Gun Control, A rational discussion Options

[Capt. Andtennille]

If one were to be literal then, women do not have the guaranteed right to bear arms at all, nor do men over 45. Isn't that correct?

Not at all. I was correcting the incorrect interpretation of the term militia. It was probably defined even more broadly during the founding of the country since boys younger than 18 and men older than 45 were certainly considered part of the militia.

The more pertinant point is that the left's interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is flawed for a number of reasons. The milita definition is one but that doesn't really matter because it doesn't require eligibility or membership of any militia to retain your rights to bear arms. Read my example regarding the media and opinions.

I'm not at all familiar with the Constitutions of other countries, but ours is designed to limit the powers of government. All rights are natural and retained by the citizens.

[Bargod]

The 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which was the act that Congress passed to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, specified that militiamen purchase and maintain their own weapons. This resulted in a militia system with very little central control or support. There were no penalties placed on states that refused to maintain their militias as required by the 1792 Act. Therefore, the states let their official militia units all but die out. The federal government intervened several times to call out and reform the militia, especially in 1805, 1807, 1812, 1814-1815, 1817, 1826, and 1840, but what was left was filled with drunkenness and gambling, among other vices. Most states officially abolished compulsory militia duty during the 1840s, but left the volunteer units alone which would eventually, a long time later, evolve into the National Guard.

The more pertinant point is that the left's interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is flawed for a number of reasons.

It's not a left vs. right question. Rudy Giuliani is for strict gun control. I believe he is a Republican.

And it's not that proponents of gun control are wrong. The interpretation is at the heart of the matter and so far the Supreme Court has not touched it because Constitutional Scholars generally believe that it would be bad for gun owners because it is the ONLY instance of a secondary condition being given priority over an original condition -> You only have the right to keep and bear arms IF you are a member of a well organized militia. The ONLY time anyone takes the secondary condition as primary is in the second ammendment. However, since the Supreme Court won't deal with the issue they leave it at state levels which is why there are places in the country where it is illegal to own guns.
The supreme court HAS upheld cases stating that owning guns is NOT a personal freedom, which is what PRO Gun people claim. This is why there are so many laws to control guns.

So, the flawed logic is on the side of the PRO gun lobby. The Supreme Court knows that if it were to open this up it would get very ugly very quickly, so has never dealt with the issue directly.

[Bargod]

In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the pivotal case of United States v. Miller, rejecting any individual right to possess firearms for purposes unrelated to the "well regulated Militia" of the States. The Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of" state militias, and the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."4 Following that ruling, the federal appeals courts overwhelmingly rejected challenges to gun laws.

[Capt. Andtennille]

The 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which was the act that Congress passed to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, specified that militiamen purchase and maintain their own weapons. This resulted in a militia system with very little central control or support. There were no penalties placed on states that refused to maintain their militias as required by the 1792 Act. Therefore, the states let their official militia units all but die out. The federal government intervened several times to call out and reform the militia, especially in 1805, 1807, 1812, 1814-1815, 1817, 1826, and 1840, but what was left was filled with drunkenness and gambling, among other vices. Most states officially abolished compulsory militia duty during the 1840s, but left the volunteer units alone which would eventually, a long time later, evolve into the National Guard.

Not familiar with those particular laws, but congress can't pass laws in violation of the Constitution

It's not a left vs. right question. Rudy Giuliani is for strict gun control. I believe he is a Republican.

Rudy Giuliani may be a "Republican" but his big problem with the base is that he is NOT a conservative. BIG difference

And it's not that proponents of gun control are wrong.

It's EXACTLY that the proponents of gun control are wrong

The interpretation is at the heart of the matter and so far the Supreme Court has not touched it because Constitutional Scholars generally believe that it would be bad for gun owners because it is the ONLY instance of a secondary condition being given priority over an original condition -> You only have the right to keep and bear arms IF you are a member of a well organized militia. The ONLY time anyone takes the secondary condition as primary is in the second ammendment. However, since the Supreme Court won't deal with the issue they leave it at state levels which is why there are places in the country where it is illegal to own guns.
The supreme court HAS upheld cases stating that owning guns is NOT a personal freedom, which is what PRO Gun people claim. This is why there are so many laws to control guns.

A court in DC recently ruled that the city does NOT have the right to ban guns. The city is appealing to the Sumpreme Court. Let's see if they take it up.

So, the flawed logic is on the side of the PRO gun lobby. The Supreme Court knows that if it were to open this up it would get very ugly very quickly, so has never dealt with the issue directly.

I guess I and millions of other Americans have flawed logic because Bargod says so. LOL Don't flatter youself.

If you want to see how it gets when things get ugly you can take a little peek at the not-so-distant past. Take a look at Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, Uganda, Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Turkish Armenia (to list but a few) for a preview of a disarmed civilian population. Guns in the hands of government alone have murdered well north of 100 million people during the 20th Century alone, far more than all of the criminals in all of history have murdered with ALL weapons.

