How does everyone at DU feel about the 2nd Amendment now?

[tom_paine]

I would like to gauge the opinions of DUers on the Gun Issue, and how it has changed (or not changed) as a result of Bushevik Totalitarianism being so close to a reality.

[drfemoe]

1. kickster . n/t

[bemildred]

2. The right of the public to arm itself is very important,

and the public ought be able to arm itself well, but
there needs to be something along the lines of licensing,
one ought to have to prove ones ability and fitness to use
weapons responsibly, just like a driver's license, and there
should be a periodic requirement to renew that license.

[tomorrowsashes]

3. I support gun control for two groups

I support gun control for the two groups that proportionately muder the most inncoent people, that being the cops, and members of the armed forces. After that, we can talk about gun control for the rest of the populous.

[bigbillhaywood]

134. You kick ass

[Vladimir]

209. LOL

welcome to DU tomorrowsashes! :hi:

[Gothmog]

4. Second Amendment is a collective not individual right

The Fifth Cir. is the only court that has held that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment and even there it was held to be a weak or qualified right. The better view is the 9th Circuit view that the Second Amendment means what it says, that the rigth to bear arms refers to the militia, i.e., the National Guard.

[drfemoe]

6. hmmmm

Militia specifically refers to civilian citizens >>

mi·li·tia ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=8&q=militia

Here's a wild idea. Remove all barriers to arms ownership. People can buy any firearms they want. THEN the ones who intend to use bullet weapons in pursuit of criminal activity can make themselves known, by pursuing criminal activity, and can be dealt with via the CRIMINAL justice system. THEN we will know that only citizens who intend to use their weapons for self defense or "sport" are owners of said weapons.

I'm not endorsing this idea, nor am I smoking anything. Just saying .. the restriction of freedoms for law abiding citizens SHOULD NEVER be defined by the actions of the criminal element of society, IMO.

[Toucano]

10. "the restriction of freedoms for law abiding citizens

SHOULD NEVER be defined by the actions of the criminal element of society"

Law-abiding citizens must frequently be subjected to restrictions on freedoms because of the actions of the criminal element.

Imagine a child is kidnapped in your town. The police block all the roads out of town with checkpoints. You will be stopped at the checkpoint, cleared, and allowed to continue on your way. Is that restriction on your freedom of movement because of the actions of the criminal element unreasonable? I don't think so. The duration and intensity of the restriction make a difference. "Should never" just isn't practical.

That said, however, I agree totally with your concept of the militia clause. The right to bear arms is an individual right because the well-organized militia is comprised of individuals. The founders did not expect them to report to a communal armory to have their firearms distributed to them in the event action was necessary. They were expected to show up with their firearms which were housed in their homes. Of course, the firearm was more important to everyday life at the time and it could be easily assumed that the majority of homes had one.

[drfemoe]

66. Yes of course ..

the citizenry must be willing to be temporarily inconvenienced when the apprehension of a criminal is involved. We saw that during the DC sniper crime spree. Innocent people were detained and searched.

What I would classify as "defined" (and maybe there is a better word) would be to make stopping and searching all citizens routine in order to apprehend folks who fit a kidnapper "profile". That is what we currently experience if we choose to travel by air in this nation. The fact that we don't really HAVE a "profile" for the perps of nine-eleven (the names of the accused do not appear on flight manifests, for example) makes this practice even more dangerous.

Thanks for your added thoughts re: militia.

[DoNotRefill]

155. It depends. In your scenario...

"Imagine a child is kidnapped in your town. The police block all the roads out of town with checkpoints. You will be stopped at the checkpoint, cleared, and allowed to continue on your way."

If after they stop you, they proceed to search your car for drugs in places like your ashtray and under your seat, it's CLEARLY unconstitutional.

Actually, I DO think the scenario you gave IS an unreasonable search and seizure. There's probable cause to think a crime has been committed, but there is NOT probable cause to think that each person being searched might have committed the crime. The police officers cannot give a reasonable, articulate explanation why each individual person is a suspect. Now if they had a description of the getaway vehicle and only stopped cars matching that description, it'd be OK, since they could reasonably articulate why they stopped everybody driving a white panel truck.

Remember, if you're driving, under the law (at least where I live) you've been detained as soon as you acknowledge the policeman stopping you.

The courts disagree with me. They say that provided everybody is stopped and searched, it's OK. That's bullshit in my opinion, since instead of violating one person's rights, they're simply violating EVERYBODY's rights. That's an offshoot of MADD's attack on the BoR. Bad facts make bad law.

[DoNotRefill]

91. Proof that the National Guard isn't the militia:

If the National Guard was the militia, the various State governors would have the constitutional right to appoint all of the National Guard Officers, and would be responsible for the training of the National Guard, as set forth in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution. The State governors do neither, and are precluded by Federal law from doing so. Therefore, there are two possibilities: Either the National Guard isn't the militia, or the Constitutional rights and duties of the State governors has been usurped by Congress in violation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16. You can take your choice, but those are the only two options available. Which is it?

Also, would you care to comment on what it would mean for the rest of the Bill of Rights if the word "people" is to be construed as a State's Right? Hint: ALL of our civil liberties would instantly vanish, and the only people with constitutional protections would be State government workers. You'd no longer have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, that would only apply to State governments.

[wyldwolf]

240. proof that it is... from the National Guard itself

The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

http://www.arng.army.mil/history /

oops!

Today's National Guard is the direct descendent of the militias of the thirteen original English colonies... Americans recognized the important role played by the militia in winning the Revolutionary War. When the nation's founders debated what form the government of the new nation would take, great attention was paid to the institution of the militia...

In 1792, Congress passed a law which remained in effect for 111 years. With a few exceptions, the 1792 law required all males between the ages of 18 to 45 to enroll in the militia...

In all sections of the country, the late 19th century was a period of growth for the militia. Labor unrest in the industrializing Northeast and Midwest caused those states to examine their need for a military force. In many states large and elaborate armories, often built to resemble medieval castles, were constructed to house militia units.

It was also during this period that many states began to rename their militia "National Guard".

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blarguardhistory.htm

[DoNotRefill]

253. The Masons trace their history back to the Knights Templar.

Does that mean the Masons are really the Knights Templar?

Of course not.

The 10th Cavalry traces it's roots back to the "Buffalo Soldiers", a segregated military force. Does that mean the 10th Cavalry is a segregated military force?

Of course not.

The Republican Party traces it's roots back to Abraham Lincoln. Does that mean the Republican Party is still Mr. Lincoln's Party?

Of course not.

The Democratic Party was once the party that pushed to expand slavery into States trying to enter the Union. Jefferson Davis almost got the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 1860. Does that mean that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Confederacy or of Slavery?

Of course not.

You undoubtedly can trace your ancestral roots back a ways, maybe to the country your ancestors emmigrated to the US from. Does that mean you're a citizen of that country?

Of course not.

If the National Guard is the Militia referred to in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16, then the rights of the State governors has been unconstitutionally usurped. The alternative is that the National Guard is really a reserve formation of the Standing Army. Considering where the National Guard's funding comes from (it comes from the bi-annual appropriations bill for the standing army mandated earlier in Art. 1 Sec. 8), this is not in doubt.

[wyldwolf]

281. to have written so much, you've not made a valid point

No one has said that the National Guard is the militia. I have said, and the National Guard confirms, that today's National Guard is the entity that was known as the militia.

The Democratic Party was once the party that pushed to expand slavery into States trying to enter the Union. Jefferson Davis almost got the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 1860. Does that mean that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Confederacy or of Slavery?

No, but it is still the democratic party. And this example isn't even the same as the Guard/Milita example.

[DoNotRefill]

301. you said "that was known as the militia..."

but it is no longer the militia because it's been Federalized to become part of the standing army.

The militia still exists. It's not the National Guard. The National Guard CAN NOT be the Militia, because it's Officers are not apponinted by State Governors, and the State governors don't train it, as is REQUIRED in Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 16. You can call it whatever you want,
but the fact remains that it's NOT the militia. Descended from the militia, OK, I'll buy that, but it's not the militia as defined in the Constitution. Now if you repeal Art. 1 Sec 8 Cl. 16, that might change things, but that's not been done. It's impossible for the standing army to be the militia, unless everybody is in it.

[bigbillhaywood]

131. Then why was it in the Bill of Rights?

Which was focused on individual rights? Also, back then the "militia" consisted of every able-bodied "citizen" (interpreted then to mean landowning white males, but today could include any legal citizen). They were not referring to the National Guard. And of course a nation has the right to organize defense and bear arms, why would you need that spelled out in the Bill of Rights? But who gives a fuck what they meant, or, for that matter what the courts say (who, as adjuncts to the State have every reason to interpret the Amendment as giving powers to own weapons rather than the right of individuals to do so)?

The bottom line is this-- do you think that the police and military should have sole and exclusive ownership over guns, especially in our modern corporate-controlled mega-State, which is approaching Orwellian proportions? Do you feel comfortable with this the way our "democracy" is headed?

[rinsd]

354. Please explain what a collective right is?

Because you cannot have a collective right without the individual right. If the individual only possesses a right in the midst of a collective by a state organized militia, it is not a right at all but instead a state granted privilege. Which brings up why the hell would it be listed as the 2nd amendment? Also the individual right is asserted specifically in quite a few State Constitutions.

"The better view is the 9th Circuit view that the Second Amendment means what it says, that the rigth to bear arms refers to the militia, i.e., the National Guard."

The 9th is wrong. The National Guard is federalized and has been for quite some time now.

Let's look at concept of "collective right" vs. individual right as applied to other Bills of Rights.

If applied to free speech, one only has that right if in the company of others and with state permission/organization.

If applied to free of religion, one only has that right if in the company of others and with state permission/organization.

Etc..

[Bombtrack]

5. Gun control is not anti-gun or anti-second amendment

The second amendment calls for the right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. Not for fellons to buy uzis at gun shows.

Gun control advocates overwhelmingly are not "gun-grabbers" or for banning handguns to law abiding citizens as the idiot right has said they are and the idiot left fringe has started to beleive

Saying that one side is pro-gun control and the other is pro-gun is no less anti-journalistic and misleading that during the build up one side was anti-war and the other was pro-troops

[DoNotRefill]

95. Ummm...

Felons are precluded from being in the militia, and are precluded from buying or possessing ANY gun, REGARDLESS of where it was obtained.

What part of the word "people" don't you understand?

[freetobegay]

7. Your as bad as the media whores with spin!

Just look at your choices! Heres a clue, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with gun control. It has to do with the right to bear arms. Lets try to keep the facts straight here please.

[solinvictus]

38. Here here!!

[Toucano]

8. These terms confuse me, so I'll just summarize

where I stand, and you can decide what fits best.

First, I haven't changed.

I believe the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. It is not an absolute right, however.

I don't have the right to bear anthrax or nuclear warheads. I also don't have the right to own assault weapons or carry concealed firearms.

Closing the gun show loop hole is an absolute must.

Ballistic fingerprinting is a wise idea.

Waiting periods don't infringe on the right to bear arms any more than voter registration laws infringe on the right to vote.

Some regulation is necessary and practical in the interest for promoting the general welfare of the people.

I don't own any guns, but if I did, would I be worried that the governement had my name and address on a list of gun owners? No. If things really started getting to the point where that would be a concern, they wouldn't find me at home anyway. :evilgrin:

[Cicero]

300. Where you differ from me...

I believe the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. It is not an absolute right, however.

I'm not sure I get the distinction. If you mean people in jail or convicted felons can have their right to bear arms taken away, I'd agree with you there.

I also don't have the right to own assault weapons or carry concealed firearms.

Given the nebulous definition of just what an assault weapon is, how do you know you have the right to own one?

Closing the gun show loop hole is an absolute must.

What loophole?

Ballistic fingerprinting is a wise idea.

Ballistic fingerprinting is to a scientific means of identification as a roscharch inkblot is to a digital photograph, IMNSHO. :eyes:

Waiting periods don't infringe on the right to bear arms any more than voter registration laws infringe on the right to vote.

A more proper comparison would be whether it would be constitutional to have a waiting period before you could buy a newspaper.

Just food for thought... :think:

Later,

[corporatewhore]

9. well the iraqi uprising makes a good case

[wyldwolf]

11. Here's my deal...

If proponents of gun rights insist that the 2nd Amendment states that the average person has a right to own and bear firearms, I'm more than happy to concede the point PROVIDED the arms that are allowed are only the arms that were available when the second amendment was written.

Otherwise, gun rights proponents must either allow for the ownership of any weapon (nuclear, chemical. biological) or they must admit that sensible gun control is necessary. How that would be accomplished is anyone's guess. But I believe it is necessary - starting with semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

[FeebMaster]

12. Deal.

As soon as you give up your freedom of speech on the internet, since there was no internet when the 1st amendment was written.

[wyldwolf]

14. So...

You have the right to keep and bear weapons grade plutonium and anthrax?

[FeebMaster]

16. What federal firearms law regulates

plutonium and anthrax? We're talking about guns here, let's try and keep the WMD strawmen to a minimum. Not even 20 posts in this thread yet and I've already seen at least two McFeeb's Law violations.

[wyldwolf]

17. could care less about some self serving "McFeeb's Law violations"

The second amendment says "arms," not guns.

[FeebMaster]

18. So it does.

Which federal firearms law regulates nuclear and biological weapons?

Didn't we have a deal that you were going to stop using the internet?

[wyldwolf]

19. you're getting off track

We're not discussing federal firearms laws (which is gun control if one uses a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment), we're discussing whether the second amendment guarantees one the right to keep and bear any "arm" - of which nuclear and biological weapons quailify as.

So, does it?

[FeebMaster]

21. People generally read the

"arms" part of the 2nd amendment to mean small arms or squad portable weapons, the sort of thing that would have use in a militia.

We could take a purist type approach and say the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to nuclear and biological weapons, I suppose. Let's do that and since I am more than willing to compromise, we can allow the government to regulate nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. As soon as they remove all the restrictions on small arms, conventional explosives, and artillery. I think that's fair.

So are you giving up the internet or what?

[wyldwolf]

24. really?

People generally read the arms" part of the 2nd amendment to mean small arms or squad portable weapons, the sort of thing that would have use in a militia?

Like who? You have statistics on that?

People also read the 2nd Amendment as referring only to an organized militia - not everyday people. At least, the courts generally do.

Fortunately for the sane ones among us, the government already regulates nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well as small arms, conventional explosives, and artillery.

And if those are indeed unconstitutional, why doesn't the gun lobby challenge them on constitutional grounds in court?

The reason is because the Supreme Court -- this nation's final arbiter on the interpretation of the Constitution -- has always ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, but to the well-regulated militias mentioned in the first part of the amendment. Specifically, these are militias that are regulated by the federal and state governments. Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

So when was the last time you were put your uniform on and participated in militia training and executed the laws of the union?

Free speech, and it's various vehicles (like the internet) HAVE been explored in court.

[bushclipper]

26. I'm pro 2nd Amendment, but that post was a slam dunk, wyldwolf!

good job!

[FeebMaster]

28. Hey now, no right is absolute and all that.

"People generally read the arms" part of the 2nd amendment to mean small arms or squad portable weapons, the sort of thing that would have use in a militia?

Like who? You have statistics on that?"

Nope, no cite.

"People also read the 2nd Amendment as referring only to an organized militia - not everyday people. At least, the courts generally do."

Got any statistics on that? Or cites maybe?


"Fortunately for the sane ones among us, the government already regulates nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well as small arms, conventional explosives, and artillery."

Sane huh? Nice ad hominem.


"And if those are indeed unconstitutional, why doesn't the gun lobby challenge them on constitutional grounds in court?"

Gee. Maybe because if the courts rule that all those laws are unconstitutional, the gun lobby will be out of business. How will they get new members if they don't have some gun control to cry about?


"The reason is because the Supreme Court -- this nation's final arbiter on the interpretation of the Constitution -- has always ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, but to the well-regulated militias mentioned in the first part of the amendment."

How about a cite? Of course, you're probably talking about Miller. Who doesn't? The pro-gunners bring it up because they think it supports them. The gun grabbers bring it up because they think it supports them. Personally, I think the whole case is a joke, perversion of justice and all that, but no one seems to agree, pro-gun or gun grabber.


"So when was the last time you were put your uniform on and participated in militia training and executed the laws of the union?"

I never got a uniform. Someone must have forgotten to send me one.


"Free speech, and it's various vehicles (like the internet) HAVE been explored in court."

That's great, but I think it's only fair that if we're going to limit 2nd amendment rights to muskets that we should limit 1st amendment rights to printing presses and quill pens. No right is absolute after all.

[wyldwolf]

36. you just confirmed it for me

"People also read the 2nd Amendment as referring only to an organized militia - not everyday people. At least, the courts generally do."

Got any statistics on that? Or cites maybe?

In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!

