.

i have a question for all the pro-gun guys.

LysisLysis Member Posts: 5 ✭✭
Basically its a question for all of you.

To start off, I own guns and enjoy to use them. I'm also just starting to collect them(I love WWII weapons). So i'm not anti-gun in any way.

Heres the question:
"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."


Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that individual citizens have the right to own firearms? It says that militia members can bear arms, but not all citizens are part of a state militia.

Some of you have probably heard/discussed this before, but as of yet, I have not met a person that can explain this to me. They just say "2nd amendment = the right to bear arms" and cant discuss it further.

Have at it,
Lysis
«1

Comments

  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Basically, back when it was written, the militia applied to all men between between certain ages. So all men would have the right to own firearms.
  • The DunedanThe Dunedan Member Posts: 632 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It still applies in that sense. The Militia Act ( USC 311 ) defines the Militia as everyone between the age of 17-45 who is capable of bearing arms.

    Stand up and fight, or lie down and die; for it is better to burn than to ever fade away.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Some on here revere the NRA...here,with all their weasel wording,is their stand...



    The NRA and the Militia

    This file contains the NRA's latest statement of policy regarding the militia movement and extremist groups. It also contains a copy of the original November, 1994 statement on the militia.


    Policy Statement of the National Rifle Association on Extremist Organizations and Militia Groups

    June 7, 1995
    Appointed by NRA President Tom Washington at the February 4-5, 1995, Board of Directors Meeting, the Special Task Force to Review Militia Policy unanimously recommended reaffirmation of NRA's pre- existing policies and position. Following its report and subsequent review by the Legislative Policy Committee on May 18, 1995 at the NRA Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend reaffirmation of NRA's pre-existing policies and position. Brought before the membership at the Annual Meeting of Members, with over 1,500 members assembled, the resolution to reaffirm NRA's pre-existing policy on extremist organizations adopted in 1964, and its 1994 statement on militias, was adopted. There were three dissenting votes. The Board of Directors, at their meeting on Tuesday, May 23, 1995, reaffirmed the following policy by unanimous vote:

    WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association of America gathered at its Annual Meeting on May 22-23, 1995 in Phoenix, Arizona, desires to reaffirm its policy on extremist organizations adopted in 1964, and its 1994 statement on militias, therefore;

    BE IT REAFFIRMED AND RESOLVED THAT:

    The NRA vehemently disavows any connection with, or tacit approval of, any club or individual which advocates (1) the overthrow of duly constituted government authority, (2) subversive activities directed at any government, (3) the establishment or maintenance of private armies or group violence.

    The NRA does not approve or support any group activities that properly belong to the national defense or the police.

    The NRA does not approve or support any group that by force, violence, or subversion seeks to overthrow the Government and take the law into its own hands, or that endorses or espouses doctrines of operation in an extralegal manner.

    The NRA stands squarely on the premise that the ownership of firearms must not be denied American citizens of good repute so long as the firearms are used for lawful purposes.

    The NRA has insisted, does insist, and will continue to insist on the traditional right of American citizens to own and use firearms for lawful purposes.

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

    Although the NRA has not been involved in the formation of any citizen militia units, neither has the NRA discouraged, nor would NRA contemplate discouraging, exercise of any constitutional right.

    The NRA strongly supports the Constitution of the United States, and the Second Amendment to that document, which guarantee the right of citizens to participate in militias for proper, lawful and constitutional purposes.

    FURTHER, it is the NRA's view, based on law (Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 311(a)), court precedents, and legal and historical interpretation, that all able-bodied persons, explicitly those between the ages of 17 and 45, are members of the Federal unorganized militia, except members of the organized state guards (for example, State Defense Forces which exist in about two dozen states), the National Guards of the various states (which also serve as a part of the National Guard of the United States, a military reserve subject to nationalization by the President of the United States), and certain government officials. An "organized citizen militia" must be created under the constitution itself and/or the laws of a state.

