Gun ownership rights are under attack.

[rikules]

Why should ANYONE have to demonstrate ANYTHING? We have a president that did not demonstrate his citizen status. Why should the rest of us have to do any more?

Actually, he has, and this issue is so past its sell by date it barely merits a response. Get over it.

The reason why people should have to demonstrate anything is as a guarantee of rights. Are you okay with having no checks? Allowing anyone to vote as often as they like? Yeah, let's make electing a POTUS just like crowning a new American Idol champ! Let's allow felons to buy guns. Let's allow perjury.

No thanks. I'm not for a lot of rules, but there are some that seem intuitive.

You are in favor of a test to prove you understand the issues before you are allowed to vote?

you need to prove you know how to drive a car before you get a license.
nobody complains about that.
And as far as I know nobody has confiscated everyones cars

a gun license would be about the same.

learn how to use it properly and safely

prove it to an authority

get your license

buy your guns

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, he has, and this issue is so past its sell by date it barely merits a response. Get over it.

The reason why people should have to demonstrate anything is as a guarantee of rights. Are you okay with having no checks? Allowing anyone to vote as often as they like? Yeah, let's make electing a POTUS just like crowning a new American Idol champ! Let's allow felons to buy guns. Let's allow perjury.

No thanks. I'm not for a lot of rules, but there are some that seem intuitive.

You are in favor of a test to prove you understand the issues before you are allowed to vote?

you need to prove you know how to drive a car before you get a license.
nobody complains about that.
And as far as I know nobody has confiscated everyones cars

a gun license would be about the same.

learn how to use it properly and safely

prove it to an authority

get your license

buy your guns

Except there is no right to own and drive a car.

 

[ihopehefails]

Actually, he has, and this issue is so past its sell by date it barely merits a response. Get over it.

The reason why people should have to demonstrate anything is as a guarantee of rights. Are you okay with having no checks? Allowing anyone to vote as often as they like? Yeah, let's make electing a POTUS just like crowning a new American Idol champ! Let's allow felons to buy guns. Let's allow perjury.

No thanks. I'm not for a lot of rules, but there are some that seem intuitive.

You are in favor of a test to prove you understand the issues before you are allowed to vote?

you need to prove you know how to drive a car before you get a license.
nobody complains about that.
And as far as I know nobody has confiscated everyones cars

a gun license would be about the same.

learn how to use it properly and safely

prove it to an authority

get your license

buy your guns

Actually you don't need a license for a private behavior like driving a car. You just need a license to drive a car on public roads. Thats why you don't need a license for guns because it is a private behavior but you may need one to carry one into a public building similar to how you need a driver's license to use public roads.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

It's a constitutional right with as much importance as the rest of them. According to the constitution any gun control, what so ever, is unconstitutional and therefore is null and void. The proper means to enact gun control of any kind would be to ratify another amendment, good luck with that. Anyone who enforces the current gun control laws is ignorant of the supreme laws of the land and by their own ignorance are guilty of treason.
The second amendment doesn't guarantee the right to hunt or the right to protect yourself from violent intruders or rapist, but those are the benefits that comes with the amendment. What it does provide is for the citizens of this country to have the means and the justification to circumvent a tyrannical overthrow of our government.
When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they knew the technology would advance, as they had seen advancement of military technology during the revolutionary war, from rifles to breach loading cannons. That is why the part regarding the citizen militia was written in the language it was. It was intended that the citizens themselves had the right to possess and maintain weaponry that can compete with current military technology. They knew and understood the importance of the citizen militia, due to their recent exposure to combat. Under the constitution there cannot nor should not be a standing army without a majority of the states voting for it and only in times of war or civil uprising. Which again brings the importance of the militia. During an emergency the citizen militia should be able to deter or entangle the threat long enough for congress to act in raising a standing army.
During the revolutionary war there was in fact an organized army, called the Continental Regular Army. The Continental Regular Army saw more failures than successes during the revolutionary war, due to the fact that against the Imperial Royal Forces on their own terms and by the common rules of war at the time, didn't stand a chance. However, the impact that the militia had due to their unrestricted rules of engagement had a devastating effect on the British and their mercenaries.
It's still just as relevant in this day and age as much as it was then. Our country isn't going to get less violent by banning guns. People should learn to be held accountable for their own actions. Our society has grown to rely on shifting blame when a bad decision has been made. One of the side-effects that manifest itself in our society are the frivolous law suits. Every crime that has been committed with a gun is in fact illegal and very prosecutable in itself, regardless of what kind of weapon was used. If our justice system would hand down sentences that were appropriate for the charges and would execute them publicly, we would have less crime without infringing on civil liberties.

