Reason for Right to Bear Arms

[bigrebnc1775]

Thank you for a succinct comment, bigrebnc. Perhaps SCOTUS will agree with your interpretation. I don't think it will, but then again I thought Roberts was going to sink ACA.

Lewis and Miller is lewis and miller's interpretation not mine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Heller will supplant them in a challenge to gun regulation, in my opinion.

 

[lukelk]

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

they told you that, did they?

They said so, to you only?

 

[lukelk]

Also the mom of this kid was a gun supporter she even tought him how to shoot.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Neither McDonald nor Heller were great second amendment victory's the ruling were to vague and left the door open to gun restrictions. Miller and Lewis are more specific dealing with gun types.,

Actually it looks like they just referred to the National Firearms Act, which was more specific with gun types.

Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Also the mom of this kid was a gun supporter she even tought him how to shoot.

You can't legislate laws against stupidity.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Actually it looks like they just referred to the National Firearms Act, which was more specific with gun types.

Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.

Yeah? According the USSC that is total bullshit. Try to keep up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually it looks like they just referred to the National Firearms Act, which was more specific with gun types.

Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.

Miller
"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
In common use would means what the military has.

Lewis reaffirms what miller said.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.

Yeah? According the USSC that is total bullshit. Try to keep up.

That is what the supreme court has ruled, it's not bullshit.

 

[Avatar4321]

Also the mom of this kid was a gun supporter she even tought him how to shoot.

You can't legislate laws against stupidity.

Which is a good thing for luke. He'd be in jail otherwise.

 

[MikeK]

It's interesting that the 2nd amendment clearly states why the FF's included the 2nd amendment and yet the poll did not include that as an option. Do I detect something of an agenda?

So, as clearly stated by the Founding Fathers for anyone who a) bothers to actually read the amendment and b) doesn't ignore what they don't like in it, it was created in order to guarantee the ability of the individual state to maintain a well-regulated militia. Which means, of course, that while the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, it can be regulated.

As passed by the Congress:

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.
_________________________________________________

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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 language of the Amendment, both proposed and authenticated, refers to the militia of a singular body; . . . "a free State." The free state being the collective Nation. The plural concept of individual state militias occurred later and has evolved into the National Guard, a widely distributed standing army which is subordinate to the federal government and conflicts with the purpose of a citizen militia.

For all intents and purposes the concept of the citizen militia remains in effect and continues to exist for the purpose of preserving the security of the free state. A purpose which necessarily includes resisting an oppressive government.

Whether the concept is too antiquated to be taken seriously is a matter of individual opinion.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.

Yeah? According the USSC that is total bullshit. Try to keep up.

That is what the supreme court has ruled, it's not bullshit.

I should have been more specific (bold my add)
In a split opinion (see below), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling in two cases downstate that upheld the state's longstanding prohibition against carrying concealed weapons

The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden," Posner wrote.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions," he continued.

The ammendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms forself defenceA militia is made up of individuals

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.

Miller
"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
In common use would means what the military has.

Lewis reaffirms what miller said.

Yes, I was going to use that word "common use" and they used that word in District of Columbia v. Heller. Only, in that case, seems they thought "common use" meant those firearms of which were in "common use" by the public to defend themselves and their homes. I think they slightly misinterpreted that and I agree "in common use" would mean what the military has.

However, am I mistaken or, didn't the USSC rule against Miller?

 

[Ravi]

What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

Then why is Japan's murder rate by guns so low?

 

[squeeze berry]

because it's my right to own guns for no other reason than I want to.

Don't like it? **** off

 

[PratchettFan]

People don't pass amendments...Congress does. And, you are not going to get enough people to demand that Congress pass an amendment banning firearms...period. You can have all the pipe dreams you want but, it isn't going to happen.



I will agree with you entirely on this point, that increasing numbers of people crowded into one place is causing a problem. And, folks are going to have to start learning how to deal with it and start learning how to get along because it likely isn't going to get any better for quite some time.

I am aware of the process for an amendment. I was being general rather than specific. In theory, if the people want the amendment then their representatives will initiate it and the various states will ratify it. Personally, I don't want a change to the amendment and I don't see much chance for it. I don't believe people should be restricted from owning any weapon if they use it lawfully, so long as the weapon itself is not inherently dangerous. Such as a 500 pound bomb sitting in my neighbor's garage. However, just because I feel that way does not mean I am just going to pretend the 2nd amendment does not say what it says or that the SC has not interpreted it the way they have. The fact is the SC does not see it as an unlimited right and the states and feds do have the ability to regulate. Like it or not, that is the reality.

Define "inherently dangerous". How is a 500 pound bomb in your neighbor's garage any more "inherently dangerous" than a .22? I love how some folks use these linguistic gymnastics to add drama to words. Such as, "assault weapon". If I hit you in the head with my computer monitor, it's an "assault weapon". And, it's "inherently dangerous"...too. Life is "inherently dangerous". The day you were born, your life was put in peril.

Further, to regulate and "ban"? Two different things. If "assault weapons" are banned, they're not being "regulated". They're being "banned". If 30-round clips are banned? They're not being "regulated". They're being "banned".

If a .22 goes off accidentally it may put a hole in a wall. At worst, if I am extremely unlucky, it might hit me but that would be the purest of chances. However, if a 500 pound bomb goes off accidentally, it will take out my house as well as my neighbors, and likely a couple of other houses as well. Not a matter of chance, it is a certainty. Massive destruction is its purpose. Therefore, it is inherently dangerous in and of itself and there is absolutely no reason it should be allowed in the hands of a private citizen.

What you are describing is indeed regulation. You are not being banned from keeping and bearing arms, you are being banned from a particular type of arms. As I said, the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. You don't get to have anything you like. Just as the 1st amendment is not unlimited, you don't get to say anything you like. You may not like that, but that does not change the fact that, in our society, the government does have the authority to regulate in that manner. What it cannot do is issue a total ban on all weapons. That is the reality. To change it, you need another amendment.

In this country the people who think you should ban everything and the people who think that nothing should be banned are equally wrong.

 

[PratchettFan]

What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

Then why is Japan's murder rate by guns so low?

For the same reason their suicide rate is twice as high as the US. It has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with culture. They have been living under crowded conditions for hundreds of years and they have adapted a culture to it, one which takes its own toll. We are just now experiencing those pressures but our culture is not one of subjugation to authority. I think if you do a real comparison between the US and Japan you will find that Japan has its own issues we would prefer not to emulate.

 

[Pinocchio]

There may have been some other unwritten reasons for guns in early America.

Conflict with native americans and in the south, controlling the slave population where the ratio of whites to slaves was 3 to 2.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PratchettFan: "In this country the people who think you should ban everything and the people who think that nothing should be banned are equally wrong."

Just so.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

Then why is Japan's murder rate by guns so low?

Because swords are more traditional