The Second Amendment is obsolete

I saw and read this article posted from another site and it looks like a well thought out and written article so I thought I should bring it here.
I know that we have a few of the assault-gun people here and this may upset them but in this society there is no room for street sweepers and giant clips for guns, my family does indeed go hunting and I see no wrong with that if you use what you kill, but anything other than what can be used for hunting doesn't belong in civilian hands, there I said my piece.
The last paragraph of this article pretty much sums it up.

The Second Amendment disappears atop the frothing surge of hundreds of millions of already "owned" guns flooding our streets. The Supreme Court needs to dismiss District of Columbia v. Heller as inapplicable, handing down instead a decision concerning the level at which these deadly weapons are to be regulated for public safety.http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/339939.html

just curious, no seeing both sides ?

Been debated to death around here. Still, if we don't want to turn in our means of defense, we get flack for not seeing both sides. ::sigh::

Some (if not MANY) of us have thought this through rather well, weighed lots of evidence, opinions and personal experience. Some others refuse to grant that we have come to our choice carefully and with eyes open

Debate? If needless death is the problem, get rid of cars.

I can certainly understand the rationale behind gun-control, but the fact is that the Founders put the Second Amendment in place for a very specific purpose.

Like so much of the rest of the Constitution, it is there in response to some very basic principles of human nature. Principles that are more trustworthy than all the psychomanipulative tools directed at us by the powerful in the form of, at the very least, daily bombardment with subconscioudly-penetrating advertising, projected at us with the mental-mega-cannon of industrialize marketing intertwined with the previosuly mentioned two psyhcology/advertising.

The old phrase "He could sell sand in a desert!" and other colorful variants, are anachronistic and supereseded.

Sell sand in a desert? Try selling Totalitarian Tyranny to the Leader of the Free World! Now THAT'S some sales moxie!

Human beings, having not changed much at our basic core (only in the amount of energy available to us) for some ten thousand years, means that all the things that the Founders checked and balanced are still out there.

For better or worse, that goes for the Second Amendment.

And that John Edwards isn't at the top of my list, but from your signature it looks like hes yours. This is a question to him and his answer.

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

A: There are problems with the instant background check system that we have today. That needs to be fixed. Those problems became obvious with the shooting at Virginia Tech. There are other things that need to be done, like closing the gun show loophole, and I believe in the Second Amendment, but I don't believe you need an AK-47 to hunt. And I think we need to renew the assault weapons ban for that reason. But I also want to join in the idea that in addition to guns specifically and trying to do something to limit gun violence, we also need to create hope for so many young African-American men who think they're either going to die or go to prison. They don't see any hope whatsoever in their lives, which means we need to bring good jobs into the inner city so that they can support themselves, support their families. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Edwards_Gun_Control.htm
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007

JOhn Edwards doesn't go as far as wanting to get rid of the second amendment, but he and I basically agree about what firearms belong in civilian hands.

in which the people heading the Law Enforcement agencies and now dominating their upper ranks, are criminals or criminally negligent (when told to be, like in the anthrax investigation...what anthrax investigation?) themselves, many or most of 'em.

The second amendment is a hard one to steer a middle course through, and Edawrds is trying, so I respect that.

But with Totalitarian Tyranny breathing down our necks, I think it is unwise to fiddle with the 2nd Amend.

Just my 2 cents, and we may have to agree to disagree.

He has trouble understanding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right of the people to hunt - it guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The second amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting, there is no "gun show loophole" and the "AWB" doesn't even address what he's talking about when he uses the term "gun show loophole."

What you want the US Constitution to say v. what it actually says. Unless amended the 2nd amendment is still in force. We cannot simply choose to ignore part of the US Constitution and for good reason.

that congress shall make no law abridging speech. But it doesn't mean that free speech is unrestricted. Why does the 2nd Amendment get special treatment in that regard?

uguu

then it guarantees and protects Blackwater's right to exist. Let's all chew on that for a while.

