patrick.net

If the unwashed gun control nuts actually got their way and rammed through a ban on guns, retroactive, guns to be seized from private owners: we would probably get ourselves another civil war. Even many left leaning social democrats get pretty up tight when you start talking about jackbooted thugs breaking down doors to take their guns.
Obama is smarter than that. He knows the 2014 election will be a catastrophe for the Democrats if he caves to the gun control lobby and pushes a bill. He will have to do the responsible thing and attack the core problems instead, giving security to schools, something that is totally within his purview as POTUS.

StillLooking says

The intention of the 2nd ammendment had nothing to do with guns

Ok I'll bite. To what does it refer, when it speaks of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
I know that a strict reading of the definition of a firearm could include a crossbow(lock, stock and barrel)
see drew_eckhardt's post above

My idea of gun control is hittin' what you were aimin'at!

"The comma separates the "why" from the "how". Then right of thePEOPLE(notthestate) to keep (own) and bear (have on the person, not in an armory), shall NOT be infringed."

Absurd. Show me a grammar text that says commas separate how from why. The wording of all the amendments tends to be quite terse. But when it suits your purpose, you all of a sudden argue that they were supposedly putting in clauses simply to "explain" the rights, but that allegedly don't affect the meaning? If the intent were to provide the right for personal self protection, it would say that. End of argument.

Now you can get upset, hurl insults, and post all the cherry picked NRA crap you like, but that won't change the facts.

The question is not whether the amendment refers to the people, the question is whether it's referring to a right to INDIVIDUAL self defense, and clearly it is not. Clearly it is within the context of an organized militia.

Quigley says

If the unwashed gun control nuts actually got their way and rammed through a ban on guns, retroactive, guns to be seized from private owners: we would probably get ourselves another civil war

As an authentic unwashed gun control nut, I can assure you that there's nothing to fear. You have the supreme court on your side AND 300 million privately owned guns. There's no possibility of a general ban on guns; no way, nohow. So can we have a real discussion of what can be done without every gun owner screaming "SLIPPERY SLOPE!!! FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!"?

Like, maybe you don't need semi-automatic guns or high capacity clips (or any external clips for that matter) for hunting/self defense/sports shooting?

On the other hand, if your starting point is that gun laws need to be lax enough for you to amass an arsenal capable of waging war against the US Government/The UN/The People's Republic of China then we're probably not going to get very far...

Homeboy says

The question is not whether the amendment refers to the people, the question is whether it's referring to a right to INDIVIDUAL self defense, and clearly it is not. Clearly it is within the context of an organized militia.

Constitutional law is a fun one. Here is a rephrasing of the 2nd amendment which I believe is applicable and in more plain language:

My Version:
"In order to have the ability to raise a well trained militia, the people shall have the right to carry and possess weapons."

As Written:
"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."

What is yours?

Homeboy has yet to explain why this Amendment: and only this Amendment: applies to a special group. The rest of them deal with individual rights. Not this one .

Homeboy says

Now you can get upset, hurl insults, and post all the cherry picked NRA crap you like, but that won't change the facts.

the only insults I've seen are from homeboy when he has no answer.

Hey peeps!

In brief, keep some arms, so we can raise a militia if needed. (What you got around, like maybe a rifle, or a pike, or pitchfork ... sure.)

Note: we would also prefer if you are going to keep arms, whatever they be, you kick ass and take names with them. Also keep them secure and properly such that they are not a danger to the general population. Like for gods sake, don't let crazy Joe or your kids at them.

Let's kill them R-coats!

Yours truly,
FF

Rew says

"In order to have the ability to raise a well trained militia, the people shall have the right to carry and possess weapons."

EXACTLY, my dad was a fighter pilot in WWII, and generally the best ones at shooting down enemy aircrft were country boys who were used to shooting game. they understood leading a target...same for the gunners on board bombers.

ownmyown says

his Amendment: and only this Amendment: applies to a special group. The rest of them deal with individual rights. Not this one

Well the thought "so what?" comes to mind, but even so, what you say isn't true. In the 5th Amendment is the phrase: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger". Since an exception is listed, the right being referred to clearly is not universal.

And as for your contention that "the rest of them deal with individual rights", that also is clearly not true. The First Amendment declares the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." An individual cannot be an assembly, by definition. Therefore, this is referring to a group right, not an individual one.

ownmyown says

the only insults I've seen are from homeboy when he has no answer.

Let's see a quote of any insults I have written in this thread.