Even so, this left a question about how much the federal government can limit a citizen's right to own a gun. In 1939, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States vs. Miller. Here, the Court refused to strike down a law prohibiting the interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun on the basis of the Second Amendment. Rejecting the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.

In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia. Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times they have even expressed exasperation with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated. In pointed language, the court wrote: "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."

"And if those are indeed unconstitutional, why doesn't the gun lobby challenge them on constitutional grounds in court?"

Gee. Maybe because if the courts rule that all those laws are unconstitutional, the gun lobby will be out of business. How will they get new members if they don't have some gun control to cry about?

If the gun lobby is so sure that the second amendment applies to individual gun ownership, you'd think they'd try to get the courts to agree - especially now that the supreme court is stacked with conservatives.

Instead, the try to go through congress, bribing them with campaign contributions, because they know they'll lose to the one court with the final word on constitutional matters.

[FeebMaster]

54. If I were your average pro-gunner

I'd start talking about how in US v Miller the ruling was actually that a short barreled shotgun isn't suitable for militia use and therefore not covered by the second amendment. Which of course is nonsense for two reasons. First, short barreled shotguns are perfectly suitable militia weapons and have been used in pretty much every war since they were invented. Second, the NFA doesn't just cover short barreled shotguns, it also covers machine guns, which are most certainly issued in every military in the world, so they certainly have a militia use. Of course, I'm not you average pro-gunner and I find it hilarious that both sides cite Miller. Especially considering the defense never presented its side of the case. The government presented its side then the court ruled unanimously in favor of the government. Yay, justice is served.


"In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!"

How does that relate to the federal government regulating guns? So you're saying it should be up to the states and if they want to allow complete access to any weapon including nukes that's just fine?

"In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated. In pointed language, the court wrote: "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states.""

Same question as Presser I guess.


"If the gun lobby is so sure that the second amendment applies to individual gun ownership, you'd think they'd try to get the courts to agree - especially now that the supreme court is stacked with conservatives."

Didn't I just explain that the gun lobby needs gun control to survive? Why would they want to get rid of gun control? It gets them members and members bring money.


"Instead, the try to go through congress, bribing them with campaign contributions,"

Yes that's how most lobbies operate.

"because they know they'll lose to the one court with the final word on constitutional matters."

You see? They lose either way the court rules. Better to just keep collecting membership dues.

[wyldwolf]

62. At the core of the US v Miller decision was...

that the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.

A a short barreled shotgun just happened to be the weapon upon which the case was brought.

As for your question regarding Presser vs. Illinois, try not to misrepresent my point. The passage is clear. The ruling gives the states the power to regulate arms, period.

In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 declared that it is erroneous that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states.

[FeebMaster]

67. At the core of the US v Miller decision was

the defense not calling a witness that could have said "Sure I used a short barreled shotgun in the trenches of The Great War." It probably had something to do with the defense not being there.

"As for your question regarding Presser vs. Illinois, try not to misrepresent my point. The passage is clear. The ruling gives the states the power to regulate arms, period."

Alright, then the states have the power to regulate arms, period. What gives the federal government the power to regulate arms then?

"In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 declared that it is erroneous that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."

So "the right of the people" in the 2nd amendment actually means "the right of the states." Does that hold for all of the Bill of Rights or just the 2nd amendment? In any case, I'm still not seeing where the federal government gets the power to regulate arms. How come Warin never went to the US Supreme Court anyway?

[wyldwolf]

79. you're off track again

It does not matter that the defense didn't call some witness. The case was ruled on and stands.

The purpose of the clause "the right of the people" is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.

Similar to "we the people" in the preamble not referring to individuals but to the state or country as a governmental entity.

Where the federal government gets the power to regulate arms is a sideshow to our discussion. We're discussing the language of the 2nd amendment and how the courts have interpreted it.

[FeebMaster]

82. That doesn't make it right.

The defense didn't call a witness because the defense wasn't there.

"The purpose of the clause "the right of the people" is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units."

Do you want to start applying that sort of thinking to the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments too?

"Where the federal government gets the power to regulate arms is a sideshow to our discussion. We're discussing the language of the 2nd amendment and how the courts have interpreted it."

If you say so.

[wyldwolf]

85. then take it up with the US Supreme court

I'm discussing how they and other courts have ruled on the 2nd Amendment. They have not ruled that way on the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments.

It appears to me that you disagree with the courts.

[FeebMaster]

92. The only Supreme Court cases you've dragged up

are Presser and Miller. Presser predates all of the federal firearms legislation by at least 48 years. Miller, as far as I'm concerned is a joke and it continually shocks me that people take the case seriously.

[wyldwolf]

97. what "shocks" me is your dismissal of the case because you...

..don't like the decision.

On second thought - no, that doesn't surprise me.

[FeebMaster]

101. It has nothing to do with the decision.

How would you like being tried in absentia? It's just not right.

"On second thought - no, that doesn't surprise me."

Good.

[wyldwolf]

106. sure it does...

..you have a problem with the outcome.

"Miller, as far as I'm concerned is a joke and it continually shocks me that people take the case seriously."

[FeebMaster]

So terribly sorry.

Let me be more specific. It has nothing to do with the content of the decision.

[wyldwolf]

115. sure it does

You find fault with the case and how it was handled.

The decision is/was a setback for individual gun ownership and is viewed as legal precedent.

[FeebMaster]

119. Think what you like.

Maybe you could address some of my other points now.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1445497#1446489

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1445497#1446556

[wyldwolf]

122. no, thanks

...one thing I have learned from discussing issues of which people feel very passionate about - don't stray too far from the original topic or you'll be up all night chasing down every little hypothetical situation and sideshow.

Since the point was the wording of the second amendment and legal precedents on it, I'll save the side issues for another night.

[FeebMaster]

124. Is that why you started talking about nuclear weapons

when everyone else was talking about guns?

I'd really like an explanation about your attempt at guilt by association.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1445497#1446197

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1445497#1446489

[wyldwolf]

128. no, you and I were talking about "arms"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1445497&mesg_id=1446079&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1445497&mesg_id=1446142&page=

[FeebMaster]

130. Right.

So were you going to address this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1445497#1446489

[wyldwolf]

137. I did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1445497#1446147

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1445497&mesg_id=1447019&page=

And I'll paraphrase. A standard NRA talking point it to compare the 2nd amendment to the first. And, as I said, I will not chase down every little side street in a discussion.

Waste of time. Counterproductive.

[FeebMaster]

139. So basically

you just made an attempt to paint me into the NRA's corner and you aren't really interested in defending your statements. Of course, I'm still not even sure what I said in that sub-thread that could be taken as an NRA talking point.

[wyldwolf]

143. look at one of my threads linked

I explained very clearly that trying to compare the 1st and 2nd amendments the way you did is standard NRA talking points.

[FeebMaster]

144. If you say so. (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

141. What decision?

the holding in Miller was that there had to be some showing that the WEAPON ITSELF had some militia use, not that the person had to be in the militia to have a Second Amendment right.

[wyldwolf]

170. Are you even reading this thread?

posts 62, 67, 79, 82, 85, 92, 97, 101, 106, 115

[DoNotRefill]

223. I'm very familiar with Miller...

what I'm NOT familiar with is your destorted view of what Miller actually said in the holding.

[wyldwolf]

238. distorted, huh?

Throughtout this thread, I've heard gun proponants offer up wide opinions on the case, including someone who said the decision wasn't "right." (a charge people often make about any case that they don't like the outcome of.)

And, one more time, in Miller the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.

[DoNotRefill]

255. That's dicta, NOT the holding.

You DO know the difference, right? The HOLDING (the binding part of the decision) is the sentence that starts "Absent a showing".

I hate it when people get their "legal education" from watching reruns of Law and Order...

[wyldwolf]

277. once again

The Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.

[DoNotRefill]

305. You obviously don't understand the difference between dicta and a holding

eom

[hansberrym]

272. You said it.

In the actual Miller opinion, the court refers to the continuation of "such forces" not of "state militias". And there is no doubt about what the justices meant by "such forces" since they go on to explain at length.


(quoting wyldwolf)
And, one more time, in Miller the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.
(endquote)




From Miller:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily 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. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.
(end cite)



If the Miller court really supported the Collective Rights point of view...

Why then does the Miller court use the term "bearing arms" in relation to an individual person's action?
(...these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time...)


Why didn't the Miller court rule that Miller had no standing to bring a Second Amendmemt defense?


Why does the Miller court make this statement? "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

"Guarantees" to whom?

The only one making a Second Amendment claim was a man named Miller,
and he was not a state or a militia.

[wyldwolf]

280. OK

If the Miller court really supported the Collective Rights point of view...

Why then does the Miller court use the term "bearing arms" in relation to an individual person's action?

Are you contending that because the court used the term "bearing arms" in relation to an individual person's action, that that somehow proves their findings endorse individual rights?

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Right. Miller was in question, not the militia. The court said, in reponse to Miller, an individual, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

[hansberrym]

285. Yes, that is the logical conclusion.

Since the Miller court used the term "bearing arms" in connection to an individual's action, it would make sense that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Furthermore the Miller court's "supplied by themselves" does not in any way support the collective or states rights argument.


And yes, the fact that the Miller court considered whether Mr. Miller had "the right to keep and bear such an instrument" is in stark contrast to the Collective Rights decisions (such as Silveira)in which the courts dismissed based on a lack of standing by the individuals claiming Second Amendment rights.

[wyldwolf]

286. I read it differently

I don't see that the court using the term "bearing arms" in referring to Miller shows that it is an individual right. It seems they were making an observation that Miller was "bearing arms" and not making a judgement here about whether the right was collective or individual.

However, the court went on to say:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Miller was in question, not the militia. The court said, in reponse to Miller, an individual, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

[hansberrym]

294. Since the Miller court used the terms "bearing" and "keep" arms as the

actions of individuals it makes no sense to say that the Miller decision applies only to state or collective rights.


As you say...
"Miller was in question, not the militia. The court said, in reponse to Miller, an individual, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."


Why do you suppose the Miller court did NOT say "absent any showing that Mr Miller is a STATE, we can not say the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument". That would have denied his claim on the basis of standing assuming that a States Rights point of view was held by the court.

[Columbia]

309. USSC's take on Miller

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/95%2D1478.html

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

[DoNotRefill]

114. Actually...

you're sort-of right. The case was remanded to the trial courts for a finding of fact about the utility of a short barreled shotgun. If there was a finding that the firearm in question was in fact militarily useful, the gun would have constitutional protection. Since the hearing was never held (Miller was long gone), we don't have an answer.

[MrSandman]

273. The case was remanded and not retried...

[DoNotRefill]

111. LOL!!!!

"As for your question regarding Presser vs. Illinois, try not to misrepresent my point. The passage is clear. The ruling gives the states the power to regulate arms, period."

Yup, just as at the time the States had the ability to ban any civil right found in the Bill of Rights. They constitutionally could have passed state laws allowing summary execution of people not convicted in court of any crime, because at the time, States were not bound by the Bill of Rights. That changed AFTER Presser.

Don't forget, Jim Crow was constitutional at the time of Presser, since the 14th Amendment didn't apply to the States, just as the Second, First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments didn't apply to the States. TOTHIS DAY, the ONLY remaining Jim Crow law still on the federal books is the NAtional Firearms Act. We'll have to see what happens since the 9th overturned the NFA a few months ago.

You're gonna get yerself in trouble relying on Presser...

[wyldwolf]

113. LOL!!!

Yup, just as at the time the States had the ability to ban any civil right found in the Bill of Rights.

But they can't now.

However, the court's decisions on the 2nd Amendment still stand.

[DoNotRefill]

135. It still stands...

only because SCOTUS has been ducking the issue for so long.

Given the Incorporation Doctrine, it's preposterous to still consider Presser to be valid. The Doctrine which applied the Bill of Rights to the States hasn't been applied to the Second Amendment only because such a case has never been heard by SCOTUS.

If such a case was heard, there would be only three options: Junk Incorporation, Incorporate the Second Amendment, or try to distinguish the Second Amendment from the rest of the BoR. Which is the most likely? I'd say incorporation.

[wyldwolf]

171. so your argument boils down to your belief that theSCOTUS is...

"ducking" the issue?

That if they would take a case on, surely they would rule the way you want them to?

I'd love to see some documentation that the SCOTUS is "ducking" the issue.

[DoNotRefill]

216. Really?

Look at the cases they've denied cert to. Compare it to the cases they've granted cert. to.

If they're not ducking the issue, why all the denials of cert, and why no granting of cert?

[wyldwolf]

237. yes, really

could it be that they consider the issue settled? That they know how it will turn out?

Makes as much sense as saying they're ducking it.

[DoNotRefill]

256. Not if you read footnotes in other cases...

It appears that we're approaching the time when such a case MIGHT be heard. But the issue doesn't appear to be ripe yet. And the Circuits ARE INDEED split. IIRC, they denied cert for Emerson. That means they're ducking the issue, since Emerson is diametrically opposed to rulings from the 9th.

[wyldwolf]

278. To YOU it means they're ducking the issue

[DoNotRefill]

302. what OTHER explanation is there...

considering how badly the circuits are split?

[wyldwolf]

306. that the supreme court considers it settled

There is another explanation. We're going in circles now. I've made this statement at least twice.

[DoNotRefill]

307. How can they POSSIBLY consider it settled....

when it's a collective right in the 9th circuit and an individual right in the 5th circuit?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The theories are diametrically opposed to each other.

Answer the fucking question.

[wyldwolf]

310. I have answered the "fucking" question

The fact that you don't like my answer doesn't mean I haven't answered it.

I never said it was "settled law." I said legal scholars consider it settled law.

And when you asked what other explanation could there be, I said one explanation could be that the Supreme Court considers it settled law.

Check that bloodpressure.

[DoNotRefill]

312. And I provided you with names...

of Second Amendment scholars who disagree on the issue. Lund, Volokh, Polsby, and Cottrol all say it's an individual right. Bellesiles and Bogus say it's a collective right. The 9th circuit says it's a collective right. The 5th Circuit says it's an individual right.

SCOTUS hasn't said what they think.

Given that, how on EARTH can you claim that legal scholars say it's a settled issue?

How can SCOTUS consider it settled law when the Circuits are so very badly split?

If you live in California, there's a tenative collective right to keep and bear arms according to the 9th Circuit. If a California resident moves to Texas, where the 5th Circuit recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms, what happens? Does the traveller get a new right when he or she crosses state lines?

How does that work?

Your statement is preposterous and indicative of a lack of understanding of the law and the judicial system.

[wyldwolf]

313. As I have also said to you several times...

.. I never said all legal scholars consider it "settled law."

But where are you pulling your definition of the term from. I've asked you that a couple of times...

[DoNotRefill]

318. so name names.

Tribe, arguably the foremost overall constitutional scholar says one thing, which agrees with Lund, Polsby, Volokh, and Cottrol (BTW Volokh has my vote for "most likely to be appointed to the Supreme Court in 20 years").

Bellesiles and Bogus (Carl T.) offer a diametrically opposed position.

So who, exactly, considers this to be settled law, and what website did they buy their J.D. from? Name names. You said it, now back it the fuck up.

[wyldwolf]

320. show me the definition of "settled law"

back it "the fuck" up.

c'mon. Back it "the fuck" up.

[DoNotRefill]

323. Settled law...

is generally seen as having been heard to the highest level, where it is no longer subject to debate, according to judicial principles such as res judicata.

Backed the fuck up. Your turn.

[wyldwolf]

325. you just gave me your opinion...

and, something that is "generally seen" (by who?)is hardly a set definition.

So show me the definition from somewhere other than your mind. An official settled definition.

NOT backed the fuck up.

[DoNotRefill]

327. try looking on page 1305 of Blacks 6th edition...

under Res Judicata.

[wyldwolf]

330. Res Judicata

Latin for "the thing has been judged," meaning the issue before the court has already been decided by another court, between the same parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being useless.

Still, not an official definition. And has little to do with "settled law" because res judicata deals with litigation between the same parties.

Very, very few judges, prosecutors or government lawyers over the past 60 years (at least)have officially taken the position that an individual right to own guns exists. The normal, reigning judicial view, the one that is essentially settled law, is that the right to bear arms pertains only to the right of states form collective defenses or "well regulated militias." This is not a controversial area of the law. No gun control laws have been declared unconstitutional by courts because they violated an individual rights to bear arms.

[DoNotRefill]

332. How can it be settled law...

when the 5th Circuit disagrees with the 9th?

You keep saying it's settled law, or that constitutional scholars say it's settled law. But the courts have NOT said it's settled law. In fact, the circuits are badly split. If they HAD said it's settled law, then a circuit split could not exist. Yet a circuit split does exist.

How do you reconcile the FACT that there's a circuit split if it's settled law?

[wyldwolf]

334. why do you keep asking me this same question?