    Title 10, U.S.C., clearly affirms the existence of the citizen militia; it is little changed since the original Militia Act of 1792 (except for the addition in this century of recognition of the third type of militia, the Federally supported National Guard, in addition to the enrolled and unenrolled militia).

    Further, the individual right to own firearms is guaranteed by the Constitution, but the right to own firearms is not at all dependent upon the militia clause. The militia clause of the Second Amendment merely adds to the reason for the right, which is a common law right rooted in the right of protection of self, family and community.

    The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to arms; participation in a citizen militia organization does not make that right more valid nor any stronger.

    (For NRA's analysis of the so-called "militia movement", featuring editorial commentary by Glenn Reynolds, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, call the National Rifle Association at 1-800-392-8683 and request a copy of "Black Helicopters and Flights of Fantasy.")
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Lysis

    Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that individual citizens have the right to own firearms? It says that militia members can bear arms, but not all citizens are part of a state militia.



    Where does it say it? The right OF THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
    I dont understand what you are confused about.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    For the sake of discussion,I am going to assume you don't read much..but I urge you to read a bit about this most precious of our liberties.Basically, firearms keep the terrorists in check..both those from without..and those in Washington.

    No SANE person would ever agree to leave all the firearms in the hands of Government.Governments,after all,have murdered some 150 MILLION people in the last 100 years...at a conservative estimate.Governments can talk about terrorists all they want...for my money,the greatest terrorists spring FROM government.

    http://users.frii.com/gosplow/liberty.html
    Safeguarding Liberty
    The Constitution & Citizen Militias
    Introduction by Larry Pratt
    Firearms: the People's Liberty Teeth
  • Salvage33Salvage33 Member Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I also thought the militia act applied to all veterans, irregardless of age. However, the spirit of the 2nd Amenment was that in this country, unlike England/Great Britain, all men could be armed as opposed to only those of royal blood and nobility, with few exceptions. The founding fathers' position was that free men own guns, subjects don't.

    John


    The original point and click interface was made by Smith & Wesson
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    OK, short and (for my benefit) simple.

    #1. Governments (fed, state, etc) are not able to have "rights", they can only have "powers". As proof, can anyone argue that the fed/states have a "right" to levy an income tax on you? Or do they only have the "power" to do so? So anytime you read "rights" in the constitution, it HAS to refer to rights going to the citizens.

    #2. Almost all (perhaps all) of the US Constditutional bill of rights clearly is giving rights to the citziens, or at the very least to the states citizens (I need to review the bill of rights, sorry). So with this being the case, why would any honest person suddenly say that the second amendment only gives rights of keeping and bearing arms to the states national guard? When most (all?) of the other amendments found in the US Constituional Bill of rights focuses on giving rights to the citizens?

    #3: Some of the smarter members here can provide documented quotes of the founders of our country and the arthors of the constitution which cleary indicate that the bill of rights applied to the average and common citizens.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    1. Why would the 2nd Amendment, ratified as an acknowledgement of a right granted by God to the people in 1791 refer to the National guard, or any state militia, when they did not exist until an act of CONgress brought them into being in 1903?

    2. Why would "People" mean "People" in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Amendment, but mean "the State" (which, as Fox pointed out, cannot, by definition have "rights") in the 2nd Amendment?

    3. Why does the 10th Amendment differentiate between "The People" and "the States", if the meaning can be applied to either?


    The answer to all of them? It doesn't.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • LysisLysis Member Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    First off, I spend a good portion of everyday reading. Other than Highballs arrogant response, I can see what you guys are saying, thanks.

    From there, based solely on the 2nd amendment, should all citizens be allowed to own all guns? aka, should convicted felons be allowed to own fully automatic AK's? Or should it be interpreted to mean that all citizens have the right to own enough firepower to protect themselves and their families(which is what I think was intended). aka, you can own a semi automatic rifle, or a handgun?
  • LysisLysis Member Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote:Originally posted by Lysis

    Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that individual citizens have the right to own firearms? It says that militia members can bear arms, but not all citizens are part of a state militia.



    Where does it say it? The right OF THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
    I dont understand what you are confused about.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man


    It also says "A well REGULATED MILITIA" <--that being the key part of my question.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Ok, Lysis, I see what you are asking, now.

