In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
What does the 2nd include?
Mr. Gunz
Member Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭
Ok...so i'm pretty sure everyone here knows that its our right to own any type of gun (no matter shape, cal, action, form, purpose)...but what about bigger things like grenade launchers, hand grenades, RPG's, LAWS, Artillery etc.?
Personally I think we should be able to own all of this...because its our RIGHT!
Personally I think we should be able to own all of this...because its our RIGHT!
Comments
Who owned the artillery, bombs and small arms at those times? We the people did. Sure the government had some toys that the average citizen didn't, because of cost primarily. Many citizens had HUGE caches of powder after the war. I wonder why they needed so much? Perhaps to use in the weapons of war? (And I don't just mean flintlocks) Now in todays terms I belive that should include all arms of war up to but not including:
ICBM's
Nerve agents
germ/biological warefare items
The items above kill indescriminately in masses. There is no need for those , for us IMO.
What would that mean, exactly??
Daggers, knives, swords, spears, bows, maces, axes, flint-locks, single shot rifles, repeater rifles, shotguns, semiautomatic rifles and handguns, select-fire rifles and handguns, machine guns, submachine guns, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, flame throwers, mortar launchers, crew operated machine guns and other weaponry of that sort, and any support equipment available for these weapons including scopes, bipods, suppressors, ammunition, cleaning kits, flashlights, and lasers (not all inclusive)
What would be excluded, and why:
Mines: these are not wieldable, and are triggerable by friend or foe.
Tanks: these are covered under another Amendment, namely the 9th Amendment. These are not wieldable, and the ownership of such is similar to the ability to own property, to which you may use it as needed.
Jets: See tanks.
Choppers: See tanks.
Bombs: Pointless to argue since delivery is by air. Indiscriminant killer.
Missile platforms: Like bombs except that it can deliver itself.
Atom bombs/bioweapons/nukes: Use of these are unethical and indiscriminant killers.
I know there will be some who will claim arguments that include superior firepower, but when a person considers that, aside from nukes and biowepons, wieldable weaponry is all that is needed to conquer a tyrant and his emplacements, because jets and choppers can be shot down by Stinger missile systems, tanks can be crippled, if not entirely destroyed by, rocket launchers, grenade launchers and flamethrowers, and the rest of the troops are outnumbered by armed citizens. Arguing against these truths is a silly and pointless argument, which is usually also made by those who want weapons, but aren't suited for their proper employment.
Thanks. You sure saved me a lot of typing. [;)][:D][:D]
Mr. Gunz,
what gunphreak said.
All fireworks should be legal in every state. Here in NY, fireworks are illegal. Out of all the laws, that one really PO's me.
Mandatory gun registrations and licensing didn't? [:D]
You guys need to make NYC not part of NY state, and you'll be fine.
By J. Neil Schulman
J. Neil Schulman is the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing.
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan,
right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would
be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you
wanted the top expert on American usage to tell you the meaning of the
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los
Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton
Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost
expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me
to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the
University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and
Style. The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's
expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades
before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching
journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing
with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a
weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam
Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's
fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in
continuous print since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of
American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced
myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent
the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in
English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, '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.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State,' is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect
to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into
consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted
entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since
your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding
the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you
make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind
with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support,
if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment,
then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task
with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is
vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment.
While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance
of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
Questions and Answers
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for
his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our
opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political
subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I
have it italicized my questions for the sake of clarity):
The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26,
1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as
an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of
the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear
arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms
solely to "a well-regulated militia"?
The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it
state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the
people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the
people.
(2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words
of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a pre-existing
right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right
"shall not be infringed"?
The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The
thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for
the sake of ensuring a militia.
(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon
whether or not a well-regulated militia, is, in fact, necessary to the
security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the
statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" null and void?
No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms
is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No
condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and
bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to
the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed
unconditional by the entire sentence.
(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, " grant a right to the government to place
conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, " or is such
right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated.
It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
(5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean:
"well-equipped, " "well-organized, " "well-drilled, " "well-educated, " or
"subject to regulations of a superior authority"?#9;
The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority;" this
accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the
military.
(6) If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed
meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred
years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the
intents of the authors, unless those issues cannot be clearly separated.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of
words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were
written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary
to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be abridged."
(7) As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it
if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to
the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(A) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the
words modify each other identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(B) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people
to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example,
registered voters with a high-school diploma?
(A) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in
grammatical structure.
(B) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the
possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Concluding Comment
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his
cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative
efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach
any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what
many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally
protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all
governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the
Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that
part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the
old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed
officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States
ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely.
American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms
of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements
regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an
abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms,
guaranteed by the Constitution. Even the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and
does nothing.
It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to
preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our
elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding
them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who
decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but
means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution
of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that
promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?