The Supreme Court, being the last word, and the reigning judicial view, the one that is essentially settled law, is that the right to bear arms pertains only to the right of states form collective defenses or "well regulated militias." This is not a controversial area of the law. No gun control laws have been declared unconstitutional by courts because they violated an individual rights to bear arms.

[DoNotRefill]

339. because you REFUSE to answer it.

"is that the right to bear arms pertains only to the right of states form collective defenses"

Please provide a pinpoint cite to the Supreme Court saying this.

You keep saying it's not controversial, despite the fact that I've provided you names of constitutional scholars who disagree on the issue, along with the two primary circuits, which are incontrovertably split, in a manner which is diametrically opposite. If there's no controversy, then why all the controversy? Or do you think that by saying "it's not controversial" over and over again, you can get people to believe the "big lie"?

The Supreme Court HAS overturned gun control laws. They haven't cited the Second Amendment to do it, because there were other rights that were infringed upon under the schemes. (specifically, a registration scheme was overturned on 5th Amendment grounds). Part of Brady I was overturned by the Supreme Court on other grounds, too. SCOTUS has NEVER ruled that it was either an individual or a collective right. They've been ducking the issue since Reconstruction.

One interesting historical note: there was a Second Amendment element to Scott v. Sanford in 1850. Chief justice Taney, in the majority opinion, stated that blacks could not be citizens, because if they were citizens, they would have a right to keep and bear arms. There was no mention of being able to join a militia.

[wyldwolf]

349. I have... over and over... you just don't like the answer

You keep giving your created defintion (actually, you've given two definitions) for settled law to try to make your point.

As I said above (again) very, very few judges, prosecutors or government lawyers over the past 60 years (at least)have officially taken the position that an individual right to own guns exists. The normal, reigning judicial view, as held by the Supreme Court, the one that is essentially settled law, is that the right to bear arms pertains only to the right of states form collective defenses or "well regulated militias."

[DoNotRefill]

351. You keep babbling the same thing over and over again...

but you never provide any kind of supporting evidence.

You say that the "normal, reigning judicial view, as held by the Supreme court, the one that is essentially settled law", but you refuse to say how you draw sych a conclusion, much less give cites.

Where has the Supreme Court said that it's "settled law"? Got cite? Let's have it.

I've offered the names of constitutional scholars who disagree. I've offered the circuits which hold diametrically opposed viewpoints. If you want, I can give you case names. Both argue eloquently that it is, in fact, NOT settled law. The scholars don't agree, and the courts don't agree. So put up or shut up. Who, exactly, considers it settled law? Be sure to provide links to back up your assertion.

[DoNotRefill]

108. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals isn't the Supreme Court.

and the circuits are split.

BTW, you DID hear that the National Firearms Act was recently ruled to be unconstitutional, by a Federal Court of Appeals, didn't you? Care to wager a guess which court did it? Was it the Fifth or the Fourth, or one of the other really conservative circuits? Nope, it was the 9th, the most LIBERAL circuit in the country. Oops.

[MrSandman]

70. Well , does the Court always?

Was Presser so decided because the Second Amendment was already determined superfluous?

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=92&invol=542

But then we view Presser and find:

"...the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, ..."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=<%LINKURL%>&graphurl=<%GRAPHURL%>&court=US&case=/data/us/116/252.html

And Miller applies to one weapon:

" In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches
in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot
say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear
such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or
that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v.
State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt

[DoNotRefill]

107. Uh huh....

and when Presser was heard, other individual rights we take for granted today also didn't apply to the States, because it predated the formulation of the Incorporation doctrine. So, at the time of Presser, States and municipalities could beat confessions out of people, they could imprison people without trial, they could establish an official State religion, et cetera. It was only AFTER Presser that the Incorporation doctrine came into being, and the States were also precluded from violating the constitutional rights set forth in the Bill of Rights.

Reread the First Amendment. You see that "Congress shall pass no law" phrase? That meant that the States legislatures COULD pass such laws, only the Federal Government couldn't. Do you REALLY want to go back to that?

[tom_paine]

47. Hey what's wrong with personal ownership of NBC weapons?

Gotcha!

:evilgrin:

[TrueD]

103. SC said no such thing...historically

"well regulated" meant "trained and drilled". The unorganized militia meant the entire population.

"A well regulate militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It means that the people need to know how to fire and shoot their weapons so that they will be "well regulated" when they are called forth to do the things you mentioned. The unwritten but historical need for the second ammendment was that a populace that was trained in firearms could overthrow a government that was backed by a standing army. This was the difference between the colonial era U.S. and their European country counterparts.

Our framers wanted our population to shoot and shoot well in case they needed to do it for the defense of the country and constitution.

[wyldwolf]

110. post 36

"well regulated" meant "trained and drilled". The unorganized militia meant the entire population.

cite?

[DoNotRefill]

104. You're incorrect.

The Supreme Court has been ducking the issue since Miller, in 1939. In Miller, the Plaintiff was legally disqualified from being in the militia because he had prior felony convictions. Yet that fact was not dispositive. Instead, SCOTUS ruled that in order to be protected by the Second Amendment, there had to be "some showing" that the firearm in question had some militia or military application. It didn't have to be airtight, there just had to be "some showing". This is DESPITE the fact that Miller was not only not in an organized militia, but was legally incapable of being in a militia, due to his legal disqualification.

The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that it was an individual right, but they've also NEVER ruled that it's a collective right.

[wyldwolf]

172. "ducking?" bwahahahahahaha

...sorry. I just find it funny that your think the Supreme Court is "ducking" the issue.

I'd love to see some documentation on that. Maybe a Justice saying, "we're ducking this?"

[DoNotRefill]

225. They haven't granted cert. on a Second Amendment case...

since 1939. There's only one other civil liberty enumerated in the BoR that they have not heard a case on in that long that I can think of....and that's the Third Amendment, which is pretty clearcut and doesn't often come up.

[wyldwolf]

236. perhaps it is because they see the cases as cut and dry now?

..or as I said earlier, settelled law.

Makes as much sense as saying they are "ducking" it.

[DoNotRefill]

257. how can THAT be?

The 9th says it's collective, not individual. The 5th says it's individual, not collective. They've denied cert on both cases. It's a CLASSIC circuit split.

[wyldwolf]

282. we're talking about the Supreme Court, not the 9th and 5th circuits

[DoNotRefill]

303. If there's a circuit split....

it's not settled law, BY DEFINITION.

[wyldwolf]

308. defined by who and where?

And, of course, I never said it was settled law.

[DoNotRefill]

315. You need a Conlaw class BADLY.

eom

[wyldwolf]

324. you need a lesson in rational thought badly

So where is the official definition of "settled law?"

[DoNotRefill]

328. pg. 1305...

Black's, 6th edition.

[wyldwolf]

331. res judicata

so?

Very, very few judges, prosecutors or government lawyers over the past 60 years (at least)have officially taken the position that an individual right to own guns exists. The normal, reigning judicial view, the one that is essentially settled law, is that the right to bear arms pertains only to the right of states form collective defenses or "well regulated militias." This is not a controversial area of the law. No gun control laws have been declared unconstitutional by courts because they violated an individual rights to bear arms.

"(Latin: “a thing adjudged”), a thing or matter that has been finally juridically decided on its merits and cannot be litigated again between the same parties. The term is often used in reference to the maxim that repeated reexamination of adjudicated disputes is not in any society's interest. "

[DoNotRefill]

333. More opinion, short on facts.

Please cite the Supreme Court opinion saying it's a settled issue.

You say it's not a controversial area of the law. Then explain Emerson. The 5th circuit Court of Appeals DID say it's an individual right, in a published opinion which is binding on lower courts in that jurisdiction. The Supreme Court chose not to hear and overturn that interpretation of the Second Amendment.

[wyldwolf]

335. more opinion, short on facts

Please provide an official established definition of "settled law."

res judicata isn't it.

Latin: “a thing adjudged”), a thing or matter that has been finally juridically decided on its merits and cannot be litigated again between the same parties.

[DoNotRefill]

340. It's YOUR term...

why don't YOU find an official definition?

[wyldwolf]

348. because you're the one who boldly but incorrectly defined it...

..then gave a book source for something that WASN'T settled law.

Remember?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1445497&mesg_id=1453068&page=

it's not settled law, BY DEFINITION.

Meaning, you know what the definition is. So, enlighten us with the real definition, not something like res judicata which isn't the definiton but you nevertheless gave as it anyway hoping I wouldn't know.

[DoNotRefill]

352. You're asking for a set definition for a term of art.

Res judicata IS part of something being settled. If res judicata is applicable, the issue is settled, and an attempt for rehearing will be barred based upon res judicata.

I suppose that a more accurate term than "settled law" would be "black letter law", law which is not subject to interpretation, since all interpretation has been done. Even that isn't fully accurate, since noting can ever be truly "settled".

Need an example? Roe v. Wade. SCOTUS made their ruling in Roe v. Wade. In theory, that settled the issue, since the supreme judicial body had heard the case and ruled on it. There was noplace else to appeal to. Res judicata applied. Yet attacks on the periphery still occur, so how settled is it really?

you are going off on harebrained wild goose chases. Stick to the subject. You say SCOTUS considers it "settled law". Prove it.

[immoderate]

252. Consider the meaning of "well-regulated" at a time...

...when there were not reams of government regulations. You take regulated to be synonymous with restricted. It's common use at the time was more like qualified. the aim was to have well qualifies shooters.

An analogy would be SCUBA provides a well regulated air supply, not a highly restricted air supply.

--IMM

[gpandas]

27. i can't follow the reasoning of this post

what does regulating super weapons have to do with not regulating small arms. i'm not being smartassed, i want to know the connection? what compromise are you talking about?

[FeebMaster]

29. I have no idea.

I got sidetracked down the WMD strawman road somehow and can't find my way back. All these gun threads up out of the dungeon the past few days must have worn me out.

[wyldwolf]

41. not only are you sidetracked, but you misuse the term "strawman."

Arms:
n.
A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arms

[FeebMaster]

61. Hahah.

A weapon, especially a firearm. Yeah, what most people want to talk about when discussing the 2nd amendment. Of course, why discuss guns, which lots of people think the restrictions should be loosened on, when you can ignore guns and talk about nukes, which no one is seriously arguing for unrestricted access to.

[wyldwolf]

63. ha ha , read it again

"ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms" as examples of arms.

[FeebMaster]

69. I did read it.

Especially firearms.

[wyldwolf]

81. so you see that the term "arms" is used for firearms and nukes...

soo.. :shrug:

[FeebMaster]

83. Yes, I see. (nt)

[MrSandman]

276. Soo...

Have you ever seen an individually borne Nuke?

[wyldwolf]

283. not personally but...

here is a picture of one

[MrSandman]

289. Nooo

Mock-up of a hypothetical "suitcase" nuclear bomb, made by Congressional staffer Peter Pry. Congressional hearing on Russian espionage held by Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana) on 24 January 2000.

(Caption from the photo)

http://cns.miis.edu/iiop/cnsdata?Action=1&Concept=0&Mime=1&collection=CNS+Web+Site&Key=pubs%2Fweek%2F040213%2Ehtm&QueryText=suitcase&QueryMode=FreeText

They may not continue to exist, if indeed they did. The Center for Nonproliferation Studies does have an interest in convincing us they do exist. Probably did, but from reading the site, they have probably degraded.

[wyldwolf]

291. yesss... and regardless of whether it was a model of one or not

...the fact remains that they exist. I don't buy into the conspiratorial "The Center for Nonproliferation Studies does have an interest in convincing us they do exist" line.

With that defense, you could deny their existance until someone detonated one to prove it to you.

As Rep. Curt Weldon said:

"I can tell you unequivocally we built these devices similar to this and so did the Soviets during the Cold War," said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa. "The defense minister of Russia told me to my face, 'Yes, congressman, we built these devices. Just as your country built them during the Cold War.'"

[MrSandman]

292. I admitted that they...

Probably existed. I also pointed out that the CNS even wonders about continued existence. I worry more about the material from a degraded one being mixed with ANFO.

I don't buy into the conspiratorial "Comparing the 2nd Amendment to the 1st is only the NRA talking."

[wyldwolf]

293. the difference is...

Comparing the 2nd Amendment to the 1st in the way it has been done here IS an NRA talking point - distributed in their literature and repeated by rightwing talk radio. Boorz specifically.

When someone who is anti-gun makes the point that the 2nd Amendment might only apply to weapons that existed then, the standard line is that, "well, then, the first amendment should only apply to methods of communication that existed then..." or some variance. I can mout the words with Boortz everytime he says it it is so predictable.

But you asked for an indidual borne nuke (I think that was your wording) and I showed the existance of them.

[MrSandman]

295. Ad homemien...

Because it is a talking point of NRA or Boorz, it doesn't mean it is not valid. Even the ACLU and NRA have agreed on some issues.

On edit...Why is the 1st and 2nd different?

[wyldwolf]

297. be that as it may...

It is STILL an NRA talking - and that was what the exchange was about.

[MrSandman]

298. Still valid question...n/t

[DoNotRefill]

102. Well, there was a case in Washington State (IIRC)....

where a law about carrying billy clubs was struck down as a violation of the Second Amendment...

[drfemoe]

71. Can I have a cannon?

n/t

[FeebMaster]

74. Yes. They're quite legal.

[DoNotRefill]

100. How, exactly, does a single person "bear" a nuke?

eom

[wyldwolf]

173. out of a suitcase?

eom

[Libertarialoon]

197. When WMDs are outlawed, only outlaws will have WMDs

What makes you think that the lack of a right to own WMDs will prevent anyone from having them if they want them?

If your neighbor was building a hydrogen bomb in his garage do you think he'd tell you?

This is such a strawman argument. You think of the biggest bogeyman you possibly can to shoot down an opposing viewpoint.

The fact is that anthrax and weapons grade plutonium are extremely scarce and outside the grasp of ordinary citizens anyway. Arguing whether or not the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own them is irrelevant.

You opponents of the 2nd amendment want to disarm the law-abiding public. Laws against gun ownership have been clearly shown to be ineffectual against violent crime. Why do think more restrictions on gun ownership will have any effect on criminals who are willing to use said weapons in a crime?

[takebackthewh]

88. Does that mean

... the only free speech we allow is that which was available when the First Amendment was written?

No free speech on TV, radio, the Internet -- yeah I'm down with that.

[FeebMaster]

96. More NRA talking points I see.

:eyes:

<sarcasm>I have trumped your argument with my tired attempt at guilt by association.</sarcasm>

[TrueD]

90. Arms are weapons that can be wielded by one man

That's the historic definition. It doesn't include WMD or cannons or the like.

In present context, firearms mean guns with calibers less that 0.50 inch diameter. This is actually smaller than what the revolutionary guns used. THis is sensible regulation of firearms.

Regulating guns because they look scary or because of the amount of bullets they contain is silly.

[wyldwolf]

93. where is that historical definition defined at?

[hansberrym]

274. See Miller, also Aymette

(From Miller)
And further, that ordinarily 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...


(From Aymette)
The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon, it being of the character before described as being intended by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of that unqualified character. The citizens may bear them for the common defence; but it does not follow that they may be borne by an individual, merely to terrify the people or for purposes of private assassination. And, as the manner in which they are worn and circumstances under which they are carried indicate to every man the purpose of the wearer, the legislature may prohibit such manner of wearing as would never be resorted to by persons engaged in the common defence.


The above citations strongly suggest small arms such as rifles. Not A-bombs or even small suitcase-sized A-bombs since these are not in "common use".

[wyldwolf]

284. operative words: "srongly suggest"

...however, still not a historical definition.

(From Miller)
And further, that ordinarily 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...

This only declares that the arms used by the militia were supplied by themselves. It in no way defines what "arms" are.

same with your other example.

[hansberrym]

287. "and in common use at the time" does indeed define what "arms" are

in the context of the second amendment and of the Miller decision.

Also you might want to look at the militia acts cited in Miller for
what "arms" meant and who was to "keep" them. No support for your arguments there.

(from Miller)
The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening’s Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: ‘The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.’

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that ‘All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,’ with certain exceptions, ‘shall be inrolled or formed into companies.’ ‘There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.’ Also that ‘Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o’clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good <307 U.S. 174, 182> powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for
(end cite)



Note the similarity in the preamble of the 1785 Virginia act cited by the Miller court to the preamble of the Second amendment.

Note also that the Miller court refers to both preambles as "declarations".

[wyldwolf]

288. ok, then, if we agree to that, then

..the second amendment only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms in common use at the time. And Miller extended it to include "arms" that were avaiable at THAT time.

But I don't really believe that.

"Arms" does, however, refer to weapons in general.

[hansberrym]

296. Do you suppose that the Miller court cited those contemporary militia act

in which the individual citizen was to arm himself with the ordinary infantryman's gear (musket or rifle, powder, shot, etc.) to illustrate
that idea that

1) the individual citizen was to arm himself with the ordinary infantryman's gear?