While the Constitution clearly provides for the rights of militias to exist, it doesn't provide for them to be funded by the government and our tax dollars. Blackwater, is NOT a militia. It is a government-funded, private military, and a corporation engaged in criminal acts of war profiteering. The militia's you speak of are comprised of US citizens who may well need to bear arms against such an organization in the future.

Your claim that the militia need not be established by the state only further suggests that Blackwater fits this bill. It even fits the lose definition of militia quite nicely, in that it is a group of citizens joined together for defense of some goal.

Keep in mind I am not advocating this interpretation. I'm just pointing out the logical consequence of the group right analysis.

Or any of numerous other tramplings on the rights and welfare of urban residents.

They want a harsh, tough-love nanny state that services the upper middle class.

decided at the state level. If you want to organize in your state for tougher gun laws, I'm behind you 100%. But there's no reason at all to pick a fight on a national level here.

Where's the threshold? After all, they're *ALL* just "arms"
and could be read into the 2nd Amendment.

Tesha

Nobody is talking about appealing the National Firearms Act.

We have what I consider to be reasonable restrictions.

What reason would you have to change it?

Please be more specific and less sarcastic; that does weaken whatever point you are trying to make.

BTW - More than half of those deaths are suicides, which occur whether or not firearms exist.

> Are you trying to make a case for changing the law?

Absolutely. I think private possession of handguns should
be banned, right along with the (currently-banned) private
possession of hand grenades, RPGs, mortars, sawed-off
shotguns, ricin, ebola, and nukes, even cute little
totable back-pack-sized nukes.

And it's clear to me that the Second Amendment is simply
being read, even by gun enthusiasts, in a way they find
convenient *TO THEM*. It can obviously be read many other
ways, some of which would vastly loosen the rules on
private weapons ownership and some of which would tighten
the rules on private weapons ownership.

And with regard to suicides, the *BIG DIFFERENCE* that
guns bringto the picture is that when a person attempts
suicide by gun, they usually succeed. This isn't nearly
as true with other methodologies.

Tesha

:eyes:

And with regard to suicides, the *BIG DIFFERENCE* that
guns bringto the picture is that when a person attempts
suicide by gun, they usually succeed. This isn't nearly
as true with other methodologies.

That's why the suicide rate is so low in Japan (where private ownership of handguns is banned), right?

Weapons that can be carried and used by a single person.

during the Revolutionary War, and War of 1812, We issued "Commissions for privateers" to civilian ship owners, giving them power to attack British ships...

Imagine that, Privately owned warships, the super weapons of the day.

http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

That being said, the National Firearms act of the 1930's set the limits, about right.

Ah. I see. What you're saying is that the 2nd Amendment
can't actually be read as written but limits can be set.
Well, if limits *CAN* be set, then we're just arguing
about where those limits are and I'll argue that
handguns should be beyond the pale along with hand
grenades and H-bombs.

Tesha

...I'd love to see your reaction to that.

I realize that freedom of speech means sometimes I have to put up with speech that I don't agree with. But the same concept of tolerance applies to firearms as well. If a firearm is inherently unsafe, sure, go after it. But semi-automatic AR-15s and AK-47s do not fall into that category. Used properly, they're some of the safest and most well-designed firearms ever made. They may not be your cup of tea, but please allow me my own preferences as a law-abiding American citizen.

Doesn't include your "right to abortion". Or better yet, then if it's OK with you for cities and states to set their own gun laws, then the same applies to abortion, or free speech, or freedom of religion, or the rest of the Bill of Rights. You don't respect MY rights, don't expect me to respect YOURS.

If we can argue that burning the US Flag is "freedom of speech", and that paintings smeared in excrement is "protected under the 1st Amendment" how can we argue that a handgun IS NOT protected by the second amendment?

Seems like if we want to define all the rest of the Bill of Rights as broad as possible, we look like asses when we try to say "Well that don't apply to the 2nd Amendment" as some in our party tries to define it as NARROWLY as possible.

That is why I have issues with the ACLU.....When we use arguments like "obsolete" in reference to a RIGHT, we are inviting others to do the same to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Think about the ramifications of such a stance.

The practice was incorporated in to the Constitution as the congressional authority to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal.

