Gun ownership rights are under attack.

[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?

They steal them.

From who?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

They steal them.

From who?

gun shops. Private citizens. Police lock ups. Military bases. What have you.

Let me guess, if we ban all guns then criminals won't have any ability to steal them. Right?
Bullshit. For starters, guns have a long life. I have a couple that are 100 years old and work just fine. There are hundreds of millions in circulation. You would need to go door to door and search every residence and pig sty.
But that wont help because producing them isn't rocket science. Someone with some simple machine tools and high school knowledge of using them can produce a gun.

And it's "from whom".

 

[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.

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

Do you really think this is a response? Even the framers had differences of opinion on this one. It's still argued by linguistic experts. Quit pretending that you have some insight.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

They steal them.

From who?

gun shops. Private citizens. Police lock ups. Military bases. What have you.

Military bases? Seriously? How many firearms have been stolen from domestic miliary bases in the past year?

 

[Rohrer 714]

Did you know that domestic violence laws violate your Constitutional protections wholesale?

Yes, VAWA (federal law) and all 50 states and DC require police to immediately confisccate all firearms and ammunition owned by a man accused (that's right - accused, not convicted) of domestic violence.

In addition to ignoring the Second Amendment (right to bear arms), DV laws render the Fourth Amendment (probable cause) and theFifth Amendment (due process) null and void.

Yet nobody dares to question these Draconian laws- not even the NRA.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If you're wife has falsely accused you of domestic vioence I'd say you've got bigger problems

 

[Rohrer 714]

If you're wife has falsely accused you of domestic vioence I'd say you've got bigger problems

You are correct.

But does that fact nullify the blatant violation of the Second Amendment that occurs when police confiscate firearms based on the issuance of a civil Ex Parte court order?

 

[The Rabbi]

From who?

gun shops. Private citizens. Police lock ups. Military bases. What have you.

Military bases? Seriously? How many firearms have been stolen from domestic miliary bases in the past year?

I dont know the answer to your question. Are you doubting it happens at all?
Federal Agents Raid Farm for Stolen Military Weapons

 

[The Rabbi]

If you're wife has falsely accused you of domestic vioence I'd say you've got bigger problems

I dunno. You can reconcile. You can divorce. But you will never be able to exercise your second amendment rights again.

 

[Rohrer 714]

If you're wife has falsely accused you of domestic vioence I'd say you've got bigger problems

I dunno. You can reconcile. You can divorce. But you will never be able to exercise your second amendment rights again.

Imagine how these accusations impact a policeman or member of the Armed Forces.

Unfortunately, it happens every day.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

If you're wife has falsely accused you of domestic vioence I'd say you've got bigger problems

I dunno. You can reconcile. You can divorce. But you will never be able to exercise your second amendment rights again.

Imagine how these accusations impact a policeman or member of the Armed Forces.

Unfortunately, it happens every day.

It's a violation of the second amendment, certainly any action targeting the disarmament of citizens is. This is a more blatant offense of the 5th amendment, as no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Any nitwit, knuckle head judge should throw this out of court faster than a speeding bullet. If these guys, who were victims, would pursue this to the fullest extent of the legal system with some media coverage, I'm willing to bet this law can easily be nullified. I'm also really surprised that lawyers aren't foaming at the mouth to pick up cases like this, sounds like a slam-dunk in most instances.

 

[Rohrer 714]

The original idea behind restraining orders was sound. Restraining orders have long been considered lawful when there is a need for emergency relief in the presence of a direct threat of physical harm.

But now, thanks to the VAWA and the ensuing spate of copycat statutes, that has changed.

As politically incorrect as it is to say so, many women file DV charges against their boyfriends/spouses on a routine basis. In family court a sleazy lawyer can expedite a divorce case by convincing a woman to file a domestic violence restraining order falsely.

Attorneys who practice family law know the laws are routinely abused, but what can be done?

Judges, politicians, and attoneys all fear the appearance of being "soft" on the issue of domestic violence. Imagine the powerful pressure groups that would assail such an attempt.

For the same reasons, few district attorneys will prosecute false allegations even when the truth is discovered.

Some of the alleged perpetrators are really guilty, but it's possible that a very large percentage are not guilty of anything - except making the women in their lives angry.

