Senator During Gun Control Hearing: I Don’t Want to Hear About This Constitution Thing

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Because you were implying that well "regulated" referred only to making things equitable in the language of the Constitution.

You implied that the Constitution does not state, quite clearly, that the right to bear arms will be REGULATED.

The right to bear arms, in the historical context, was two fold, a) there were to be no standing armies in the US and therefore, (b) the People themselves were the line of defense against aggression by natives and foreign powers. The "right" to bear a weapon was also a "responsibility" ... you may want to read up a bit more on the "dudes" that you're referring to.

if you study the history you know that that was in fact the primary reason for it. the articles of confederation was a mess. the primary issue was states essentially banning trade with one neighboring state while favoring another, making currency and honoring some but not others, and trade restrictions and trade wars of all sorts.

as for the dudes... you do realize i posted several cites earlier in this thread. and i even challenged opponents to post any contrary example.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

I have "studied the history" as a matter of fact.

The Constitution is clear; the language of the time is clear; actual history is clear.

The Founders in no way intended to imply that firearm ownership could not be regulated, in fact, they encoded that idea into the Constitution itself.

EDIT: You seem to be an honest sort, I want to amend my tone a bit.

The Second Amendment does provide for non-infringement against the right to bear (own) firearms. That right is well established in English Common Law.

That does not imply, in any sense, that the Government cannot REGULATE how those arms are purchased, what types of arms can be purchased, setting reasonable logical limitations, etc. etc.

It is estimated that there are more than 350 million firearms in the hands of the American people. This outclasses every military branch and police department in the nation. There's simply no danger of an "inequity" existing in regard to guns.

a reply to: xuenchen

To think that these people are actually 'elected' officials is staggering to say the least.
God help us.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I have "studied the history" as a matter of fact.

The Constitution is clear; the language of the time is clear; actual history is clear.

The Founders in no way intended to imply that firearm ownership could not be regulated, in fact, they encoded that idea into the Constitution itself.

EDIT: You seem to be an honest sort, I want to amend my tone a bit.

The Second Amendment does provide for non-infringement against the right to bear (own) firearms. That right is well established in English Common Law.

That does not imply, in any sense, that the Government cannot REGULATE how those arms are purchased, what types of arms can be purchased, setting reasonable logical limitations, etc. etc.

It is estimated that there are more than 350 million firearms in the hands of the American people. This outclasses every military branch and police department in the nation. There's simply no danger of an "inequity" existing in regard to guns.

That would qualify as infringement. Such as that state of New York banning certain weapons and saying you cannot have more than 6 rounds in a magazine. And since when were states allowed to usurp the constitution in state law? In fact the federal assault weapons ban and all gun control henceforth has been a direct infringement.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Founders in no way intended to imply that firearm ownership could not be regulated, in fact, they encoded that idea into the Constitution itself.

Could you source that statement please? With a direct quote if you don't mind.

a reply to: diggindirt

Even if the government does have authority to regulate (and I think it does), that authority is not absolute. We saw that in the Heller case when the Supreme Court struck down DC's handgun ban. The USSC also implied as much in the 1938 US vs Miller case when it stated that Miller's weapon was not protected by 2A because it had no application to militia service.

So the question is, where does that limitation exist? We know the founders viewed 2A and the militias as vital to the security of the country. So the basic test of those limits is actually rather easy. Does the proposed regulation support the founders' intent of a strong militia or is it a detriment to it? The answers are a little problematic on the people side of the equation, but in terms of inanimate objects, its not so much. As I said a few pages back, you can't have an effective militia if you limit it to obsolete weapons or those otherwise unsuitable for militia service. In fact, the Supreme Court's argument in Miller came just short of explicitly stating as much.