You know we are talking about firearms. I do not believe that Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons should even exist.

> Knock it off.
>
> You know we are talking about firearms.

No, I *DON'T* "know" that and neither do you. All I "know"
is that our constitution uses the word "arms". And an attempt
at sophistry above aside, no one has shown me a valid argument
that, say, a hand grenade shouldn't be considered an "arm"
(or "armament") in exactly the same way a Smith and Wesson is.
Or a container of ricin toxin, far more totable than either.
And you can carry a "Davy Crockett"-sized nuke



So all your doing is arguing that you like the current
status quo and that I should "knock it off" and accept
that status quo. Why?

Tesha

NBC weapons, as well as explosives and full-auto guns, are not discriminate weapons. If you want to own and use explosive ordinance or fully-automatic weapons, you need to go through the Department of the Treasury, pass the background check, and pay the tax.

If you want to own NBC weapons, start up a chemical, biological, or nuclear research company.

Dammit someone beat me to it!

or deer! antler guns. if you miss a buck, he gets a shot at you.

Unless it's really, really, really, really cold outside. Then you should wear a coat.

Evens up the odds.

But no assault weapons for them either.:evilgrin:

True "assault weapons" have been HIGHLY regulated since 1934....

You must be using Sara Brady's definition, of "semi automatic rifles"....

You do realize Sara Brady is a republican, and they have been known to lie.

capable of firing a large number of bullets from a clip larger than one you would find on the average hunting rifle?

At least in terms of federal law, it has no official meaning.

:shrug:

In terms of rifles, for something to be an "assault weapon" it has to be first be fed by a detachable magazine. And a detachable magazine can have any capacity you want. One company sells 90-round magazines for AR-15s and Mini-14 rifles, and you can buy Communist-bloc military-surplus 75-round magazines fo your AK-47.

If the rifle is fed from a detachable magazine, then, under the now-expired 1993 Federal ban, such a rifle needs to have two or more cosmetic features to be considered an "assault weapon". But the definition is arbitrary. House bill HR1022 extends the definition of "asault weapon" to basically anything of military origin and/or anything determined by the Attorney General as not particularly suitable to a sporting purpose.

The 1993 Federal ban had these definitions, per Wikipedia:



So you see, the arbitrary and perjorative term "assault weapon" covers far more things than civilian AR-15 or AK-47 rifles.

The term "assault weapon" is a good example of framing, something that the Republicans (like the Brady family) are good at. Using the term "assault weapon" brings to the forefront of the mind the mental frame of combat in Vietnam. Of South American and African guerrillas. Of slaughtered villagers and ruthless, remorseless killing. Of Minutemen on the boarder. Of David Koresh and the Waco shoot-out. Of the Michican Militia and right-wing fundies screaming about Janet Reno, NAFTA, and communism. About... gun nuts.

Never mind that "assault weapon" is a deliberate perversion of a more accurate term used to describe rifles developed in the post-World-War-Two era, namely, the "assault rifle". "Assault rifle" comes from the German word sturmgewehr, or "storm rifle". Assault rifles are selective-fire weapons, able to be fired either semi-automatically or fully-automatically by flicking a switch. They are designed to offer the combat benefits of a submachine gun and a battle rifle with the disadvantages of neither.

They are between a submachine gun (which fires pistol ammunition) and a battle rifle (which fires rifle ammuntion commonly used in this county for hunting big game) in power. The light recoil of the ammunition allows them to be fired in fully-automatic mode for close-range combat (like a submachine gun is), yet the bullet's shape and muzzle velocity allow accurate and effective long-range shooting when the gun is in semi-automatic mode.

"Assault weapon" rifles don't have the fully-automatic capability, which means that they are really just light-powered semiautomatic rifles. But if they have ergonomic features like protruding pistol grips, watch out! It's a weapon of mass destruction!

The only two that would have an impact on shootings just like yesterday in Omaha are that semi automatics need to be limited to 5-10 bullets period, I see no need for them a all, but I'm sure some of the more radical gun nuts like to keep them around.