2) the individual was to arm hiself with bombs and/or high explosives?

3) States were to arm themselve with atomic bombs?

(Your argument concerning "arms" cuts both ways, if "arms" means every arm as you say, then do you really believe each STATE has the right to keep Atomic Bombs? That might warm Arnold's heart, but it makes little sense in the context of a historical review of the second amendment and of the powers of Congress vis-a-vis the States as per the US COnstitution.)

[DoNotRefill]

98. OK, fine.

"I'm more than happy to concede the point PROVIDED the arms that are allowed are only the arms that were available when the second amendment was written."

You DO realize that all laws have to be interpreted in the same manner, right? So, if your interpretation is correct, the First Amendment covers manual printing presses and items written in longhand. Automatic printing presses, TV, Radio, and the Internet would ALL not be protected by the First Amendment, and if a gathering used a PA system, it wouldn't be protected either.

Is that REALLY where you want to go?

[themann1086]

13. hm...

a very tough issue. very complex.

My views on this issue mirror my views on other issues. I believe in the regulation of big businesses and corporations. Thus, it makes logical sense that I believe that centrist, moderate regulation should be the order of the day. The argument that "cars kill more people" holds no water; the automobile industry is regulated, and licensing is required. How far should we be allowed to go? Can I own nuclear weapons? Can I own armor-piercing bullets? What kinds of weapons am I allowed to purchase? While the first question may be ridiculous, and the 2nd seems like it deserves a flippant answer, this issue cannot rely on rhetoric or one-line retorts. Serious debate is needed. Serious research too.

[corporatewhore]

15. urban vs rural

you see i would wager most of us commie gun grabbers (like myself) live in urban areas where gun related violence happens alot. I used to live in a rural area as well where people used guns mainly for hunting and and i remember visting with my Great uncle who lived way out in the middle of nowhere and took a gun out when he went walking for protection against predatory animals there .I doubt rural people would like urban people write gun laws for them as i am sure urban people dont like rural people wriing gun laws for them

[NNN0LHI]

20. I think all citizens should be required to own and be issued one...

...18th Century Flintlock Rifle to fully satisfy the spirit of the 2nd Amendment as it was written. Because that was the type of weapon our founding fathers were thinking about when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Don

[FeebMaster]

22. So I suppose you'll be wanting to

give up your freedom of speech on the internet, since there was no internet when the 1st amendment was written.

[wyldwolf]

25. geez! The NRA feeds you the lines but gives you no preperation...

... in backing them up.

[FeebMaster]

30. NRA?

I'm not a member.

[wyldwolf]

37. didn't say you were

..but you have their talking points down pat. See, like a lot of rightwing talking points, they're designed to reinforce a belief, not stand up under scrutiny.

[FeebMaster]

65. That's funny I don't think anything I've said

resembles an NRA talking point. Maybe you could point out which of my "talking points" is actually one of the NRA's. I always thought I was in disagreement with the NRA since I want all of the federal gun laws repealed and to my knowledge the NRA has never called for that. In any case, it was a nice attempt at guilt by association.

[MrSandman]

39. So how is the 1st Amendment different...

in construction from the Second?

BTW, since Miller wasn't represented and the case was not retried, I agree with Feebs.

[wyldwolf]

43. Article I, Section 8 defines "militia"

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Today, it is the National Guard.

THAT is how it is different. It is clear what the second amendment was referring to and it wasn't individual gun ownership rights.

The courts have also clarified matters of free speech.

[MrSandman]

72. The Militia as defined in the 2nd Congress...

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

[FeebMaster]

73. Please.

You could maybe argue that the National Guard is a select militia. It's really more of a standing army, though.

Even if you operate under the assumption that the National Guard is the militia referred to in the 2nd amendment, that doesn't negate the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[MrSandman]

84. I believe that was the Brandeis Court...

In the 1910's.

The courts have also clarified matters of free speech.


"Modern First Amendment law can be said to have been born in a series of World War I era prosecutions for violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. Although First Amendment claimants in those cases were 0 for 6 in the Supreme Court, their challenges sparked a debate within the Court that would eventually lead to a much more speech-protective jurisprudence."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/clear&pdanger.htm

[DoNotRefill]

118. So, if it's the National Guard...

why don't State governors appoint the officers and train the National Guard as is their right under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16?

You DO know that those duties are done by the Federal Government, NOT the States, right?

[wyldwolf]

133. sure I do

Why not ask the governors why they don't appoint the officers and train the National Guard as is their right under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16?

I know the evolution of the militia/guard happened. I do not know every detail on HOW it happened.

[DoNotRefill]

136. Because the Federal Government took that right away...

from the State governors when the National Guard was Federalized. Which means that the National Guard is what it claims to be, a reserve formation of the US Military, and NOT the militia spoken about in Article 1 section 8 Clause 16. If it was the militia, then the Constitution would have had to have been changed in order for Federalization to be constitutional.

BTW, you've neglected to explain how the Militia referred to in the constitution, ratified in what, 1789, is the National Guard, which was not created until 1917. Oops.

[wyldwolf]

142. that is a contradiction

So, if it's the National Guard... why don't State governors appoint the officers and train the National Guard as is their right under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16?

You DO know that those duties are done by the Federal Government, NOT the States, right?

sure I do... Why not ask the governors why they don't appoint the officers and train the National Guard as is their right under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16?

I know the evolution of the militia/guard happened. I do not know every detail on HOW it happened.

Because the Federal Government took that right away from the State governors when the National Guard was Federalized....

So, the militia was federalized and today is the National Guard.

----

BTW, you've neglected to explain how the Militia referred to in the constitution, ratified in what, 1789, is the National Guard, which was not created until 1917. Oops.

The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

http://www.arng.army.mil/history/

oops!

Today's National Guard is the direct descendent of the militias of the thirteen original English colonies... Americans recognized the important role played by the militia in winning the Revolutionary War. When the nation's founders debated what form the government of the new nation would take, great attention was paid to the institution of the militia...

In 1792, Congress passed a law which remained in effect for 111 years. With a few exceptions, the 1792 law required all males between the ages of 18 to 45 to enroll in the militia...

In all sections of the country, the late 19th century was a period of growth for the militia. Labor unrest in the industrializing Northeast and Midwest caused those states to examine their need for a military force. In many states large and elaborate armories, often built to resemble medieval castles, were constructed to house militia units.

It was also during this period that many states began to rename their militia "National Guard".

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blarguardhistory.htm

OOOPS!

[DoNotRefill]

148. No, it's not. There are two possibilities:

Either the National Guard is the militia referred to in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 (your position) or it isn't (my position).

If you're right, the Federalization of the National Guard (with the removal of the State governors' right to appoint officers and train the units) is in clear violation of the Constitution's Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 16. If I'm right, then it isn't a violation of Art. 1 Sec. 8 Clause 16, because the National Guard isn't the militia spoken about.

You can take your choice of options. If the National Guard IS the militia, then Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 16 is still operative, and these duties have been illegitimately usurped. If it isn't, then your argument falls apart.

If the article you linked to is correct, then the legislation establishing the National Guard at the end of WWI wasn't necessary, yet obviously it was, or it wouldn't have been passed and implemented.

The National Guard may have been a select militia at one point, but when it was Federalized, it ceased to be a select militia (and ceased to be the militia discussed in Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 16), and became a part of the standing army.

[wyldwolf]

169. If the articles I linked to are correct? C'mon!

The information was taken from the Army national guard itself!

Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

This does more than make YOUR argument fall apart, it effectively destroys it.

However, if you have some personal legal issues with the how and why the old revolutionary war era militia eventually morphed into today's National Guard (which the national guard information I provided is very clear on), then you should sue somebody.

[DoNotRefill]

218. Why don't I sue? See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife.

Ever hear of the concept of "standing"?

It destroys my argument? Really? In that case, please explain which option you choose....Did the Federalization of the National Guard illegitimately usurp the duties and rights of the State Governors under Art.1 Sec.8 Cl. 16, or is the National Guard not the Militia talked about in Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 16? Because those are the ONLY two options.

[wyldwolf]

239. don't take us off on a sidetrack of why, where, and how.

That wasn't the issue.

The issue was whether today's National Guard grew from the militia, and evidence from the National Guard itself clearly states that it did.

[DoNotRefill]

258. Sidetrack? YOU brought up the standing issue by suggesting I sue.

The link you provided states that the National Guard DESCENDED from the militia. That doesn't mean it's still the militia, any more than the descendant of Ghengis Khan is Ghengis Khan.

[wyldwolf]

275. Wrong again

The articles do not state that the National Guard descended from the militia. But it would be the same thing, anyway. Your example of "Ghengis Khan" is not the same. He was a physical person. The militia/guard is an organizational entity.

Wasn't I saying the militia became today's National Guard?

Yes, in fact I was:

Post #43:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Today, it is the National Guard.

Descended. "Became." Same thing.

..and didn't you deny it?

Yes, in fact, you did. In Post 136

But doesn't the National Guard themselves confirm my point? Why, yes it does:

The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias... the late 19th century was a period of growth for the militia... It was also during this period that many states began to rename their militia "National Guard".

http://www.arng.army.mil/history /
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blarguardhistory.htm

You can argue this silly symantic all you want. The original point was that today's National Guard is the militia of the 18th and 19th centuries. The National Guard itself proves it.

[DoNotRefill]

304. Where's the Constitutional authority....

for the Federal Government to take over the State Militias? If the National Guard remains the militia, that's what they did, they took it over. There MUST be constitutional authority to do that. Show it to me.

By Federalizing the National Guard, they changed it's very nature, moving it from being a militia formation into being a part of the Standing Army.

There's still Constitutional authority for the militia. It exists, read Art. 1 Sec. 8 in it's entirety. As you can see by reading Article 1 section 8, there's a clear differentiation between the militia and the Standing Army. By taking control of the National Guard and making it a reserve formation of the Standing Army, the Federal Government removed it from being able to be classified as a militia.

[wyldwolf]

311. that isn't the point

You're trying to somehow dance around the fact that today's National Guard was the militia from the 18th and 19th centuries.

The National Guard themselves make that claim.

Therefore, Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to take over the State Militias is not an issue with me. I accept that is is the case.

If it is n issue with you, I suggest you petition congress for hearings and demand to know on what authority the federal government federalized the militia as the National Guard.

[DoNotRefill]

314. Heh...

nice dodge.

Of course, it's just that....a dodge.

If there's no constitutional authority for the Federal Government to seize the militia, as would have happened when they Federalized the National Guard, then the National Guard CAN NOT BE the militia.

[wyldwolf]

317. heh

The only one between you and I who has an issue with how the militia became the National Guard is you.

It's obvious, based on the Guard themselves, that it was done.

Why not call or write the National Guard and call them liars?

[DoNotRefill]

319. because I don't see them saying "We are the militia".

I see them saying they came from the militia, NOT that they are the current militia.

[wyldwolf]

322. I never said they were the militia

But I, and the National Guard, said they are what was the militia. The militia, spoken of in the 2nd amendment, is the National Guard today.

Call the National Guard and call them liars.

[DoNotRefill]

326. Fine. Please cite the pertinent part of the Second Amendment...

which says that the right enumerated transfers when part of the militia is taken into Federal Service and becomes part of the Standing Army.

-OR-

Cite caselaw from SCOTUS in which a Constitutional right can be taken away from the group it's given to by the Federal Government.

Your choice.

[wyldwolf]

329. has nothing to do with the discussion

As I keep saying to you, I don't CARE how the militia became the National Guard. It doesn't bother me in the least that it happened.

But I know it did happen.

If the legal details of it are an issue to you - AGAIN - take it up with congress or the Guard.

Call them and tell them that they are either liar or are an illegal organization.

[DoNotRefill]

338. They're not liars or or an illegal organization.

They are descended from the tradition of the militia. They aren't an illegal organization, in that they are a reserve formation of the standing army, which is constitutionally authorized. They receive their funding through the standing army, in accordance with the constitution. Their command structure is in accordance with the Standing Army's command structure established in the Constitution. But they are still not the militia, which is funded differently, commanded differently, and has it's officers appointed differently.

Since they're part of the Standing army, they're "legal". It's only if they're actually the militia that there's a constitutional problem. Given the "who, what, where, when, why", however, it's preposterous to claim that they are the body which has an enumerated right spoken of in the Second Amendment. And I've NEVER, EVER seen them claim that the Second Amendment applies only to them.

[wyldwolf]

350. You obviously think they are

...because they have stated that they became what the militia was. Remember? I gave the sources and statements to you more than once in this thread.

You keep contending that that can not be the case because you feel it would be unconstitutional.

So, to you, they're either lying about once being the militia or they exist today unconstitutionally or illegaly.

Either way, your problem is with them.

[DoNotRefill]

353. No, it's not.

They're descended from the tradition of the militia, but when they were federalized, they no longer could constitutionally be the militia.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Think about it from a corporate perspective. Let's say there's a 501(c)(3) corporation out there. Let's say it gets into financial trouble, and is bailed out by another company in return for a change of mission and an ownership stake. The white knight company changes the nature of the 501(c)(3) so that it no longer meets the statutory requirements of a 501(c)(3), but maintains some of tha altruistic traditions of the original 501(c)(3). The resulting company follows in the TRADITIONS of the 501(c)(3), but it's no longer a 501(c)(3). If, at a later date, somebody says that the former 501(c)(3) is a non-profit organization, they'd be very, very wrong, despite the fact that at one point it was.

[DoNotRefill]

116. Actually, the First Amendment IS constructed differently...

The First Amendment specifically and explicitly states "Congress shall make no law". That means the States CAN make such a law banning a free press, freedom of speech, or establishing a State religion. The Second Amendment makes no such restriction.

That was the law of the land until SCOTUS set forth the Incorporation Doctrine, applying the fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights to the States, too. This happened AFTER Presser.

[MrSandman]

178. How is the Second constructed differently...

than the First so that both would not protect contemporary technology?

[DoNotRefill]

219. I don't see how either could be construed....

to be limited only to the technology of the time.

The difference in construction is that the First Amendment is specifically limited to what Congress can and cannot do, while the Second Amendment is far more open, stating that the right in question shall not be infringed. It doesn't say shall not be infringed by congress, just that it shall not be infringed, period.

[tom_paine]

53. Is that an NRA line?

Never heard that one myself.

I'm not a member either, though I've considered it occasionally.

Those bastards support Bunnypants*, so now it's not even an option.

[wyldwolf]

58. yes...

and it gets repeated quite often.

It must come daily in a talking points e-mail:

"Ask your lefty commie gun control fanatic to compare it to the first amendment."

[tom_paine]

64. A couple points

1) It is certainly possible that McFeeb came up with that independantly. It seems his comment was sort of a natural response to yours.

Given that I am being honest with you when I say I'd never heard that particular line, isn't it possible that McFeeb hasn't, either

2) Whether it's an NRA Line or not, it does raise a good point. How does the analogy break down between 1st-Internet and 2nd-Modern Gun Technology?

If the rationale that Amedments should be targeted only at the technological level of the Founders is to hold true, then how is the analogy different between first and 2nd.

I ask honestly. I am not nor have ever been an NRA member. In fact, I bought a couple pieces of NRA merchandise later, then sent them a scathing e-mail when I saw them once again throwing their entire weight behind Bunnypants*. I told them I'd NEVER be a member (and I wont because I cant join an org that supports Bunnypants8.

Now, I don't want to argue court cases and precedents. I admit that I'm a scientist, not a lawyer and am not qualified to discuss (plus I am laggin in my knowledge about Gun Law, to be honest) them.

But I think you dismiis McFeeb's analogy too lightly.

[wyldwolf]

68. as I explained...

...the courts have continously ruled that the 2nd Amendment is concerned with organized state militias and not individual gun ownership. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." So it really is an irrelevant point.

[tom_paine]

77. Disagree. Weak point in your argument

Better shore it up.

That is not what I asked. In fact, now that you mention it, some of your answer was, IMHO, "begging the question" in this way as well.

Let's say I conceded everything you said in this last post EXCEPT the last where you dismissed it with a rhetorical wave So it really is an irrelevant point.

NOW answer the question. Let's say you were arguing (please assume for the sake of... otherwise I'll never get an answer) the 1st-2nd analogy being false in that alternate universe where you are saying the MILITIA shouldn't be armed with anything beyond 1789 tech.

Semantically they are identical. Now then, assume that McFeeb has answered with his analogy.

THEN what is it that invalidates his analogy.

If you can answer THAT, semantically and logically, with begging the question and resorting to rhetorical sleight of hand absent, please, then you have answered McFeebs and myself.

If not. If you resort to dodging again then I must assume you are unable to formulate a cogent response and YOUR point becomes irrelevant because you couldn't back it up.