    Until recently, the meaning of militia has meant "The armed citizenry". This is what is supposed to differentiate us between serfs, slaves and subjects.

    When you read the 2nd Amendment, the well-regulated militia referred to is, in fact the people. That first part was merely a preamble; a stating of purpose. To create a well trained, well armed populace. God Himself did not create the Militia (well, at least in the sense of the word that, although He did not create the body called "the militia", He DID create all of us), He expects US to create it. We don't rely on miracles to feed us; we are instead instructed to plant and harvest (reap what you sow), and He has granted us the ability to do so by His grace, and the granting of the ability to do just that.

    Article I Section 8 clause 12 deals with the raising of an Army, clause 13 and 14 deal with the raising of a Navy, and how it is operated (as a Coast Guard during times of peace, and as a mobile force during War, or at least up until 1945, it was). Clause 15 deals with calling forth the Militia. Now, why would they have to call forth the Militia if they already have an Army formed, and why is there a provision to put them is service of the Armed Forces in Clause 16? Why does it distinguish between the Militia and the Army/Navy?

    Fortunately, the Militia Act of 1792 clears all that up for us.



    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Lysis
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote:Originally posted by Lysis

    Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that individual citizens have the right to own firearms? It says that militia members can bear arms, but not all citizens are part of a state militia.



    Where does it say it? The right OF THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
    I dont understand what you are confused about.



    It also says "A well REGULATED MILITIA" <--that being the key part of my question.


    The fact that it says "well regulated militia" DOES NOT cancel out the part that says "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

    Truth be told, even without the second amendment, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not have the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to regulate guns anyway.

    Conside this statement:

    "A well educated electorate being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed".

    From the above statement, would you say that the government has the authority to prohibit book ownership, and regulate what books can be read? Using the "second amendment protects the militia only" argument, the government certainly can. If you are not registered to vote, then you are not part of the "well educated electorate" therefore, the government can prohibit you from owning books, or regulate what you read.
    I guess we could also surmise from the above quote, that if you are not "well educated", the government may tell you what books you can keep and read.
    Readin the above quote, anyone in their right mind would find it absurd to think that the government can regulate books, because after all, it says "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND READ BOOKS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." It doesnt say, "they can regulate books if electorate isnt educated", nor does it say "they can regulate books if you are not a registered voter"- it says simply, THE RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Lysis
    quote:First off, I spend a good portion of everyday reading. Other than Highballs arrogant response, I can see what you guys are saying, thanks

    Arrogant I may be.Indeed.

    Anyone needing to ask a question like that in this day and age is either very young..or your reading is confined to Vogue,or Playboy.

    I made a supposition,based on your question..and it is obvious that the reading links I provided you didn't bother to read.

    Have a nice life.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Salzo; Man, I LIKE your example.

    An in addition lets just focus on the 2nd amendment part "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since there is this debate about who the second actually protects, would someone at least tell me who "..the people.." are that shall "..not be infringed."?

    I don't know of ANY PEOPLE anywhere in the entire USA who are enjoying "uninfringed" rights to keep and bear arms. Where exactly ARE these people? Who exactly ARE these people?

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    Salzo; Man, I LIKE your example.



    I cant take credit for it. I think Koppel used that to illustrate gramatically the amendment means what it says.
    Of course, if we took the amendment to mean what it says, these types of discussions of "who does the amendment protect" wouldnt be necessary.
    But when all the parcing of words occurs, well then you can affix any meaning that you want.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • juddroyjuddroy Member Posts: 204 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I know you already know this TR, but some people
    quote what they read.The rights are PROTECTED by the Constitution, not granted by it. quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    OK, short and (for my benefit) simple.

    #1. Governments (fed, state, etc) are not able to have "rights", they can only have "powers". As proof, can anyone argue that the fed/states have a "right" to levy an income tax on you? Or do they only have the "power" to do so? So anytime you read "rights" in the constitution, it HAS to refer to rights going to the citizens.

