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

a reply to: vor78

Whether its reasonable is certainly a matter of opinion and whether its constitutional probably is as well. That's why you have to have the argument, rather than just ignore the Constitution and 2A.

Or you can pass legislation and let the Supreme Court decide if it's constitutional. That is their job, after all. Of course, it's probably safer to jam the legislation up in emotional debates if you like things the way they are.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
The militia act of 1792 defined the enrolled and unenrolled militia. basically anyone who could wield a weapon other than a few public officials was a member of the unenrolled militia.

Just as a side note, its also worth pointing out that the Militia Act of 1792, which was passed within a few months of the ratification of 2A, required the militia members to provide their own weapons and ammunition. That's tough to do without an individual right to keep and bear arms.

As to the argument over the arms that 2A covers, while they may not have forseen every single development in small arms, we have to remember that there was a purpose to 2A: to provide for the safety and security of the country. That's also tough to do with obsolete weaponry.

The "Testimonials" keep forgetting all crimes are committed by criminals.

100% of crimes committed with guns are committed by criminals.

The laws had little effect on the criminals.

a reply to: Tardacus

"It is necessary for a free state to maintain a well regulated militia in order to ensure it`s security, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I think a semicolon could have done all the work. Earlier drafts had semicolons and in general was more descriptive. They kept chopping it down as they wanted to keep the whole document short. some drafts even included conscientious objectors.

a reply to: DJW001

You can do that, sure. Personally, I'd rather have that debate and let everyone's voice be heard. I'm not so sure why that's such a problem, though.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: DJW001

You can do that, sure. Personally, I'd rather have that debate and let everyone's voice be heard. I'm not so sure why that's such a problem, though.

Because everyone knows the script. It's not a debate, it's a scripted ritual. I introduced an idea a couple posts ago and not one single person has addressed it because it doesn't follow the script. Here, any reaction?

Here's my problem: we still have militias in the form of the state National Guards, and yet many more people own military grade weapons than are enrolled in the Guard. In order to fulfill the Founders' vision, shouldn't we make participation in the Guard a condition of owning certain types of weapons? At the very least, gun owners should attend weapons safety training and maintenance and marksmanship evaluations through the Guards. This would create a more disciplined citizenry and weed out the criminals and crazies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Any objections to mandatory training for gun owners? Don't all rights come with corresponding responsibilities?

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
The militia act of 1792 defined the enrolled and unenrolled militia. basically anyone who could wield a weapon other than a few public officials was a member of the unenrolled militia.

Just as a side note, its also worth pointing out that the Militia Act of 1792, which was passed within a few months of the ratification of 2A, required the militia members to provide their own weapons and ammunition. That's tough to do without an individual right to keep and bear arms.

As to the argument over the arms that 2A covers, while they may not have forseen every single development in small arms, we have to remember that there was a purpose to 2A: to provide for the safety and security of the country. That's also tough to do with obsolete weaponry.

Not to mention the various citations of historical arguments by the delagates that spelled out that the individual citizen being armed was intended to well...

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

There are no such cites for the other side of this argument because none of the founders were purveyors of such modern day democrat faggotry. The fact is the founders really meant it when they said individuals should have weapons so that they can prevent tyranny or foreign invaders.

a reply to: DJW001

The arguments are repetitive, but that's also a two way street. Your proposal, for instance, is not a new one. That being said, I'm not theoretically against it, but the devil is always in the details. How much does it cost and who pays for it? Who sets the standards? Can the standards be manipulated so that no one passes and used as a de facto ban on these firearms or firearms ownership in general? And we also have to take into account that this is a fundamental right, not a privilege. Would the same standards being set pass muster if we were to apply it in a similar fashion to the right to free speech, the press or the right to vote, for instance? Can we require that you pass a government training course before exercising your right to free speech on the internet or right to vote?

This is why you have to have these debates, especially in Congress, to hammer out the details and decide if the thing is actually workable or not. Again, although I'm not theoretically against the idea of mandatory training for certain classes of firearms, actually turning that into a functional real world policy that doesn't trample over our rights is another matter.

a reply to: vor78

There are requirements placed on voters. In some states you need all kinds of documentation these days. Freedom of speech is constrained by libel laws and common sense. Why are people who are willing to require voters to meet standards set by politicians unwilling to allow those same politicians to set standards for gun ownership?

In many parts of the country, use of a motor vehicle is absolutely necessary in order to make a livelihood. Should automobiles be deregulated, as earning a livelihood is an implicit right?

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, maybe that's because the Constitution is consistently and repeatedly bastardized by the NRA and pro-gun crazies and falsely quoted every time.
There are millions of people who know exactly what the Constitution states, and they know that the Constitution can also be changed - that's what amendments are for.
In this case, it doesn't even need to be changed, because the Constitution has always stated "well regulated militia".

It's also already been clarified in the courts that the Constitution DOES NOT give anyone the right to own any gun they want without limitation by the Federal government. There is a long standing legal precedent that the Federal government has the right to impose restrictions on what kinds of weapons are sold and to whom.

