• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Gun Control Means Using Both Hands

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

im2smrt4u

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2001
1,912
0
0


<< Remember that the amendments and their history are not taught in public schools. >>



Huh? They aren't? Government is required at my school and all others around me...:confused:

Although, I'm in California. Do other states not have the same requirement of a "Government" course?

EDIT: Spelling! :eek:
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0


<< Any thinking person knows it will fail constitutional muster in the courts [That's why GW will sign the bill.] >>



Tom,

That's also why many in Congress jumped all over it, resting safe in the knowledge that, after it gets nuked by the Supremes, they can say to their constituency "well, I tried".



<< There is actually a town where the law says every house has to have a gun? >>



Jean,

Not only that, they have been virtually crime-free since the law was passed.

Russ, NCNE
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
He will sign it into law if both houses pass it...it is bound to fail in the courts....The American Public is so ill informed on this and other issues that they are for both Gun Control and Campaign Finance Reform.

Any thinking person knows it will fail constitutional muster in the courts [That's why GW will sign the bill.]. However thanks to the Liberal Media's promotion of the bill it just might pass.
Remember that the amendments and their history are not taught in public schools.


Tom, I agree with you that it will not pass muster under the Supreme Court, under the auspices of Buckley v. Valeo, (1976). The problem is that if it is signed into law, someone has to sue on the grounds that it is unconstitutional before the court can even look at it. And it won't be elevated to the Supreme Court right off of the bat. It will take years before it goes all the way to the top - and if the bill is un-Constitutional, Bush should do the stand-up thing and veto it. He claims to be a man of principle - well, I'd like to see him exercise some principle rather than passing the buck.
 

im2smrt4u

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2001
1,912
0
0


<< He claims to be a man of principle - well, I'd like to see him exercise some principle rather than passing the buck. >>



So true. I would like to see him do the same thing. If he doesn't support it, he should veto it, no matter what others think!
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Yep Baffled, both statements are true. FYI when I lived in VT a few years ago, there were no conceiled weapon laws. In other words, carry whatever and where ever you please. People did too. But in VT, the per capita handgun rate is nil compared to MA. Now the laws here are infinitely more stringent. Why are more people killed here? Well in VT, it considered rude to kill someone here, while for all the laws, if you can do it, it's not so bad. Mean people do mean things, and if all they had were baseball bats, they would use them too. The domestic violence rate here is ridiculous. Grrrr. gonna stop as this is becoming a rant.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
The Supreme Court has already handed down decisions that state that money when in regards to election, is equivalent to speech.

i'm not sure if i agree with that... if they reversed that decision, then campaign finance reform would be okay?
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,229
2,539
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
Russ,


I can believe their crime rates are virtually nil. The whole concept though of being required to be armed just sort of floors
me which I think you can understand being as I'm from good old MA , the only people here with guns are the crack dealers:)
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0


<< I can believe their crime rates are virtually nil. >>



They are. Look at it from the criminal's point of view. If you're going to be robbing a house, would you want to be doing it in a town where you KNOW there's likely to be a gun on the other side of the door, or would you move on to some place else?

Russ, NCNE
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
i'm not sure if i agree with that... if they reversed that decision, then campaign finance reform would be okay?

What don't you understand? There have been 8 cases decided on the merits of the 1976 case, the court upholding the decision each time. There's nothing wrong with campaign finance reform, per se - it's just the way this particular bill is written. It prevents the average citizen from making their voice heard before an election. Typically this manifests in the form of groups of like minded people funding advertisements. The bill as written prohibits that.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< Gun Control Means Using Both Hands >>



My choice for bumper sticker would say:

Gun Control: Because four out of five politicians surveyed prefer unarmed, ignorant peasants.
 

LordMaul

Lifer
Nov 16, 2000
15,168
1
0


<< Guns are designed for one purpose - to KILL. The average citizen is too stupid to be allowed that power. Only police and the military should be allowed to own deadly weapons. If we banned guns in the hands of private citizens, crime would go away and we could all live peacefully without fear.

Russ, NCNE
>>




Muhwahahahahaha...

Nice. :D
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
There have been 8 cases decided on the merits of the 1976 case, the court upholding the decision each time. There's nothing wrong with campaign finance reform, per se - it's just the way this particular bill is written. It prevents the average citizen from making their voice heard before an election. Typically this manifests in the form of groups of like minded people funding advertisements. The bill as written prohibits that.

what was the 1976 case? and what would you like to see (and not see) in a good campaign finance reform bill?
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0


<< what was the 1976 case? >>





<< Tom, I agree with you that it will not pass muster under the Supreme Court, under the auspices of Buckley v. Valeo, (1976). >>



Russ, NCNE

 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
what was the 1976 case? and what would you like to see (and not see) in a good campaign finance reform bill?

Russ already answered the first question. As far as what I think, I believe there should be caps on the amounts of donations to individual candidates, as well as political parties, by individuals, special interest groups, and corporations. But if a particular group wishes to purchase advertising time to tout the merits of their chosen candidate, I see no problem with this. This is my main beef with the bill as proposed - the 60/90 day moratorium on campaign advertising before the election. I mean let's be honest - the average Joe doesn't pay attention to an election till a month or so before them most of them. Even I've been guilty of this before. And the bill does not prohibit the media from stating their opinions in the form of on-air interviews and or editorials. So basically, it takes the power out of the hands of the little guys, and gives it to Rupert Murdock and Ted Turner. That doesn't seem American to me - that you can only legally have your opinion shown if you own a television or newspaper network.
 