 

[critter]

Hand gun is find why do you need an assault gun? seriously...

 

[The Rabbi]

Hand gun is find why do you need an assault gun? seriously...

What is an "assault gun"??

 

[Fenris Wolf]

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.

Out of your definitions, #2 is the closest one, while it is partly out of date (women do have equal rights and privileges these days), and the part "to being subject" doesn't fit in any part of American ideology(we are citizens, not civilians aka. slaves). Part #1A and B have words and phrases that can be used to describe a militia. For example; liable to be called in an emergency, but can also act as a reactionary force under their own free will, similar to volunteer firefighters or first responders. While they are not necessarily limited to military roles, they can be used for numerous other purposes such as, a supplement to law enforcement as long as they are deputized and follow the laws accordingly.
To better understand the definition of militia and the second amendment, you have to be able to grasp what was meant at the time of ratification, and comprehend the document as a whole before you break it down and analyze it in smaller pieces. There was a regular army during the war for independence, and the militia was not recognized as a formal fighting force, though they were essential to the victory. As for the right to bear arms the previous years of history should speak for itself. If the new government had not intended for it's citizens to be armed, they would have issued orders to surrender any and all arms immediately after the war ended. Instead we don't see any gun control legislation until 1934, and even after several insurrections, including the civil war. For many years afterward men carried gun of all makes, models, and mechanisms. They even brought them to church on Sundays and hung them on the back wall. Why is it that with a society, so vastly armed and so minutely governed, we survived so long? If firearms were so compelling to commit endless atrocities and mass murders, wouldn't we be swimming in an ocean of blood by now? Well, we're not and never have been such a nation. Our earliest citizens had military technology far exceeding the might of a government, hell the military didn't even adopt a rifle until 1855, which was a muzzle-loading percussion cap weapon, and by then metallic cartridges, repeating firearms, and expanding bullets were well established and used by the people. Even then the government and most of the public was not intimidated by armed citizenry. Only in the 20th century, and under the administration of a socialist president, did we have gun control laws that were passed for "our own safety". So for roughly 140 years we were going about our lives, sure we had good times and bad, suddenly an unconstitutional law appears with no purpose other than taxing the hell out of certain guns and making those weapons more difficult to obtain for average citizens, however it did not serve the purpose it was intended to, as gangsters were not following the laws in general, that being their nature.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Hand gun is find why do you need an assault gun? seriously...

Last time I got a hand gun, I had to buy it. Do you look under a hand gun tree or do you have a magic wish dumpster in a dark alley you search through to "find" one?
I've been around guns all my life, and I have yet to see one assault somebody. Is it trained to assault on command or do you just unlatch the cage and run? What do you do if it gets loose unexpectedly and runs off? Do you put up lost gun posters all over town or maybe leave out a saucer of ammo hoping to coax it back? I don't know about you, but I'd be worried sick if my assault gun ran away.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think he meant to write "fine" not "find".

 

[Roybean]

Anyone tired yet about hearing ..."my gun ownership rights are under attack!". Stop whinning for peats sake - you can even carry concealed weapons legally these days. You have weapons for hunting and weapons for personal and home defense and assault rifles, grenades, bazookas etc are a poor choice for either of those so maybe find something else to bitch about like ....ufo's .

 

[froggy]

I am begining to see an ever increasing attack on American gun ownership rights.
We can see that the assault weapons ban is the first major attack that is being perpertrated by the elements of the liberal left in America.

What are gun owners doing to combat this attack on a basic American right.?![/QUOTE


Charlton Heston?s gun taken from his ?cold, dead hands? | TheSkunk.org Me and heston have the same idea as to when they'll take my guns.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Anyone tired yet about hearing ..."my gun ownership rights are under attack!". Stop whinning for peats sake - you can even carry concealed weapons legally these days. You have weapons for hunting and weapons for personal and home defense and assault rifles, grenades, bazookas etc are a poor choice for either of those so maybe find something else to bitch about like ....ufo's .

That's not true at all. You need to get educated on what freedom was intended to be, and not what it has become these days, or maybe you are and your trying to spread disinformation. Grenades, machineguns, and bazookas are not obtainable for the average citizen. This thread is about gun control, you can discuss your ufo's and anal probes in another thread.