    #2. Almost all (perhaps all) of the US Constditutional bill of rights clearly is giving rights to the citziens, or at the very least to the states citizens (I need to review the bill of rights, sorry). So with this being the case, why would any honest person suddenly say that the second amendment only gives rights of keeping and bearing arms to the states national guard? When most (all?) of the other amendments found in the US Constituional Bill of rights focuses on giving rights to the citizens?

    #3: Some of the smarter members here can provide documented quotes of the founders of our country and the arthors of the constitution which cleary indicate that the bill of rights applied to the average and common citizens.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"


    Teach them young ! Teach them often !
    God bless America!
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    juddroy: good point and I will use that in the future. thanks.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • LysisLysis Member Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Lysis
    quote:First off, I spend a good portion of everyday reading. Other than Highballs arrogant response, I can see what you guys are saying, thanks

    Arrogant I may be.Indeed.

    Anyone needing to ask a question like that in this day and age is either very young..or your reading is confined to Vogue,or Playboy.

    I made a supposition,based on your question..and it is obvious that the reading links I provided you didn't bother to read.

    Have a nice life.


    Heres the difference, I was raised to question everything around me. Therefore I read, I ask questions, I try to figure things out myself. I don't listen to what is "commonly understood" and accept it as truth. One of the biggest problems in America is the fact that alot of people accept the "commonly understood" garbage that the media/government spits out. They don't question anything!

    And I also understand that I do not know everything. Which is why I asked a question here in the first place. To hear other peoples opinions.

    salzo, very well put. I see where you are comming from. I didnt know the exact definition of militia(which is why I asked in the first place). Now I do, thank you.

    Moving on. How do yall feel about my second question? "should all citizens be allowed to own all guns? aka, should convicted felons be allowed to own fully automatic AK's? Or should it be interpreted to mean that all citizens have the right to own enough firepower to protect themselves and their families(which is what I think was intended). aka, you can own a semi automatic rifle, or a handgun?"
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    JMHO, but only felons convicted of violent felonies should lost their gun rights. Non violent felons have not proven to me that they are a physical threat to me and my family. Besides, isn't America about starting over with a clean slate. And don't we all agree that a person shouldn't be punished more than once for the one crime? In view of that, what sense does it make to, for just one example, penalize someone who carelessly cheated on their income tax (don't we all walk a thin line on this) and gets caught and convicted of a felony. We all know the person will be punished by the court for the tax evasion, so why is it ok to punish him again by taking away his gun rights. especially since he has not demonstrated any inclination to do violence? To me it is just another excuse to permanently disarm yet another American.

    Every citizen should have the right to own reasonable firepower. What is reasonable would be as you mentioned, enough firepower to defend him and his family, but if the subject was given over for debate it might come to mean more than that.

    BTW, thanks for asking.

    JMHO

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • calamitywoodcalamitywood Member Posts: 939 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Once again, I'm with you TR. Speaking from my personal experience as a corrections officer and a deputy sheriff all felons shouldn't be disqualified from owning firearms. Once the house is paid you should be square with the house. Only those that have proven that they shouldn't be trusted with a firearm should suffer that penalty. Perpatrators of felonies envolving firearms should not be allowed to posses them. and that is MHO.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
    US CODE COLLECTION
    TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Next
    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

    Sec. 312. - Militia duty: exemptions


    (a)

    The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

    (1) The Vice President.


    (2)

    The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.

    (3)

    Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

    (4)

    Customhouse clerks.

    (5)

    Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

    (6)

    Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

    (7)

    Pilots on navigable waters.

    (8)

    Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

    (b)

    A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    As far as I'm concerned, EVEN convicted felons have the right to keep and bear ALL arms. Once the debt to society is paid, they have all their rights reinstated, bottom line.

    "But gunphreak!", you say, "Why would you want violent felons having access to guns? They have proven they have been dangerous in the past, and this simply would put us all in jeopardy of losing our lives, families and property!"