Cho killed 33 with two handguns (one a very low-powered .22) and those had 10-round magazines. And the Dawson College shooting last year up in Canada was done with limited-capacity magazines (10 rounds).

The bald fact is that a weapon that's good for defense is usually pretty good at offense, too.


There's something wrong with us. Up until 1934, you could buy fully-automatic Tommy guns with 100-round magazines through mail order (!) with no special check or restriction at all. Just like buying a set of cooking pots. Shipped right to your front door.

And this kind of shit didn't happen.

I fear we have entered some sort of societal "rut" in this matter tha will take several generated to fade away.

They have been the subject of Congressional reviews and FBI investigations. Blackwater easily fits the definition of "well regulated", as much as that can apply to anything these days.

Anyone who thinks the Second Amendment applies to organizations over individuals has to admit they are supporting Blackwater over their fellow Americans.

As private citizens, they are NOT members of the military and are not, therefore, subject to any of the articles of the UCMJ.

are governed by the UCMJ. That doesn't mean they are strict about applying it, but military law does apply to them.

because private citizens engaging in activities while NOT part of the military are NOT subject to the articles of the UCMJ. The UCMJ is military law, not civil law.

Security contractors, despite any aura or indicia of militarism, are NEVER members of the military.

"Commanders have UCMJ authority to disarm, apprehend and detain DoD contractors suspected of having committed a felony offense" in violation of the rules for using force, said the memo, written by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England and obtained by The Times.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/blac-o01.shtml

Unfortunately I can't find the original news piece the memo is quoted in, but this is on several different sites.

sorry about repeating your great idea.

I think a country where the government can turn my land into an army base without asking or paying is just as bad as a country that won't let it's people arm themselves.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I don't, do you?

All our rights have limits. Free speech? You can't slander or yell fire in a movie theater. Right of assembly? Can I hold a protest in your front yard? Reasonable restrictions are common sense. The right to bear arms? When that was written and arm was a mussel loader. Is there a right own a bazooka? A rocket launcher. A nuclear arm?

Do you really think the government is coming to get you? The soldiers are your neighbors. If you live in fear then you are just what the republican wet dream about. Afraid.

If you don't think so, go try to buy a gun at your local gun shop. Or, rather, a bazooka or a rocket launcher.

You can't.

What is being proposed by antigun people is only "reasonable" in their minds.

You allude to free speech..

Do you need to have a "10 day waiting period" on your mouth?

How about a background check, and safe storage??? How about a madrid of other inane laws. Like can you even OWN or Possess a "mouth" in the nations capitol...

Yes, their is responsibility in free speech, but we hold people responsible for WHAT THEY SAY, after they say it, not the tools they use to say it...

Very important distinction.

The vast majority of gun owners are not the problem, go after the small number of people that ABUSE the rights, and leave the rest of us, law abiding citizen alone.

We Democrats pay a fearful price at the voting booth when we push gun control.

NEVER FORGET 1994

welcome to DU!:thumbsup:

No, but their private mercenaries might be. They were in N.O. after Katrina. Anyway, the whole "your neighbor" thing doesn't stop armies elsewhere from oppressing its own population.

Of course the government is not out to get the professional classes.

They are part of the ruling elite needed keep the illusion that we are
still a democracy going, based on the practical reality that we are an
oligarchy, like Athens and Rome.

It established exactly the kinds of limits you are referring to, RealAle.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm

oyster shooter?

Unlike many other countries which laugh at our essentially unrestricted free speech policies (Europe). The endangerment of life or safety exception proves the rule. (Slander is irrelevant, contrary to many so-called commentators, because it is civil suit, not criminal violation.)

:popcorn:

:9

They are ready to manipulate their readers.

For example, from the article you cite:
"On the other hand, there's a huge difference between sporting rifles and high-cyclic-rate-of-fire weapons designed to suppress enemy defenses during military assaults -- in the process disabling or killing as many human beings as possible. Despite Congress' failure to renew the assault weapons ban, there is no justification for civilians to possess machine pistols or automatic rifles."

