Observations regarding the anti-gun crowd

[M14 Shooter]

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.


27 words. 13 of them describe the conditions under which this amendment was intended.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why do you deny practically half the wording of the amendment? Certainly the framers intended those words to be there and to mean something. Would the framers think that owning a high caliber cannon is a protected right? Or, would they envision such a weapon in the hands of a well regulated militia?

Why do YOU insist on misreading it? It doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It merely states ONE reason why the writers thought the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was a good idea. It ALSO does not say that that is the ONLY reason, and there certainly is nothing in the wording to restrict the right to only that purpose.

As I've said before, even the Supreme Court can see this, and they're not exactly renowned for understanding the plain wording of laws. So what's YOUR problem?

As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.

Weapons like that are -exactly- those intended to be protected by the 2nd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The vast majority of guns are designed to kill.

Of course they are - that's why the Constituton protects them.

IMO guns are a privilege not a right.

Maybe there - but not here.
In the US, you do not need to ask the government permission to exercise a right.

 

[Nosmo King]

As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.

Weapons like that are -exactly- those intended to be protected by the 2nd.

How can you say that when weapons like these were never conceived of during the drafting of the amendment? Weapons like machine guns, RPGs, flamethrowers and tanks are strictly regulated and prohibited for sale to the general public. Why then should weapons designed specifically as weapons of mass destruction similarly be prohibited?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.

Weapons like that are -exactly- those intended to be protected by the 2nd.

How can you say that when weapons like these were never conceived of during the drafting of the amendment?

This has been addressed before. You, however, fail to address this response every time:

1: The intent is to protect weapons suitable for use in and by the militia. This necessitates protecting weapons similar to those in general issue to and in common use by the standing army. Thus includes every class of firearms, and, inarguably, 'assault weapons'.
2: Arguing that the only technology protected by the Constitution is that in place when it was written/ratified necessitates that CNN is noit protected by the 1st amendment and your cell phone is not protecte dby the 4th.

I eagerly await another response that doe snot in any way effectively address wht I just wrote.

 

[Nosmo King]

As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.

Weapons like that are -exactly- those intended to be protected by the 2nd.

How can you say that when weapons like these were never conceived of during the drafting of the amendment?

This has been addressed before. You, however, fail to address this response every time:

1: The intent is to protect weapons suitable for use in and by the militia. This necessitates protecting weapons similar to those in general issue to and in common use by the standing army. Thus inclused every class of firearms, and, inarguable, 'assault weapons'.
2: Arguing that the only technology protected by the Constitution is that in place when it was written/ratified necessitates that CNN is noit protected by the 1st amendment and your cell phone is not protecte dby the 4th.

I eagerly await another response that doe snot in any way effectively address wht I just wrote.

The framers fought a revolution. Two hundred forty odd years ago. A second revolution was fought. One hundred forty years ago.

And you claim that the public safety be damned because you want citizens armed to fight yet another revolution today. Against military weaponry so sophisticated that those fighting World War II would see them as science fiction.

I say assault weapons belong in a "well regulated militia". Who regulates this militia? The forces you want to overthrow?

If it's illegal to have a flame thrower due to the destruction it wrought, it should be illegal to own a high capacity magazine and a semi or full automatic firing system due to the destruction it wrought.

There are sportsmen and those interested in self defense. Then there are idiots holding weapons they should not hold so they can conduct a revolution no one wants. And the gun makers service this market and the market presented by gangs, mouth breathing idiots, petty thugs and criminals. So, we get these innovative weapons whose sole purpose is to terrorize and kill as many humans as possible.

No founding father could see the logic in this approach.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How can you say that when weapons like these were never conceived of during the drafting of the amendment?

This has been addressed before. You, however, fail to address this response every time:

1: The intent is to protect weapons suitable for use in and by the militia. This necessitates protecting weapons similar to those in general issue to and in common use by the standing army. Thus inclused every class of firearms, and, inarguable, 'assault weapons'.
2: Arguing that the only technology protected by the Constitution is that in place when it was written/ratified necessitates that CNN is noit protected by the 1st amendment and your cell phone is not protecte dby the 4th.

I eagerly await another response that doe snot in any way effectively address wht I just wrote.

I say assault weapons belong in a "well regulated militia". Who regulates this militia? The forces you want to overthrow?

Your saying so isnt supported by anything other than your opinion. The right to arms is an individual right that may be fully exercised absent any relationship to a militia of any sort. As such, your comment here is unsupportable and irrelevant to anything I said.

If it's illegal to have a flame thrower due to the destruction it wrought

They aren't. There are absolutely NO federal regulations of flamethrowers.

There are sportsmen and those interested in self defense.

You've said this several times; it -contines- to remain irrelevant, as the 2nd amendment was not about hunting or recreation.

And so, you have yet again failed to meaningfully address anything I wrote - in fact, all you do is repeat the same discredited argument. Repeating this argument in response to the issues that discredit it does nothing to support said argument.

Thank you for fully supporting the premise laid out on the OP.

 

[Nosmo King]

The second amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to keep or bear arms. It guarantees the rights of the people collectively to organize well regulated militias.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The second amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to keep or bear arms. It guarantees the rights of the people collectively to organize well regulated militias.

This is historically, constitutionally and legally incorrect.
You can say it all you want and believe it all you want - it just makes you wrong.