    Well, you would be wrong about one thing. I do NOT want violent felons having access to guns. That's why they would remain locked up. There would be no murderers or sex offenders (and I don't mean Statutory Rape 'victims', either) back out. They would be awaiting execution in Death Row. As for the lesser crimes, can you say "hard labor"?

    Besides, what's the reality of things, anyway? They commit a crime now, get caught, and end up in Club Med Federal Prison, where they do just about anything they wish to do while in there, and come back out, knowing that if they end up back in there, so what?

    And whether you acknowledge their right to have in their possession any sort of weapon whatsoever, somehow, one ends up there anyway....

    ...and that's the way it is!

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • CountryGunsmithCountryGunsmith Member Posts: 617 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gunphreak,

    That's not the way it is. The vast majority of serious felony offenders are prosecuted and confined at the state level, not federal. They are sent to state maximum security prisons, not Federal 'Club Med' institutions.

    Even so, recidivism is high. The violent offenders by their very nature assimilate readily into the prison culture and some in fact attain a sort of celebrity status in the population. (Not all - there are some crimes that even the other prisoners wont stand for.) Prisons become a sort of Criminal Academy, if you will. The cons are networking and honing their skills - ready for the next stint outside.

    Parole supervision is largely a joke. Parole officers have way too large of a caseload to properly supervise their parolees. And they will continue to be paroled because the public (a) wont build more prisons, and (b) everybody deserves 'another chance.' Do you think the public would condone relaxing death penalty standard to include what we consider today as non-capital crimes? I dont believe they would.

    So lets look at the felon's loss of rights as a citizen. What constitutes a 'violent felon?' Obviously, crimes against person such as assault, robbery, homicide. But what about crimes against property? Is arson a violent crime? How about auto theft? My belief is that if a person has such a complete disregard for the laws and standards of the community that they would commit a felony-grade crime then they DESERVE to lose their rights as a citizen. Does that make them 'second-class citizens?' Yep, it does.

    We already have a dividing line of who loses their rights and who doesnt - its the line between misdemeanor and felony.

    What about this solution.... a first-time felon who committed a low-grade felony crime against property may petition to have his rights restored after XX years of living in society without further problems. Repeat offenders of any felony or felons who commit any crime against person or state need not apply.


    Scrappy Doo sleeps with the fishes.
  • calamitywoodcalamitywood Member Posts: 939 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    good point gunsmith and well stated.[^]
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:They are sent to state maximum security prisons, not Federal 'Club Med' institutions.


    (sigh) Details, details. So what? Then we'll call them "State prison 'Club Med'". My wife's ex-husband worked at LCI for 14 years before it was closed down. It sure as hell wasn't the hard labor I described in my plan on cracking down on criminals.

    quote: The violent offenders by their very nature assimilate readily into the prison culture and some in fact attain a sort of celebrity status in the population.

    These are the ones that should be sitting in prison the rest of their lives.

    quote:So lets look at the felon's loss of rights as a citizen. What constitutes a 'violent felon?'

    Let's do that!

    quote:Is arson a violent crime?

    Yes. And if someone dies as a result, the perpetrator should be burned to the stake. In my judgment (as differs from the godless cowards that run our (in)justice system), the 8th Amendment protects people insofar as the killer dies in no more a horrible way than he killed.

    quote:How about auto theft?

    A carjacking, yes. A stolen vehicle, no (but then again, his debt to society would make him a very old man by the time he finished paying it).

    quote:We already have a dividing line of who loses their rights and who doesnt - its the line between misdemeanor and felony.


    Yep, and that line becomes ever encroaching on EVERYONE ELSE who would not fall into the category.

    Look at how non-violent felons are treated. I don't care what anyone says, there are things criminalized that are malum prohibitum (wrong because they are illegal) vs. Malum in se (wrong in and of itself), and if you want to see the population of prisons diminish to the point of true criminals (and free labor for the state or whatever), remove the malum prohibitum laws and leave people alone.

    quote:Do you think the public would condone relaxing death penalty standard to include what we consider today as non-capital crimes? I dont believe they would.


