I will support the reinstatement of the 1994 'assault weapon ban' if...

[Procrustes Stretched]

Incorrect, one of the reasons for a well regulated militia is to put down insurrections.

Well regulated you dunce does not mean under government control. It means as to be expect in working order.

regulated in the Constitution means by the government. which government can be an argument, but regulation in that context refers to the government

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What I don't fully understand is that if the intent of the second amendment was as a counterbalance to government tyranny, how does that translate into a constitutional right to carry them for personal protection?

Easy.
The right to keep and bear arms encompasses more than just a counterbalance to government tyranny. The intent of the 2nd was to ensure that the people would always have access to the means to effectively project deadly force in the defense of their rights, exercised individually or collectively.

That would depend, I guess, on the interpretation of 'people' in the amendment.

The preamble (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...) I think suggests a collective meaning of 'people' (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...), and doesn't refer to an individual right.

Here are some more amendments that speak of the people do these also mean a collective or individual right?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Incorrect, one of the reasons for a well regulated militia is to put down insurrections.

Well regulated you dunce does not mean under government control. It means as to be expect in working order.

regulated in the Constitution means by the government. which government can be an argument, but regulation in that context refers to the government

The words well regulated when the second amendment was written meant as to be expected in working order.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What did you predict about the court ruling on Obamacare?

and where did you stand on Obama/Biden 2012?

obamacare was rued unconstitutional, obamatax was not.

You predicted Robert's ruling?

What did you predict on constitutional scholar?

and what about the 2012 Presidential election? come on USMB know it all...tell us....refresh our memories

I predicted that obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional dumb ass. Dumb ass I'm not a know it all but just in certain things I am more knowledgeable than you.

 

[ryang]

Look we all know gun control is an issue that needs to be addressed. However it is not the only issue in todays society that causes violence like we witnessed in Newtown, Aurora or even Columbine. I seriously think that video game violence is a threat to American peace. Many reports have said Adam Lanza locked himself away playing violent video games. Same thing goes for the culprits (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold) behind Columbine. I started a petition today to address this issue. If you want the violence to end, and want the next generation to be peaceful please sign today. The url is wh.gov/P50F

 

[PaulS1950]

I spent a few hours last night reading over the Supreme Courts rulings on the second amendment and the only reference I found to guns that are not protected are short barreled shotguns. The argument was that there was no reason to believe that they held any importance in the defense of the nation in any military way.

Of course that decision was made after WWI when shotguns in military use were cut down to make them easier to use in the trenches but before WWII and Vietnam where shotguns were again cut down to make them easier to use. The general understanding is that the founders expected every citizen to have at least hunting weapons and a weapon consistant with the current military weapons of the time. When they were called to duty they were supposed to bring with them the military weapon and leave the hunting arms for the family to use for food gathering.
The courts have never listed any gun by name or type that could be banned from use by the population in defense of themselves or their country. They have said that the right to keep and bear arms is to protect property and self from criminals and tyranical government.
So, what guns will I need when the US government uses the military to confiscate my rights?
I am thinking that one thermo-nuclear device would be enough to put a stop to it. Alas, we can't own those or even any kind of bomb but we can own military and paramilitary style weapons.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well regulated you dunce does not mean under government control. It means as to be expect in working order.

regulated in the Constitution means by the government. which government can be an argument, but regulation in that context refers to the government

The words well regulated when the second amendment was written meant as to be expected in working order.

State militias

 

[bigrebnc1775]

regulated in the Constitution means by the government. which government can be an argument, but regulation in that context refers to the government

The words well regulated when the second amendment was written meant as to be expected in working order.

State militias

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Easy.
The right to keep and bear arms encompasses more than just a counterbalance to government tyranny. The intent of the 2nd was to ensure that the people would always have access to the means to effectively project deadly force in the defense of their rights, exercised individually or collectively.

That would depend, I guess, on the interpretation of 'people' in the amendment.

The preamble (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...) I think suggests a collective meaning of 'people' (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...), and doesn't refer to an individual right.