 

[ACG22]

It's all about the placement of the punctuation marks. As well as defining the meaning of "bear arms" and "well regulated militia". It's also probably the worst written amendment, grammatically speaking. The founders may have hedged their bets with this one.

 

[ACG22]

You are in favor of a test to prove you understand the issues before you are allowed to vote?

Nope, didn't say that at all. But proving you are a US citizen and, therefore, eligible to vote doesn't seem like an intrusion. Do you?

Nope.
And before you buy a gun you have to prove your identity and that you are not prohibited. But nothing about demonstrating any competence.[/QUOTE]

True enough, and that's why this is a tricky issue. I don't want to trample on rights, but I also see how this right has snowballed into something different than its likely initial intentions. We live in a vastly different type of country than the one we were shaping then. Handling weapons isn't ubiquitous the way it was at the time, nor a similar necessity. I think we can keep the spirit of the amendment with minor updates. The incrementalist approach toward ultimate gun removal has not been successful, but neither is ignoring all commentary to the contrary.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont understand that.
The country is very different but the First Amendment still stands. It doesn't matter that fewer people own guns. Rights aren't dependent on levels of ownership. Fewer people own a printing press but we don't suppress free speech.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Render one of the amendments irrelevant due to societal changes and the rest will fall as well. The second amendment is as clear as any of the rest of the amendments. It is short and sweet and to the point. The whole argument is crushed in a single sentence, no loopholes and no hidden meanings. To make gun control laws around the second amendment without another amendment is in fact infringement.

"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."

Looks simple enough to me.

 

[rikules]

You are in favor of a test to prove you understand the issues before you are allowed to vote?

you need to prove you know how to drive a car before you get a license.
nobody complains about that.
And as far as I know nobody has confiscated everyones cars

a gun license would be about the same.

learn how to use it properly and safely

prove it to an authority

get your license

buy your guns

Except there is no right to own and drive a car.

silly me

I forgot

according to you cons America is the GREATEST country in the world because we have so few rights!

let's see.....

you don't have the right to own or drive and drive a car
there's no right to a job
there's no right to health care
there's no right to get married
there's no right to eat
there's no right to drink clean water
there's....

heck
seems to me listing all the rights we do NOT have would take forever!

there isn't a computer network bug enough to actually list all the rights we do NOT have

so I'll just list the rights we DO have (according to conservatives)

you can own guns
you can be religious (but there's no right to be NON_religious)
you can vote....

well


there they are...all of Americas rights that make it such a great country

ooops

I forgot

we also have FREEDOM

the freedom to NOT HAVE ANY rights except guns, voting and to believe in god

 

[rikules]

You are in favor of a test to prove you understand the issues before you are allowed to vote?

you need to prove you know how to drive a car before you get a license.
nobody complains about that.
And as far as I know nobody has confiscated everyones cars

a gun license would be about the same.

learn how to use it properly and safely

prove it to an authority

get your license

buy your guns

Actually you don't need a license for a private behavior like driving a car. You just need a license to drive a car on public roads. Thats why you don't need a license for guns because it is a private behavior but you may need one to carry one into a public building similar to how you need a driver's license to use public roads.

good point

 

[Fenris Wolf]

you need to prove you know how to drive a car before you get a license.
nobody complains about that.
And as far as I know nobody has confiscated everyones cars

a gun license would be about the same.