Here the author misrepresents what the 1994 actually banned. The 1994 Assault weapons Ban had nothing at all to do with machine pistols and automatic rifles. Such dishonesty is what I've come to expect from gun-grabbers in the media, but when they are ready to have an honest discussion about guns, I'll be ready too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x323842


But, once again, equating semi-automatic "assault weapons" with fully-automatic military weapons. :eyes:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Preying on public ignorance again.

And once again, sounding like the Bush Administration talking about 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amenedment rights in the "post 9/11 world".

The Second Amendment isn't the problem, the military industrial complex is.

and thanks for the link.
Look @ it this way, if 20% of people are stupid enough to smoke (some 60 million idiots), what is the percentage of gun owners that also smoke?
People getting their background checks done to buy a firearm of any kind should be tested through implied-consent language, and if found to be in contact with nicotine, denied a permit at any price.
Smokers are too stupid to be allowed to legally purchase and own a slingshot or BB gun, let alone firearms.
Before long, the cops will be able to pull the fuckers over on sight.
Actual decent citizens should continue awaiting their notice of suitability after extensive investigation into every application for permit to own.
The Second Amendment isn't a suicide pact, said Justice Jackson I believe.

Sorry, but the Constitution is always right. The only time it is wrong is when it restricts rights, not when it grants them.

Nobody ever talks about the 3rd Amendment, but understanding it helps on to understand the spirit of the 2nd.

The Third Amendment prevents the government from quartering troops on your property. Does that help you sleep at night? It should.

During the British colonial era, the British troops were a Samurai class — while not rulers themselves, they were above the colonists legally. If the military needed something from you, they could demand it; you were beneath them. Another distinguishing factor was that citizens did not have a right to keep and bear arms — only the military had that right. Citizens could be granted the privilege, but it wasn't a right.

The 2nd Amendment's confusing language referring to militias is not trying to say that the RKBA is intended for military use only, but the opposite. What it is trying to say is that soldiers can keep and bear arms because it is the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is intended to prevent the military from becoming a class with monopoly privileges on violence.

The modern reality is different from what the Founders might have foreseen, but I believe we are generally keeping with the spirit of the law. Yes, citizens may not have unfettered access to all of the same weapons as the military, but the weapons they do have access to are generally sensible.

I think that Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" readily illustrated — with its comparison between the US and Canada — that our problem with gun violence is largely cultural. Getting 50% of the guns off the street isn't going to help and having twice as many guns on the street probably wouldn't make things any worse.

Changing the culture, however, is much harder than passing feel-good laws.

Doing so will have two benefits. First, it will finally ensure our right to bear arms is protected from idiots who think "assault-guns" actually exist and should be banned.

Second, it will take a huge hurdle for the Democrats out of the 2008 election. All the Democratic front runners have terrible positions on the 2nd Amendment, and the Reps are sure to pick them apart for this. If the Supreme Court decides that the Second in an individual right, gun rights may largely become something of a non-issue. The Dem nominee, who is almost certain to have a record of spitting on the right to bear arms, will be able to say "yes, I would support strict gun control laws, but I can't because that is no longer in my power to do".

Hey, I could see them totally taking that way out.

They even have a big building out by RFK Stadium.

She was not very well regulated.

:puke:

There you go then.

But... is it a state militia? Since the mayor can't use it, does it count under the 2nd amendment?

DC makes my head hurt.

Who is the equivalent of a governor for the District of Columbia? The reason I ask, is that a governor is the Commander in Chief of his or her state's national guard.

The highest ranking DC guardsman is a 1-star general, but who does he get his Title 32 orders from?

DC ST § 49-401

Formerly cited as DC ST 1981 § 39-101

District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness
Division VIII. General Laws.

Title 49. Military. (Refs & Annos)

Chapter 4. Composition, Organization, and Control. (Refs & Annos)

§ 49-401. Militia; persons to be enrolled.

Every able-bodied male citizen resident within the District of Columbia, of the age of 18 years and under the age of 45 years, excepting persons exempted by § 49-402, and idiots, lunatics, common drunkards, vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous crime, shall be enrolled in the militia. Persons so convicted after enrollment shall forthwith be disenrolled; and in all cases of doubt respecting the age of a person enrolled, the burden of proof shall be upon him.

