Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

I'm afraid it's not a misconception, but the predominant point od view of the law.

The Constitution does not give rights to the people. The people own all the rights and give certain rights to the federal government. Whatever they don't is retained by them. The amendments were added to make sure that the government could not use its granted powers to curtail certain rights. Each amendment has to be looked at as a whole. Most of the amendments, for example the 1st, have no limitations on their proscriptions, but the second does. And it's important enough to come before the proscription itself. You are allowed to own and bear arms forthe prupose of supporting a strong militia.

If there's anyting we need to be conservative about it's the Constitution (lately, we seem to have forgotten that). Until the Constitution is amended, the 2nd amendment has the militia provision, and you can't ignore it. It says what it says and nothing LESS.

Which is more or less what we are doing, because the national guard is run by the government it takes the protection of the people out of the hands of the people, thus negating the purpose of a militia all together. Thats why I dont understand the counter arguement that we have the national guard so we have to be armed, we have seen how the national guard has been used time and time to oppress our people.

Until the Constitution is amended, the 2nd amendment has the militia provision, and you can't ignore it. It says what it says and nothing LESS.

Well, that was certainly delivered with confidence and authority. Except, it is still just another opinion. I really hope that when the time comes to decide what it really means that you are the one that is wrong.

Think there is a difference between a militia and a government operated standing army? just a thought.

As for the argument for or against gun ownership, I think new coverage of the recent release of the PS3 can aptly prove, discredit, make, counter, solidify or render moot every point put forth in this thread so far.

You are absolutely 100% correct. And there you have it... ban PS3's and it eliminates every single one of those multiple problems you brought to our attention.

Wow, this discussion has strayed far from the original topic.

The biggest problem I see with the stricter interpretations of the militia clause has to do with the way in which the Constitution enumerates rights. The Constitution grants the government a limited set of powers, and all other powers not specifically given to the government are retained by the state governments the people. Now, as to rights, the idea is similar. The rights listed in the Constitution are not granted to the people; rather, this is simply a recognition of the people's pre-existing rights, reminding the government to keep its mitts off.

That's a critical difference. The Constitution does not grant the right to free speech. It simply affirms that you already have it. Same with search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and keeping and bearing arms.

Originally Posted by urleebird

Well, that was certainly delivered with confidence and authority. Except, it is still just another opinion. I really hope that when the time comes to decide what it really means that you are the one that is wrong.

Think there is a difference between a militia and a government operated standing army? just a thought.

Since there's no specific opinion, all you can give is opinions. Mine is given after studying constitutional law for 35 years. It represents the state of the law. It's what I would tell a client, except the law would be cited specifically and adressed to his particular issues.

There was no government operated standing army until after the civil war. What happened was the states had their own militia, and they were assembled into the US army. Notice, for example that in the civil war each unit came from a state.

What we call militia today is not what is meant by the Constitution.

I have had many civil discussions on those topics. They remain civil as long as we discuss the topic and all attacks are on statements or assumptions. It becomes heated when the attacks become personal. So, I plan to keep to the topic and avoid personal attacks, and I intend to call anyone who starts making it personal.

The 2nd amendment does not provide an absolute right to own and carry a weapon. Notice that it starts out by talking about militia. Although the law is far from settled, most often that amendment is thought of as relating to militia and even the term “bear” was (before the amendment) most often used in the sense of bearing arms for your country. As recently as the Civil War, there was no US Army, but a collection of individual state militia that formed up into the army. That’s the context of the amendment. So, there isn’t an absolute constitutional right to own and carry weapons. If there were, no government could regulate them. So, that’s not a really persuasive argument.

I’m a fence sitter on this. I remember a time when a nut came onto a commuter train with an automatic weapon and killed a whole bunch of innocent people. My immediate thought as that it never would have happened if someone with a hand had been there to take the guy out. On the other hand I think of the recent incident in the Amish school house and Colombine. There has t be some regulation.

I think guns should be licensed like driving, and there should be different licenses for different types of weapons. There should be a competency test, a psychological test, and a background check. Carrying an unlicensed, concealed weapon should be a felony.

Weapons are widely available because it’s a big business. We need some laws placing liability on dealers whose weapons consistently turn up in the wrong hands, and some liability on companies that keep supplying such dealers.