learn how to use it properly and safely

prove it to an authority

get your license

buy your guns

Except there is no right to own and drive a car.

silly me

I forgot

according to you cons America is the GREATEST country in the world because we have so few rights!

let's see.....

you don't have the right to own or drive and drive a car
there's no right to a job
there's no right to health care
there's no right to get married
there's no right to eat
there's no right to drink clean water
there's....

heck
seems to me listing all the rights we do NOT have would take forever!

there isn't a computer network bug enough to actually list all the rights we do NOT have

so I'll just list the rights we DO have (according to conservatives)

you can own guns
you can be religious (but there's no right to be NON_religious)
you can vote....

well


there they are...all of Americas rights that make it such a great country

ooops

I forgot

we also have FREEDOM

the freedom to NOT HAVE ANY rights except guns, voting and to believe in god

What this thread refers to, is rights guaranteed in the constitution, particularly the second amendment. The constitution also describes the powers and limitations of the federal government.
The tenth amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The founding fathers recognized that too much federal government control on the basic necessities and affairs of the citizens were exactly what they had fought to prevent. They conveyed a good deal of personal freedom which in turn commands a good deal of personal responsibility, that is what made this country the greatest nation in the world. We were given the right to life , liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness, not the guarantee to it.
Ever since the beginning of the 20th century our federal government has been dismantling our republic and establishing an experimental form of socialism, which it and many other nations are experiencing total economic meltdowns because of it. This replacement of our system has also stripped the people of personal freedoms and responsibilities.

 

[The Rabbi]

Quit talking sense, Fenris. His head will explode.

 

[ACG22]

Render one of the amendments irrelevant due to societal changes and the rest will fall as well. The second amendment is as clear as any of the rest of the amendments. It is short and sweet and to the point. The whole argument is crushed in a single sentence, no loopholes and no hidden meanings. To make gun control laws around the second amendment without another amendment is in fact infringement.

"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."

Looks simple enough to me.

Sorry, but no. It's easily the most convoluted and poorly constructed (grammatically speaking) of them all. The reference to a militia. The placement of the comma (which appears and disappears in various printings). Even the words being used. It isn't clear at all, and that is born out by the fact that it's been contentious for decades. Don't be fatuous.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Render one of the amendments irrelevant due to societal changes and the rest will fall as well. The second amendment is as clear as any of the rest of the amendments. It is short and sweet and to the point. The whole argument is crushed in a single sentence, no loopholes and no hidden meanings. To make gun control laws around the second amendment without another amendment is in fact infringement.

"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."

Looks simple enough to me.

Sorry, but no. It's easily the most convoluted and poorly constructed (grammatically speaking) of them all. The reference to a militia. The placement of the comma (which appears and disappears in various printings). Even the words being used. It isn't clear at all, and that is born out by the fact that it's been contentious for decades. Don't be fatuous.

The version I posted is the only one that matters, the ratified version. According to the Constitution our country should not even have a standing army unless there is a cause worthy of declaring war and the states vote to approve it. This would mean that the militia would be the first line of defense. The founding fathers had not intended to create an imperial nation hell bent on conquering the world, but merely protecting their little piece of the pie. The founding fathers also recognized that a militia, independent from federal control, also would serve to dispatch a domestic threat of tyranny by an out of control government, which can also fit the definition of "being necessary to the security of a free state". In those days, and today, militias are citizens who supply their own equipment and who organize to train or to provide for their fellow citizen's security. This would mean that those same citizens can't be denied the means with which to wage war. By all standards of the constitutional amendment the people who comprise the Militias, capable citizens, could possess, train with, and wield weapons as deadly or more so than the military's, giving the term well regulated. After all it were the militia's rifles that were the distinct advantage during the war for independence, not the army regulars craptastic muskets.
It is recognized as a separate entity in the 5th amendment, from: The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

To assume anything else would be fatuous on your behalf.