Please note that no case ever to appear before the Supreme Court has been decided under the Second Amendment that permits an individual the right to own a gun. None. It would be kinda hard for me to believe that the justices of the Supreme Court are not aware of the meaning of the Constituion. The Second Amendment applies to the people of the states collectively, not individually. The Second Amendment applies to an institution that has not existed in this country for nearly 200 years.
Before someone raises this objection let me squelch it right now: "private" militias and the state's National Gaurd units are not the same as the militia as understood in 1787. The militia mentioned in the Constitution is closest to what they have in Switzerland. We don't have that here. Could we? Yes. Would we? No, it would not be a politically viable option in today's world.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm a gun nut and own 22 firearms myself. I am in favor of concealed carry. I would whole heartedly support an amendment granting an individual the right to own guns. I just happen to understand that the Second Amendment pretty well means nothing today, Constitutionally speaking. I expect to be called all sorts of names because I realize that my view is not going to be popular here, but reality is reality, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Molon Labe !!
Bring it on, big boy...you and your Socialist henchmen in the Elite establishment.
Belercous, I welcome you to this forum and accept your input as also being a narrow look at the question -- this time from a legal standpoint. We are all looking at the same question through different perspectives.
Myself, I am a student of history. Hence I like to look at the historical context of the Bill of Rights, and in particular the Second Amendment. The Federalist Papers, of course, helps give us that intent. The Bill of Rights reads as a litany of the various over-reaches of the English government during the years prior to the Revolutionary War, so by learning of those abuses we understand better what the FFs were trying to prevent the new American government from being able to foist upon its citizens.
I also take exception to the notion that we do not have a nationwide militia a la Switzerland. While our "militia" is not nourished by the federal gov't as Switzerland's is, nevertheless Title 10 of the U.S. Code clearly defines who is in the militia of the United States. This is echoed, and often enlarged upon, by the various state constitutions. The National Guard did not replace the militia, but instead simply formalized part of it.
By the way, I would bet I am not the only one here who is bothered by the Modern Media's flagrant abuse of the term "militia" to describe armed political bandits and private armies around the world. It is as if they are trying to demonize the word.
In America, the "militia" is the army of citizens who uphold the Constitution. From this cadre an army is recruited or drafted, state NG units are formed, and local Sheriffs may draw upon in times of local or national emergency. Anyone want to expand upon that?
They are a product of sick minds..law professors and Elitists that have sold their souls to the devil.
The dirty little fact that is like a 10 ton elephant in the room is...What the Founders meant by the Second Amendment is actually not relevant anymore.
Not a bit.
We the descendents of the Founders are going to decide one of these fine days exactly what "Freedom" means concerning the Second Amendment..and if the Belercouses and TrFoxes and NRAs' of the world win, Tyranny will exact a terrible toll on them.and us.
Given that we who believe in Freedom win.any of them ever lying his way into office and then revealing their anti-gun bias will be imprisoned as traitors to this country.
First, Welcome to the forum.
Your are, of course, entitled to your "opinion."
Everyone has one.
One can either agree, or disagree.
I choose to disagree.
With amendments 1 thru 10, which were ALL ratified at the same time. (12-15-1791)
Each one specifically states the individual rights of "the people" or a single person.
ie..
1st. the right of the people
2nd. the right of the people
3rd. the consent of the owner
4th. The right of the people
5th. nor shall any person
6th. the accused
7th. (refers to) the accused
8th. (again refers to) the accused
9th. by the people
10th. to the people
Except (you say) the 2nd?
Why the exception?
Maybe because some people are willing to accept the brainwashing from "some" of the (so called) scholarly professors in our national institutions of lower learning. There are other professors that argue FOR the real meaning of the 2nd.
Given enough words, and legalese, they could "somehow" turn the simple phrase,
"My dog's name is Spot"
into a lie.
(Clinton, the meaning of "is")
The founders knew the danger of a tyrannical government, and tried their best, to give us the legal means to protect ourselves from one with the second amendment. We are loosing the battle, and THAT is my "opinion."
One thing that is agreed upon, by a very lop-sided majority, is that the Second Amendment in no way grants an individual the right to own a gun.
I certainly would make no claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but the writings of many who are can be found quite readily by even those who are not legal experts, and many of them are quite plain in their content.
I would suggest to you that you might wish to reconsider the current trends in legal thought on that subject and it might be that an increasing number of legal scholars happen to be taking a different view than in the past after taking a second look at the 2nd. The number may not yet be a majority, but the trend would seem to be in a new direction.
It is not reasonable to assume that the collective group of people who resisted at Lexington and Concord and swarmed the hills surrounding Boston were concerned with the ability to hunt bunny rabbits when they wrote that amendment. They seemed to have a clear desire to hunt the government.
It also tends to ignore the thoughts of these people, and their thoughts at the time of writing would seem to trump any latter day interpretation of intent.
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army" to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment.