See http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0&SP=DCC-1000&Action=Welcome

That's funny.

:rofl:

:D

As long as every able-bodied citizen is subject to conscription at the pleasure of state governors in times of emergency, the Second Amendment is not obsolete.

I support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Zanne will claim that toddlers will get Uzi's and Bill will call us "gun pushers" :rofl:

Sorry, couldn't resist. Steppenwolf flashback.

I think that is what it comes down to - you don't trust me with a gun.

Flawed Logic knows no bounds.

Firearms should also be allowed to decent and law-abiding worthwhile citizens, not smokers.

And trust the NRA to tell them what it says.

that is to say, even if they weren't in the Constitution, human beings (as individuals) are *still* bestowed these rights by their creator.

:shrug:

:D

:toast:

:beer:

Amendment II

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.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

Thanks for proving my point.

No matter how you cut it...with or without the militia clause, PEOPLE still have the right to keep and bear arms.

Who's bringing the guns?

Maybe the guns are kept at the armory?

:shrug:

If the armory is keeping them, well...that ain't exactly the same as "the people" keeping them, now, is it?

I didnt put militias in there, but it is there regardless. I am just pointing out that everyone in this thread is PARTIALLY quoting the 2nd amendment (including you). Why did the founder phrase it like that? YOU TELL ME.

to figure out what it means to individual US citizens.

I think I have shown that the militia clause, as a modifier, really has no impact on the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms in that their right to do so is explicitly and implicity assured by the 2A.

I see.

Goodbye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9aIb-IplqY

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia.

While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.

Reference links: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

:shrug:

and are, therefore, able to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment clearly refers to a "well-regulated militia." Are you arguing that the "unorganized militia" cited above, which 99.9999% of American males 17 to 45 don't even known exist, let alone that they're IN IT, is a "well-regulated militia"?

is on the government.

And therefore the unregulated ("unorganized") milita doesn't count, since by definition it can't also be the well-regulated militia at the same time.

The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide training for the militia. There is still a vestige of that in the CMP:

The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) promotes firearms safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth. The CMP operates through a network of affiliated shooting clubs and associations that covers every state in the U.S. The clubs and associations offer firearms safety training and marksmanship courses as well as the opportunity for continued practice and competition.

The CMP was created by the U.S. Congress. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve the U.S. military. Over the years the emphasis of the program shifted to focus on youth development through marksmanship. From 1916 until 1996 the CMP was administered by the U.S. Army. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (TITLE XVI) created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice & Firearms Safety, Inc. (CPRPFS) to take over administration and promotion of the CMP. The CPRPFS is a tax exempt not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization that derives its mission from public law....

http://www.odcmp.com/about_us.htm

Interesting, and it does indeed indicate at least an attempt at providing training to the mass levy (the unorganized milita), although I would argue that "regulated" and "trained" are still not the same thing, and trained to shoot is not trained to fight. The 18th and 19th century militias would meet on the village green on a regular basis, inspect equipment, practice maneuver, and generally strive to train themselves in a way the unorganized militia of today does not, mostly because most people don't even know they're in it.

From reading the events of the times, I believe the 2nd Amendment was a bow to the States, who were very wary of the idea that a Federal Army would exist under Federal (not State) authority, an instrument that could be used to impose Federal will on the States. These same people had just gotten done fighting off their own (former) national army, and wanted an insurance policy against this new national army in case the grand experiment of the USA went horribly wrong.

:hi:

Although the constituationality of that age limit may be questionable.

In any case, it wouldn't make any logical sense to say that someone loses the right to keep and bear arms when they reach age 45. So the whole "you have to be in a militia" argument is absurd.

:D

Assuming the would-be infringer wins an argument with this:

http://blog.sanriotown.com/kt_sanctuary:hellokitty.com/files/2007/09/gun.jpg

corporations don't need it anymore.

there are a lot more target shooters and people who own guns for defensive purposes than there are hunters. Banning the most popular target rifles in America, banning the lawful and responsible possession of handguns, and restricting guns to pre-1861 magazine capacities, are ludicrous.

