Comments 1 - 11 of 1,564 Next » Last » Search these comments
1
deepcgi
@
2018 Feb 17, 12:47pm
deepcgi
@
2018 Feb 17, 12:47pm
Those “State” militias were intended to be made up of trained citizens as well, so they would know how and when to use the “arms” right? That makes good sense.
What has changed since then? Well, there are no state militias by the definition originally intended, for one thing. The free State is no longer so free. The governor is no longer so powerful. The Federal government has accomplished its power grab quite thoroughly. Only the Feds control the military. The States have had their teeth pulled out, and as a result, individual citizens feel unprotected.
I see where your argument is headed from a legal language viewpoint, and I agree to a point, but the states have been increasingly diminished in power, and with that loss goes the right to arms.
I believe citizens would trust their governor more than their president, and feel more safe if they knew they could join a state militia like they would a fire brigade. If I were governor of a state like Utah, who has been punished heavily by democratic administrations over the decades, when presidents would declare huge portions of state land to, overnight, be under the full control of the Federal Government, I would command my well-organized and constitutionally-sound militia to report fully-armed to the wilderness or grazing land in question, inform any visiting Federal troops that their commander-in-chief has overstepped his bounds, and ensure they seriously reconsider invading an independent state of the union.
We don’t even think in terms of the powers of the states versus the nation anymore. In my opinion, therein lies a MASSIVE disconnect between the government and its free citizens.
Bring back those state militias, allowing citizens to join and be trained and legally possess their firearms specifically for that purpose, and I would agree to talking about full gun control measures.
I will lay down cash on the coffee table that almost no one originates this point of view, on public blogs, this weekend. People just can’t seem to see alternative points-of-view. What happened to imagination?
What has changed since then? Well, there are no state militias by the definition originally intended, for one thing. The free State is no longer so free. The governor is no longer so powerful. The Federal government has accomplished its power grab quite thoroughly. Only the Feds control the military. The States have had their teeth pulled out, and as a result, individual citizens feel unprotected.
I see where your argument is headed from a legal language viewpoint, and I agree to a point, but the states have been increasingly diminished in power, and with that loss goes the right to arms.
I believe citizens would trust their governor more than their president, and feel more safe if they knew they could join a state militia like they would a fire brigade. If I were governor of a state like Utah, who has been punished heavily by democratic administrations over the decades, when presidents would declare huge portions of state land to, overnight, be under the full control of the Federal Government, I would command my well-organized and constitutionally-sound militia to report fully-armed to the wilderness or grazing land in question, inform any visiting Federal troops that their commander-in-chief has overstepped his bounds, and ensure they seriously reconsider invading an independent state of the union.
We don’t even think in terms of the powers of the states versus the nation anymore. In my opinion, therein lies a MASSIVE disconnect between the government and its free citizens.
Bring back those state militias, allowing citizens to join and be trained and legally possess their firearms specifically for that purpose, and I would agree to talking about full gun control measures.
I will lay down cash on the coffee table that almost no one originates this point of view, on public blogs, this weekend. People just can’t seem to see alternative points-of-view. What happened to imagination?
2
bob2356
@
2018 Feb 17, 1:31pm
CajunSteve says
The NRA is nothing but the lobbying and marketing arm of gun manufacturers.
but the NRA is not far behind.
The NRA is nothing but the lobbying and marketing arm of gun manufacturers.
3
MrMagic
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:14pm
MrMagic
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:14pm
CajunSteve says
Exactly, when the 2nd was written, the available "arm" was a musket. Both the militia and the government had access to the SAME weapons.
CajunSteve says
Where does it say in the 2nd that government can decide which "arm" is legal for the militia?
CajunSteve says
Actually no, there is NO question. It's very clearly stated in the 2nd, "shall not be infringed". What does "infringed" mean?
CajunSteve says
Since when does society decide what a individual can have or do. Does society decide how fast you drive on the highway? Does society decide who you should marry? Does society decide what car you drive? Does society decide how big of a house you own?
CajunSteve says
What "extreme damage" are you talking about?
If you're really worried about damage to society, when does the banning of cars start. After all, 109 people died yesterday in car wrecks, 109 died the day before, 109 the day before that, 109 the day before that. 109 will die today, 109 will die tomorrow.
If Liberals were really so concerned with saving society, they need to focus on what is doing a hell of a lot more damage to society.
It's NOT AR-15's.