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)
"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
I did not collect these statements, but I appreciate the work of those who put the list together. These would seem to be fairly clear statements that would give strong indication of original intent, and they don't appear to pose many limits on the public.
quote:Originally posted by belercous
One thing that is agreed upon, by a very lop-sided majority, is that the Second Amendment in no way grants an individual the right to own a gun.
I certainly would make no claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but the writings of many who are can be found quite readily by even those who are not legal experts, and many of them are quite plain in their content.
I would suggest to you that you might wish to reconsider the current trends in legal thought on that subject and it might be that an increasing number of legal scholars happen to be taking a different view than in the past after taking a second look at the 2nd. The number may not yet be a majority, but the trend would seem to be in a new direction.
It is not reasonable to assume that the collective group of people who resisted at Lexington and Concord and swarmed the hills surrounding Boston were concerned with the ability to hunt bunny rabbits when they wrote that amendment. They seemed to have a clear desire to hunt the government.
It also tends to ignore the thoughts of these people, and their thoughts at the time of writing would seem to trump any latter day interpretation of intent.
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army" to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment.
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)
"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
I did not collect these statements, but I appreciate the work of those who put the list together. These would seem to be fairly clear statements that would give strong indication of original intent, and they don't appear to pose many limits on the public.
Hey! maybe you aren't such a bad guy... [:D]
I live in the "reality-based" world. Facts be facts. The first gun laws came about while the founding fathers were still alive, and presumablly the Constitution was still fresh in their minds. How come they had no problem with it? How come there has been NO Supreme Court ruling upholding an individual's right to keep & bear arms? Did the issue just never come up? Please explain that one.
Certainly it is my opinion that the Second Amendment does not grant an individual the right to keep and bear arms. It is also my opinion that the earth revolves around the sun. We have the right to own guns by the grace of our state governments. The second Amendment does not apply to private persons, it limits the Federal government from prohibitting the states from having militias. The reason for this is because it has not been "incorporated" by the Fourteenth Amendment as have many of the other rights in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers were primarily concerned with self-defense and militias were thought to be a bulwark against invasion and their own government. Hunting was not as big of a concern because most people did not own guns back then (that was for the well-off as guns were quite expensive and there were very few gunsmiths at the time) and the vast majority of game was caught in traps and snares. Hunting with a gun was very ineffecient back then, as it is today.
The militias did play a part in the Revolutionary war, but they were very unreliable. While we my harbor some romantic image of the citizen-soldiers of the Revolutionary War, the fact is many of them failed to show up and those that did usually turned and ran when the British shot back. Washington's army won the war, not the militias.
The FF were leery of a standing army in peace time. The state militias were intended as a check on the Federal government, not for persons agianst each individual state government. That is why the Second Amendment was not incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Certainly some of the FF were for an unfettered right for an individual to own guns. I am too. However that was not what was agreed upon in the Constitution. The Constitution was a compromise document, that's how politics work.
Do you realize that under the understanding of what a militia was in 1787 the state could seize all individually owned firearms? Bring your all guns you are now a soldier, and we need every weapon to arm those who didn't have a gun, which was the vast majority of people back then. Most of our brave warrior-citizens did not bother to show up for a muster of the militia. Those that did turned it into a social event and were often drunk. The militia idea didn't really pan out.
But again, if the Second Amendment means that an individual can own a gun why hasn't the Supreme Court said so? Can anyone give me a reality-based answer? It is amazing the number of people who think they know better about what the Constitution means than those who have spent their lives studying the law. Look, I'm a gun nut myself but I understand that I do not have a Constitutional right to own a firearm. I have a legal right in my state to own a gun, but not a Constitutional one. I wish the Second Amendment granted this right, but it simply doesn't. I am a member of the Illinois State Rifle Association because they don't go around spouting 2nd amendment b.s. like the NRA. Wishing, hoping and believing in something does not change reality.
"Socialist," "elite," "sick," I expected name calling, the sign of genius. I assume that the justices of the Supreme court are, and have been sick, socialist elitists who have been brainwashed too. If so then I am proud to be in their number. If "elite" means educated, then we need a lot more Elitists in this country. I don't know what the others got but when I sold my soul to the Devil I got $700.00 and a new Buick.
I live in the "reality-based" world. Facts be facts. The first gun laws came about while the founding fathers were still alive, and presumablly the Constitution was still fresh in their minds. How come they had no problem with it? How come there has been NO Supreme Court ruling upholding an individual's right to keep & bear arms? Did the issue just never come up? Please explain that one.
Certainly it is my opinion that the Second Amendment does not grant an individual the right to keep and bear arms. It is also my opinion that the earth revolves around the sun. We have the right to own guns by the grace of our state governments. The second Amendment does not apply to private persons, it limits the Federal government from prohibitting the states from having militias. The reason for this is because it has not been "incorporated" by the Fourteenth Amendment as have many of the other rights in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers were primarily concerned with self-defense and militias were thought to be a bulwark against invasion and their own government. Hunting was not as big of a concern because most people did not own guns back then (that was for the well-off as guns were quite expensive and there were very few gunsmiths at the time) and the vast majority of game was caught in traps and snares. Hunting with a gun was very ineffecient back then, as it is today.