Here are some more amendments that speak of the people do these also mean a collective or individual right?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

it is NOT collective versus individual. gawd, you're dense

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I predicted that obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional dumb ass. Dumb ass I'm not a know it all but just in certain things I am more knowledgeable than you.

what about the 2012 Presidential election...come on smarty pants...enlighten us all.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I spent a few hours last night reading over the Supreme Courts rulings on the second amendment and the only reference I found to guns that are not protected are short barreled shotguns. The argument was that there was no reason to believe that they held any importance in the defense of the nation in any military way.

Of course that decision was made after WWI when shotguns in military use were cut down to make them easier to use in the trenches but before WWII and Vietnam where shotguns were again cut down to make them easier to use. The general understanding is that the founders expected every citizen to have at least hunting weapons and a weapon consistant with the current military weapons of the time.

When they were called to duty they were supposed to bring with them the military weapon and leave the hunting arms for the family to use for food gathering.

not true. you sound like a nut job.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I spent a few hours last night reading over the Supreme Courts rulings on the second amendment and the only reference I found to guns that are not protected are short barreled shotguns. The argument was that there was no reason to believe that they held any importance in the defense of the nation in any military way.

Of course that decision was made after WWI when shotguns in military use were cut down to make them easier to use in the trenches but before WWII and Vietnam where shotguns were again cut down to make them easier to use. The general understanding is that the founders expected every citizen to have at least hunting weapons and a weapon consistant with the current military weapons of the time. When they were called to duty they were supposed to bring with them the military weapon and leave the hunting arms for the family to use for food gathering.
The courts have never listed any gun by name or type that could be banned from use by the population in defense of themselves or their country. They have said that the right to keep and bear arms is to protect property and self from criminals and tyranical government.
So, what guns will I need when the US government uses the military to confiscate my rights?
I am thinking that one thermo-nuclear device would be enough to put a stop to it. Alas, we can't own those or even any kind of bomb but we can own military and paramilitary style weapons.

According too Miller vs. U.S. in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and the kind in common use at the time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I predicted that obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional dumb ass. Dumb ass I'm not a know it all but just in certain things I am more knowledgeable than you.

what about the 2012 Presidential election...come on smarty pants...enlighten us all.

I predicted obama would lose like most people did. What in the hell does this type of questioning have to do will courting rulings on the second amendment.

 

[idb]

The words well regulated when the second amendment was written meant as to be expected in working order.

State militias

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

Of course, the dictionary interpretation has nothing to do with court interpretation.
Court interpretations take into account intent as well as the English meaning.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That would depend, I guess, on the interpretation of 'people' in the amendment.

The preamble (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...) I think suggests a collective meaning of 'people' (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...), and doesn't refer to an individual right.

Here are some more amendments that speak of the people do these also mean a collective or individual right?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

it is NOT collective versus individual. gawd, you're dense

What is the hell are you blathering about?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

State militias

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

Of course, the dictionary interpretation has nothing to do with court interpretation.
Court interpretations take into account intent as well as the English meaning.

It has everything to do with the meaning of the word when it was used. Try again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The words well regulated when the second amendment was written meant as to be expected in working order.

State militias

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

Boston, Concord, Lexington Colonial Militias. The Colonies were in charge of the militias. Who in each town was in charge of regulating the militias?

After the American Revolution and after the Articles of Confederation do you know what the evolving thinking was of the role of militias and what constituted a militia well regulated?

There are tomes of scholarly articles on this.

---


here I found an internet piece you can start with

B. The Militia in State Constitutions and Bills of Rights

Provisions in the various declarations and constitutions of the colonies also reflected the beginnings of a divergence of opinions on the nature and purpose of the militia as an institution. Virginia, which was the first colony to adopt these documents, chose a constitution and bill of rights that was drafted by a committee, and was taken predominantly from the proposals of the conservative George Mason. [90]

The prevailing version recognized, "A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." [91] It made no mention, however, of an individual right to arms.