Say I were to stipulate that the 2nd amendment was referring exclusively to militia (I'm not), and that "the people" referred to a collective rather than the individual, contrary to ALL of the other times "the people" is used (I'm not), Then what it's saying, by YOUR definition of the sentence, is that there will be NO infringment on the right of "a well regulated militia" to keep and bear arms. If I were to stipulate all of that then a couple of things are obvious. First of all, I'm going to found a militia with some nice rules to keep it well regulated and I'll call it "The Well Regulated Militia" so I can have all the guns I want. Next, those who decide that they didn't want to join my militia would STILL be able to own guns because thier rights DO NOT COME FROM THE CONSTITUTION. I know that part is hard to understand by those on the left, so I will repeat it again and type v e r y s l o w l y.



The Constitution does NOT define what our rights are IT DEFINES THE LIMITS ON THE GOVERNMENT.



So the government could not keep my "Well Regulated Militia" from keeping and bearing arms because the Constitution doesn't let it, and I can have my personal guns because they protect my "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness".

Why on earth are you liberals so anxious to surrender your rights to the government?

[Capt. Andtennille]

In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the pivotal case of United States v. Miller, rejecting any individual right to possess firearms for purposes unrelated to the "well regulated Militia" of the States. The Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of" state militias, and the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."4 Following that ruling, the federal appeals courts overwhelmingly rejected challenges to gun laws.

United States vs. Miller is not what you think it is. Some of it was based on the commerce clause (pesky thing that has been stretched waaaaaaaaay beyond it's original intent) and a sawed off shotgun. If the militias would commonly use sawed off shotguns the case may have turned out very differently. It's not much of a stretch to stay within this ruling while allowing citizens to have bazookas.

[Bargod]

I'm not saying that it's the way the supreme court reads the constitution because I say so, I quote precedent that the Supreme Court uses to define the second ammendment. I also pointed out that their are laws that define what a "well regulated militia" is. I know that their are people involved in militia's all over this country. I can not say whether they fit the actual requirements or not. These regulations started pretty much after the revolution, so I'm guessing the founding fathers knew more about what they thought a militia should be than anybody alive today. The National Guard is what the state militia's became.


I'd also like to point out, once again, that this is not a left vs. right issue and your insinuation that I'm a liberal is getting annoying. I'm trying to keep this civil and now you're attacking me. Let's try to get back to the actual issues.

And once again I will point out that if what you claim is true, that you have an inalienable right to bear arms, then why is it legal for states to make laws stating what guns you can and can't have and how they can be stored, etc...
Because THE SUPREME COURT says it is not your inalienable right. It hinges on the militia aspect.
I didn't make this stuff up. I just started learning about it.

The Constitution does NOT define what our rights are IT DEFINES THE LIMITS ON THE GOVERNMENT.

Just because you say this doesn't make it true. It ensures the rights of people. The right to vote, the right to a fair trial, etc...

Those are not LIMITS on the government.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

The 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which was the act that Congress passed to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, specified that militiamen purchase and maintain their own weapons. This resulted in a militia system with very little central control or support. There were no penalties placed on states that refused to maintain their militias as required by the 1792 Act. Therefore, the states let their official militia units all but die out. The federal government intervened several times to call out and reform the militia, especially in 1805, 1807, 1812, 1814-1815, 1817, 1826, and 1840, but what was left was filled with drunkenness and gambling, among other vices. Most states officially abolished compulsory militia duty during the 1840s, but left the volunteer units alone which would eventually, a long time later, evolve into the National Guard.

Not familiar with those particular laws, but congress can't pass laws in violation of the Constitution

It's not a left vs. right question. Rudy Giuliani is for strict gun control. I believe he is a Republican.

Rudy Giuliani may be a "Republican" but his big problem with the base is that he is NOT a conservative. BIG difference

And it's not that proponents of gun control are wrong.

It's EXACTLY that the proponents of gun control are wrong

The interpretation is at the heart of the matter and so far the Supreme Court has not touched it because Constitutional Scholars generally believe that it would be bad for gun owners because it is the ONLY instance of a secondary condition being given priority over an original condition -> You only have the right to keep and bear arms IF you are a member of a well organized militia. The ONLY time anyone takes the secondary condition as primary is in the second ammendment. However, since the Supreme Court won't deal with the issue they leave it at state levels which is why there are places in the country where it is illegal to own guns.
The supreme court HAS upheld cases stating that owning guns is NOT a personal freedom, which is what PRO Gun people claim. This is why there are so many laws to control guns.

A court in DC recently ruled that the city does NOT have the right to ban guns. The city is appealing to the Sumpreme Court. Let's see if they take it up.