Obviously, you are reading selectively.

drew_eckhardt says

You have to be willfully ignorant, illiterate, or delusional to believe that the Second Amendment does not apply to all "the people"

You don't believe "ignorant", "illiterate", and "delusional" are insults?

ownmyown says

StillLooking says

The intention of the 2nd ammendment had nothing to do with guns

Ok I'll bite. To what does it refer, when it speaks of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

I know that a strict reading of the definition of a firearm could include a crossbow(lock, stock and barrel)

see drew_eckhardt's post above

My idea of gun control is hittin' what you were aimin'at!

First of all, gun control was not an issue then. So this amendment had nothing to do with guns.

The amendment was intended to let states raise armies. Thus we saw the Southern states well prepared before the civil war.

But since people don't know history we get these other interpretations

StillLooking says

ownmyown says

StillLooking says

The intention of the 2nd ammendment had nothing to do with guns

Ok I'll bite. To what does it refer, when it speaks of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

I know that a strict reading of the definition of a firearm could include a crossbow(lock, stock and barrel)

see drew_eckhardt's post above

My idea of gun control is hittin' what you were aimin'at!

First of all, gun control was not an issue then. So this amendment had nothing to do with guns.

The amendment was intended to let states raise armies. Thus we saw the Southern states well prepared before the civil war.

But since people don't know history we get these other interpretations

As a tangential question, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution gives Congress the ability

" To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

When privateers were granted such letters of marque and reprisal what weapons were they supposed to use to capture enemy assets given a Constitution which does not protect the individual right to keep and bear arms?

Look when the Constitution was written banning guns was not an issue.

The issue was whether the individual states could raise armies to protect themselves against the Federal government.

The intention behind the second amendment was repealed by the Civil war

Homeboy says

Absurd. Show me a grammar text that says commas separate how from why. The wording of all the amendments tends to be quite terse. But when it suits your purpose, you all of a sudden argue that they were supposedly putting in clauses simply to "explain" the rights, but that allegedly don't affect the meaning? If the intent were to provide the right for personal self protection, it would say that. End of argument.

Basic reading comprehension. Scroll down to Comma Rule #4.
http://www.towson.edu/ows/modulecomma.htm

After many days at the mine, the workers were tired and angry.
Revenues being necessary to pay for services, the government raised the income tax.
To facilitate the transportation of goods and services, the state offered subsidies to private railroad companies.

The comma usage in the 2nd Amendment wording is awkward by modern standards, since the verb doesn't appear until the end of the sentence, but it is valid*:

"The punctuation that emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was consistent in just two respects: it was prolific and often chaotic."
--- Alphabet to email: How written english evolved and where it's heading. Naomi S. Baron, Routledge, London and New York 2000. P. 185

"Excessive punctuation was common in the 18th century: at its worst it used commas with every subordinate clause and separable phrase."
--- 15 ed. V.29, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1997. P. 1051

"In the 18-19c, people tended to punctuate heavily, especially in their use of commas."
--- The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford New York, Oxford University Press 1992. Tom McCarthur ed. P. 824

*I just realized this sentence is also a similar example of commas separating clauses.

drew_eckhardt says

" To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

When privateers were granted such letters of marque and reprisal what weapons were they supposed to use to capture enemy assets given a Constitution which does not protect the individual right to keep and bear arms?

Good point. And just because Congress hasn't authorized privateers in many years doesn't mean they don't have the power to do so if they want to in the future.

So just because most militias are organized and drilled regularly, doesn't mean the individual doesn't have a right to firearms.

This isn't Dark Ages France, where unexercised laws and privileges of the sovereign expire after so many years of disuse.

If that was the case, if you didn't vote for 20 years, somebody could argue your privilege to vote 'expired' as you didn't use it for so long.

And I think they should start granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal again.

Quigley says

He knows the 2014 election will be a catastrophe for the Democrats if he caves to the gun control lobby

There's a gun control lobby? I haven't heard any claiming to be a "proud, card-carrying and lifelong member" of that lobby?

They must be preeettttyyyy powerful. Did you see them pounce after Giffords?