The militias did play a part in the Revolutionary war, but they were very unreliable. While we my harbor some romantic image of the citizen-soldiers of the Revolutionary War, the fact is many of them failed to show up and those that did usually turned and ran when the British shot back. Washington's army won the war, not the militias.
The FF were leery of a standing army in peace time. The state militias were intended as a check on the Federal government, not for persons agianst each individual state government. That is why the Second Amendment was not incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Certainly some of the FF were for an unfettered right for an individual to own guns. I am too. However that was not what was agreed upon in the Constitution. The Constitution was a compromise document, that's how politics work.
Do you realize that under the understanding of what a militia was in 1787 the state could seize all individually owned firearms? Bring your all guns you are now a soldier, and we need every weapon to arm those who didn't have a gun, which was the vast majority of people back then. Most of our brave warrior-citizens did not bother to show up for a muster of the militia. Those that did turned it into a social event and were often drunk. The militia idea didn't really pan out.
But again, if the Second Amendment means that an individual can own a gun why hasn't the Supreme Court said so? Can anyone give me a reality-based answer? It is amazing the number of people who think they know better about what the Constitution means than those who have spent their lives studying the law. Look, I'm a gun nut myself but I understand that I do not have a Constitutional right to own a firearm. I have a legal right in my state to own a gun, but not a Constitutional one. I wish the Second Amendment granted this right, but it simply doesn't. I am a member of the Illinois State Rifle Association because they don't go around spouting 2nd amendment b.s. like the NRA. Wishing, hoping and believing in something does not change reality.
that is all hogwash..
Before speaking of genius learn how to spell, and read.
Another Marxist American!
It is people like him that make gun owners look like retarded hicks. Thanks for promoting our image. When I engage in discussions of why we should be allowed to have concealed carry laws I have to defend against this very stereotype. It's kinda hard to do because I don't think I can trust someone like this to carry a gun, so how can I ask others to trust these type of people?
I see I've went from being a socialist to being a marxist now. I am neither of these things, but even if I was, how would that effect my argument? Ad hominum attacks don't destroy an argument, facts and logic do. Assigning a label and then waving that label like it is some kind of talisman to preclude reasoned debate works on people who do not have critical thinking abilities. (That is why I enjoy debating issues with regular listeners of Rush Limbaugh. They stop arguing when confronted with a question that Rush hasn't addressed.)
The contrast between us could not be more stark;
You; Educated, worldly, a perfect product of what passes for higher education here in America today.
Me; Brash, course, a product resulting from being a seventh grade drop-out.]
You; Willing, happy, even, leaving your fate in the hands of a benevolent Big Brother and Godlike Supreme Court..
Me; Screaming that tyranny lurks right around the corner..and that the Second Amendment was instituted to prevent that..indeed, is the ONLY reason we do not enjoy your chosen world today.
And indeed you are very right..the seeds of the destruction of American freedom was sown at the laying of the cornerstone of this country..placed carefully by those wishing power only for the Elites..and nothing for the masses.
Please continue to post. That allows folks reading these lines of ours to decide for themselves which they prefer.your world.or mine.
This is part of the brief, and the link follows below. I would be interested in your opinion of this one.
"BRIEF SUPPORTING APPELLEE OF AMICUS CURIAE ACADEMICS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Appellee Emerson and Amicus Curiae Attorney General of Alabama persuasively argue that 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) can be interpreted to require a judicial finding of dangerousness before the statute's automatic firearms disability is triggered. Because the Second Amendment does not permit the arbitrary infringement of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, the Government's interpretation of the statute renders it unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Government's interpretation should be rejected.
This brief will summarize the main arguments and evidence underlying the strong academic consensus in favor of interpreting the Second Amendment to protect the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, with special attention to the contrary claims presented to this Court in the Brief for an Ad Hoc Group of Law Professors and Historians as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant ("Yassky Brief"). The arguments that we make here have been thoroughly explored in the academic literature over the course of many years, and it is telling that the Yassky Brief avoids confronting those arguments.
ARGUMENT
Modern scholarship has established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some sort of "collective" or "state" right to maintain formal military organizations. Indeed, the arguments and evidence that support this conclusion are so overwhelming that commentators who wish to dispute it avoid confronting those arguments and evidence. Instead, they rely on misleading and irrelevant historical data, inapposite judicial opinions, and sometimes on outright sophistries. The inexorable power of the arguments in favor of the individual-right interpretation has persuaded scholars from all points on the political spectrum, including those who embrace a variety of interpretive theories. (1) Even Professor Laurence Tribe, a long-time proponent of the states' right theory, has now unequivocally acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms:
[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by ? 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action. (2)
Similarly, distinguished legal historian Leonard W. Levy has concluded that there is simply no doubt about the personal nature of the rights protected by the Second Amendment: "Believing that the amendment does not authorize an individual's right to keep and bear arms is wrong.The right to bear arms is an individual right." (3)
The conclusion at which Professors Tribe and Levy have arrived is supported by a very large body of scholarship. (4) The following discussion will briefly summarize the principal arguments that underlie this strong scholarly consensus. These arguments are based on the Constitution's text, and on historical evidence about the texts's meaning."