Ok, so before we go down THAT side-track, please answer my question for the "alternate-universe" which coincidentally would be your selfsame answer had you not resorted to the

...the courts have continously ruled that the 2nd Amendment is concerned with organized state militias and not individual gun ownership. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." So it really is an irrelevant point.

dodge.

[DoNotRefill]

120. Horseshit. HORSE SHIT.

"In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." So it really is an irrelevant point."

It's a hotly debated issue. Lawrence Tribe, probably the premiere Constitutional scholar in the US (and Gore's attorney in Gore v. Bush, and the author of the definitive Constitutional law text used in most Law School Conlaw classes), says it's an individual right. Nelson Lund, Eugene Volokh, Bob Cottrol, and Dan Polsby, arguably the four top Second Amendment scholars in the US, all say it's an individual right.

Your statement that legal scholars consider the issue to be "settled law" is either misinformed, or an outright lie.

[wyldwolf]

127. perhaps I should be more specific so you won't hyperventilate

I didn't say every legal scholar felt that way.

And of course Second Amendment scholars aren't going to feel that way.

But the fact remains that the courts have consistantly ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals.

[DoNotRefill]

138. Well, then explain Tribe...

He's not a Second Amendment specialist, but rather just arguably the top Constitutional Law Scholar in the country, and a well-known liberal.

There are plenty of Second Amendment scholars who claim it's a collective right. They're just not the TOP Second Amendment scholars. Volokh started out as a Collective Rights supporter, until he did more research.

Second Amendment scholarship covers the entire spectrum of positions. It's a specialty of the law. And ALL of the "names" in the Second Amendment scholarship game say it's an individual right.

The Courts HAVE NOT consistently ruled that it's a collective right. Emerson exists, as do other cases consistent with an individual rights model. The circuits are split. Even Miller can be argued both ways. Black Letter Law my ass.

[DoNotRefill]

140. What makes a Second Amendment scholar a Second Amendment....

scholar?

Studying the Second Amendment.

"And of course Second Amendment scholars aren't going to feel that way."

So, what you're saying is that the people who actually STUDY the Second Amendment will not feel that way.

I guess we should take the opinions of car mechanics to heart when we look at what the Constitution means, while ignoring the "professionals"... ;)

[wyldwolf]

145. second amendment scholars are such to "prove"

..that the second amendment is about individual rights. Show me a second amendment scholar who feels otherwise.

[DoNotRefill]

150. Sure. Start with Bellesiles and Bogus.

there are tons of Second Amendment Scholars who say it's collective, just as there are tons who say it's individual. But Lund, Volokh, Polsby, and Cottrol are the "Top 4", and they all say it's individual.

Volokh started out as a collectivist, but switched as he did more research.

On second thought, you MIGHT leave Bellesiles out of it, he resigned his post at Emory after an independent academic investigative panel found that he had falsified data.

[MrSandman]

270. Tribe dismissed the 2nd Amendment for years...

Why did he change?

Constitutional scholar: Levinson, Sanford, Yale Law Journal(vol 99, 1989) "TheEmbarassing Second Amendment.

[DoNotRefill]

271. It takes time...

to let facts and research overcome preconceived notions.

BTW, I DO have a favorite Second Amendment scholar. She makes me laugh. She wrote a Law Review Article on why women shouldn't own guns, since guns are a penis substitute and women owning guns just perpetuated the phallusocracy and corrupted their womanliness. No joke, and it was in a Law Review with a decent reputation.

Every so often when I'm feeling down, I dig through my old Westlaw secondary sources file and read my copy, since it's assured to cause a serious case of the giggles with me. I either read that, or a Kosynski dissent. That man has quite a way with words.

[MrSandman]

290. Phallusocracy??

:tinfoilhat:

[Zynx]

175. That is completely illogical.

When the founding fathers wrote that, they wrote that knowing that local militias had arms equal to those that any national army would have with the exception of cannon, and even some militia had those. By that logic, and I don't advocate this, they would want citizens militias to own assault weapons and anti-tank rockets to be a counter to the national army.

[scarletwoman]

23. To me, the most intriguing part of the 2nd Amendment is the part about

"Well-regulated militias." (I don't know if that's the exact quote) Does that mean that militias are constitutionally permitted? Does it grant to any particular government entity the (sole?) power over the formation of "well-regulated militias"? That is, "regulated" by whom?

I haven't really looked into this issue much, but after spending over half of my adult life in rural areas in several parts of the country, I'm pretty much all for country people owning all the guns they want.

Myself, I have never owned a gun, nor shot one. I've lived with partners who kept hunting rifles and shotguns, and one handgun, but it's never been a big deal to me. That's just part of the household when you live in the boonies.

Obviously, the cities are a whole other matter. But I have truly come to believe that to concentrate all gun regulation efforts at the OWNERSHIP level is totally missing the point. Regulation needs to be aimed at the MANUFACTURERS and the DISTRIBUTORS.

There are enough guns and weaponry being made to arm every man, woman, child, and dog in this country. And those who want them badly enough WILL figure out how to get them, no matter how many strictures on ownership are set out.

We have to start hacking away at the and being distracted by petty squabbles about how much we want the State telling us what we can and cannot do.

I may decide to get a rifle or something someday. I live alone out in the country, it might come in handy sometime for food at least. (there's a gazillion deer in this area)

And with the way things are going, I'm thinking that maybe I ought not put it off too long -- I would not want to discover that it's too late when I finally get around to it, that my participation in activist groups has landed MY NAME ON A LIST (thanks to the Patriot Act, or Carnivore, or TIA, or whatever...), whereupon I will NOT be allowed to purchase a firearm.

Liberals ought to be thinking about THAT, imho.

sw

[DoNotRefill]

121. the militia is everybody who isn't legally disqualified.

Want to see the "well regulated" part of the "well regulated" militia? Pick up a copy of the CFR. If you can. It's immense. If the American people are not "well regulated", who on earth IS? Remember, there are far more laws on the books that apply to the militia (regular people) than there are laws in the UCMJ that apply to the military.

[Renew Deal]

31. Who cares if you have a gun? Who is going to use it?

Who is going to take up arms against the gov't? Second, how are you going to beat a daisy cutter?

[FeebMaster]

32. Right

because the government is going to drop a daisy cutter on New York City or Washington DC if there are some rebels running around in them. :eyes:

[themann1086]

33. well...

they don't seem to mind doing that in Iraq

or in Waco.

[FeebMaster]

35. Oh really?

So the army is just dropping daisy cutters on every insurgent they find, in the middle of the city or not?

How does Waco, where a bunch of people were crammed into a compound and surrounded, compare to an entire city?

[themann1086]

42. not daisy cutters

sorry, i wasn't paying attention. I was just thinking military using unmarked choppers and tanks on American citizens...

and sure, it was a small number of people crammed and totally isolated from the outside world, but dividing and conquering seems to be the neocon's favorite mode of attack.

I seriously doubt the use of large scale weaponry against densely-populated centers. But a smart weapon, and even more deadly, well-trained Special Forces, could strike at any time inside your home.

The might of the U.S. Army vs. 1 guy with a gun... great in movies, not so great in reality.

[IronLionZion]

52. The might of the US Army vs.

an angry and armed population is laughable at best. If the population decided to overthrow the government, we could do it no matter how many nukes they have.

remember Vietnam:
The US army with its chemical weapons got spanked by short little asians.
What most Americans don't know about is that during the 70's, India had a fairly big war with Pakistan. Nixon threathened to send troops into India to stop the war (Pakistan was an "ally") but Indira Gandhi made it very clear that no matter how many Americans land in India, none of them will make it home alive.

When you oppress a people, huge numbers of people will triumph every time.

edit: spelling

[themann1086]

55. good point

Jeesh, can't believe I just forgot Vietnam. I just spent a whole week learning it.

[DoNotRefill]

123. the US Military is busy "supressing" the people of Iraq....

with VERY limited results. In addition, the US Military has far looser ROEs in Iraq (where they're the Americans, and everybody else is just a "Wog" or an "Abdul", not my idea, but it's how they think) than they would have in the US, where everybody is presumed to be a citizen.

If the US military kills 50 innocent Iraqi civilians, they can write it off as their being insurgents. They couldn't pull that kind of bullshit here.

[Renew Deal]

45. Wasn't David Koresh a child molester?

That doesn't justify it of course.

[FeebMaster]

75. What does that have to do with anything? (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

165. Even convicted child molesters....

have rights. Koresh was NEVER convicted of child molesting. NONE of his rights were ever stripped. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

The child molester charges were investigated by the appropriate local authorities, no charges were filed, and the case was closed well BEFORE the raid. Koresh was taken into custody and questioned, and offered no resistance and was quickly released.

This brings up a VERY interesting point. BATF gave as part of the reason for their raid that Koresh was molesting children. OK, fine. Since when did STATE child molestation charges become the jurisdiction of the FEDERAL Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? Shouldn't they have changed their name to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Child Abuse, and Firearms? If Koresh WAS abusing children (which, I'll remind you all, was never proven in court, remember, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law with due process of law is the standard) and BATCAF raided to arrest him for child abuse, they couldn't have legally, since it's a state crime, and they're Federal cops.

Koresh was an absolutely batshit loonie. But even absolutely batshit loonies have civil rights. The Government should have respected them.

Oh, yeah, as an aside...the ONLY crime ANY Davidian was convicted of was a weapons charge for something that happened AFTER the seige began. They were tried on murder charges, and the court found them not guilty of murder, ruling that they had returned fire on the Federal Officers in SELF-DEFENSE. Kinda makes you wonder...

[Renew Deal]

46. Who said anything about a city?

You don't think the gov't would use everything it had to put down a rebellion? Get real. Look at what they do in Iraq. They bombed a mosque (in self defence) and use snipers to shoot anything that moves in Falluja.

[FeebMaster]

78. Yes and they still can't control Iraq.

Do you think they could control the entire United States any more successfully?

[DoNotRefill]

125. Yup...and the Iraqi people....

are STILL kicking our asses.

You can't have it both ways. The US Military crushed the Iraqi military. The Iraqi people have risen, and have killed more American troops than the Iraqi Army did. And we are bombing the shit out of their country, but they're still putting up a hell of a resistance, and may well manage to drive the US military out unless we start carpetbombing cities.

So, if the people can't stand up to the Army, why the fuck hasn't Fallujah been pacified yet, and why are US troops still dying???

[MrSandman]

87. Didn't the Philadelphia PD...

Do just that in the WoD, or somesuch?

[tom_paine]

94. Not quite. They bombed MOVE, a radical Commie organization

However, it wasn't their beliefs which got them in trouble (though it couldn't have helped) it was their crazy Stalinist penchant for attaching a loudspeaker to their home (this is a tightly packed block of 70 or 80 rowhomes) and broadcastin everything from music to Commie blather throughout the night.

Imagine being a neighbor to that. A working dude who gets up at 5am.

It wasn't just that. Garbage & feces dumped everywhere, many law violations, small and medium, caused them to get served with eviction notice. Which they refused and thus the confrontation was born. It was somewhat like a Waco situation. And of course, a house full of guns.

Now, some say the firebombing was to cover up that some Police had broken into the basement and whacked some people, but that is speculation and :tinfoilhat: (which doesn't mean it definitely isn't true).

And that's the short version of the MOVE incident of 198(6)?

[FeebMaster]

99. I wonder what the neighbors though was worse

listening to the loudspeakers and all that piled up garbage or having their houses burned down when the police dropped that 10 pounds of C4 strapped to a gas can onto the roof of the MOVE house.

[tom_paine]

180. I wasn't condoning the bombing, Feeb

Just explaining what happened. Also, while you are correct, do you also think that prior to the bombing, the ngihbors might have WELCOMED the police for a relief of their nightly sufferings?

Again, I am NOT condoning the bombing. NOT condoning.

[FeebMaster]

191. I didn't mean to imply that you were.

Prior to the bombing I'm sure the neighbors were begging for police intervention to end the standoff.

[tom_paine]

192. They were.

[MrSandman]

177. I remembered it on the news...

Not so much the details as it was reported that the PD bombed a house. Before actions of the Feds it was a really, spectacular, news story. I always thought there was less to the story than reported. Ain't ignorance blissful?

[tom_paine]

183. I think MUCH MORE to the story

It is very possible that the overeager cops broke into the downstairs and shot some unarmed folks. Then dropped the bomb to cover it, or should I say ordered it dropped.

I heard this when I was dating the daughter of a Police Lieutenant who was later busted for corruption, kickbacks, shakedowns, etc.

Now, I understand that this is anecdotal ecvidence, but if you know Philly Govt. and Cops you know it's almost as possible as if the Busheviks had done it themselves.

[MrSandman]

263. Don't know Philly...

Assumed it was media overreaction...It does sound interesting.

on edit...kinda like WV politics

[tom_paine]

86. That isn't the point. Considering it from that perspective negates

my initial point anyway.

Conceded: It would be very tough, maybe impossible, for a group of armed insurgents to take on the US Army, FBI, etc.

On the other hand: Isn't that right now what is occurring in Iraq? What occurred in Vietnam? In the American & French Revolutions?

But that is unimportant anyway, the IDEA of an armed citizenry as a final check on Tyranny is what I am talking about in many ways.

For instance, history has shown, from Medeval England (ever read about the Hellfire Club of 18th Century Britain?) to Nazi Germany & the Soviet Union, monarchies and Totalitarian Tyrannies have kept their citizens unarmed for a reason.

The idea of an armed populace, as a big-picture idea, is very powerful and unique in human history. That is a fact. History says that at the Battle of Bennington, the Hessians were totally unprepared for an armed populace rising at them from the fields, because such was UNKNOWN in Europe at the time. Only Noblemen (Busheviks) had them...and their paid servants, soldiers and mercenaries.

Given that historical precedent, don't you think the Busheviks, if they wanted to seize America "undamaged" with everyone working and producing and nobody blowing anything up, etc, would hesitate to move too quickly. because even if a True Rebellion (and let me say God I hope I never live to see or participate in one...I so hope the System works still) could be easily crushed, a lot of stuff is going to be broken and a lot of people won't be going back to work.

That's the angle I'm coming from. How the little drops of water all add up to the Mighty Colorado River when taken all at once. The power of that and the power of the IDEA.

[DoNotRefill]

129. It all depends...

"Conceded: It would be very tough, maybe impossible, for a group of armed insurgents to take on the US Army, FBI, etc."

on how many insurgents there are, and how they operate.

If there are five insurgents, they'll be most likely crushed in short order.

If there are more, it becomes more problematic. Take the PIRA, for example. At the height of their military power, they had fewer than 200 active insurgents "in the field", in a country where guns and ammo were tightly controlled, where firearms training was impossible, in a tiny geographic area, with very few people in it, surrounded by water, where the Brits controlled all entrance and egress. The Brits never managed to put them down, despite having VASTLY different rules of engagement than would be operative in the US. If the Brits SUSPECTED somebody was PIRA, they could preemptively assassinate them, without so much as a trial. And the PIRA was never defeated.

Imagine the joy of trying to put down a popular insurrection with as few as 200,000 insurgents, spread across the US, where guns are easily available, and out of a population of almost 300 million. There's no way in HELL that could be done.

[Kellanved]

167. A common myth

Nazi Germany has not "kept it's citizens unarmed". Quite the contrary actually, the Nazis allowed over the counter selling of long guns; during the Weimar Republic those were controlled.
The idea was to strengthen the weapons industry prior to the war and to prepare the Germans to handle weapons and thus achieve a pool of pre-trained soldiers/militiamen to draw from.

[tom_paine]

182. Yes but they had full registration followed by confiscation

Like the "Socailst" Part of Nazi so much of what they did early on was, like the Busheviks, only because they HAD to or had some diabolical ulterior motive.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_ronning_011003_guncontrol.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

(actually, I looked for better, more reliable sources than these...this was the best I could find...but it's in the history books which I have read)

[Kellanved]

185. not entirely correct

I guess American textbooks have a bias, German gunnuts want the Nazi law back for a reason.

The registration only affected handguns, long guns were neither controlled, nor registered under Nazi law (not that the Nazis were known to play by their own rules). In effect the law was "Rifles for everyone, handguns for Nazi-party members".

It wasn't exactly "early on " either, it was 1938.

[tom_paine]

188. Got a link to that assertion?

As I said, for whatever reason I had a difficult time finding this information on the Actual History of Nazi Gun Laws on the Web.

Could it be that this is information that resides (reliably, anyway) at the Library.

I don't know, but if you have a credible link to back up your assertion I would very much like to see it.

Further, than only reiforces the Nazi=Bush parallel. The Nazis were "gun lovers" too who WAITED until their power was cemented before they "moved" on the issue.

[DoNotRefill]

226. Actually, they weren't.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or SA -ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."--Heinrich Himmler

"Subject race" members were prohibited from possessing firearms of any type. It was a capital offense.

In reality, gun ownership was limited to Nazi party membership and members of armed government groups. If you wanted to hunt, you had to join the Party, or your permit wouldn't be approved.