StillLooking says

But since people don't know history we get these other interpretations

StillLooking says

The intention behind the second amendment was repealed by the Civil war

you should send that memo to the Supreme Court. They think it's an individual right, and have ruled that way for about the last 200 years

Homeboy says

The First Amendment declares the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." An individual cannot be an assembly, by definition. Therefore, this is referring to a group right, not an individual one.

so you are saying this does not apply to all the peopleHomeboy says

In the 5th Amendment is the phrase: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger".

and the exception is noted in the amendment as an exception
Supreme Court and lower court rulings say IT IS AN I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L RIGHT

Stricter gun crime punishment reduces violent crime. nationally the sentencing for gun crimes has been declining for the past 6 or 7 years. In Florida in 1999 10-20-life became the law. Use a firearm in a felony: 10 years minimum. Fire the weapon in a felony : 20 years minimum. Hit some one when you fire the weapon: LIFE. big ad campaign on tv and radio
by 2004 gun crime had dropped almost 30%
Punish criminals

thunderlips11 says

Basic reading comprehension. Scroll down to Comma Rule #4.
http://www.towson.edu/ows/modulecomma.htm

I don't see the sentence "commas separate the how from the why" there. And grammatical nitpicking is beside the point. You can't deny that the first clause is there. If the intent of the amendment was to guarantee the right to personal self-protection with a gun, then why is that first clause there?

ownmyown says

Homeboy says

The First Amendment declares the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." An individual cannot be an assembly, by definition. Therefore, this is referring to a group right, not an individual one.

so you are saying this does not apply to all the people

No, I did not say that.

ownmyown says

In the 5th Amendment is the phrase: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger".

and the exception is noted in the amendment as an exception
Supreme Court and lower court rulings say IT IS AN I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L RIGHT

I never said the right to indictment by Grand Jury wasn't an individual right. Please try to read what I write, because when you start acting condescending about things for which you are incorrect, it really makes you look bad. I said it's not a UNIVERSAL right. There are cases where the right does not apply. Similarly, there are cases when the right to bear arms doesn't apply - namely, when one is not participating in a militia.

But none of this matters. You are basically arguing that my interpretation of the Second Amendment is not valid because it would render the amendment "different" than the other amendments. However, YOUR interpretation (that the first clause is simply explanatory and carries no legal meaning) ALSO renders the amendment "different" than the other amendments. Is there an explanation of why the right to free speech is granted? No, there is not. Is there an explanation of why the right of free exercise of religion is granted? No, there is not.

Obviously, saying "your way makes it different than the other amendments" is a weak argument.

By the way, I'm still waiting for that quote of the "insults" I allegedly wrote in this thread.

Homeboy says

But none of this matters. You are basically arguing that my interpretation of the Second Amendment is not valid because it would render the amendment "different" than the other amendments. However, YOUR interpretation (that the first clause is simply explanatory and carries no legal meaning) ALSO renders the amendment "different" than the other amendments. Is there an explanation of why the right to free speech is granted? No, there is not. Is there an explanation of why the right of free exercise of religion is granted? No, there is not.

This has really been a lot of fun. Anti gun says if your'e not in a militia you have no gun right. The courts (5th Circuit, 9th Circuit and Supreme court) all have ruled that all of the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and specifically stated that

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

That is from the Supreme Court , I don't see how it can be any clearer.

Homeboy says

By the way, I'm still waiting for that quote of the "insults" I allegedly wrote in this thread.

you have been a veritable Lord Fontleroy (on this thread)and I can't express my gratitude enough for your restraint from four letter words and insults.

Any one interested in checking may look up Kennesaw, Georgia. This is the town that passed a law requiring every household to have a working firearm and ammo for that weapon. Sub-Atlanta. Low crime. 2007 Family Circle Magazine said in 2007- one of top ten cities to raise a family

ownmyown says

That is from the Supreme Court , I don't see how it can be any clearer.

I don't think Supreme Court decisions make ANYTHING clear. The Supreme Court upheld the right to have an abortion, yet it is still argued by right-wingers to this day. I find it interesting that your first argument was that the "grammar" of the amendment makes it unquestionably a right to personal self-protection. When I showed this to be untrue, you fell back on a different argument: "Well, the (conservative) Supreme Court ruled on it." You refuse to admit the interpretation is not as cut and dried as you claim, and that scholars disagree on the meaning, but the fact that you switched argument shows you know this.

NY Times editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-second-amendment.html?_r=0

When the Supreme Court struck down a ban on handguns by the District of Columbia in 2008, ruling that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense, the decision was enormously controversial in the legal world. But the court’s conclusion has generally been accepted in the real world because the ruling was in tune with popular opinion — favoring Americans’ rights to own guns but also control of gun ownership.

The text of the Second Amendment creates no right to private possession of guns, but Justice Antonin Scalia found one in legal history for himself and the other four conservatives. He said the right is not outmoded even “in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.”