 

[ACG22]

Render one of the amendments irrelevant due to societal changes and the rest will fall as well. The second amendment is as clear as any of the rest of the amendments. It is short and sweet and to the point. The whole argument is crushed in a single sentence, no loopholes and no hidden meanings. To make gun control laws around the second amendment without another amendment is in fact infringement.

"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."

Looks simple enough to me.

Sorry, but no. It's easily the most convoluted and poorly constructed (grammatically speaking) of them all. The reference to a militia. The placement of the comma (which appears and disappears in various printings). Even the words being used. It isn't clear at all, and that is born out by the fact that it's been contentious for decades. Don't be fatuous.

The version I posted is the only one that matters, the ratified version. According to the Constitution our country should not even have a standing army unless there is a cause worthy of declaring war and the states vote to approve it. This would mean that the militia would be the first line of defense. The founding fathers had not intended to create an imperial nation hell bent on conquering the world, but merely protecting their little piece of the pie. The founding fathers also recognized that a militia, independent from federal control, also would serve to dispatch a domestic threat of tyranny by an out of control government, which can also fit the definition of "being necessary to the security of a free state". In those days, and today, militias are citizens who supply their own equipment and who organize to train or to provide for their fellow citizen's security. This would mean that those same citizens can't be denied the means with which to wage war. By all standards of the constitutional amendment the people who comprise the Militias, capable citizens, could possess, train with, and wield weapons as deadly or more so than the military's, giving the term well regulated. After all it were the militia's rifles that were the distinct advantage during the war for independence, not the army regulars craptastic muskets.
It is recognized as a separate entity in the 5th amendment, from: The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

To assume anything else would be fatuous on your behalf.

Yet your repeated use of the word militia is precisely the sticking point. A milita is defined as: 1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

By definition, then, a militia is a trained group. They have demonstrated proficiency in the use of weapons. Further, it implies that they do not carry their weapons but simply have them available should the need arise. And adding "well-regulated" indicates even further rules to be followed. To bear arms is to go to war, not simply to carry them as one sees fit. I'm not trying to take guns away from people who wish to have them. But it isn't a free-for-all as so many would like to believe.

 

[The Rabbi]

Scalia discusses this at nauseating length.
The opening clause only gives a reason for the right. It does not define the right. In order to have a well regulated militia, you must have citizens who are proficient in the use of weapons. That is why we have a 2A. Whether anyone serves in the militia or not is irrelevant.

 

[ACG22]

Scalia discusses this at nauseating length.
The opening clause only gives a reason for the right. It does not define the right. In order to have a well regulated militia, you must have citizens who are proficient in the use of weapons. That is why we have a 2A. Whether anyone serves in the militia or not is irrelevant.

Possibly. Except as I already pointed out, this just makes this particular amendment that much more unique and different. None of the other first 10 amendments are constructed this way, which helps give rise to the considerable confusion and contradictory opinions we all have on it. Bad grammar and an unnecessary preamble have only muddied the issue, not clarified it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So you think curtailing the civil rights of law abiding citizens is somehow worthwhile? Noted.
And fwiw, I don't plan on duck hunting with my Uzi.

Where do you think the non-law abiding citizens get their guns?

 

[The Rabbi]

So you think curtailing the civil rights of law abiding citizens is somehow worthwhile? Noted.
And fwiw, I don't plan on duck hunting with my Uzi.

Where do you think the non-law abiding citizens get their guns?

They steal them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Scalia discusses this at nauseating length.
The opening clause only gives a reason for the right. It does not define the right. In order to have a well regulated militia, you must have citizens who are proficient in the use of weapons. That is why we have a 2A. Whether anyone serves in the militia or not is irrelevant.

Possibly. Except as I already pointed out, this just makes this particular amendment that much more unique and different. None of the other first 10 amendments are constructed this way, which helps give rise to the considerable confusion and contradictory opinions we all have on it. Bad grammar and an unnecessary preamble have only muddied the issue, not clarified it.

Somehow for those of us who had Latin it makes perfect sense. I doubt it was unclear to the people who wrote it.