The committee charged with the initial drafting of the Virginia documents was composed predominantly of large land owners. The Virginia Constitution, as finally adopted, looked to the maintenance of the status quo and reflected the Classical Republican emphasis on the establishment of a stable republic. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy.html

second amendment foundation

1. The Militia and the Constitution.--The changing view toward both the standing army and the militia was evident at the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, where the debate on the subject of a permanent military establishment had centered upon its size and control, rather than the necessity for its existence in some form. [111] The constitution that the convention proposed granted Congress the exclusive authority "[t]o raise and support armies." [112] The only restriction on this power was a two-year limitation on any appropriation for that purpose. [113]

Additionally, the document granted Congress the authority to provide for the "calling forth [of] the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions." [114] It also gave Congress the authority to provide for the "organizing, arming, and disciplining, [of] the Militia, and for [the] governing of such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." [115]

 

[PaulS1950]

More people are killed each year with knives, rocks and bats than with guns......
I dare you to come and take my rocks!
Suicide kills more people than anything else.
Cars are #2
More people die in airplane crashes than are killed with "assault weapons" each year.
Get a grip folks, taking guns away from legal owners won't stop crime or even deter it. If all the lawful gun owners turned in all their guns today then tomorrow the violent crime rate in the USA would skyrocket. If we caught all the criminals in the US today then the violent crime rate would plumett tomorrow. Why not focus on the problem - get the criminals off the streets and lock them up. Right now we are prosecuting fewer gun crimes than ever before. Part of that is that gun crimes are dropping but the other part of that is that the judicial system uses plea bargaining to drop the charges on crooks so it doesn't take up the court's precious time. That lets the crooks back on the street where they can re-offend sooner than if we had taken the extra week to put them away for 20 or more years.

 

[idb]

I spent a few hours last night reading over the Supreme Courts rulings on the second amendment and the only reference I found to guns that are not protected are short barreled shotguns. The argument was that there was no reason to believe that they held any importance in the defense of the nation in any military way.

Of course that decision was made after WWI when shotguns in military use were cut down to make them easier to use in the trenches but before WWII and Vietnam where shotguns were again cut down to make them easier to use. The general understanding is that the founders expected every citizen to have at least hunting weapons and a weapon consistant with the current military weapons of the time. When they were called to duty they were supposed to bring with them the military weapon and leave the hunting arms for the family to use for food gathering.
The courts have never listed any gun by name or type that could be banned from use by the population in defense of themselves or their country. They have said that the right to keep and bear arms is to protect property and self from criminals and tyranical government.
So, what guns will I need when the US government uses the military to confiscate my rights?
I am thinking that one thermo-nuclear device would be enough to put a stop to it. Alas, we can't own those or even any kind of bomb but we can own military and paramilitary style weapons.

According too Miller vs. U.S. in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and the kind in common use at the time.

So how does that justify the possession/ownership of fireams for defence against criminals?
After all, that isn't the purpose of a militia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

State militias

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

Boston, Concord, Lexington Colonial Militias. The Colonies were in charge of the militias. Who in each town was in charge of regulating the militias?

After the American Revolution and after the Articles of Confederation do you know what the evolving thinking was of the role of militias and what constituted a militia well regulated?

There are tomes of scholarly articles on this.

---


here I found an internet piece you can start with

B. The Militia in State Constitutions and Bills of Rights

Provisions in the various declarations and constitutions of the colonies also reflected the beginnings of a divergence of opinions on the nature and purpose of the militia as an institution. Virginia, which was the first colony to adopt these documents, chose a constitution and bill of rights that was drafted by a committee, and was taken predominantly from the proposals of the conservative George Mason. [90]

The prevailing version recognized, "A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." [91] It made no mention, however, of an individual right to arms.

The committee charged with the initial drafting of the Virginia documents was composed predominantly of large land owners. The Virginia Constitution, as finally adopted, looked to the maintenance of the status quo and reflected the Classical Republican emphasis on the establishment of a stable republic. The Militia and the Constitution

The only tine the federal government had control of the militia was through the governors authorization because of an emergency other than that the federal government had no control over the militias.