It is not just liberals who have lambasted the ruling, but some prominent conservatives like Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The majority, he wrote, “read an ambiguous constitutional provision as creating a substantive right that the Court had never acknowledged in the more than two hundred years since the amendment’s enactment. The majority then used that same right to strike down a law passed by elected officials acting, rightly or wrongly, to preserve the safety of the citizenry.” He said the court undermined “conservative jurisprudence.”

ownmyown says

you have been a veritable Lord Fontleroy (on this thread)and I can't express my gratitude enough for your restraint from four letter words and insults.

Yet you accused me of it, and have yet to offer an apology. But I am used to rudeness from gun-lovers; it kind of goes with the territory.

Homeboy says

By the way, I'm still waiting for that quote of the "insults" I allegedly wrote in this thread.

I never said on this thread., just that I had seen them. You are very thin skinned , especially considering some of the things you've said to me on other threads. I try very hard to state my case and not call names. If you are offended by capital letters....well. And I believe what I said of your exemplary behavior should assuage your hurt feelings.

If you will go back and check, I believe( I won't say positively 'cause I'm gettin' old and forgetful) you'll see that the whole grammatical question was someone else.

But, considering the disdain for the Constitution of the last 2 or 3 presidents[see: patriot act; NDAA, undeclared wars, execution of US citizens without due process] I'm sure Mr Obama will Use an executive Order to do away with Amendment #2 and maybe a couple of others he says he doesn't like.
As to the interpretation, you're right about disagreement on the courts ruling. Same is true for Obamacare. Now I could whine and cry about the interpretation by the Supreme court that it's a tax when the admin. claimed it wasn't a tax, but that was the ruling. Now it's law. You may disagree, It's your right ,.. no it's your duty as a citizen to voice your disagreement. By exercising your first amendment right to free speech, you help to guarantee your other rights. Being able to read and hear dissenting opinions is always a good thing.
Voltaire said " I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend , to the death, your right to say it."
I took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" There was no expiration date on that oath.
whatever weapons I have ,I'll keep. You may wisecrack about cold dead fingers, but "Live free or die" is a good motto.

ownmyown says

I never said on this thread., just that I had seen them. You are very thin skinned , especially considering some of the things you've said to me on other threads. I try very hard to state my case and not call names. If you are offended by capital letters....well. And I believe what I said of your exemplary behavior should assuage your hurt feelings.

Let's see... you remembered something I said to you in another thread, and it hurt your feelings so much that you brought it up in THIS thread, even though I didn't insult anyone in this thread.

And you call ME thin-skinned. Thanks for the laugh.

No legal action taken to regulate guns (or even repeal ammendments) will prevent the very next massacre, simply because there are too many already in circulation. Additionally, there is no evidence as far as I can discern that humans have evolved beyond the warlike and violent nature they have always displayed. Finally, it is clear that there are too few police per capita to sufficiently protect citizens or their children.

If you truly care about the next unfortunate group of innocent people on the receiving end of psychotic-launched high speed lead, you would encourage more armed guards in public places. I think if people give it sufficient thought, both sides of the gun control argument will want more professionally trained marksmen watching over their public places. They simply disagree about who should be trusted with the firearms.

It's ironic that the NRA's suggestion the other day that armed guards should be a requirement at all public schools should be so roundly rejected by the gun control advocates, when that is precisely what will occur if the second amendment were to be repealed.

It's about making themselves feel better and not about saving another 25 innocent school children's lives in the near future. We DO need trained arms in schools in order to protect the kids. Any other conclusion is foolish and self-serving propaganda. I think you'll find that you can't fight fire by trying to eliminate fire from the earth.

No, you don't get it. We don't want a police state. Show me any example, ever, where more guns resulted in less gun violence. That is not the right path. We need to end the gun culture; stop raising our children to worship guns. Guns in schools? How long do you think it would be until a kid got ahold of one of those guns, or got shot by one of those guns? There has to be a better solution.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

I'm making a point. If you ban guns, you WILL create a police state. Hoping differently is foolish. You won't be keeping guns out of the next massacre.

I've made this argument before. The USA's military presence in Europe is what allows those nations to spend so little on defense. Fewer guns in their culture is one benefit of such an arrangement. What you are hoping for is a change in human nature on the part of the government - not only the citizen.

deepcgi says

I'm making a point. If you ban guns, you WILL create a police state.

Absurd. The UK has some of the strongest gun control laws in the world, and their cops don't even carry guns.

Call it Crazy says

The guard actually drove the shooters into the building and then stayed outside waiting for the police to arrive, giving the shooters plenty of time for their rampage inside the school.

So then it would seem that having armed guards at schools is not an effective way to prevent violence.