Nonhunters have just as much right to lawfully and responsibly own guns as hunters do, and self-defense and target shooting have always been recognized in this country as legitimate reasons to own a gun.





BTW, Street Sweepers (12-gauge shotguns that work like a revolver) are controlled under the over-.50-caliber restrictions of the National Firearms Act; possession outside of police/military duty without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony. (And an "assault gun" is a tank, not a small-caliber civilian rifle.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gun


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Shotguns, pepper spray and similar crowd control devices (used to great
effect to kill people in WWI) are banned under the Geneva Conventions.

They are ONLY permitted for use in domestic riot control against civilians
rebelling against the government.

They are considered too cruel for use against soldiers, i.e. against the rules of war.

One issue I have though is that 'clip' isn't the correct term. While it is a generally accepted term, it isn't them same thing as a magazine. Just a pet peeve of mine.

but I would rather read mine than use it to shoot anything.:P

I DO like watching clips of certain unmentionable things :evilgrin:

Bolt action military rifles and Garand pattern rifles use a clip. Which is then loaded into a magazine.

BTW, the writer of the linked article thinks automatic weapons were legalized in 2004:



Automatic weapons are, of course, as tightly controlled in 2007 as they have ever been, and simple possession outside of police/military duty without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year felony, same as for sound-suppressed weapons, hand grenades, artillery pieces, and whatnot.

But considering the paper is in the DFW area, I'm sure plenty of observant Texans will take care of that.

The writer copy/pasted plenty of Brady into it, guess that's what it takes to sell a newspaper nowadays.

The Author completely missed the point of the Second Amendment, the second Amendment was put into place to protect the people from the tyranny of a ruling Government. The Second Amendment was written into our Constitution after we won our independence from England who used to rule us and had a standing Army, which the author completely ignores. If citizens were not allowed to own arms back 1775 how would they have defeated their governments standing Army? How would they do it today without the right to bear arms, the founding fathers were 100 times smarter than the author of this trash.

Oh wait... I was thinking of another right.

Wait... I don't even have a vagina.

Never mind.

If the kinds of guns I want are banned, then as far as I'm concerned hunting can be banned and so can your hunting guns. How do you like that?

And anyone who uses the term "assault gun" in reference to personal weapons is a clueless tool.

:eyes:

the opening phrase is absolute construction. However he goes down hill very quickly from there.


"The nine justices should hone their grammar skills. The introductory absolute phrase ("A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,") preceding the main clause sets the condition for why the people collectively had a right to keep and bear arms: to be able quickly to muster their local "well regulated Militia," individually lifting smooth-bores down from over their fireplaces so they could assemble and march off to defend "the security of free State" against aggressors.

Indeed the Justices should hone their grammar skills, but they ought to turn up their BS meters as well. The opening phrase is clearly not a conditional despite the author's attempted sleight of hand. Furthermore the author's claim that the introductory phrase tells us "why the people have a right to keep and bear arm" is not supported by the text. The amendment does NOT say why the people have a right to keep and bear arms -rather it provides a rationale in the introductory phrase why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The phrasing is important since the actual text of the amendment(and history) shows that the right referred to in the amendment already existed. The right was not created by the amendment, instead it is guaranteed by the amendment not to be infringed. Moreover, the opening phrase can not be said to qualify "the right.." as absolute construction does not modify the subject of the main clause. Nor is the opening phrase a conditional -there is no "if" or "when". A phrase such as "X being the case" is different than conditional phrases such as "when X is the case" or "If x is the case".


The author claims without basis that the right to keep and bear arms is collective, but an exclusively collective right to keep and bear arms makes no more sense than an exclusively collective right to change light bulbs. Since a right to do things normally done by an individual would natuarlly be interpreted as an individual right, it makes good sense to determine just who was supposed to "keep and bear arms" -individuals or the collective.



