own vulnerability to crime before deciding upon a firearm for self defense.

But you can and should have the right to make that choice for yourself, within the borders of legal commonsense, and not by a condescending agenda that makes it very clear that they could not be happier if the 2nd didn't even exist.:)

As for Hamilton there is some interesting reading in The Federalist Papers. Ask a kid on the street about The Federalist Papers now and he will most likely think its some new kind of joint to smoke up.:rolleyes: