Obama's bloodbath ban on semi automatic rifles,shotguns and pistols.

reply to post by XTexan


Except that if they had said "should not infringe on the right to bear any specific types of arms"

or worded similarly

it says it should not be infringed upon the right to bear arms.

You still have a right to bare arms.

Just not all.

I'd be willing to bet that the constitution would ahve been worded a bit differently if Thomas Jefferson had ever seen what a .50 cal sniper rifle is capable of.

But of course, that's interpretation.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by XTexan

 

Because when you compare it to OTHER statements in those same documents, it all becomes awfully confusing.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Except when it applies to black men, yellow men, red men, and brown men? And except when you're talking about women of any color.

So you see. Its hard to get the moral beliefs of the founding fathers correct when you're trying to compare them to our own.

They believed slavery was okay, and that women were not equal.

modern society does not believe that.

So, if interpretation goes out the window, then you are left with what they wrote, and have to take it at face value.


See above, i think you may have been posting when i made my edit about the "right to bare arms" in the post of mine right before this one.

[edit on 8/11/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Yes but your talking about a right that was expanded on. The statement above from the DoI didnt exclude blacks, the interpretation, by men, of that statement resulted in that. It did however, as you stated, exclude women. Both of these rights (blacks and women) were added, though it took a long time.

It just doesn't seem right to me to say:

These rights were expanded on so therefore there is no problem with infringing on other rights...

Hmm, we seem to be hitting a lapse due to posting times on each of our parts.

What i mean is -w hen im posting a new idea, you're posting a rebuttal to an old one, or vice versa, and we both seem to be missing each others newest posts



If you don't mind, would you offer me your interpretation of my idea that says


a militia, as its defined both by my link in the previous post, and by the constitution's bill of rights - does not encompass ALL of the people.

It specifically refers to those people who make up a militia. (the thread about "fish and chips for ATS members" on the last page.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Hmm, we seem to be hitting a lapse due to posting times on each of our parts.

What i mean is -w hen im posting a new idea, you're posting a rebuttal to an old one, or vice versa, and we both seem to be missing each others newest posts

ya, lol, sometimes I type too slow

If you don't mind, would you offer me your interpretation of my idea that says


a militia, as its defined both by my link in the previous post, and by the constitution's bill of rights - does not encompass ALL of the people.

It specifically refers to those people who make up a militia. (the thread about "fish and chips for ATS members" on the last page.

My response would be that the definition you sourced does not require gov support to be a militia. This wiki article (ya i know everyone hates wiki) states that gov support is not necessary. I would contend that "the people" is a group of able bodied citizens legally eligible for military service.

So gov. support is not needed to be called a militia. In that light, without gov support, a militia could not be formed without the people having the right to bear arms. You could argue that we are not an "organized group" but that also depends on what you consider organized... I would say the NRA ia an organized group, just to name one.

I would also contend that it is the people's duty to rise up against their gov if needed, this could not be possible if the arms were left only for gov supported groups...


[edit on 11-8-2008 by XTexan]

reply to post by XTexan


The premise of my argument wasnt that all militias have to be recognized by the government...im nto saying that government is the only one who can say what is and is not a government


'able bodied' people can belong to a militia

not all people

so by the constitutional amendment #2 - shouldn't only the "able bodied people" OF *the* militia
have the right to bare arms?



a ... sort of... "perk" for the job if you will.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by XTexan

 

The premise of my argument wasnt that all militias have to be recognized by the government...im nto saying that government is the only one who can say what is and is not a government


'able bodied' people can belong to a militia

not all people

so by the constitutional amendment #2 - shouldn't only the "able bodied people" OF *the* militia
have the right to bare arms?



a ... sort of... "perk" for the job if you will.

Yes, sorry if I implied that you said it had to be gov sanctioned. I was stating that to make my point that a milita didnt require gov support to be called a milita. And to be honest, a non-gov supported militia does not have to exclude those that are not able bodied. They could operate in any number of support roles.

One could also argue, that they intended the people to have the right to bear arms so that, when the day comes, they could form the said militia to throw off an oppresive government.

Also limiting it to only militia members would strip hunters and what not of their weapons, something they (the founding fathers) would not have intended.

The right to bear arms came from the knowledge that an unarmed populace is defenseless against its government, and only an armed populace has the ability to fight back.

The militias during the founding fathers consisted of normal citizens, most of who used their personal weapons.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by XTexan]

I mean basically we're argueing the definition of militia here, which I dont see as pertinent, since the gov could simply tell any militia they disagree with "your no longer a militia so give us your guns".


[edit on 11-8-2008 by XTexan]

[edit on 11-8-2008 by XTexan]

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

source from last post


it doesnt say government has the right to define a militia anywhere in there.


IMO - The definition of militia *is* the most important part of this decision.

If the militia played no role in the right to bare arms, why would the document mention the militia?

As it is written and passed by the house and senate:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Lets break it up grammatically.

A well regulated militia -- the subject of the statement


being necessary to the security of a free State, -- modifies the subject "militia" gives it a direction



now here comes the conundrum


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Does "the people" refer to the people of the militia, or to "all people" ?

If it refers to "all people" why does it mention a militia as the subject of the paragraph?




Thats my big snag on the interpretation y ou offer me. Im not bashign you and saying "YOU ARE WRGOONNNNN GRRR"

i am saying it doesnt make sense to me.

If the 2nd amendment refers to ALL PEOPLE
then why was it confined to a "well regulated militia" ?

[edit on 8/11/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 8/11/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

source from last post


it doesnt say government has the right to define a militia anywhere in there.


IMO - The definition of militia *is* the most important part of this decision.

If the militia played no role in the right to bare arms, why would the document mention the militia?

As it is written and passed by the house and senate:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Lets break it up grammatically.

A well regulated militia

It mentions militias because militias played a vital role in the revolution. Without them there would have been no victory. As I stated these militias consisted of normal citizens, most of them volunteered and brought their own firearms to the fight.

A Well regulated militia...

Who regulates the militia, we already determined it not/shouldn't be the gov. So that would leave the people to regulate it?

Like I said above (i may have edited it while you were typing) IMHO the right to bear arms is granted to the people, so that they may form the said militia when the time comes.

I read it like this

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

reply to post by XTexan


Well, i can see how you would read it that way - except for the way it is written.

But i guess it'll be another endlessly debated issue. The only people who can really tell us what its meant to say are long since passed on.

You say tomato
I say to-motto

(not really, its just a saying..)

Regardless of how its read - i would still say that limiting certain types of weapons is not infringing on your right to own a weapon.
Nobody is telling you that you cannot own a gun. They would be telling you that you cannot own CERTAIN TYPES of guns.

Unfortunatly for some - its something a lot of people agree with

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
[Thats my big snag on the interpretation y ou offer me. Im not bashign you and saying "YOU ARE WRGOONNNNN GRRR"

I never took it that way, actually I consider this a very well civilized debate, expecially when compared to other debates on topics this polarized. I do appreciate that by the way...


I believe if they meant it only to apply to militias then it would have been worded something like this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep that militia, shall not be infringed

I would say a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But thats just me, like you said this could go on forever...

Unfortunately for some - its something a lot of people agree with me on also...

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin


Except that if they had said "should not infringe on the right to bear any specific types of arms"

or worded similarly

it says it should not be infringed upon the right to bear arms.

You still have a right to bare arms.

Just not all.

I'd be willing to bet that the constitution would ahve been worded a bit differently if Thomas Jefferson had ever seen what a .50 cal sniper rifle is capable of.

But of course, that's interpretation.

How many paint chips does one have to eat to come up with logic like that?

If they intended for gun control laws to be constitutional, they could have said " the right to bear only the arms approved by government shall not be infringed."

They put NO LIMITS on what type of arms citizens could and should bear .

I believe it is the right of americans to bear arms, but not the right of those who have the intention of abusing it and those who cannot handle it.

We are seeing too many school/youth shootings these days, it is too easy to access these weapons, almost anybody could just walk into a gun shop and acquire these weapons. I dont think more control over fire arms will solve the growing issue of youth gun violence in america, there are other factors to consider aswell such as the responsibility of parents/caregivers themselves and other authorities but more gun control will lower the risk of somebody who is unfit purchasing/ acquiring these weapons.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the ones responsible for Columbine acquired such weapons as the Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle and pump-action shotguns at the ages of only 18. In addition both members committed numerous felony violations prior to columbine but they still manages to get all these weapons. Seung-Hui Cho of the Virginia massacre acquired arms easily despite his past mental and autism disabilities. These are but a few examples of the lack of control over guns by the government on all levels.

Obama is not going to take your arms away, this is yet again more fear mongering coming from righties to themselves and others. The plan is to put more regulation in place that gun ownership stores and other centers can be sure their selling these weapons to mentally fit members of society and those who are of a certain maturity. It is your right in the constitution to bear arms however it is not your right to acquire these weapons if you have previously used such weapons to kill or you known to have a history of mental illness. Tell me where is this proposal is wrong?



[edit on 11-8-2008 by southern_Guardian]

heh very true.

Though - here's my question...

fistly - i would argue it should read this way if it means "all people"

For the security of the state, the right of the people to bare arms, should not be infringed.



Because - after all - if "all people" are its intention - then there really is no reason to bring "militia" into it.


Here is how i read it. Take note of the punctuation


A well organized militia, that is important to the security of the state, shall not have the rights of its people to bare arms infringed upon.


But - then again - like we agreed upon - it could go on forever

or until we invent a way to clone Thomas Jefferson based on his 200 year old DNA and grow him into an adult and ask him what it means....

that is of course - if DNA stores memories ......

now that ive gone way off topic.....

i gota hit the sack

reply to post by southern_Guardian



Would you also support taking away each and every other Constitutionally protected right from people if they "cannot handle it"?

Originally posted by Scorched Earth
reply to post by southern_Guardian

 

Would you also support taking away each and every other Constitutionally protected right from people if they "cannot handle it"?

See heres the difference scorched earth. Do you really think its morally responsible to give somebody with a history of mental illness and gun violence a weapon merely because the constitution can be interpret in that way?

When the forefathers established these United States of America they gave all citizens the right to bear arms, but at the same time they established the laws of the land and gave the government the responsibility over the safety of american citizens. An improvement in gun regulation is only going to make it hard for those with a history of violence and mental disabilities to acquire these weapons, its not going to take your guns away from you because you have not abused your rigth to bear arms.



[edit on 11-8-2008 by southern_Guardian]

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the ones responsible for Columbine acquired such weapons as the Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle and pump-action shotguns at the ages of only 18. In addition both members committed numerous felony violations prior to columbine but they still manages to get all these weapons. Seung-Hui Cho of the Virginia massacre acquired arms easily despite his past mental and autism disabilities. These are but a few examples of the lack of control over guns by the government on all levels.

Current proposed legislation would only make 1 of those weapons illegal. If I remember correclty those weapons were purchased illegaly, and gun control would have had no effect on it. If weapons were sold to felons at a legit gun store, then that store should be held responsible using the current laws, no need for new ones. As far as mental illness is concerned, if it was documented then current laws (i think) should have prevented the sale assuming it was a legit sale. If it was not documented, then why are the gun stores or the average joe responsible.

I'll concede to gun control, as far as keeping it out of the hands of felons, and those who are mentally ill. But gun control on what types is not needed. It will have no effect on illegally gained weapons, as most of them come across our horribly gaurded borders anyways...

Originally posted by XTexan

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the ones responsible for Columbine acquired such weapons as the Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle and pump-action shotguns at the ages of only 18. In addition both members committed numerous felony violations prior to columbine but they still manages to get all these weapons. Seung-Hui Cho of the Virginia massacre acquired arms easily despite his past mental and autism disabilities. These are but a few examples of the lack of control over guns by the government on all levels.

Current proposed legislation would only make 1 of those weapons illegal. If I remember correclty those weapons were purchased illegaly, and gun control would have had no effect on it. If weapons were sold to felons at a legit gun store, then that store should be held responsible using the current laws, no need for new ones. As far as mental illness is concerned, if it was documented then current laws (i think) should have prevented the sale assuming it was a legit sale. If it was not documented, then why are the gun stores or the average joe responsible.

I'll concede to gun control, as far as keeping it out of the hands of felons, and those who are mentally ill. But gun control on what types is not needed. It will have no effect on illegally gained weapons, as most of them come across our horribly gaurded borders anyways...

Point made xtexan, but im glad there is some agreement. I am a supporter of the constitution but highly critical at the current state of gun regulation.

reply to post by southern_Guardian


Is it morally responsible to give that person the religious text of their choice given how many people have been killed in the name of religion?

Here in America, we convict people on what they ACTUALLY do, not what they MIGHT do.

On a sidenote SG, what if the powers that be one day decide disagreement with the current political party in power renders one "mentally defective"?

[edit on 11-8-2008 by Scorched Earth]

reply to post by southern_Guardian


Well I have no issue with keeping them out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. It really depends on what kind of regulation one speaks of.

Controlling what types of firearms can be sold, IMHO, would have very little effect on crime. Criminals will get them anyways, and anyone hell bent on killing someone can do it without a gun, in fact legally purchasing a gun to kill someone is a surefire way to get caught if you ask me.

Criminals turn to the black market for guns, so if they want one they'll get it. The more guns which are made illegal just increases the black markets selection... It also raises demand for such products which would actually lower the black market price... making it easir for said criminals to get that gun... if that makes sense

Originally posted by Scorched Earth
reply to post by southern_Guardian

 

On a sidenote SG, what if the powers that be one day decide disagreement with the current political party in power renders one "mentally defective"?

Good point scorched, while this would require the erosion of the 1st amendment, if harsh gun control is not in place there would be no way for the people to fight this...

[edit on 11-8-2008 by XTexan]

Originally posted by Scorched Earth
reply to post by southern_Guardian

 

Is it morally responsible to give that person the religious text of their choice given how many people have been killed in the name of religion?

Here in America, we convict people on what they ACTUALLY do, not what they MIGHT do.

On a sidenote SG, what if the powers that be one day decide disagreement with the current political party in power renders one "mentally defective"?

[edit on 11-8-2008 by Scorched Earth]

So what your saying here is that we wait for these horrible incidences to happen instead of preventing the majority of them before hand? Im sorry I have disagree.

I admit we will never be able to completely keep america safe from gun violence especially in schools but we can prevent alot of them from happening.

You cannot compare this situation in the middle east with gun regulation debate here, honestly.

As for any future threats from the government, well there will always be enough americans out there who will possess these weapons regardless of anu further regulation. Again nobody is taking your gun away, we'r just making it harder for those who intend to abuse their right to acquire them.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by southern_Guardian]