Note that during the drafting and ratification of the amendemnt, Madison and others used the term "bearing arms" to refer to an individual person's actions.
In 1939 the Supreme Court in US v. Miller used the term "bearing arms" the same as one might use "carrying arms"
"ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time"
and the Miller court cited various militia acts from the founding era showing that individual persons were to "keep" arms. In its holding the Miller court used the term "keep and bear arms" to mean "possession or use" of weapons.
In each case what is expressed is the action of an individual.


Lastly the earliest court cases interpreted the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right(see Nunn v. GA and Bliss v. KY). Even Aymette which interpreted the right to keep and bear arms as expressed in the Tenn. constitution as having only a collective purpose, none-the-less interpreted that right to be individual ("every" free white male may keep and bear arms as per the Tenn. court's interpretation of that provision)

I'm afraid simply banning certain types of guns will not do much of anything. There needs to be a comprehensive approach to deal with the roots of crime in general.

then it will be too late to change your mind.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN.

Period. It never has, and unless it changes, it never will. Forget everything the NRA has pushed down your throat, forget what the gun lobby wants you to believe, and forget what all that parroting by gun guys has made you think is true. What we printed right there above is the truth. And the courts have said so.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not dealt directly with the Second Amendment since 1939. Then, United States v. Miller held that a sawed-off shotgun was subject to registration because there was no evidence before the court that it had a military use. This opinion suggests that any demonstrably military weapon should enjoy the protection of the Second Amendment.

No, actually, the school teacher is right. The courts there decided that the sawed-off shotgun was "subject to registration." That means that any and all legislation that restricts the use of deadly weapons is completely and totally constitutional. That's according to the courts, people. We're not making this stuff up. The courts of the United States of America have said, time and time again, that the "right to bear arms" is not a guaranteed right at all.
http://www.gunguys.com/

Personally I think the gun issue is a trap dug by the Right for Left leaning people to fall into, and the farther we stay away from it the better I like it.

Secondly though, I like having the option to man the barricades if the need comes up with something in my hand other than a brick.

Not as often as "the gun guys" , but often enough.

But since people can be wrong, it is better to go to the actual document in question then to trust to someone's opinion on that document. (otherwise ALL those comments by the framers and founders describing how the BoR protected or "secured" "private", "personal", "inherent" rights of the people would be all we need to clearly settle this issue.

Let's see: "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."

Yup - articulates a right of the people VERY explicitly, therefore that right is secured for the people. What right? The right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. ("arms" include guns in case you weren't sure of that either.)

Come on. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" cannot be dismissed with a regal wave of the hand from any court, not even the Supreme Court. It's the law of the land. Now it's up to SCOTUS to rule on the Heller case in a way that is consistent with our Constitution.

For that matter, to simply "write off" an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as "worthless" is beyond me.

He better also have an amendment ratified that overturns A1,S8,C16, as that clause too secured the right of the people to arms. Doesn't matter - my personal right to arms will still exist whether it is articulated and secured by the 2nd or not.

Get back to me when its accomplished, and THEN he can try justifying "reasonable restrictions" on an inalienable right to self defense, and the means to enjoy that right. In the mean time, leave us the hell alone.

the possession of arms, firearms in our case, had been the historic difference between freedom and slavery.
The firepower of the government can fall into the grip of the B*sh Crime family or Religious fanatics.
It already has.
It's best that the citizenry not be defenseless in the face of such a threat.
I got my training from my old man, at summer camp, and from Uncle Sam, so I handle my firearms responsibly.
It is a problem that many don't.
I could go for some sort of training and certificate of proficiency before someone get their first fire arm.
But being the distrustful person that I am I wouldn't want all the record keeping associated with a license.
Consider that the first act of a Republican Secretary of State might be to revoke all the democrats' firearm licenses. Then Blackwater could round them up without effective resistance.

The right to keep and bear arms is set forth in the context of a "well-regulated militia" and the security of a free state. There is no implied private right for purposes other than, in our day, the National Guard. If the Founders meant for this right to be universal and unconditional, they would have said so--just as they did with free speech or freedom of assembly.