http://www.rocklin.com/Politics/2nd_Amendment/2nd_amendment.html
I am also somewhat interested in the laws that you stated were passed while the
FF were still alive. I have searched extensively for items on this topic, but have been unable to find laws passed by the Federal government for some considerable time period after the adoption of the current constitution. I have found several state or city laws or ordinances, including one from Boston prohibiting loaded guns within the city limit, but I have found no Federal laws as of yet. I would appreciate any information or links you would have relative to Federal laws.
BTW, I agree with your disdain for those whose only real argument is to scream "Elite" or "sheeple", as if that actually had an element of reason to it, but then what do you expect from some.
Whoa. My position is being completely misconstued. I am not "happy" to leave my fate in the hands of big brother simply because I do not trust my government to be benevolent and act in the best interests of its citizens. I fear my government much more than I do any foriegn government. This is most certainly NOT my chosen world.
The Supreme Court is not God-like, but they do determine what our Constitution means. I'm all for gun ownership and concealed carry. It is just that we do not have a Constitutional right to do so. That is not my wish, that is a fact. Truly, I wish we did have such a Constitutional right.
I am just as concerned about tryanny and the over-reaching of government as anyone, and more than most. I do not mean to disparage those with less education than I, but I do mean to disparage those who do not think critically (the mentally handicapped excepted).
I suppose the educated Elite are really bad people. That's why it was the educated that wrote our Constitution, cured polio, put a man on the moon and developed every other technology which we enjoy today. Like it or not, educated people drive the world. They brought us out of the dark ages. Has every intellectual idea been good? Certainly not. Hitler's eugenics program got its start from American intellectuals in the early 20th century. Overall, I'd have to say that the educated have given us more good than bad. it's kinda hard to argue against technology on a 100 degree day while driving in an airconditioned automobile on the way to the hospital for cancer treatment.
Once again, this is NOT my chosen or ideal world, but it is the one I live in and I have a hard time ignoring reality. I really am on the same side as most gun owners. I don't own assault rifles just to shoot targets. I don't own hand guns just to shoot targets either. I don't hunt. I own firearms primarily to incapacitate or kill another human being. I have never had to do so and I hope to God I never will have to in the future, but I would if my freinds, family or country were threatened I most certainly would.
No, there were no Federal laws passed back then, they were state or local laws. If they were thought to be unconstitutional why would they not have been challenged as such?
I am familiar with Lawrence Tribe, he is a respected scholar and I've read quite a bit of his writings. He can be a bit of an extremist sometimes, but he is recognized as a legal scholar. Unfortuneatly, Mr. Tribe's writings carry no legal weight. While sometimes his work has been cited by the courts, his opinions are not binding. I would really like to see him on the Supreme Court (along with Richard Posner) but he has too many enemies for that to happen. As it is, only the Supreme Court can definitively say what our Constitution says, and like it or not, that's the way it is.
The reference to Lawrence Tribe was given in response to the original statement implying that "the lop-sided majority" being against a private right interpretation made that view correct. It seems that many do not hold it, and that the number and percent may be growing.
If that is the case, and if the number against a collective "right" interpretation becomes the majority in the future, will that mean that truth and reality will have changed sides at that time?
Do not defer your ability to read to a bunch of bozos because they have law degrees. They do not rely on the constitution for their opinions, but instead rely on what OTHERS say the constitution says. A lawyer and a judge is not bound by the constitution-they are bound by what other lawyers, and judges say about the constitution.
No matter what a court, a lawyer, a "legal scholar" pontificates about the constitution,that does not change what it says.
Since reconstruction the court has decided to dictate what is and what is not a constitutional right, in spite of the constitution. They regularly ignore the constitution to dictate what rights the citizens can and can not enjoy.
So the courts decide that the second is not an individual right-yet we are supposed to ignore the hypocrisy of the fact that the courts deem the other amendments are individual rights. And how often does the court restrict the rights and powers of government, notwithstanding the words of the constitution that conflict with their opinions?
If the constitution says "the people have a right to wear blue hats", and a legislature passes a law prohibiting blue hats, and the courts say that the law prohibiting blue hats is constitutional-that does not mean that the constitution does not say that the people have a right to wear blue hats. It still says it, just a bunch of lawyers say it doesnt say it, because a bunch of other lawyers say it doesnt say it.
Yes the numbers are growing, I am glad for that. However, the vast majority of law Proffessors will tell you what I have been saying. All that ultimately counts is what 5 people in black dresses say. They resoundingly have said the 2nd Amen. does not grant an individual the right to own a gun. If a majority of the Court decides that an individual can own a gun, yes we will have that right.
