Originally posted by GT86: Don't understand the Constitution, do you? In a nutshell, the Constitution does not grant rights. People have rights inherently. What the Constitution does do is grant certain powers to the govt. Important point here, govt has powers, people have rights. Therefore, anytime the word "right" is used it is not referring to the govt or a govt body (such as a militia). Rights are the sole domain of the people. As such, the 2nd Amendment protects (not grants) the right of the people.
...and the 2nd amendment is a limitation on that right.
And how does stamping a serial number on a bullet affect any of that??? THAT was my point.
IP: Logged
06:54 AM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Originally posted by GT86: You still don't understand. It is not a limitation, since there is no power being granted to the govt by the 2nd.
Don't act naive, you know exactly why the anti-gun folks love the idea of a serial number on bullets.
I do understand: it is a limitation. Just because gun people don't recognize it as a limitation, does not change anything. The "well-regulated militia" clause was included to define WHO was supposed to be able to keep and bear arms. Otherwise, if it was just a right for everyone, the amendment would have read, "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But it does not say that, DOES IT???
IP: Logged
08:16 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
I do understand: it is a limitation. Just because gun people don't recognize it as a limitation, does not change anything. The "well-regulated militia" clause was included to define WHO was supposed to be able to keep and bear arms. Otherwise, if it was just a right for everyone, the amendment would have read, "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But it does not say that, DOES IT???
The "well-regulated militia" clause is in reference to the security of a free state, not to the RKBA. Where exactly does the 2nd Amendment give the govt the power to restrict the people's right to keep and bear arms? If your little theory about who is supposed to have guns is correct, why does the 2nd refer to a right of the people, and not a power of the govt? As already mentioned, the BOR does not grant the govt powers.
Since rights are the province of the people, and a militia is an agent of the govt, the 2nd Amendment is not referring to a militia because it is discussing a right.. Remember, govt has powers, it does not have rights.
IP: Logged
08:27 AM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
No, it is not. It is primarily intended to give a high level of protection to certain rights, rights that the founders felt would be the first to be attacked by a tyrannical govt. As such, the BOR is a restriction on govt powers.
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 03-08-2009).]
IP: Logged
08:29 AM
aceman Member
Posts: 4899 From: Brooklyn Center, MN Registered: Feb 2003
Please look up what a "Militia" was in 1792 (Hint: Look up Militia Act of 1792)
To save the rest time... A "Militia" in 1792 was EVERY 18-45 year old male in every state required to have a musket and all "accessories" and be able to defend their country and possibly be rolled up into the regular Federal service
IP: Logged
08:34 AM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
I do understand: it is a limitation. Just because gun people don't recognize it as a limitation, does not change anything. The "well-regulated militia" clause was included to define WHO was supposed to be able to keep and bear arms. Otherwise, if it was just a right for everyone, the amendment would have read, "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But it does not say that, DOES IT???
quote
Originally posted by aceman:
ktthecarguy,
Please give me your definition of "Militia".
Please look up what a "Militia" was in 1792 (Hint: Look up Militia Act of 1792)
To save the rest time... A "Militia" in 1792 was EVERY 18-45 year old male in every state required to have a musket and all "accessories" and be able to defend their country and possibly be rolled up into the regular Federal service
Exactly.
At the time of the framing "militia" referred to the people and "well regulated" meant they that had to take good care of their weapons so they would be ready when needed.
The militia was not the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/Coast Guard, nor was it the Police, State Police/Highway Patrol or National Guard. In fact, it was not even an official organized group. It was all private people willing to take up their own arms in defense of their country.
To the Average anti-2A idiot "Show me your well regulated militia and you can keep your guns" may sound like a clever bumper sticker, but in reality it just shows a fundamental lack of Constitutional knowledge...
Please, see sig for Samuel Adams quote:
------------------ "The flag should be displayed with the union down, as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property."
Read my Earthship thread in Totally O/T si vis pacem, para bellum
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so hard to understand?!
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-08-2009).]
Wrong. It is a list of our enumerated rights; although not restricted to these ten rights.
And again, tell me specifically how printing a number on a bullet is an infringement.
Raising the cost of exercising a right to the point you cant exercise it is an infringement. Micro-printing ( which is the goal of "serializing" ) would make it cost prohibitive for the average person to exercise his right.
Never said our rights were restricted just to these 10 ( or meant to imply that ). The founding fathers ( and with a bit of politics i agree ) felt that those 10 were important enough to explicitly prohibit the government from trampling them in the future.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 03-08-2009).]
At the time of the framing "militia" referred to the people and "well regulated" mean they had to take good care of their weapons so they would be ready when needed. *snip*
'trained' also fell under the definition of 'regulated' of the time.. Doesn't diminish the effects of course, being trained isn't a bad thing.
Might be OT, but i have honestly never understood the sheer hatred of the 2nd amendment from so many citizens.
I do understand the government hating it, but the people? No one is forcing you to exercise our right if you don't want to. Just leave the ones that do alone, and they will leave you alone when you want to exercise your other rights ( like free speech, or keeping the police out of your home. ). But don't come crying if the government tries to take over and you have no way to defend yourself.