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

Although the law is far from settled, most often that amendment is thought of as relating to militia and even the term “bear” was (before the amendment) most often used in the sense of bearing arms for your country.

Exactly.

In 1840, after a Tennessee man had been arrested for carrying a concealed Bowie knife, his appeal on 2nd amendment grounds was heard before the state supreme court. The court's decision was explicit about what it means to "bear arms":

"The words 'bear arms' too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution." (italics in original)

The decision concluded even more explicitly:

"We know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane." (italics in original)

So, there isn’t an absolute constitutional right to own and carry weapons.

This, I don't agree with. And I wish the NRA, or somebody, would force the issue to the Supreme court to end all the argumentation. I don't even know if that is possible, but that is what I would like to see.

I think guns should be licensed like driving, and there should be different licenses for different types of weapons. There should be a competency test, a psychological test, and a background check.

I cannot disagree with this statement. In fact, I think it would be a good idea. Except... I also think it would be argued that a driver's license is a privilege and not a right, as is the right to keep and bear arms. I don't have a problem with licencing, myself, however.

If it could be regulated, then I might also suggest the first amendment be altered to say that the media be schooled in the difference between the truth and fabricating it, with a felony being issued for each lie. Either side must tell the truth. I just want the truth, period.

If there were, no government could regulate them. So, that’s not a really persuasive argument

I think that would only be true if the previous string of deductive statements were true and accurate, thus leading to an equally accurately conclusion. I think that's where the disagreements come from. I, personally, don't agree with the previous reasoning that led to your conclusion.

We need some laws placing liability on dealers whose weapons consistently turn up in the wrong hands

I could go for that as long as it could be proven that the transfer of weapons to criminals or other unlawful ownership could be proven. Not if someone just robbed the store.

Carrying an unlicensed, concealed weapon should be a felony

OK, but I think that should be qualified. Since I believe just about everyone should be allowed to carry a gun, I think penalties should be directed to those not allowed to have guns in the first place. Those would be the felons, illegals, and the mentally unstable. I don't think the gun should be licensed, but I think it is OK to license the person. In other words, It's OK for this or that person to have a gun, but the government doesn't get the serial number to their gun. The bottom line for me it that everyone should be held strictly accountable for the use of the gun.

It seems like you're equating Afghanis with Arabs

My bad. I was trying to reference any muslim who thinks that anyone who is not muslim should die. Y'see, they wouldn't want to stop the killing with Americans... they want you too. Pardon the inaccurate blanket statement.

you can't just start attacking Islamic nations just because one terrorist group successfully executed an attrocious operation.

In theory, I would agree. But if these Islamic nations are willingly harboring those who do the harm, they are just as bad and just as responsible.

What's to stop any country from saying, "Oh, it's not us, it's that group of fundamentalists in the mountains over there", knowing they disavow the connection to escape retaliation. And they just might be hiding them specifically to terrorize the country of their choice at the time.

...a Tomahawk hitting a hospital (with no military objectives in the vicinity) where my great aunt was staying, thus killing her.

I don't think there is an American alive who wants these things to happen.

The violence has to stop somewhere.

Tell that to the muslim extremists.

Insulting the US foreign policies with facts and logic is the only thing I can do...

That's just it... I don't think you have the complete facts other than what you want them to be to justify your logic. If the facts are flawed, so too is the logic. Insinuating we went to Vietnam to give the poor farmers cancer is flawed logic as I see it.

Setting political preferences aside, I have to say I do not like politicians in general. Any of them. I just dislike some of them more than others.

Feng Li...

The variance in topic is probably my fault as this is what I said in the first post:

Seems like "debatable" threads always get a share of gun ownership being mentioned when they have nothing to do with the original topic. Well, everyone can get it out of their system now. Let's do all of them. Guns, politics, and abortion. Let's see how long it stays civil.

In the meantime, has anyone changed their mind about gun ownership from when the thread first started?

Not even one?

Ah, right. 30 pages later, I must have forgotten about that... :-)

It's been my experience that single instances of discussion don't change people's minds about this; it's a very gradual process, which is why it's so important to keep having the discussion.

What I have seen convert people instantly is a trip to the range. I think so much of the anti-gun position is based on a fundamental misunderstanding (primarily the result of TV, movies, and other media), of what guns are and how they function. Actually being taught to fire a gun is the best means of corrective education, and also promotes the (regretfully, oft-neglected) safety aspect.