The S.C. has overturned itself many times before. The case of Brown v. Board of education went 100% against all precedent and what the framers of the 14th Amen. meant when it passed Congress. The question was raised in the debate "Does this mean that white children will have to sit next to colored children in school? The answer was a resounding "NO. Under no circumstances does it mean that." So the S.C. could change the meaning of the Constitution if 5 of 9 decide. The truth will not change but the practical reality will have. We would have an individual right to own guns, but the FF did not intend this right.
Mr. Tribe is selective in mustering his facts by the way. Even he cannot explain why the 2nd Amen. has never been held to be an individual right without contradicting himself. Be warned, Proffessor Tribe is a great legal mind but he has argued for some bizzare causes (he unsuccessfully argued that the Rev. Moon did not launder money. It was apparent he did) I like Larry Tribe and I hope that his view will prevail, but I'm not going to hold my breath even with a S.C. that has no true liberal justices anymore.
To Salzo: Great, this means we each get to determine what the Constitution means? That line of reasoning lost out over 200 yrs ago. Does the term "well-regulated" mean anything to you? If the government can regulate something they can regulate it out of existence. That argument was decided around 180 yrs ago. Once again, if 5 S.C. Justices say it, that is the supreme law of the land, that is what the Constitution means right then.
The S.C. gets its most powers because it is viewed as a legitimate authority, not from the Constitution. The Court has lost a bit of its credibility after the Bush v. Gore case which it should not have heard. The Constitution clearly left the power to decide elections to the House.
The only way to overturn an unjust interpretation of the Court would be to pass the same law again, slightly modified (removing stare decisis), and then remove the S.C.'s jurisdiction from such a case. That can be done because most of the Court's cases come to it because Congress allows them appellate jurisdiction. The S.C. has very few cases presented to it under original jurisdiction as enumurated in the Constitution. They have been doing that since the early days of our nation, not just since reconstruction. Every law found unconstitutional restricts the government. The vast majority of the time the S.C. decides cases with the clear intent of the Constitution, and only rarely ignores the words of the document, but the Brown case is a glaring example of the complete disregard for the framer's intent.
[
To Salzo: Great, this means we each get to determine what the Constitution means? ......
I didnt say that.
Once again, if 5 S.C. Justices say it, that is the supreme law of the land, that is what the Constitution means right then.
The S.C. gets its most powers because it is viewed as a legitimate authority, not from the Constitution.
I THINK I am kind of getting the gist of what you are saying, but if I am to respond to your thoughts, do you think ya might be able to say it in a more clear, concise grammatically correct way?
The Court has lost a bit of its credibility after the Bush v. Gore case which it should not have heard.
Some of us think they lost credibility long before bush v. Gore. Are you
The only way to overturn an unjust interpretation of the Court would be to pass the same law again, slightly modified (removing stare decisis), and then remove the S.C.'s jurisdiction from such a case.
Or, the ruling can be ignored, as has been done a few times in history-granted it was done in a time when the people did not view the courts as god, as people do today, but it has been done
That can be done because most of the Court's cases come to it because Congress allows them appellate jurisdiction. The S.C. has very few cases presented to it under original jurisdiction as enumurated in the Constitution. They have been doing that since the early days of our nation, not just since reconstruction.
What can be done, what are you talking about-again, I think I know what you are refering to, but it is so off point, there is no response warranted
The vast majority of the time the S.C. decides cases with the clear intent of the Constitution, and only rarely ignores the words of the document, but the Brown case is a glaring example of the complete disregard for the framer's intent.
That is complete horsepoop. I cant respond to that, other than to call it horsepoop.
"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."
I think that blows your scholarly approach to screwing Americans out of their rights, right out of the water.
Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution,
"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."
I think that blows your scholarly approach to screwing Americans out of their rights, right out of the water.
Security of a free state from whom? Foreign "evil doers?" YES, Domestic evil doers? YES A Tyrannical federal govt? ABSOLUTELY!
You're missing one key point, BEL..
The govt is meant to serve and promote the people, NOT VICE VERSA.
Bottom line: Level of formal education today just means bigger words but doesn't necessarily mean the speaker understands them. Ever heard of or known anyone that was book smart but couldn't apply that knowledge at all? The interlock between their brain and their hands just never made. And then there are those whom "Can't see the forest for the trees". The ability to read, comprehend, think independently and apply what they know is a far better gauge.
"They" also simultaneously become Fascist dictators, greedy Capitalists, closet Socialists, and Communists.
They are just so talented like that.
It is "common knowledge" for many here that the day one gets a degree they become stupid, a "sheeple", a slave, and incapable of thinking for themselves. Paradoxically, they also immediately become a member of the "Elite" who are in absolute control of the country, are secretly in charge of everything (this is known by everyone, even though a complete secret), and are out to destroy the whole economy even though "they" are the ones who own and control everything "they" will be destroying.