[Kellanved]

233. no link sorry

I have the actual law (in German), but not in a mailable format (although I should get it in digital form tomorrow).
The introduction to the law is (Sorry, I don't have the time to translate it, I'll give a short summary for each paragraph ):


--snip
"Das deutsche Waffengewerbe, das bekanntlich durch die Vorschriften des Versailler Diktats in eine überaus bedrängte wirtschaftliche Lage geraten war, ist in der noch verbliebenen Bewegungsfreiheit durch diese aus polizeilichen Rücksichten erlassenen gesetzlichen Vorschriften weiter eingeschränkt worden. Es hat sich daher seit langem bemüht, auf eine Milderung der von ihm als besonders drückend empfundenen Bestimmungen hinzuwirken.
...
--snap
The German arms industry is in economic trouble. Mainly because of the Versaille Treaty. However police considerations did damage it as well; thus the Industry has worked to relax those regulation.

--snip
Die Stabilisierung der innenpolitischen Lage hat es jetzt gestattet, das geltende Waffenrecht nach der Richtung durchzuprüfen, welche Erleichterungen gegenüber dem bisherigen Rechtszustand im Interesse des deutschen Waffengewerbes vertretbar sind, ohne daß eine Gefahr für die Aufrechterhaltung der öffentlichen Sicherheit eintreten kann. Denn Voraussetzung für jede Lockerung des geltenden Waffenrechts muß es sein, daß die Polizeibehörden in der Lage bleiben, den Erwerb und den Besitz von Schußwaffen durch unzuverlässige, besonders auch durch staatsfeindliche Elemente rücksichtslos zu verhindern. (...)
--snap

The stabilization of the security situation has allowed us to check the weapons law for regulations we could remove without endangering public safety. The police must be able to stop the possession and purchase of weapons by public enemies.

--snip
Wenn der Besitz von Waffen durch solche Personen nach Möglichkeit unterbunden wird, ist es vertretbar und angemessen, für die staatstreue Bevölkerung Erleichterungen in den bisherigen einschränkenden Bestimmungen eintreten zu lassen, die nicht nur der Allgemeinheit, sondern vorzugsweise auch dem Waffengewerbe und der in ihm beschäftigten Arbeiterschaft zugute kommen und geeignet sind, deren wirtschaftliche Lage zu verbessern".

--snap
If the possession of weapons by such persons is prevented, then it is justifiable to ease the regulations for loyal citizens, to help the gun trade and the general economic situation

Anyway, the law eased the purchase of guns, while making it more difficult to carry a gun.

[Jacobin]

34. You forgot a category:

"I'm silly enough to want George Bush to win and naive enough to believe that we can confiscate 200 million guns in the hands of citizens, and I trust my government never to be so tyrannical that it needs to be taken down by force, and I think Tom Jefferson was a looney tune, so I support strict gun controls laws"

[tom_paine]

59. LOL!

Next poll I'll remember that category.

:evilgrin:

[IronLionZion]

40. I never dreamed I would want a gun

but I do.

I support the right to own hunting rifles and handguns but not M-16's. I also strongly support background checks and closing the gun show loophole.

The only change is that now I want to go through the background process and get myself a gun and learn how to use one.

I also think that groups like the NRA could be a positive thing if they weren't lead by lunatics. They should be about gun safety education and hunting rather than right-wing propaganda.

[wyldwolf]

49. very wise

One of the weapons (pardon the pun) the NRA uses against the left is the lie that we want all guns confiscated.

[solinvictus]

44. Gun Control

It's basically a sliding-scale attempt at disarming the populace so a statist regime can impose its will. Even "conservatives" like George Will and Charles Krauthammer favor an absolute monopoly of coercive force be in the hands of a central government. If you want to see the effects of an unarmed populace, read Solzhenitsyn or study the affects of the Ottoman genocide against Armenians. One large group of Armenians held the Turks at bay because they had arms and munitions stockpiled in caches on a mountain. I'll keep my pistols and my carbine, thank you very much.

[welshTerrier2]

48. if it were up to me

this cheryl wheeler song was supposedly written after the Jonesboro schoolyard shootings ... while it's intent was apparently to highlight the need to keep guns away from kids, it works as a broader restriction against all guns as well ... and it's my position on the gun issue ...

Title: If it were up to me

Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books
Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks
Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents
Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearin
Maybe it's the President, maybe it's the last one
Maybe it's the one before that, what he done
Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers
Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers
Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack
Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack
Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV
Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family
Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news
Maybe it's divorce, maybe it's abuse
Maybe it's the lawyers, maybe it's the prisons
Maybe it's the Senators, maybe it's the system
Maybe it's the fathers, maybe it's the sons
Maybe it's the sisters, maybe it's the moms
Maybe it's the radio, maybe it's road rage
Maybe El Nino, or UV rays
Maybe it's the army, maybe it's the liquor
Maybe it's the papers, maybe the militia
Maybe it's the athletes, maybe it's the ads
Maybe it's the sports fans, maybe it's a fad
Maybe it's the magazines, maybe it's the internet
Maybe it's the lottery, maybe it's the immigrants
Maybe it's taxes, big business
Maybe it's the KKK and the skinheads
Maybe it's the communists, maybe it's the Catholics
Maybe it's the hippies, maybe it's the addicts
Maybe it's the art, maybe it's the sex
Maybe it's the homeless, maybe it's the banks
Maybe it's the clearcut, maybe it's the ozone
Maybe it's the chemicals, maybe it's the car phones
Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings
Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing.
If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns.

[DoNotRefill]

132. Once you start stripping civil liberties to make us "safe"...

where does it stop?

That song covers music, books, religion, television, papers, the internet, art, sex, and a bunch of other stuff. Once we strip the Second Amendment and there's no decrease in crime, which of those will we strip next?

[bigbillhaywood]

146. "Poets are those that muddy their waters to make them appear deep"

Friedrich Nietzche. Can't say I agree with they guy on much, but I do agree with him on that. If I ever start quoting songwriters in a polemic on public policy, I hope the government does take away my gun-- and shoot me with it. By the way, I'd take away the guns too. But from the military and police first, everyone else next. Of couse to do that, you couldn't stop with the US, you'd have to disarm everyone. "I'd take away all the guns". Nice sentiment, but it doesn't mean shit. Flaky liberal artists give all leftists a bad name. Got no use for them-- they should get real jobs.

[tom_paine]

189. Hmm. You and me are pretty close on that one

I disagree, though that the liberal artists have no use (I know you didn't say that exactly, but that was the gist).

Flaky liberal artists have given us so much, especially some of the coolest, best art and entertainments, some of the VERY BEST literature.

Flaky liberal artists helped give us the Abnolition Movement in the 1840s, the move from being a Republic to being the better (IMHO) Democratic Republic with direct elections of Senators, the Vote for Women, Civil Rights and Votes for African-Americans, the Environmental Movement, to name a few.

Sure they have their excesses, and they should no more be allowed to 100% dictate public policy than the Busheviks on the opposite side.

Think about it.

Finally, some people SHOULD just sit around and think of stuff all day. When one field does it, it's called being a "Think Tank" (not to be confused with Bushevik Pravda Mills that mislabel themselves as "Think Tanks"), when another does it's called "Pure Science" or "Research for Research's Sake" which admittedly usually ends up with 100 failures and ONE PENICILLIN, for those who doubt it's worth).

Think about it.

[bigbillhaywood]

196. I disagree

Artists may have played a role in the movements of which you speak, but they were not the backbone of them. William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown and Frederick Douglass were not artists. Neither were Medgar Evers, MLK, Malcolm X or Huey P. Newton. A good example-- Artists like Diego Rivera, Orson Welles, and Woody Guthrie were important cultural voices in the social/labor movement of the 30s, but their contributions would have meant nothing without the millions of unknown working-class Americans who organized and struck their employers. On the other hand, the gains of the 30s (New Deal, higher labor standards etc.) could have certainly been accomplished with strikes alone, with no help from the arty folks.

[tom_paine]

200. True, but I never said they were RESPONSIBLE for those things

I said they helped.

I agree with your post, but given the fact that I didn't say the liberal artists were responsible for the successes of those movements maybe we aren't far apart on this issue after all.

[bigbillhaywood]

203. Misunderstanding

You said "flaky liberal artists gave us..." Abolitionism, etc. I interpreted that to mean "responsible for". Misunderstanding.

[tom_paine]

207. Sorry, later on I said helped

You're right, I contradicted myself, but I believe the latter not the former.

I should have said, "HELPED give us...

My bad.

[bigbillhaywood]

210. You live up to your handle, tom_paine. Plenty of common sense. n/t

[tom_paine]

214. Thanks for the compliment

You're pretty OK, too, Big Bill.

:hi: :toast:

[tom_paine]

50. Wups. I guess I goofed in starting this thread

I should have explained that I wasn't fishing for pro- and con- arguments on gun control.

My fault. And though it's too late my actual question (that I meant to ask, rather than what I apparently did ask, was whether the Bush Imperium had changed anyone's mind on the 2nd Amendment in general.

I might add that I am for sensible regulation, just a shade lighter than what exists today but fully enforced.

But it's my fault this thread got sidetracked. I should have been clearer.

[wyldwolf]

56. yeah, well...

..I'm sure reinforcements are being called up from the gun dungeon. However, I'm always amazed at how much higher the level of debate is in GD as opposed to the dungeon on this issue.

[tom_paine]

60. Hey, I got nothing to do with that

I don't even go down there.

I posted this in GD because I'm a GD kind of guy...

[welshTerrier2]

57. and you want us to trust you with a gun ??

just kidding ...

[themann1086]

76. Has Bush changed my viewpoint?

Not entirely. He had a hand, but it was a collection of several events, debates, and other things which pushed my opinion more to the center on this issue.

[Selwynn]

51. I believe rights and RESPONSIBILITY are inseperable....therefore...

I am not anti-gun ownership, I am not for repealing the 2nd amendment or something like that. I am for responsible gun ownership. Which means I don't freak out every time any gun law of any kind is proposed. I think some gun laws are absolutely right, and others are absolutely not. I believe that with rights comes responsibility as well. Therefore I support laws against certain kinds of weapons, and laws that require certain responsibility in gun owners.

A waiting period is fine, closing loopholes is fine, bans on certain kinds of weapons is fine, requirements for liscensing is fine. It shouldn't be tougher to legally drive a car than it is to legally own and use guns. And my position has not changed at all since as long as I've had a position.

[FeebMaster]

80. To actually answer the question

instead of just arguing with everyone else:

My position is the same now as it was four years ago. But you can't get much more pro-gun than I already am. I think every federal gun law should be repealed. I think you should be able to walk into a store and buy any gun you want, no questions asked. I think should be able to pick up the Sears Catalog and order yourself a machine gun if you feel like it.

[tom_paine]

89. Whoa. Waaaay to far for me.

I'm generally with you, but I've got some belief in minor gun control definitely and fuller enforcement, of course, but loosened laws.

Lossen laws.

More fully enforce them.

Although the idea of walking into Sears and out with a MAC-11 and 1200 rounds of ammo is appealing...

:evilgrin:

[welshTerrier2]

105. why stop there?

how about nukes? or at least some of those mini-nukes ... you know, those bunker buster thingies ...

and while you're at it, you might just want to call in a few air strikes ... buzz by in your spiffy new fighter jet and spray 'em with a few rounds ... maybe drop a load of bombs or two ... you have a right to defend yourself, don't you ??

that'll teach 'em to mess with your rights ... the second amendment didn't ban any of these things, did it?

[FeebMaster]

117. McFeeb's Law and all that.

We're discussing firearms laws here. Let's try and keep the nuclear weapons strawmen to a minimum.


"and while you're at it, you might just want to call in a few air strikes ... buzz by in your spiffy new fighter jet and spray 'em with a few rounds ... maybe drop a load of bombs or two ..."

There's nothing stopping someone from owning a jet, the weapons on it would fall under various regulations, of course.


"you have a right to defend yourself, don't you ??"

Yes a person does have a right to self-defense.


"the second amendment didn't ban any of these things, did it?"

The Second Amendment doesn't ban anything.

[DoNotRefill]

168. If you can afford a nuke....

buy it. Of course, Saddam Hussein had a billion in cash sitting around that we know about, but wasn't able to buy one.

Are you REALLY concerned about private citizens buying nukes? They're prohibitively expensive. Bill Gates, before he started giving away cash, wasn't able to afford one.

Hate to fall back on Bugs Bunny quotes, but "What's the hubub.....Bub?"

[Columbia]

109. I'm with you Feeb

At least we are consistent.

[Selwynn]

147. I don't feel like societal responsibility is reflected in this stance.

I see the rights defended, but I don't see that balanced with societal responsibility. In a Utopia, everyone could be trusted to universally behave responsibly with no laws whatsoever. But of course, we don't have that. Laws for everything, including guns should be laws that strive to properly balance societal well-being, safety and responsibility with individual rights. Any stance that is either/or is unacceptable fantasy to me.

[FeebMaster]

149. I just don't see any point in compromising.

First of all, like all forms of prohibition, regulation on guns is doomed to failure. Criminals are always going to get guns and they are always going to abuse them. I think it's only fair that the rest of us be able to get guns as easily as criminals.

Second, the only side doing any compromising is the pro-gun side. When you compromise, you're supposed to get something in return. What has the pro-gun side ever gotten in return for all the new restrictions that get passed? The gun grabbers take and take and take and the pro-gunners give and give and give. Sooner or later, the pro-gun side is going to run out of things to give. What's the point in compromising in a situation where you can't win?

[Selwynn]

154. Rape is always going to happen too, there should still be laws against it.

Just because some people out there are "always" going to do the wrong things is no basis for arguing "therefore there shouldn't be any restrictions on the matter.

As to point two, I pretty much consider every feeble gun law we've ever had to represent massive compromising, for better or worse.

Third, this really doesn't address the original point, that I believe rights and social responsibility are inter-linked and must be balanced. Every freedom we have comes with certain qualifying responsibilities. Why? For the very reason that we do not live in a Utopia where everyone will always act responsibly and not violate the rights of others. One of the chief responsibilities of legitimate government is not to protect the absolute and unqualified rights of its citizens. No, instead one of the chief responsibilities of legitimate government is to strike the correct balance between individual rights and safe and civil society.

Every single criminal law on the books is in some way (small or large) a restriction of freedom for the sake of the protection of society - and that is appropriate. All rights are balanced by risk, all rights are balanced by responsibility. Government seeks (or should seek) to find the "golden mean" between the extreme pole of anarchy (i.e. absolute freedom) and oppression. That mean has to do with safe and civil society as well as mitigating the risk that innocent peoples right to live, liberty and happiness won't be illicitly taken away by the irresponsibility of others.

I support positions that seek to balance individual rights with societal responsibility. I don't support positions that deny either rights (repealing the 2nd amendment) or responsibility (opposing all gun regulation.) All rights are qualified rights resting on a balance between individual freedom and societal protection, responsibility, rights, etc.

[DoNotRefill]

156. Hmmmmm....I agree to a certain extent

"Just because some people out there are "always" going to do the wrong things is no basis for arguing "therefore there shouldn't be any restrictions on the matter."

We can't stop rape. Make rape illegal. But don't castrate every male because SOME men commit rapes.

There will always be prostitution. Prostitution is illegal. Rather than have forced female circumcision and sew up the opening for all women, prosecute people who have broken the mala in se law.

If a person commits a crime, I have no problem trying them and putting them in jail if they're convicted in a fair trial.

But taking away everybody's rights because some people abuse them? That's absurd.

Our system is supposed to be about punishing the guilty while preserving everybody's rights. Registration schemes (and many other gun control laws) are about punishing the innocent, while letting the guilty skate. For example, SCOTUS has said that felons and other prohibited persons are unable to be prosecuted for failing to register their guns, under the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination since it's a crime for a felon to be in possession of a firearm. That's not true for people who haven't been convicted of a crime. Where's the Justice in that?

[Selwynn]

160. Again, I think maybe this is too either/or.

I don't feel you are fairly representing my position.

Saying, We can't stop rape. Make rape illegal. But don't castrate every male because SOME men commit rapes. would be a fair comparison if I was advocating repealing the second amendment. However, I am not.

[DoNotRefill]

161. So, what ARE you advocating...

and how is it different than what I've said?

Are you for banning assault weapons? If so, criminals will still get assault weapons, (since they are, by definition, criminals) but the law abiding people will not. The innocent pay, the criminals skate.

Are you for gun registration? Again, criminals are exempt from gun registration schemes, per SCOTUS on 5th Amendment grounds, and only the law abiding get smacked. The innocent pay, the criminals skate.

Are you for mandatory background checks? Many criminals steal guns from the law-abiding. The law abiding have to undergo the background checks, but I've never seen a scheme to conduct background checks on burglars in the act of burglary, or to put mandatory background checks on the black market. The innocent pay, the criminals skate.