The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
Exactly, when the 2nd was written, the available "arm" was a musket. Both the militia and the government had access to the SAME weapons.
CajunSteve says
The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
Where does it say in the 2nd that government can decide which "arm" is legal for the militia?
CajunSteve says
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all.
Actually no, there is NO question. It's very clearly stated in the 2nd, "shall not be infringed". What does "infringed" mean?
CajunSteve says
we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual?
Since when does society decide what a individual can have or do. Does society decide how fast you drive on the highway? Does society decide who you should marry? Does society decide what car you drive? Does society decide how big of a house you own?
CajunSteve says
And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
What "extreme damage" are you talking about?
If you're really worried about damage to society, when does the banning of cars start. After all, 109 people died yesterday in car wrecks, 109 died the day before, 109 the day before that, 109 the day before that. 109 will die today, 109 will die tomorrow.
If Liberals were really so concerned with saving society, they need to focus on what is doing a hell of a lot more damage to society.
It's NOT AR-15's.
5
MisdemeanorRebel
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:15pm
MisdemeanorRebel
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:15pm
SCOTUS already asked about "keep and bear" and it was clear the majority views it the same as it does in every other circumstance.
You don't bear a heavy load by placing it in a storage facility and locking the door. You bear a heavy load on your back.
Keep means to personally possess, and not have one put aside in an armory.
You don't bear a heavy load by placing it in a storage facility and locking the door. You bear a heavy load on your back.
Keep means to personally possess, and not have one put aside in an armory.
6
MisdemeanorRebel
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:21pm
MisdemeanorRebel
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:21pm
Repeal the 2nd Amendment. If it's truly that unpopular, shouldn't be a problem.
7
CajunSteve
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:26pm
Sniper says
Sniper says
Sniper says
Interesting. So, you believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to own any weapon then?
Sniper says
Always. That's a key tenet of the Constitution. It's why yelling FIRE in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Sniper says
Deaths of school children.
Exactly, when the 2nd was written, the available "arm" was a musket. Both the militia and the government had access to the SAME weapons.
Sniper says
Where does it say in the 2nd that government can decide which "arm" is legal for the militia?
Sniper says
Actually no, there is NO question. It's very clearly stated in the 2nd, "shall not be infringed". What does "infringed" mean?
Interesting. So, you believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to own any weapon then?
Sniper says
Since when does society decide what a individual can have or do.
Always. That's a key tenet of the Constitution. It's why yelling FIRE in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Sniper says
What "extreme damage" are you talking about?
Deaths of school children.
8
CajunSteve
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:29pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Hardly. SCOTUS view on the 2nd Amendment has changed significantly over time.
https://www.thoughtco.com/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-721399
SCOTUS already asked about "keep and bear" and it was clear the majority views it the same as it does in every other circumstance.
Hardly. SCOTUS view on the 2nd Amendment has changed significantly over time.
https://www.thoughtco.com/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-721399
9
CajunSteve
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:30pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
You forget that most members of Congress are bought and paid for by the NRA
Repeal the 2nd Amendment. If it's truly that unpopular, shouldn't be a problem.
You forget that most members of Congress are bought and paid for by the NRA
10
MrMagic
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:46pm
MrMagic
@
2018 Feb 17, 3:46pm
CajunSteve says
No, tatty/joey/happygilmore, I believe the 2nd doesn't specify that the government can decide what's an acceptable arm for the population, or, to keep it equal to when only muskets were the available weapon, the citizens should be able to choose equal to what the government has available.
CajunSteve says
So, kids dying in car accidents isn't any concern to you? That happens WAY more than kids being killed in schools.
1,600 kids died in car crashes last year. Apparently their lives aren't important to you.
Sniper says
Actually no, there is NO question. It's very clearly stated in the 2nd, "shall not be infringed". What does "infringed" mean?
Interesting. So, you believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to own any weapon then?
No, tatty/joey/happygilmore, I believe the 2nd doesn't specify that the government can decide what's an acceptable arm for the population, or, to keep it equal to when only muskets were the available weapon, the citizens should be able to choose equal to what the government has available.
CajunSteve says
Sniper saysWhat "extreme damage" are you talking about?
Deaths of school children.
So, kids dying in car accidents isn't any concern to you? That happens WAY more than kids being killed in schools.
1,600 kids died in car crashes last year. Apparently their lives aren't important to you.
Comments 1 - 11 of 1,564 Next » Last » Search these comments
"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."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.