Novgrod

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2001
1,142
0
0
The second amendment argument doesn't hold too much water.

First, it stipulates "a well-regulated militia," which people in houses with guns just aren't. Second, it stipulates that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of "the security of a free state," when the army is the present implement for that.

Here's why it does hold water, though: there are any number of quotes from important founders explaining their belief in the right to bear arms being more broadly interpreted. More damnlingly though, James Madison, who almost co-wrote the Constitution, feared that the bill of rights would be construed such that other rights not in the bill would be infringed upon. (Thus the ninth and tenth amendments. Jefferson called the tenth the cornerstone.)

Point being, Madison/Jefferson would be downright disgusted with the present government, and i say this with the utmost conviction as i'm neck deep in jefferson's papers :) We have sort of a Hamiltonian bureaucratic state, and he'd be thrilled with the prospect of removing guns from you and me. The removal of the right to bear arms would be a big, fat step in the direction of a more powerful state, and at some level, that's why it would be taken--the belief that people can't take care of themselves, and that the state needs power, etc etc etc.

You can say that you can't estimate the value of one human life that would be saved by not having guns. Well you can't estimate the value of the freedoms I enjoy, either, and if you have to weigh the one against the other, well, the founders would have opted for liberty--in fact, they did :)

Sorry for the rant-like nature.
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
Xerox,

All good points, but I have to disagree with caps on contributions. That's the approach that got us in this mess in the first place. There should be no limits at all, and immediate and complete reporting of all contributions. In addition, simply classify and regulate all soft money advertising in the same way we would direct contributions.

Russ, NCNE
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Aww, c'mon, Russ. I wanted to see politics get really low budget . . . I want them to have to make their campaign signs with magic markers and finger paint . . . I want 'em to crank out those buttons by hand. ;)
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0


<< Xerox,

All good points, but I have to disagree with caps on contributions. That's the approach that got us in this mess in the first place. There should be no limits at all, and immediate and complete reporting of all contributions. In addition, simply classify and regulate all soft money advertising in the same way we would direct contributions.

Russ, NCNE
>>





more questions about this... i really don't know that much about campaign finance... what is the difference between soft money and a direct contribution? and how are direct contributions currently regulated?
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0


<< The second amendment argument doesn't hold too much water.

First, it stipulates "a well-regulated militia," which people in houses with guns just aren't.
>>



It appears that you don't understand the meaning of "well-regulated" and "militia" as defined in our forefather's day. "Well-regulated" had nothing to do with laws and rules. It's meaning was "to work correctly" as in a well-regulated watch. The "militia" was, at that time, any grown able-bodied man, since there really wasn't much of a military yet.



<< Second, it stipulates that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of "the security of a free state," when the army is the present implement for that. >>



The security of a free state is maintained by the people, IE, the individual citizen. The security of ANY state, free or otherwise, is maintained by an army.

Russ, NCNE

 

Novgrod

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2001
1,142
0
0
Russ, I assure you with the utmost confidence that I know exactly what the forefathers meant when they said "well-regulated militia."

They did not mean "well-regulated man to protect his hearth and home from criminals," though that was *certainly* and *without a doubt* understood and believed to be a right and worthwhile pursuit. They meant "well-regulated to protect the country from threats like Shay's Rebellion and Indians and Canadians and British"; that is, "men" and not "man." They meant community-based defense. The amendment, as it was written, was not intended towards an individual's right to bear arms. It was written concerning a community's right to organize a militia for its own defense. The British, prior to the Revolution, understandably didn't much care for this because it was allowing people to organize into military units (though the militia was woefully ineffective often) and the new government intended to preserve that freedom.

The army, as of the drafting of the Constitution, was practially nil. In the 1797-1801 Congressional annals, some Republicans argue that there should be practially no standing army, and that there should be no navy; everything should be handled by militias; this stems from a belief that armies are tools of subjugation. Therefore, they didn't inherently mean that armies are the mechanism for preserving freedom.

Point being, the second amendment as it is written does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms, though that could certainly be construed from the right it does guarantee--community defense. If anybody suggests that the founders would allow a level of infringement so great as to prevent an individual's right to bear arms, that person is wrong.

Please don't make me look up quotes :)

 

lepper boy

Golden Member
Nov 2, 1999
1,877
0
76


<< gun control is another attempt to fix the problems caused by poor parenting while ignoring the real issue :) >>



only if we were able to tell how true that is!
dave
 

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
It is always usefull to have a 50 cal truck mounted sub machine gun handy just in case the french want to quarter troops in your home. :)
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0


<< The amendment, as it was written, was not intended towards an individual's right to bear arms. >>



Aw, here we go! That's bullsheet!

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is indeed an individual right....."The object is that all men be armed..." ...Thomas Jefferson..

The Bill of Rights is all about individual freedom.

There was no organized militia for 99 years after the Bill of Rights was signed....what a crock...:disgust:
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,387
19,687
146
The Second Amendment was clearly intended as an individual right. One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard (it's not, and does not fit the original intent of a "militia"), the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.

To those who would take the 2nd to an illogical extreme; In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.

The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" They were not, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment which clearly separates the individual "people" from the "state."

In fact, here is my challenge:

Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.

The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People

"If 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 rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:

"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."