Are you for mandatory waiting periods? That doesn't apply to the black market, which explains why it's easier for underage kids to get pot than it is for them to get alcohol, since drug dealers sell to anybody, while you need to find a 21 year old to buy you booze if you're underage. The innocent pay, the criminals skate.

[FeebMaster]

157. The difference being

that rape has a victim, while simply owning a firearm does not.

Freedom does come with responsibility. You're free to own a gun, with the understanding that you are responsible for not going around murdering people.

We're obviously going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. Criminals will always have guns and they will always prey on the rest of society. It's only fair that the rest of us get a chance to be as armed as the criminals.


"Every single criminal law on the books is in some way (small or large) a restriction of freedom for the sake of the protection of society - and that is appropriate. All rights are balanced by risk, all rights are balanced by responsibility. Government seeks (or should seek) to find the "golden mean" between the extreme pole of anarchy (i.e. absolute freedom) and oppression. That mean has to do with safe and civil society as well as mitigating the risk that innocent peoples right to live, liberty and happiness won't be illicitly taken away by the irresponsibility of others."

How do laws against murder, rape, and robbery restrict freedom?

[Selwynn]

159. "How do laws against murder, rape, and robbery restrict freedom?"

Well, my answer is that you are not free under the law to commit murder. You are not free under the law to commit rape. You are not free under the law to commit robbery.

[DoNotRefill]

162. Right. So if you commit a crime, you in theory pay.

while gun control laws make everybody EXCEPT the people breaking the law pay.

[FeebMaster]

164. My own answer would be that

laws against murder, rape, and robbery don't restrict freedom because there's no right to murder, rape, or steal. Committing one of those acts requires you to violate someone's rights and you're certainly not free to do that.

[tom_paine]

190. Well said, Selwynn

We probably differ on where that line should be but...

well said!

:toast:

[DoNotRefill]

152. Ummm...why not have laws...

that criminalize bad conduct?

You're familiar with the difference between "mala in se" laws and "malum prohibitorum" laws, right?

Prohibition has never worked, and has always brought on massive unintended consequences, often of a disastrous nature. Look at the war on drugs and alcohol prohibition. That kind of law breeds violence, since it sets up a high-profit black market situation. If guns get restricted to the point that the domestic supply to criminals is cut off, what makes you think the criminals simply wouldn't go overseas to obtain them? Most illicit drugs are produced overseas, and during prohibition, a lot of the alcohol was smuggled in (certainly the GOOD alcohol was smuggled in). What makes you think the same wouldn't happen with guns?

It's stupid to strip our civil rights away to prevent crime. It never works, and just breeds more violence.

[Selwynn]

158. I think maybe that's too either either/or...

Regulation is not striping civil rights. I am not for repealing the 2nd amendment; I am however for responsible gun laws.

Clearly reasonable people can and do disagree on this subject. And it has been a subject that has, and will continue to be debated for as far out as I can speculate. Obviously, the discussion will continue, and I look forward to squaring with you and others from the opposite side again in thoughtful intelligent debate. And, I do find your argument about prohibition to be a legitimate point of argument, though I do believe more discussion on that specific is surely well warranted.

But its late tonight, and the issue of gun-control is about thing 637 on my list of things to focus attention on. So with that in mind, I'm not going to go back and forth for thirty five more posts tonight. There will be many more days in the future where I'm sure we can. So take the last word here, and I'll see you when there's a next thread, which I'm almost sure there will be.

[DoNotRefill]

163. My last words on the subject to you tonight:

Good night. Sleep well.

[mike1963]

112. TOUGH question, Tom

I've owned guns for 57 years, but never thought about it as a political issue until ...maybe the early 80s? Around then I decided that "gun control" as it was proposed, was probably a good thing (as in, I'm a responsible gun owner but not at all sure about anybody else)...and you see where this leads.

But given recent events, I'm getting awfully close to the position
"from my cold dead hands..."

That said, I have not the answer to the obvious problem. One part of me wants to eliminate weapons. But then I recall murders by kitchen knives or hammers. Pandora has opened the box and All the Kings Horses...
mixed metaphor but it's the best I can do. :eyes:

[bigbillhaywood]

126. I'm glad to see that not everyone on DU is dogmatically anti-gun

I really didn't expect it. Personally, I'm for letting the Assault waepons ban expire. These guns are rarely used in crimes. True, they are especially deadly when used, but they are more effective than handguns for civil resistance. I think most silk-stocking liberals want to ban them because they are scary, and because they are scared of the Bubbas who use them.

I think it is more important now more than ever for individuals to be able to own these guns, because our society and police forces are becoming more militarized. Every hamlet of 5,000 people who gets grants from the government to buy their police force a batch of M-16A2s, M203s and MP-5s is inching our country ever closer to a police state. Allowing the government exclusive ownership over these weapons, and giving them the power to track gun owners is a dangerous prospect in this day and age.

Yes, people will die from gun-related crimes in the meantime. But as callous as it sounds, it's the price to pay for defending our liberty (I sound like a Republican there, don't I?). Besides, better to focus on the social and economic causes of crime rather than the tools of crime. Banning assault weapons won't keep a man from beating his wife to death, or keep a mugger from bludgeoning someone to death with a tire iron. It may make us a little safer from crime, but it will make us more vulnerable to government and corporate tyranny.

[raysr]

151. What's really a hoot

is that the NRA and all the gun totin' right wingers can't see that if they follow what Bush is doing with the Patriot Act to it's ultimate end, nobody will have a gun.

[bigbillhaywood]

153. You got that right

[Az]

184. Yep, cuz everyone knows

A single assault weapon can totally descimate a Bradly armored transport. err..... no it was the Abrahms that was helpless..... no wait... oh yeah... the A10 Warthog can be brought down no wait, that thing is heavily armored...... dangit, I guess those assault weapons are only good against people... which may well be our own sons and daughters... so are they really likely to support the government ordering them to attack their own people, guess its a good idea that we draw our military from the population.... so who the heck are you going to shoot with that assault weapon before they obliterate you. Remember you only get one shot before they call in total destruction of your position.

[bigbillhaywood]

193. Thanks for stating the obvious

Of course assault weapons are useless against armor and aircraft. They are effective against infantry however. If the government goes totalitarian, it will be difficult to retain control of the country w/o destroying it if they rely on heavy weapons solely. If they want to take control of cities without completely demolishing them, they will have to use unarmored infantry. Destroying entire cities with tanks and artillery will undoubtedtly destabilize support for the regime. It's less of an option to use those tactics domestically as it is on foreign soil. Even light resistance can be effective in a domestic conflict, and it is certainly better than no resistance at all.

[Az]

195. And light resistance

cannot be made with hunting rifles and hand guns?

[bigbillhaywood]

198. Yes, but...

It would obviously be more effective with heavier small arms such as assault rifles.

[Az]

201. So we are arguing about

the size of the speed bump?

I put more trust in drawing the armed forces from the citizenry than I do in my ability to hold off an armed contingent of our military.

Here is the idea. We do not maintain a military seperate from our citizenry. They are as much a part of our society as your neighbor. If we get a rogue president that orders them to assault the people, they are being ordered to assault their own families. This is unlikely to happen.

If a government has gone to the extreme of calling out the military and some how convinces them to fight against their own people, I do not think having heavier weaponry will do anything other than garner you more attention from the military. And that is attention you do not really want.

I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't work tactically. At one point in time it was reasonable for a citizen to be armed comparably to the best of the military. They could match them musket for musket. At that point in time there may have been some credibility to the claim.

But these days if the government wants you dead, you are dead. This is why it is vital to retain civilian control of the government. Tactically its our best path. And the influx of assault weapons has nothing to do with protecting our freedoms.

[bigbillhaywood]

204. Not true

The US military has been used several times against its own people. Check out the history of strikes in this country. A good soldier will follow orders, even if it is to machine gun down picket lines of unarmed striking workers. And you don't need a "rogue" president to have it happen. Any President trying to defend the status quo will do. In several strikes during the 1930s, workers began arming themselves and using military tactics because of this. They began winning strikes. If you raise the level of resistance, the government has to either raise the level of assault (and risk alienating more of its own citizens and thereby increasing resistance) or give up. It's a risk, because they may choose the former rather than the latter, but it's a risk that must be taken in such circumstances.

[Az]

212. You seem to agree in principle

That it is a matter of arguing about the size of the speed bump. It is a question of how much resistance vs how much threat to the society the tools of resistance pose.

The militaries ability to deliver lethal force will always outpace a civillians. They are devoted to advancing the technology. There is a measurable interest on the part of the society to keep the means of destruction of a citizen limited. As the tools of destruction increase so to does the necessity to reevaluate the access of such tools to the public.

Though limited (due to regulations) there have been cases where citizens decided to pit their technology against the civil authorities. Examples such as heavily armored criminals simply marching through California out gunning the police come to mind. If controls were not present to limit access to military grade equipment the arms race would move to our streets. As it was the above mentioned case required the police to borrow some heavy oridnance from a local gun store.

[bigbillhaywood]

215. If I had my choice of who to disarm first, the police would be at the top

of my list. I think you should read up on the history of labor and social struggle. You will see that armed resistance is helpful and the military and police have no compunction about using armed force against unarmed people. Yes, better to have a bigger speed bump. California's first major gun regulations were in direct response to the Black Panthers. The gun control issue is cloaked in the language of preventing crime, but it has always been about preventing resistance. Well, this has been a fun discussion and I'd like to continue but gotta run. Maybe later or on another thread. Bye.

[Az]

217. Not against armed resistance

But I also see it as a foolish tactic. The first thing using a gun does is get more guns pointed at you. I think there were a few uprisings that may have made use of nonarmed tactics that were effective. Perhaps we should put more emphasis on those tactics.

[bigbillhaywood]

224. If you're on strike

And you want to get mowed down by a machine gun. Be my guest. I'm fighting back with any tools at my disposal. Study history, my friend. The police and military HAVE and WILL shoot down unarmed citizens without mercy.

[DoNotRefill]

227. You ain't kidding...

in the early 1930's, with the advent of the National Firearms Act, people buyuing machineguns had to give a reason. I recall seeing one application, made by a mining company, to possess a Vickers water-cooled machinegun. The reason given? "Labor relations". I'm not kidding.

[Az]

229. History

Christians used to burn my type of people all the time. I better start shooting Jehova Witnesses just to be safe. Oh wait. Times change. They don't do that anymore.

Yes, history is chalk full of people being really nasty to one another. Yes the potential is still there. But we live in a society that would immediately evicerate any company that dared to try such a tactic today. And guess what. Even if you had a gun and were marching a picket line when they showed up with machine guns, you would still be dead. Do you think they are going to issue you a memo telling you when they are going to shoot you? Again the paper sense is there but the real world tactics are missing.

A gun is not a defensive tool. It will not stop a bullet. It only can stop other humans. And you have to shoot them before they shoot you. There is a logical conundrum here if you can spot it.

[DoNotRefill]

232. You're right, a gun will not stop a bullet.

However, I disagree with your assessment that a gun isn't a defensive tool. It's a tool, period. It can be used on the offense OR on the defense. And while it will not stop a bullet, it CAN stop another person with a gun from shooting at you. Dead men don't pull triggers.

[Az]

241. Semantic but important

Shooting another so they do not shoot you is not defense. It is counteroffense. A small but important difference.

[DoNotRefill]

259. excuse me? How do you figure that?

"Shooting another so they do not shoot you is not defense."

If you are minding your own business and somebody tries to kill you, but you kill them first, are you offering a legal defense of counteroffensive? Of course not, your legal defense is self defense.

Counter-offense is when they attack you, you stop them, and then you attack them AFTER the fact. There's no legal right to counter-offense. There IS a legal right to self defense in most jurisdictions.

[drfemoe]

336. hehe

you guys are funny ..
go to dictionary.com and look up ..

counteroffensive
counterattack
defense

and then debate the terms. Ya'll keep me on my toes. You do.

[bigbillhaywood]

244. I'm a union man,

And I do organizing. And let me tell you, if you think we aren't a stone's throw away from the kind of labor conflicts we had in the 30s, you're nuts. Ever since the 70s, there has been a steady march rightwards and corporations have been on the offensive. Now that the threat of Communism is gone with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the powers that be have even less reason to allow unions to exist (during the Cold War unions served as a domestic deterrent to radical change, and actively conspired with the CIA to put down leftist labor movements overseas). Same reason the US and European nations have few compunctions with dismantling the welfare states that had served as a deterrent to Communist uprising.

I see the shit in my work. Every year the corporations and their political lackeys get more aggressive and do nastier shit. The Dems are starting to get as bad as the Republicans, and the Republicans are downright evil (and in power). The bloody struggles of the 30s may be our past, but they are likely to be our future as well. If working people take a pacifist attitude, we will be crushed when it happens. If the people in the 30s had been peaceniks we wouldn't have minimum wage now.

And please don't give me that MLK Gandhi crap. Nonviolence is a particular tactic in particular circumstances where it might be effective. But taking armed self-defense off the table in any circumstance is suicide.

[Az]

245. Off the table

Never said take it off the table. Never called for banning all guns. Never suggested Corporations aren't evil. As long as we are playing who's who, my grand uncle was one of the founders of the UAW. I know about what went down. I also suspect I know what could happen again. And I still don't see an argument against regulating guns and limiting access to assault weapons.

As to guns and unions. Its still a tactics issue. If all things go according to intent, the person that fires first survives. Thus in an armed conflict it isn't a question of owning a gun. Its a question of who shoots first.

In this context it becomes an issue of if the union busters determine that its in their interest to kill a group of union members. Then having guns is not really going to help much as they are not going to send you a polite memo informing you that you are about to be shot. They will do it in an underhanded decieptful manner and you will not know about it till you are dead.

Guns as tactics in civil society are just foolish. Unless you are prepared to embrace a barborous society in which we are continuously at each others throats looking for the slightest mistep we are always going to be open to the incivility of those that will not play by our rules. Fortunately this is pressed against by our society. We take a dim view of those that use such tactics. Therefore the gains they may make by using such tactics are no longer worth the cost.

[bigbillhaywood]

265. Not trying to play a who's who, just trying to let you know what my

experience has been so you can understand my perspective better. And your argument is illogical-- that's like saying the US might as well disarm because if another nation does attack, it would be a surprise. It DOES NOT always matter who shoots first. Many battles have been won by a defending force caught by surprise-- even when they are out-gunned and out-manned. I'm saying that, theoretically speaking, if company thugs (or government stormtroopers/infantry) attack you with automatic weapons you stand a better chance if your people are equipped with Chinese-model Kalishnakovs rather than Remington 7mm hunting rifles (although the Remingtons would come in handy for sniping, but you'd want most of your force equipped with assault rifle).

[bigbillhaywood]

199. And by that same logic,

So can indiscriminate murders. In fact, the weapons of which you speak are used in murders much more often than assault weapons.

[Az]

202. Yep

No argument there. The question about weapons is not one of stopping individual murders. It is one of capacity for damage. Same reason I cannot have my own air fuel bomb. The more dangerous a weapon the more regulations it should be covered by.

[DoNotRefill]

228. Why can't you have a FAE?

It's a destructive device, there's a $200 transfer tax, but it's legal in most places. Not of much use, but still legal.

BTW, did you know that you can legally buy a flamethrower with no paperwork? It's true. Flamethrowers are considered "forestry and agricultural equipment", and are unregulated. You can buy one mail-order.

I wonder why criminals don't use flamethrowers...probably the same reason you never hear of a criminal owning a nuke. Not terribly useful...

[Az]

231. You know

that I am not for the removal of guns. I simply call for the regulation of them. I am also for the extreme limiting of certain types of weapons and definately in favor of heavy manufaturing regulations of them as well. It doesn't bother me that some people have all sorts of weapons. What does bother me is the prevelance of weapons and the ease of access to them in a nonregulated manner. Regulate and I am happy. And who knowns. Maybe the difficulty of obtaining a weapon limits criminals from using them as well.

[DoNotRefill]

234. Heh...

"Maybe the difficulty of obtaining a weapon limits criminals from using them as well."

Link, please?

Look at what happened in England after they banned private ownership of guns. They removed the legal source of firearms. Criminals could no longer steal guns from the law abiding, since the law abiding were disarmed. Their gun crime rate went up substantially, with the drop in former legal supply being more than made up by smuggled imports.

It's illegal to possess recreational drugs. Yet they're virtually everywhere. Prohibition has never worked, be it drugs, guns, or booze.

Regulation of an item only hurts the law abiding. The criminals out there don't buy their stuff on the legitimate market, they get it illegally. And I've NEVER seen a viable way to to regulate the black market...

[Az]

242. Doesn't match the situation

I am not advocating confuscation. So the England banning is a nonstarter here.

I am also an advocate of legalizing and regulating drugs. I agree. Banning an item does the inverse of the intent in our particular profit driven market.