"They" also simultaneously become Fascist dictators, greedy Capitalists, closet Socialists, and Communists.
They are just so talented like that.
"They" truly are bad people, but "They" are not limited to college graduates. Sheeple are the type to look for another lackey to solve their problems. "They" are distracted by many things, drugs, power, money, television, possessions, the devil himself maybe. The bottom line is "They" are becoming a real threat to our freedom and our sovereignty.
When we Americans figure out who "They" are "They" will be in a world of snit!
Proof that gov't education is working exactly how they want it to... to dumb people down to make them more docile.
The biggest difference between educated and intelligent is that an educated person can expound on other people's ideas, while an intelligent person can expound on their own.
In the future, try thinking for yourself, and assume no one is right until you can verify it is correct. It will help.
I note a level of sarcasm in your response. But what you say is actually truer than you would like to believe. The safest place to hide is in the wide open. With the maze of disinformation and labeling everything as a conspiracy, THEY, can get away with practically anything. The rest of us are morons, idiots, conspiracy theorists.. the "labels" abound.
Comprehension has been replaced by interpretation!!! Our 2nd Amendment rights are being stripped away, by interpretation, by the indoctrinated elitists and sold to us bit-by-bit, mouthful-by-mouthful as security, safety, for the good of the children, or whatever is selling. "THEY" use what means the most to us as an implement of suppression!! Our only saving grace will be when those whom have placed themselves upon that "Intellectually Superior" pedestal come down off their high horse and realize what's going on and more people realize that "THEIR" twisted vision of security is NOT compatible with freedom.
Labels, whatever they may say or indicate, are just that. A tool to get a message across. Make of them what you would like, but it's important to look beyond them for the truth!!
The Second Amendment does not grant an individual the right to own a gun, it merely prohibits the Federal Government from passing laws about disarming the citizens of any state. The US Supreme Court--like it or not--is recognized by popular concensus of not only our elected officials but the majority of the people for well over 200 yrs to be the final arbiter of what our Constitution means. They have never upheld an individual's right to own a gun based on the Second Amen.
There have been many gun laws passed in the past 200 yrs. None of those laws have been held unconstitutional under the 2nd Amen.
This is certainly my "opinion." It is also recognized by the majority of those involved in the field of law to be a statement of fact.
Now, from my understanding of the postings here, my statement is not true because:
1) I am a (select one or more) marxist, greedy capitalist, socialist, elitist, dumbed down, incapable of original thought, ad hominem attack du jour. As such, my argument fails.
2) All the judges and S.C. justices from 1787 on down simply did not know what they were talking about.
3) I'm educated so I have been dumbed down. I cannot think for myself as I have been "indoctrinated." Therefore my argument fails.
I guess you guys won that debate, I see how I am wrong and everything I have been taught or read has been incorrect. I always was of the belief that an argument could be disproven only through either a successful refutation of fact or flawed logic. I guess I believed this because I made poor choices in critically examining what I read and what I was taught. I was the guy that would always ask questions and engage in debate with those brain-addled proffessors at university and law school. Little did I know that I was being indoctrinated. They did this very insidiously; they mustered fact and used logic. Not just any logic either, but sound logic. I know this because I have a pretty good idea about how to detect fallacious logic and invalid arguments. Just shows to go ya that the more education you have the dumber you get. I cannot see how scientists and brain surgeons can make it thru the day. Hell with their level of education I'm sure most of them have to wear drool-bibs. No the educated are bad for us. Education sucks. Wow have I really wasted my time.
I'll look back in for a day or so to check any new posts, but I'm not gonna waste much more time here. I've got a lot smartening-up to do so I must unlearn a lot of knowledge so I won't be so dumb and can think for myself. If there is anyone who would like to have a reasoned discussion, I will correspond with you.
I'm sorry I've upset the rest of you, please go back to your trailer and go on with your beleifs, they trump reality.
The non -college educated are supposed to sit at the feet of the masters, gazing adoringly at their boots..which are to be kept in a high state of shine by your shirt.
No imput is needed, for the masters to guide us along the path of life.and none will be tolerated.
The masses have indeed trusted the upper class to run things in this country..and the upper class has done what it always does, in every culture and every country since time began.
The only glimmer of hope I see is the slow awaking of the American people to the path the Elites are leading the trusting down..
There can be no wonder about the level of animosity that the upper class holds for the little people.and none what-so-ever about the mind-set that dictates "No Right to Own Firearms".
Notice the ever so polite interaction between `equals' in the above thread.sorta like the interaction I subscribe to for those that actually understand and believe in the Second Amendment.
I can absolutely guarantee you one thing..were the situation ever to collapse to the point foxholes were necessary..there are people that even if they DID proclaim themselves "Pro-Second Amendment"..I would NEVER allow them behind me with a knife or loaded gun.
"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."
Is that not an answer?
There is no need for interpretation, just comprehension. The way you came across in your posts did indeed portray you as a Marxist, to me at least.