This nonsense has gone on long enough.
People keep preaching about law abiding good guys owning guns, then those same people do nothing but try to block all measures to make sure it's only law abiding good guys getting them.

You can't have it both ways. If you refuse any sensible gun control measures then you are NOT a law abiding good guy.
Reasonable, law abiding good guys support all measures to keep guns out of the hands of those who would murder others, if you reject that ideal then you are not a good guy and you are probably one of the people the Federal gov should be stopping from owning a gun.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Only criminals use guns to commit crimes.

And most criminals don't register guns.

And all this is already "illegal".

Big government failure.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Thank you for your opinion,a few million disagree.
We are more people we would rather be left alone but NOOOOOOOOO.
We have already beaten down any court challenges to owning what we wish.If the non gun areas go up in smoke because they can't fight back OH WELL?
Chicago will always come to mind.

a reply to: DJW001

Well, we do have certain regulations on other rights, just as we already have certain regulations on firearms ownership. Again, I'm not theoretically against the idea, but turning that idea into a real-world, functional piece of legislation is going to require safeguards against abuse and that we resist holding 2A to a higher standard than we do other rights.

I'll tell you how to do this. Gun owners, at least the ones that can afford it, have long since proven that they're willing to pay big bucks for quality tactical firearms courses. Give it to them. Have the military develop a quality firearms training program, to be administered by the local National Guard in each county and offered once or twice per month...but make it voluntary and free. Further, give them a voucher upon successful completion of the course that can be used once yearly as a tax write off of two or three hundred dollars. Or, perhaps, give them a voucher that covers part or all of the cost of a small gun safe. Your training sessions will be filled every single time, willingly, simply by dropping the mandatory requirement.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
You can't have it both ways. If you refuse any sensible gun control measures then you are NOT a law abiding good guy.
Reasonable, law abiding good guys support all measures to keep guns out of the hands of those who would murder others, if you reject that ideal then you are not a good guy and you are probably one of the people the Federal gov should be stopping from owning a gun.

And this is why a large percentage of gun owners refuse to negotiate with your side of the argument. You essentially take the position that anyone that disagrees with you and your proposals is both flat out wrong and, apparently, a criminal. You're not helping your argument in the slightest. People like you just inflame the issue and cause people to dig into their positions deeper than they already are.

a reply to: vor78

Don't make a mandatory training course for the possession of firearms, just make firearm safety and general management classes a mandatory part of primary and high school. Don't make these courses required for actually purchasing and obtaining firearms, and there's no opportunity for abuse. (Unless you intend on saying the kids will be brainwashed to be liberals who hate guns or something.)

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, maybe that's because the Constitution is consistently and repeatedly bastardized by the NRA and pro-gun crazies and falsely quoted every time.
There are millions of people who know exactly what the Constitution states, and they know that the Constitution can also be changed - that's what amendments are for.
In this case, it doesn't even need to be changed, because the Constitution has always stated "well regulated militia".

Excellent. in that case you should have no problem providing voluminous cites of the people who wrote it concurring with you about individual gun ownership and the purpose of the 2A.

So i should not have to wait long for you to provide cites of say... James Madison dissing private gun ownership or the idea that one purpose was to forcibly defend against govt tyranny.

I'll wait right here for you to produce such nonsuch.

a reply to: vor78

I'll tell you how to do this. Gun owners, at least the ones that can afford it, have long since proven that they're willing to pay big bucks for quality tactical firearms courses. Give it to them. Have the military develop a quality firearms training program, to be administered by the local National Guard in each county and offered once or twice per month...but make it voluntary and free. Further, give them a voucher upon successful completion of the course that can be used once yearly as a tax write off of two or three hundred dollars. Or, perhaps, give them a voucher that covers part or all of the cost of a small gun safe. Your training sessions will be filled every single time, willingly, simply by dropping the mandatory requirement.

See? Once you stop rehashing the "constitutional" question, positive dialogue becomes possible. I was thinking that the Congress could mandate that each state determine its own standards and curriculum for firearm training and qualifying. The Federal government would then make funds available for each state's National Guard to implement its programs. Rather than make it entirely voluntary, I would insist that there be a mandatory gun safety and law course that needed to be completed and re-taken every few years. There could then be voluntary higher level programs for people who wish to use military grade equipment.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: vor78

Don't make a mandatory training course for the possession of firearms, just make firearm safety and general management classes a mandatory part of primary and high school. Don't make these courses required for actually purchasing and obtaining firearms, and there's no opportunity for abuse. (Unless you intend on saying the kids will be brainwashed to be liberals who hate guns or something.)

Do you really think its a good idea to give adolescents access to firearms in school? Do you have any idea how many math teachers are likely to get shot?

originally posted by: DJW001

Do you really think its a good idea to give adolescents access to firearms in school? Do you have any idea how many math teachers are likely to get shot?

So many math teachers would get shot, they would "lose count".

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: DJW001

Do you really think its a good idea to give adolescents access to firearms in school? Do you have any idea how many math teachers are likely to get shot?

So many math teachers would get shot, they would "lose count".

Boo!