Keeping guns legal but regulated means that law abiding citizens have access to them. Heavy regulation of the more dangerous weapons makes it possible though difficult for legal aquisition. Regulation of manufacturers helps to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals.

And remember, if you are worried about armed criminals then owning a gun of your own will do little for you. Think it through tatically. If you are assaulted by an armed criminal then they are there, with their gun drawn, probably already having struck you. Unless you were walking around with your gun drawn, there is not much being a proud gun owner will do for you. There will be circumstances where owning a gun may prove providential but I would suspect that you would be equally effective if you had a stick instead.

In the end the justification for having no restrictions on guns does not meet any sensible level of necissity. I do not suggest that getting rid of guns is the solution to the nations problems. I see them as just one of the symptoms. Nor am I a single issue voter on gun regulation. Its actually relatively low on my scale. But I stand by what I say about the matter. I am for regulation of guns and their manufacture. I oppose any notion of banning all guns. I do not believe guns are defensive. And I see little tactical advantage to owning one in any likely situation that I would be temtped one.

[DoNotRefill]

260. Well, the DoJ disagrees with you.

In 1994, the DoJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics released data compiled from the NCVS. Their conclusion, under a Democratic Administration, is that self-defense with a gun in an attack results in a 1 in 5 chance of the victim being injured, non-resistance to an attack resulted in a 1 in 3 chance of the victim being injured, and resistance without a gun or with any other weapon but a gun resulted in injury to a victim in 1 of every 2 cases.

Which odds would you choose? A 20% chance of being injured if attacked, a 33% chance of being injured if attacked, or a 50% chance of being injured if attacked? Frankly, I'd prefer the 20% chance of being hurt in an attack over the alternatives. That's why I carry a gun.

[MrSandman]

264. Don't bust that myth...

[DoNotRefill]

267. that's the problem with this whole debate.

There are myths aplenty on both sides, AND BOTH SIDES DOGMATICALLY BELIEVE THEIR OWN MYTHS AS THE GOPEL TRUTH.

I try to ignore the myths as presented by both the HCI AND the NRA crowd.

Instead, I try to look at what is released from relatively objective sources. If I go to a partisan source, I make sure to check where their data came from, and grade the reliability of the data accordingly.

I generally don't quote HCI or the VPC, just as I don't quote from "Guns, Crime, and Freedom" by LaPierre. I DO, however, mine sources from the work of both sides, if the sources are impartial. If the sources are NOT impartial, I try to point that out too. I don't assume that the point the partisan group is trying to make is supported by their cites, since that's often not the case.

Generally, I consider statistics released by agencies like the BJS to be impartial, but that's not always the case. Some stuff released by the CDC a while back (particularly Kellermann's work as published in the NEJM) was quite misleading, and has gotten much press.

Always, Always, ALWAYS check your sources, and NEVER believe everything you read without verification. "Trust, but verify."

[Libertarialoon]

206. Yes, that's clear from Fallujah.

Not.

If the government wants to control it's citizenry without completely destroying the infrastructure, they'll have to do it in a guerilla environment: street-to-street and house-to-house. Sure they can nuke you into oblivion, but then there won't be anything left to control.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather die fighting for freedom than submit to an occupying force just because they have bigger guns than me.

[bigbillhaywood]

208. Exactly my point nt

[ComerPerro]

166. I don't quite know how to tell you this, but I have bad news

I don't care how many guns you have, or how many people you have.

If the government goes totalitarian and they decide that you are to be taken out, there is nothing in the world. No amount of weapons will save you.

But, you will be able to put up a good fight, I guess.


As for this issue, have my personal views on gun control changed? No.

I am one of those people who believes that gun ownership is a good thing, and I believe that people do have a right to bear arms and protect themselves.

BUT I think gun ownership should be regulated, at least somewhat. I support the idea of background checks and the like. I don't think it should be easy to get a gun.

Quite honestly, some people just should not have guns. Some people are not emotionally mature or stable enough.

[Zynx]

174. I actually can no longer see any logic behind most gun control.

I can see why one might want to regulate handguns, but in terms of rifles and shotguns, knives are used to kill more people every year than rifles and shotguns put together. I simply don't understand those who want to take away all gun rights. Even if the 2nd ammendment doesn't provide for individual gun rights, shouldn't we have them anyway?

It is my belief that those who advocate massive gun control are scared of something they are completely ignorant about.

[a560]

176. put up or shut up

either go out there and actually do something about the bush administration or admit that you are either liars, hypocrites or cowards.

[Vladimir]

179. Always have been pro-gun control

and always will be, mainly because I really don't want to live in a society where guns are commonly available. One of the greatest things about Britain is that not even the police carry guns here.

V

[Az]

181. Gun ownership is not about the 2nd ammendment

The 2nd ammendment has always been about arming the states against the president. The president as commander and chief of the army has military force at his control. For fear of this being used against the congress they armed the congress with the militia. The 2nd ammendments purpose is to make sure that this militia cannot be disarmed by law. Thus guaranteeing a balance of power between the powres.

Gun rights have consistantly been tried on property right codes. A citizen does not have a right to a gun. The courts consistantly uphold this position. Citing the 2nd ammendment is just a smoke screen by the NRA and depends on a misreading of its very short text.

[DoNotRefill]

220. How can you read the word "people"

and conclude it applies only to the States?

There's a clear distintion between the States and the People. The authors realized this. See US Constitution, Amendment 10. Should that have read "to the states, and to the states" instead "to the states or to the people"?

[Az]

235. You have to consider the framers mind

At the time population was limited and technology limited. The militia, which was a congressionally run body, was drawn from the people. They were not expected to be armed by the congress and thus were expected to provide their own weapons. The availability of weaponry for both the citizen and the military was similar. Musket against musket.

As our technology and population increased things changed. These days the National Guard responds to the Congress and local government. They provide their own weapons which are far beyond what a citizen could provide to the force. Thus the intent behind the 2nd is no longer valid.

The courts continue to find favor with this take on gun ownership by continuously basing the right to own a gun as a property rights issue. They do not site the 2nd ammendment as the right for anyone to own a gun. The continue to hold their right to regulate and restrict guns and other armaments as society deams necissary.

[John_H]

186. It's too late for "gun control" to work and it's a political loser n/t

Even if you stopped the production of guns, there would be plenty of guns for anyone who wants to commit a crime with one for centuries to come. Guns, and yes, ammunition are very durable items.

So: any gun law you pass won't make a dent in the problem but trying to pass that ineffectual law will costs you votes, preventing you from passing all the laws that CAN make a difference. Go figure.

[Az]

187. Um generally n/t means

there is no text down here. :evilgrin:

[John_H]

194. Oh. I thought it ment there was no text worth reading n/t

[gpandas]

205. has anyone here actually seen a proposal set to the federal...

government to ban the right to bear arms? i have not, but the government does have the right to regulate ,especially in matters of public safety. so, what's the issue, gun boys? why do so many of your ilk vote repugnant, against their own interests in all other matters. nobody is going to take your guns away,relax.

[tom_paine]

211. Nobody here is voting Repuke (I'm guessing)

I can speak for no one but myself.

And yes, I think the Busheviks would take away our guns at the last, like Hitler did and for the same reasons.

I also think that if the Extreme Left gained Unchecked Hegemonic Power, they would do the same.

Thomas Jefferson didn't say "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" because he was a dumbass.

NOW more than ever, with the Tyrannical Busheviks in control, gun ownership and vigilance of Busheviks taking our guns away is a pertinent topic.

Don't believe the Bushevik ProGun LIES. Like an Totalitarian Tyrants, they desire an unarmed population to Tyrannize. Because the Bushevik Progun LIES is central to energizing the Brownshirts, they will save it for the very last, wehn NO ONE can stop them.

[gpandas]

222. i didn't mean duers , but i personally know a lot of people...

from my workplace who vote this way, and i've seen stats that suggest it. we can't underestimate the power of the gun lobby. we must make it clear that it is not an issue on which to base ones vote, that it's really a non-issue fomented by the gun manufacturers so they can use it to help asshole* and his corporate thugs. btw i understand your brownshirt rap, but i feel confident the people will rise up and slay this dragon come november.

[bigbillhaywood]

213. It's the same incremental strategy being pursued by pro-lifers

Slowly whittle away at gun ownership rights. By the way, I've NEVER voted Republican. Last Senator I voted for was Kennedy-- not exactly pro-gun, but I agreed with him on enough other issues, plus he seems like he'd be cool to party with.

Also, I think nowadays there is no such thing as "sensible" regulation of individual rights or liberties. You want to regulate someone, regulate the corporations. And don't come back to me with that tired old argument that gun ownership is a collective right. The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights which specifically addresses individual, not collective, rights (except for the 9th, which specifically refers to the rights of the States). There is no reason to put the right of a nation to be armed and defend itslef in the Bill of Rights. Not only is it obvious, but it's already addressed in the primary Articles of the Constitution.

[gpandas]

230. i was talking about the law and never used the word "sensible"...

i personally don't give a shit whether anyone owns a gun, but i am deeply concerned about the election and i am doing my best to keep this non-issue from hurting Demo chances. please help me. i feel strongly that 'the gun thing' is a way asshole* and his cohorts manipulate people and their votes. omt, let's bury that incremental arguement.

[bigbillhaywood]

266. I wasn't quoting you, but many other DUers use that term in their

arguments-- "sensible regulation"

[gpandas]

279. got it! nt

[DoNotRefill]

221. I've never seen a bill to ban the right to keep and bear arms...

but I have seen a bill that would ban private possession of all firearms.

[FeebMaster]

243. Why would someone who is pro-gun

vote for a Republican?

[Bridget Burke]

246. Because they're an eejit?

?

[FeebMaster]

247. It's the only reason I can think of. (nt)

[tom_paine]

248. You know the answer to that.

Because there is a grain of truth to the complaint (more than a grain on this one, actually) about which the Busheviks have wrapped their odious LIES.

A fair portion of the Democratic Party wants Gun Control. A very small minority, I think, wants, Gun Confiscation (the dumb bastards, who will be the first to go when only the Busheviks have guns?).

Many Democrats, perhaps even a majority considering the number of unabashedly progun responses to the poll in this most Left of sites.

Many have been deceived by the Pravda (and by the grain of truth contained within the Pravda, which makes it easier to swallow) and thus believe that Busheviks will save our Gun Rights while the Democrats will destroy them.

But as this poll suggests, there are MANY previously Pro-Gun-Control Democrats who now, thanks to Bushevik Tyranny threatening, wouldn;t drewam of screwing with the 2nd Amendment because they realize exactly who is going to the Gulags and who needs arms more than ever in a Bushevik-Orwellian-Totalitarian Empire.

So I think the Gun Control Issue is on the back burner for now, where it should REMAIN.

[FeebMaster]

249. I'm not saying there aren't Democrats who want more

gun control or that there aren't Democrats who want to ban guns. But the reality of the situation is that in the last 25 years, the Republicans have passed more gun control than the Democrats by far, at the federal level at least.

[tom_paine]

251. I'd need to see a link to back that assertion up

Links?

[FeebMaster]

254. I don't have a link to the various laws or anything

but I'll tell you what they are.

In 1986 Reagan signed the Firearms Owner's Protection Act, which up until the patriot act was probably the funniest name ever for a law. It banned future civilian machine gun production. It also doubled the number of machine guns in civilian hands as people rushed to buy them before the cutoff date. After the cutoff date though, that's it, for civilians anyway. They wrote in exemptions for the government of course.

In 1989 Bush used an executive order to ban 43, I think, semi-autos from import. This was the one that led to sticking thumbhole stocks on everything and calling them sporters, since the ban used "sporting purposes" to decide what to ban.

[DoNotRefill]

262. Don't forget Bush's ban....

on imports from China

[FeebMaster]

269. Whoops, forgot about that one.

NORINCO imported a lot of stuff into the US and not just guns.

[DoNotRefill]

261. I can't provide links...

but Reagan signed the ban on production of machineguns in FOPA '86. Bush issued an EO in 1989 banning the import of certain guns. Bush also issued another EO banning all arms imports from China, when NORINCO was a large importer (if not the largest single importing nation of origin) of quality firearms at very low prices.

That's three to Clinton's single 1994 omnibus crime bill, running from 1980-2004.

He's right.

[RapidCreek]

250. I feel the same way about the second amendment as I always have

It affords me the right to bear arms....within reason. Unfortunately it would seem that gun nuts don't believe in the sanctity and strength of the US Constitution.

RC

[DoNotRefill]

268. Huh?

"Unfortunately it would seem that gun nuts don't believe in the sanctity and strength of the US Constitution."

Where'd THAT come from????

How id defending the Second Amendment not believing in the sanctity and strength of the US Constitution?

Wouldn't the people trying to infringe on the Second Amendment be the ones not respecting the Constitution?

[RapidCreek]

316. Where'd that come from?

Where it comes from is the constant whine I hear comming from gun nuts who suggest that any effort to enforce laws which ensure responsible gun ownership is the first step to taking them away....That's where.


RC

[DoNotRefill]

321. Don't you mean PASSING laws...

which infringe upon the RKBA? Because that's how it appears from my perspective.

That's DEFENDING the Constitution from attack, not ignoring the sanctity of the Constitution.

Laws which attack the RKBA are attacking part of the Constitution.

[RapidCreek]

337. No it isn't...it's demonstrating an infantile paranioa

and a disbelief in the power of the constitution. What laws have been passed which attack the RKBA? Name one.

RC

[hansberrym]

341. RC, I would agree with you regarding the vast majority of gun control

laws, but you seem to ignore the recent court cases such as Silveira(9th Circuit) and Seegars (DC court of appeals).


There are actually few laws which run afoul of the Second amendment in my opinion, other that those that attempt wide bans on the bearing of arms by individual citizens, such as the DC restrictions.

So I would agree in part with your crack about paranioa, but there is at least a huge blind spot on your part not to recognize the threat to the RKBA from dishonest judges like Reinhardt(9th) and Walton(DC).

The Constitution has no power of its own, it will only protect our rights if judges apply reason and restraint in interpreting it.

[DoNotRefill]

342. §922(o), the ban on possession of a fully automatic weapon...

which was recently overturned on ICC grounds by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as being unconstitutional.

[Hammie]

343. Not 2nd amendment

It was ruled invalid as applied based on the limitations of congressional power under the commerce clause of the constitution. It, unfortunately, was not a judicial affirmation of the RKBA.

[DoNotRefill]

346. Right...

but if you read what I wrote, and what the question was, it was which gun control law violated the Second Amendment, not which law was overturned on Second Amendment grounds.

§922(o) and the section which banned further entries into the NFRTR violated the Second Amendment IMHO. §922(o) was also contrary to Miller, in that the weapons banned from private ownership without paying the tax are exactly the weapons with military or militia use, namely guns like the BAR, the 1919 series, the Minimi, the FN MAG 58, the M16A2, et cetera. It'd hard to be unable to show some connection to a well-regulated militia, since these guns either have been standard issue to the US Military, or currently ARE standard military issue. I never said Stewart was an affirmation of the RKBA. I did also point out that it was overturned on ICC grounds. In "lawyer-speak" shorthand, ICC is understood to be the Interstate Commerce Clause when talking about constitutional authority.

[RapidCreek]

347. Even if you were forbidden to own an automatic weapon

you would still not be forbidden to keep and bear arms. The constitution does not state that you have the right to keep and bear any arms you choose. You see it does not state that you have the right to keep and bear firearms...just simply arms....which could be nothing more than an instrument of which the sole designed purpose is to kill.

RC

[DoNotRefill]

355. But Miller states...

that the ONLY guns which enjoy protection under the Second Amendment are guns with military purpose. Automatic weapons undopubtedly have a military purpose, which is probably why the military issues so many of them.

Therefore, §922(o) is unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds IMHO.

And you'll notice that the Second Amendment doesn't say "the right to keep and bear some arms".

[PfNJ]

299. not really in the middle, but.....

I chose the last option, although I consider myself pro right to bear arms, I certainly believe there should be background checks, child-safety devices and the like.....

[flaminbats]

344. gun ownership has never been an issue for me...

it is the production and selling of guns which must be closely regulated. And the Constitution gives this authority to both states and the Federal Government under the interstate commerce clause.

But Repukes never supported the right to bear arms, and they are now out to prove this with the passage of the Patriot Act!

[DemosthenesOfTheWest]

345. I'm always somewhat amused by this question.

Of course everyone is for gun control, or rather you don't believe that people should be able to walk around with shoulder launched ground to air missiles do you? The government has the right to limit the level or weaponry you possess and when and how you use it. The question is whether certain types of weapons can be carried in certain instances.

My personal belief is that it is repellent to society and counter productive to the aggregate safty of the population to allow citizens the right to carry weapons whose only purpose (concealed handguns) is to kill other people, even if it's anticipated use is only self defense. But I certainly understand the desire of others to be able to defend themselves.