I knew you couldn't "retire". You're right, as usual; I`ve always had a problem with that "station in life" thing. I just don't believe in it. I'd hate to have to go out and buy a trailer home to meet expectations!!
belercous:
Being new, you probably don't realize that on this thread you will very seldom find anyone making personal attacks on anyone, especially a new poster. The only time I've ever seen that has been when an OBVIOUS loon started it. If your last post is in reference to my postings let me assure you I speak in general terms, pointing the finger at no one individual. There are far to many thin-skinned people that take things too personally. To them all I have to say about that is; if the shoe fits, wear it. If it pinches your foot, or cuts off circulation, take it off!!
Intelligent people, and intelligent debates are welcome here. I am not the only one here with an opinion and neither are you. Don't expect to convert anyone. Any change in anyone's thought process will be made BY THEM, but only after they decide to do so. And you WILL find out how very hard that can be. Even with a powerful argument. Stick around. You probably have a lot to contribute and probably as much to learn.
I wasn't pointing any fingers and your not alone. Loons and trolls pop in on occasion and their first posts are personal attacks. I often suspect them to be gubmint monitors or anti's looking for ammo, just trying to bait a response. I used to be bad at taking it too. I've been working on avoiding that. I don't want the credit and it's not something I'm proud of, but I'm sure I've made posts that ran off some newbies. Generalizations or brutal truth taken personally. (People looking for validation of their interpretation of things, rather than the truth.) Some have the balls to stick around, some don't. I will admit, your brand of the brutal truth, if it doesn't change minds, at least makes one start thinking. I have seen subtle changes in opinion reflected in many posts over the years and credited to your posts. S88T does happen. The truly intellectually inquisitive use the resources, knowledge and experience here to grow. Those looking for validation don't. Just a fact of life. It just doesn't take a brain surgeon to COMPREHEND the 2nd Amendment. Or any of them for that matter!!!
You came here for one reason, to pick a fight.
Was this a class project, a thesis, or just to boost your own........?
quote:Originally posted by belercous
This discussion seems to really have devolved from my original statement.
Your original statement has been dealt with, and dismissed. You offer no discussion to the counterpoints given, you just continue to spout your "opinion" as if it were fact.
You come to a GUN auction site, then to the "Gun Rights" forum, sign up, for the sole purpose of expounding (in your own words) "your view" of the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Intentionally attacking the Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms. You expected (almost begged?) to be called names in your very first post, as evidenced by the quote below.
quote:Originally posted by belercous
I expect to be called all sorts of names because I realize that my view is not going to be popular here
There have been many "scholars" down through the ages, arguing both sides of this debate. The debate will continue until the SC hands down a ruling. Why don't they? They have had MANY opportunities to do so. They simply REFUSE to hear those cases. (which is their prerogative) Can you imagine how many people they would have to let out of prison, how many law suits would be filed, etc. if they were to hand down the decision that it IS our constitutional right to keep and bear arms? I bet THEY have imagined this scenario.
You keep harping on how "educated" YOU are. You have NO IDEA the level of education of the members here on this forum. It is obvious from your last post (quoted below) that you look down your nose at everyone here, referring to anyone who will not bow to your wishes, as "trailer trash" I have met MANY like you.
Saying you own guns, and are not happy, or trust the government, in the hopes of building some kind of "brother in arms" camaraderie with the members here, becomes very thin after a remark like that. Your original intention for coming here, becomes quite apparent. Any respect you "may" have warranted flew out the window with that remark. You can still post here, if you wish, but I will withdraw my "Welcome to the forum" and have nothing more to do with you.
quote:Originally posted by belercous
I'm sorry I've upset the rest of you, please go back to your trailer
Any others who wish to continue to reply to belercous's posts, as always, keep it civil.
I have a bad habit of poking thru garbage..allowing the stinking stench to fill the nostrils of those tettering on the edge of the insanity of government control of firearms...the more the gun controllers rave and dribble spit the more people they lose for their insane game.
I never feel the lose of those fleeing MY brand of venom..cowards die a thousand deaths every day...and those people fit better under government control.
Can you imagine suddenly having to baby sit 80 % of the population..those sucking on government teat for every aspect of their lives ?
The Constitution had nothing to do with granting people rights. Every person is born with all the Human Rights they are ever going to have, including the right ot keep and bear arms. It is the role of tyrants to deny an individual the ability to exercise those inherent Human Rights. The U.S. Constitution was written as an instruction manual on the form and function of our new Federal Government. The Bill of Rights was added, after much debate and dissent, to emphasize the Human Rights that the Federal Government must absolutely never infrige upon!
And just as the dissenters feared, 230 years later the vast majority of Americans believe that it is that actual piece of paper that grants The People their rights. It is the most absurd distortion of reality in history.
If you really want to learn about Common Sense and the Rights of Man, read Thomas Paine. The Founders knew what he was talking about, he inspired them. We don't even hold a spark up to the torch that those great enlightened men ignited. We are left with a cold burned-out ember.