So, the flawed logic is on the side of the PRO gun lobby. The Supreme Court knows that if it were to open this up it would get very ugly very quickly, so has never dealt with the issue directly.

I guess I and millions of other Americans have flawed logic because Bargod says so. LOL Don't flatter youself.

If you want to see how it gets when things get ugly you can take a little peek at the not-so-distant past. Take a look at Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, Uganda, Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Turkish Armenia (to list but a few) for a preview of a disarmed civilian population. Guns in the hands of government alone have murdered well north of 100 million people during the 20th Century alone, far more than all of the criminals in all of history have murdered with ALL weapons.

Say I were to stipulate that the 2nd amendment was referring exclusively to militia (I'm not), and that "the people" referred to a collective rather than the individual, contrary to ALL of the other times "the people" is used (I'm not), Then what it's saying, by YOUR definition of the sentence, is that there will be NO infringment on the right of "a well regulated militia" to keep and bear arms. If I were to stipulate all of that then a couple of things are obvious. First of all, I'm going to found a militia with some nice rules to keep it well regulated and I'll call it "The Well Regulated Militia" so I can have all the guns I want. Next, those who decide that they didn't want to join my militia would STILL be able to own guns because thier rights DO NOT COME FROM THE CONSTITUTION. I know that part is hard to understand by those on the left, so I will repeat it again and type v e r y s l o w l y.



The Constitution does NOT define what our rights are IT DEFINES THE LIMITS ON THE GOVERNMENT.



So the government could not keep my "Well Regulated Militia" from keeping and bearing arms because the Constitution doesn't let it, and I can have my personal guns because they protect my "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness".

Why on earth are you liberals so anxious to surrender your rights to the government?

Just to finish trying to understand you (please type s l o w l y so me and Bargod can understand), I would also assume that since you are against govenment limits and controls of people's life and liberty that you also...

1. Believe in gay marriage, as it is not government that should have to right to impose limits on the definition of marriage, or really any issues of morality

2. Believe Bush and Co. have seriously violated many of your privacy rights by data mining your credit card records and using various search and seazuire techniques without warrant.

3. Believe the Iraq war was illegal according to your laws because only congress has the right to declare war, yet did not

4. Believe that you are overtaxed, and thus would seriously want a massive reduction in the size of government including various government programs AND the size of the military, as the US spends more than the next 20-50 countries in the world COMBINED on its military.

Or, if you don't believe in the above, perhas you are neo-conservative, meaning you are interventionist, believe in big miltary, do not dissaprove of massive government spending as much as WHERE it is spent (miltary, farm subsides good, welfare bad).

Just trying to understand, since in this gun debate you keep throwing out the "liberal" label. But the problem is people mean different things by those words. Your strict interpretation of the constitution would seem to peg you as a libertarian actually if it extends beyond merely the gun debate, such as being offended by attempts to expand government data collecting without warrants, or trying to justify torture, or whatever (constitution guarantees against unreasonable search and seziure, for example, and rights to lawyers). However, maybe by "liberal" you merely mean "Democrat" and by "conservative" you would mean generally Republican. If that's the case, I'm not sure everyone fits those labels in this debate.

[*Triggahappy13*]

Not familiar with those particular laws, but congress can't pass laws in violation of the Constitution



A court in DC recently ruled that the city does NOT have the right to ban guns. The city is appealing to the Sumpreme Court. Let's see if they take it up.

i'd like to see how that turns out.



The Constitution does NOT define what our rights are IT DEFINES THE LIMITS ON THE GOVERNMENT.

thank you for finally typing this in lage leters!


Why on earth are you liberals so anxious to surrender your rights to the government?

congress can't pass laws in violation of the constitution eh? so i guess that whole civil war thing kinda disproves that because according to the const. the people can overthrow the goverentment anytime they want.

[steel]

I think that hunting weapons should always be allowed in the U.S. That consists of small caliber rifles, shotguns, and small-caliber revolvers. Those are what poor folks who eat game need to stay alive need.

My family grew up dirt poor, we sharecropped to have a rickety farmhouse to live in and my dad worked in the local factory for just enough pay to get the bare necessities. If we hadn't of been able to hunt and fish and have our garden and chickens, we could not have made it. We also needed our guns to kill snakes, foxes, and other animals who attacked the sharecropped livestock we tended and our chickens, etc.

So, I learned to respect guns, clean & care for them, and use them at a very young age. I started hunting with my dad about age 10. My dad also put me in charge of reloading shells about that age, and he started me competing in trap shoots and etc, I guess I started competing when I was about 11 or 12.

So, it's a REALLY big scare for families who still live like we did when there are any sort of rumblings that the government might take away guns.