    Hey, I never said there would be an automatic death sentence for ANY convicted felon. Murder, rape and child molestation, however, are crimes that should (and at one time, DID) carry an automatic death sentence, especially when the convicted person was found to have overwhelming and indisputable evidence against him. But to answer the question, considering the political climate of a cowardly populace, probably not. But has it occured to any of you that our government has ways of doing whatever it wants most of the time, anyway?

    I realize I have what many of you would call extremist views, but what many of you don't realize is that my methods are not original. They were methods employed by our country since its found, and up until the laws became subverted, right around 1904. We have all been suckered into believing things to be "normal" and the way it was to be barbaric, and that could be no farther from the truth.

    Mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.


    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    gunphreak;

    For whatever it is worth.....holding views parallel to the Founders can rarely be wrong..they mostly got it right.I find nothing in the above posts by you to argue with....if that be 'extremist'..so be it.

    The soft,squishy underbelly we call citizens today perhaps find sure punishment objectionable..but I don't.
    I would include one tiny thing,tho..when a corrupt cop,attorney,or judge sends an innocent man to prison or death..and doing it knowingly..they would take the place of the 'convicted'..there are more then just a few innocent people setting in jail,in America today..
  • sf340flyersf340flyer Member Posts: 127 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Another term that lends itself to confusion is "regulated". Many take that to mean controlled, limited etc. However in the language of the time that the constitution was written, another term for "regulated" could be "equipped". The essence of the milita was able-bodied men who could assemble in times of need while providing their own arms. So in essence, "regulated" was not meant to be a limitation on the right of the people, but an encouragement for the common man to have arms at the ready during times of need.

    Free Men do not ask permission to bear arms.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    sf340flyer Posted - 09/20/2004 : 10:38:41 PM
    quote:Free Men do not ask permission to bear arms.
    Sometimes I want to just break out in wild laughter.That one sentence tells a million pictures..

    How does it feel to live under tyranny ?
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The "Well-Regulated", back then meant "Minimum standard". Today, it means "Well-Restricted", well, to the fedcoats, anyway.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • mcasomcaso Member Posts: 1,120 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    NO! gunfphreak back then regulated meant one was Armed. If you are not armed then you are not regulated. In Britain they had 3 lists the 1st was required to bring list, the 2nd not allowed to bring, and the 3rd after you brought from list 1 you could then bring from list 3. The founding fathers said the congress will supply the best arms it can to the army. If the army commonly issues it then it is an arm. The purpose is to not only defend against a foreign invasion, but more importantly if the freely elected government of these here United States ever becomes one of tyranny then the people will have the means to remove it. That was not a quote, but you will find it to be close to what was said at the discussion on the 2nd. I only wish I could remember the name of the delegate who said it. You see that was British law of the day. And when the government was violating the law the people were supposed to take up their arms, form the militia, and stand in front of the government agents and not let them pass. Thereby stopping the government from violating the law. Remember Lexicon and Concord. The government was going there to confiscate arms and ammunition, which was against the law for the government to do. So the colonists did what the law required them to do. The rest is history.
    Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the government given the authority to take away any of these rights from anyone, for any reason! Whether you and I like that or not is irrelevant. The government just does not have that authority, just big guys with big guns who think that it is ok because they believe it's in societies best interest. Has anyone noticed that the left says that it is ok to violate the rights them don't agree with, but the ones they like. And the right has it's own group of rights that is ok to violate but not others?
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yes I think all non-violent citizens should be able to own full auto firearms. As well as grenades and rocket launchers.

    Basically any firearm that could be used for defense of you, your family, or your country.
  • MeanieMeanie Member Posts: 168 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    "the right of the people" in the 1st amendment means exactly what it says, and the same phrase "the right of the people" means the same thing in the second amendment
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:NO! gunfphreak back then regulated meant one was Armed. If you are not armed then you are not regulated.

    No, you are wrong. 'Militia' was the armed citizenry. Why restate the same concept.