IP: Logged
11:20 AM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
Might be OT, but i have honestly never understood the sheer hatred of the 2nd amendment from so many citizens.
I do understand the government hating it, but the people? No one is forcing you to exercise our right if you don't want to. Just leave the ones that do alone, and they will leave you alone when you want to exercise your other rights ( like free speech, or keeping the police out of your home. ). But don't come crying if the government tries to take over and you have no way to defend yourself.
Its that pesky new un-enumerated right they keep trying to get everyone to recognize, the "right to remain un-offended by everyone all the time". Guns offend the weaker minded (who, in their weak minded state assume that anyone carrying a firearm surely must be seconds away from shooting them with said firearm) therefore, guns should be outlawed to keep them un-offended.
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-08-2009).]
Its that pesky new un-enumerated right they keep trying to get everyone to recognize, the "right to remain un-offended by everyone all the time". Guns offend the weaker minded (who, in their weak minded state assume that anyone carrying a firearm is seconds away from shooting them with said firearm) therefore, guns should be outlawed to keep them un-offended.
Words are far more dangerous.. I guess that means they go after the 1st amendment next? ( ya, i know the government has been attacking it for decades )
I think people have too much time on their hands, and get into others business because of it.
IP: Logged
11:27 AM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
Words are far more dangerous.. I guess that means they go after the 1st amendment next? ( ya, i know the government has been attacking it for decades )
I think people have too much time on their hands, and get into others business because of it.
Thoughts are even more dangerous, as they create words. They've been attacking thought for a while now too. Take "hate crimes" for example. Person A and B are different races. Person A kills person B because person B slept with his wife - Not a hate crime. But while pulling the trigger person A yells a racial slur - now suddenly a worse crime (worse then murder?) because it was done "through hate" (as if A didn't hate B already?). Is person B not dead either way? Did person A have more of a right to kill person B before the racial slur was uttered? No, then why the lesser sentence for murder sans racial slur?
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-08-2009).]
IP: Logged
11:30 AM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
Thoughts are even more dangerous, as they create words. They've been attacking thought for a while now too. Take "hate crimes" for example. Person A and B are different races. Person A kills person B because person B slept with his wife - Not a hate crime. But while pulling the trigger person A yells a racial slur - now suddenly a worse crime (worse then murder?) because it was done "through hate" (as if A didn't hate B already?). Is person B not dead either way? Did person A have more of a right to kill person B before the racial slur was uttered? No, then why the lesser sentence for murder sans racial slur?
WHAT ???
Did you think you would be free to think and believe what you want ?..........You will be TOLD what to think and believe, and you will happily smile and do it just like the rest of the masses. <grin>
Or, ya could become an outlaw.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 03-08-2009).]
IP: Logged
11:52 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35994 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Raising the cost of exercising a right to the point you cant exercise it is an infringement. Micro-printing ( which is the goal of "serializing" ) would make it cost prohibitive for the average person to exercise his right.
Never said our rights were restricted just to these 10 ( or meant to imply that ). The founding fathers ( and with a bit of politics i agree ) felt that those 10 were important enough to explicitly prohibit the government from trampling them in the future.
Heh, this made me think that possibly we should repeal ALL taxes on guns as they infringe our 2nd amendment right. In fact, if they successfully levy any of these absurd taxes on ammo etc. it should leave the door wide open to reinstate the poll tax, say 1000 bucks to vote. That should end the democratic party hold on power for good
For all you gun hating lefties, the supreme court ruled on this, too bad for you, get over it.
IP: Logged
12:52 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
The same could be said for all the abortion hating righties.
Yes it could, and I would not disagree, but it does not change what I wrote. I think in that case though it is more about power and states rights vs. the feds though.
IP: Logged
01:04 PM
PFF
System Bot
fogglethorpe Member
Posts: 4828 From: Valley of the Sun Registered: Jul 2001
I do understand: it is a limitation. Just because gun people don't recognize it as a limitation, does not change anything. The "well-regulated militia" clause was included to define WHO was supposed to be able to keep and bear arms. Otherwise, if it was just a right for everyone, the amendment would have read, "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But it does not say that, DOES IT???
At the time it was written, "well regulated militia" included just about everyone in the country. The writers of the constitution did not envision or want a standing army for this young republic--just wanted to raise one from the civilian populous as needs arose. The Navy was a different story.
At the time it was written, "well regulated militia" included just about everyone in the country. The writers of the constitution did not envision or want a standing army for this young republic--just wanted to raise one from the civilian populous as needs arose. The Navy was a different story.
All the land owners anyway .. Our founders weren't perfect, but they did do the best they could in predicting and preventing the type of oppressive future we are now heading towards.
If they were watching, they would be appalled we haven't steeped up already and stopped it.
IP: Logged
03:45 PM
fogglethorpe Member
Posts: 4828 From: Valley of the Sun Registered: Jul 2001
When both parties are corrupt, it doesn't leave much room for the 'revolution at the ballot box'
Maybe, but independent or alternate party reformers would get more traction if people didn't automatically discount them in favor of the establishment.