Now, having said that, I also know the flip of the coin, on why gun control would be a great thing to happen in the U.S. One of my brothers is a nut-case. He's one of those back-woods anti-government revolutionary types who has stockpiled weapons and whatnot ... a-way out in the backwoods. He has enough bad weapons, ammo, and God knows what else, to destroy... well, a lot, and he's convinced the day will come, always real soon now, when he and his cohorts will use these weapons to overthrow the U.S. He's dangerous and should be stopped. But they all know the law and bob & weave themselves under the radar ad-infinitum. And he sure seems to be hooked into a gigantic underground red-state network who are all marching in lock-step together, waiting, making small strikes that can't be traced here and there, but mostly waiting. And it scares the be-jesus out of me everytime I think about it.

So, yes, I think the U.S. needs to clean house about guns. But not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, not hurt those who need to have guns to protect their livestock and hunt to feed their families. And this is the scare that causes the "Jed Clampetts" into siding with the "Timothy McVeighs" if you know what I mean.

[Capt. Andtennille]

congress can't pass laws in violation of the constitution eh? so i guess that whole civil war thing kinda disproves that because according to the const. the people can overthrow the goverentment anytime they want.

I stand corrected. Congress is not supposed to pass laws in violation of the Constitution. They do this all of the time however. I am a Yankee, but I do believe that the South had every right to secede.

[*Triggahappy13*]

[quote name='Capt. Andtennille' date='09/13/07 7:42pm' post='160543']

[/quote] I stand corrected. Congress is not supposed to pass laws in violation of the Constitution. They do this all of the time however. I am a Yankee, but I do believe that the South had every right to secede.
[/quote]


hooray for civilized agreements!

but as for the south having the rights to secede, I think that they could have done more to talk (this is awakward considering im a shoot 1st ask later type of guy) but remember all, the const. was a totally radical and EXPERIMENTEAL thing, it was never ment to last this long. (and please correct me on my facts with the south, the civil war is not my forte)

[Bargod]

The Militia Act of 1792 is an interesting read. Here are some excerpts:

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Does that mean that these are the only legal weapons for a well maintained militia, lol. That would actually be a funny take on gun control.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

So, are militias supposed to overthrow the government when it's out of control, or put down insurrections?

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

I'm really learning a lot from this whole thing.

[Hellfighter]

....................
I guess I and millions of other Americans have flawed logic because Bargod says so. LOL Don't flatter youself.

If you want to see how it gets when things get ugly you can take a little peek at the not-so-distant past. Take a look at Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, Uganda, Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Turkish Armenia (to list but a few) for a preview of a disarmed civilian population. Guns in the hands of government alone have murdered well north of 100 million people during the 20th Century alone, far more than all of the criminals in all of history have murdered with ALL weapons.

Your logic is exceptionally flawed...

In your list of gun-less civilians you leave out European nations and Canada whose governments don't ravage the local population.

Those horror story nations you list have more to do with whackos taking over rule in their nations or manipulating governments, or the governments being evil in the first place that have supportive armies/generals to do their evil bidding regarding genocides. Citizens facing evil governments won't win with their guns in their gun closets/hidden under floorboards- only armed organized resistance generally with more powerful munitions caches from outside supporters would make any real difference. So no, I don't think just because a farmer in Darfur has a shotgun in his hut, he is intimidating the genocide do-ers from leaving him alone. That farmer will need to go into the remote areas and join a major clandestine military-type unit to persuade the government to back off.

Show me a peaceful government even with an army and police with all the guns at its disposal in society that broadly cares about all of its gun-less citizens and I'll show you a society that lives generally with confidence compared to other societies.

So I dispute your 'guns in the government alone.....' "logic".

Guns and guns in the hands of societies with dutiful politicians/army/police don't kill people as in your sited examples above, its the only Whackos with guns that are the butchers - and if there are enough of them in a society, you and your .45 or shotgun alone will not deter them from their evil goals.

The Militia Act of 1792 is an interesting read.......

So, are militias supposed to overthrow the government when it's out of control, or put down insurrections?


I'm really learning a lot from this whole thing.

Here's another note of interest with Militias, during the War of 1812 at the Battle of Queenston Heights, US Militia units refused to cross a river/bordering with Canada at a critical point in the battle when their reinforcing presence was needed by their comrades battling in out on the Canadian side. They announced their rights to stay on the American side of the border only regarding how far they could be ordered into action.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/14/07 4:36pm

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Here's another note of interest with Militias, during the War of 1812 at the Battle of Queenston Heights, US Militia units refused to cross a river/bordering with Canada at a critical point in the battle when their reinforcing presence was needed by their comrades battling in out on the Canadian side. They announced their rights to stay on the American side of the border only regarding how far they could be ordered into action.

For all this discussion, I find that an interesting tidbit/fact. A militia willing to defend it's territory, but with no interest to expand. If only the leaders of most nations had felt the same way throughout history.

[Bargod]

"To place any dependence upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter."

-George Washington