And I continue to thank you for supporting the premise laid out in the OP>

 

[Nosmo King]

Your calling it wrong does not invalidate it. Where do you suppose that sort of power comes from? Because you wield it and scythe down valid arguments with the zeal of someone chosen to do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your calling it wrong does not invalidate it.

No... but your utter inability to support it and the controlling argument against it does.

DC v Heller:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

I can't make you stop being wrong -- only you can decide to do that.

And I continue to thank you for supporting the premise laid out in the OP.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The second amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to keep or bear arms. It guarantees the rights of the people collectively to organize well regulated militias.

Then why doesn't it say, "The right of the people to organize well-regulated militias shall not be infringed"? Or "The right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", if that's what they meant? If I can come up with those sentences in thirty seconds, why couldn't the Founding Fathers have managed it?

Don't try to impose your own illiteracy on the rest of us. Any high school English student can tell you that the "militia" phrase is an explanation, not a directive OR a restriction. It in no way changes the plain meaning of the part that IS a directive.

And there's no such thing as a "collective right". I dare you to name me one other right that belongs to a collective, rather than to individual citizens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your calling it wrong does not invalidate it. Where do you suppose that sort of power comes from? Because you wield it and scythe down valid arguments with the zeal of someone chosen to do so.

It's not his calling it wrong that invalidates it. It's the centuries of legal precedent that invalidate it. His power to scythe down your stupid arguments comes from being supported by an entire national history of treating the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, not to mention a history of having NO rights belonging to a collective.

 

[Dr Grump]

Maybe there - but not here.
In the US, you do not need to ask the government permission to exercise a right.

I know it is a constitutional right. I was letting Brian know where I was coming from.

As for asking permission from govt - in some cases you do.

 

[BrianH]

The second amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to keep or bear arms. It guarantees the rights of the people collectively to organize well regulated militias.

This doesn't seem to be correct. The Constitution says that we can keep and bear arms in order to maintain a militia. It does not say that you can start a militia and then get guns. It gives the right to bear arms so that if "need be" a militia could be called on in a time of need. This is exactly what the founding fathers ran into during the revolotion. They were able to call on ordinary citizens with firearms to help the fight.

As ratified by the States:

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.

What I gather from this is that it was left vague for a reason. It says that a militia is necessary to the security of a free State. And because a militia is necessary, the people my keep and bear arms. It does not state that you have to start and organize a militia to own firearms.

I hate to say it, but your opinion (though you're entitled to it) is nothing more than just an opinion that is in no way backed up by the text in the constitution. This is the reason why many of these rights are debated...because the founders intended them to be vague, but straight to the point.

 

[BrianH]

Maybe there - but not here.
In the US, you do not need to ask the government permission to exercise a right.

I know it is a constitutional right. I was letting Brian know where I was coming from.

As for asking permission from govt - in some cases you do.

That's correct. Some things, that are not stated as rights in the constitution, are considered priveleges; such as driving. Guns, on the other hand, are granted as a right. However, this also falls into the realm of the 10th Amendment. The reasons states can control their own gun regulations is because it does not mention gun control in the constitution, therefore the power is granted to the state and to the people via the 10th Amendment.

 

[thanatos144]

Maybe there - but not here.
In the US, you do not need to ask the government permission to exercise a right.

I know it is a constitutional right. I was letting Brian know where I was coming from.

As for asking permission from govt - in some cases you do.

That's correct. Some things, that are not stated as rights in the constitution, are considered priveleges; such as driving. Guns, on the other hand, are granted as a right. However, this also falls into the realm of the 10th Amendment. The reasons states can control their own gun regulations is because it does not mention gun control in the constitution, therefore the power is granted to the state and to the people via the 10th Amendment.

The constitution is a set of rights the GOVERNMENT cant fuck with it. It is rules that limit the government not the people.

 

[Old Rocks]

What -I- find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is your inabaility to engage in a knowledgeable, reasoned conversation about the issue. Your posts are full of strawmen, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

Liberal, and a gun owner since I was 12.

So why do we need semi-automatic pistols with 32 shot magazines? Such a weopon is not for personal protection, it is only good for attacks on fellow humans. In fact, why do we need the big magazine war weopons at all? Most are not fit for hunting, lacking in accuracy. And why does the NRA prevent the slowing of multiple gun sales until the investigation is done as to who is buying that many guns at once, and why? Perhaps the Mexican cartels are contributing to them? For that is where so many of the guns purchased that way end up.

Yes, there is a place for some laws controling the type of weoponery out there. Or maybe we should just give everybody a 3 Kt hand grenade. That way, when somebody gets pissed at the world, we will see no trouble from that neighborhood again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So why do we need semi-automatic pistols with 32 shot magazines? Such a weopon is not for personal protection, it is only good for attacks on fellow humans.

The 2nd amendment is about killing people, presumeably people who are shooting back.
Its not about hunting or recreation, its about the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively or both. GIven that, your exception to these weapons and their magazined is unfounded.

In fact, why do we need the big magazine war weopons at all? Most are not fit for hunting, lacking in accuracy

See above.

And why does the NRA prevent the slowing of multiple gun sales until the investigation is done as to who is buying that many guns at once, and why?

Because to do so is to create a condition of prior restraint, which infringes the right; the right shall not be infringed.

Perhaps the Mexican cartels are contributing to them? For that is where so many of the guns purchased that way end up.

Thank you for supporting the premise laid out in the OP.