Maybe, but independent or alternate party reformers would get more traction if people didn't automatically discount them in favor of the establishment.
They could also get more traction if they weren't blocked at every opening by the two dominate parties. They both have armies of lawyers in every state who's sole job is to find every way to discredit a candidates credentials from a "minor" party. Just ask Nader.
They could also get more traction if they weren't blocked at every opening by the two dominate parties. They both have armies of lawyers in every state who's sole job is to find every way to discredit a candidates credentials from a "minor" party. Just ask Nader.
Ya, that was where i was going with that.
The press plays a lot into it as well, if you don't get air time, you really aren't running.
IP: Logged
05:16 PM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by maryjane: At the time it was written, "well regulated militia" included just about everyone in the country. The writers of the constitution did not envision or want a standing army for this young republic--just wanted to raise one from the civilian populous as needs arose. The Navy was a different story.
Well, not quite... 1. men only 2. able-bodied men only
BTW for those that think I am anti-gun, think again. I am just trying to make you see that there were already restrictions on gun ownership built into the 2nd amendment right from the beginning. Therefore, other reasonable restrictions are allowed under the Constitution.
Well, not quite... 1. men only 2. able-bodied men only
BTW for those that think I am anti-gun, think again. I am just trying to make you see that there were already restrictions on gun ownership built into the 2nd amendment right from the beginning. Therefore, other reasonable restrictions are allowed under the Constitution.
No there were not restrictions built in. And no restrictions by Congress on a federal level are allowed by the constitution. Your understanding of the document is piss poor.
IP: Logged
06:32 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
At the time of the framing "militia" referred to the people and "well regulated" meant they that had to take good care of their weapons so they would be ready when needed.
The militia was not the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/Coast Guard, nor was it the Police, State Police/Highway Patrol or National Guard. In fact, it was not even an official organized group. It was all private people willing to take up their own arms in defense of their country.
To the Average anti-2A idiot "Show me your well regulated militia and you can keep your guns" may sound like a clever bumper sticker, but in reality it just shows a fundamental lack of Constitutional knowledge...
quote
Originally posted by ktthecarguy:
I do understand: it is a limitation. Just because gun people don't recognize it as a limitation, does not change anything. The "well-regulated militia" clause was included to define WHO was supposed to be able to keep and bear arms. Otherwise, if it was just a right for everyone, the amendment would have read, "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But it does not say that, DOES IT???
People keep getting hung up and distracted by the use of the word "militia" in the 2nd amendment, when the amendment doesn't guarantee the right of a militia to keep arms - it guarantees the right of the PEOPLE to keep arms.
"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."
Notice the comma after the word "State" that separates it from the rest of the sentence. You could just as easily have worded it "To provide for security, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The "militia" segment is simply listed as a reason - but the language of the entire sentence say the "right" is one "of the People" not of the militia. If it had said, "A well armed populace being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then it would refer to the right of the militia.
Who's right? The people's Right to do what? keep and bear arms
The phrase beginning with "a well-regulated militia" and ending with "a free State" is a nominative absolute. A nominative absolute consists of a substantive (a noun or noun substitute) and a participle and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence.
That means it doesn't change the meaning of the root sentence. It's simply there to give backround, etc. It may be the reason WHY there is an amendment, but it isn't what the amendment is about.
The SCOTUS agrees and has already upheld that the 2nd amendment protects an "individual" right of the people.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-08-2009).]
IP: Logged
06:50 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31843 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
I love the idea & direction of this thread. I'm the guy that believes in The Constitution, the rights of free men, and The Rule Of Law. Thats why I haven't spoken up here. I'm FAR too close & personal to & about the subject to discuss it calmly. I've seen me here before.
I say the rights of ALL free men should be preserved while also being balanced by proper law enforcement, solid judicial procedure & a transparent and attentive-to-the-needs-of-the-people government. I hope we can someday find that vast balance.
IP: Logged
07:35 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
I say the rights of ALL free men should be preserved while also being balanced by proper law enforcement, solid judicial procedure & a transparent and attentive-to-the-needs-of-the-people government. I hope we can someday find that vast balance.
Well said.
At it's most basic, most Democrats and Republicans (and all other parties) want the same things - a secure life, opportunities for jobs and growth, good health, yadda yadda yadda. The differences come in how we think is the best way to go about achieving these goals.
The economy is a perfect example. Democrats may believe government must fix the problem because the free market failed. It must provide money for people to spend via stimulus checks and guarantee and support businesses so they don't fail. A Republican may take the stance that cutting taxes on businesses will allow them to be able to afford to grow, hire more people and thus create jobs. A business that is faltering might be allowed to fail so a new more efficient business can take it's place. There aren't absolutes so you'll find some mixing of attitudes.
In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''
So--what weapon is the most prevalent of the kind in common use at this present (now-today) juncture in time? I would think it would be handguns--magazine fed handguns--semiautomatic, magazine fed handguns.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-08-2009).]
.