    Ah, details, details. Regulated, as in 'regulation', meant well armed, well equipped and well trained. That is the correct sense of that particular word, and British lists mean nothing to the people of America now, as they shouldn't.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • Salvage33Salvage33 Member Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Interesting read on all the posts...regulated means armed. Back in the late 1800's there were "regulators" that worked for the cattle ranchers..as in ARMED, and "regulators" that worked as detectives for the railroads..as in ARMED. And in the words " a well regulated militia...." that means a well ARMED population.

    However, with all the liberal slant promoted by the media, to utter the word 'gun' is to literally poison yourself in the eyes of "society" as we know it today. To actually own a gun(s), hunt, shoot, or in general profess a fondness for firearms seems to make you as welcome as a leper was in the 6th century.

    What has changed? Could it be a slanted media that takes advantage of every opportunity to over report when a gun is used in some crime? I don't think that there is any doubt about that. And the politicians are even worse since they use the 'freiendly' media to hype their own personna and agenda. The worst thing about it is that the laws that they propose/pass only restrict the honest, law abiding citizen and do nothing to punish those few that actually do break the laws.

    Any other opinions on this?

    John


    The original point and click interface was made by Smith & Wesson
  • sr338sr338 Member Posts: 130 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    salvage, i think something to think about is the reason most people nowadays are anti 2nd amendment, is because they've never shot a gun before. They only know what they've seen on CBS. They've never taken any thought to the fact that most violent crimes are committed by criminals already convicted of previous crimes. They haven't done the research to know that when Australia took away the working man's right to bear arms, the violent crime rate shot up.
    I'm not one to horde ammunition and say you can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers, you won't see a "Charlton Heston is MY president" bumper sticker on my F-150. But I think it's imperative that we share facts like these, and keep our rights.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Ok, whatever. All those many hours reading up on the things that made up an "armed" citizenry, i.e. a militia vs. a subject, from old documents, including the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers, explaining in some good detail that they did not want a bunch of well-armed, poorly trained idiots running the show on the free state front.

    One word did come as a true surprise to me. During the Revolutionary War, the term "Regular" was used to describe US troops in the service of the country as infantry soldiers. They were well-trained, equipped with the same types of weapons, and well-disciplined in their ability to fight (including shoot).

    Then came a term used above... "regulator". So they were armed... big deal. Their job was to not to supply guns, as in armed, more than it was to ensure that the cattle would be kept from being rounded up by other thieves and miscreants, and the railroad detectives were there to ensure the trains were not being robbed between station points.

    But whatever... everyone has their beliefs on what things mean. Just so happens, I read the words of the same people who wrote the 2nd Amendment to find out what THEY meant by the wording.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    I agree with you gunphreak.......for whatever thats worth......
  • NOTPARSNOTPARS Member Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Lysis, the words, right of the people for example. What a lot of people fail to realize is that the Founding Fathers diagramed sentences for meaning as many of us learned in school. If you diagram this sentence, you clearly see the people have the right to keep and bear arms and the militia, (any male in any state who could bear arms) was dependent on the right of the people to bear arms.

    Lastly, the Constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes the rights each individual has that are inherent in their personhood.

    The best thing to do is get away from arguing over the simple text and simply read what the Founders said they meant.
  • Hunter375Hunter375 Member Posts: 612 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I like my state constitution:

    "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question."

    Viva Colorado!

    Liberal compassion inhibits progress.........think Republican and prosper!
  • mcasomcaso Member Posts: 1,120 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    gunphreak, I don't understand your reply. Well regulated means armed and be able to use the arm well. That is what it meant for the British and our Founsders were British. I think we agree on that. The 3 list were to show what was, what it was changed to, who changed it, and why.
    By the way when the vote was taken on the other kind of Militia, the Select Militia(met on weekends, were supplied by the Gov. with arms, equipment, and practiced military maneuvers) the Founders said it should never be allowed to exist, because the Select Militia might someday be call up and used against the people. Does anyone know what the National Guard or the State Militias do on week ends? Have they ever been called up for crowd control and ended up shooting the people or any thing like that?? I know the army has, it is called Bloody Thursday!
Sign In or Register to comment.