<< "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 >>
Very good post there AmusedOne! This quote is exactly what I am shooting for! (Pardon the pun
) I've been to many other countries where the average citizen is not allowed to own most any sort of weapon, and that thought scares me! :Q<< 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.
>>Two problems with that:
1.) I've never heard of a 50 caliber submachine gun.
2.) You dont even need a stick to get the French to surrender, never mind a firearm.
Have mercy on me, a sinner.
If you would please, please, please read a post closely, you would see that I am in complete agreement with you:
You read:
The second amendment argument doesn't hold too much water. and jumped on your high horses. However, immediately after writing that, I continued 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. THIS is what you provided. Evidence to help my case.
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.
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.
the thrust of my argument is NOT that the founders did not believe in an individual's right to bear arms. If you would all please read both of my posts closely and carefully, you would see this to be the case. When I say "that could certainly be construed from the right it does guarantee" I mean to say that militia is a greter threat to the state than individuals with arms; therefore, the lesser right of a person to bear an arm is inherent in the second amendment, which guarantees the right to a militia. The courts have interpreted it that way, and in no way do I mean to say that the courts are wrong in interpreting it that way. In summation, I agree with you, but regardless of what you believe, the wording of the amendment stipulates a militia, which is a greater right and implies an individual right. James Madison, as you will surely remember, argued that rights not in the bill might not be defended because there was a bill of rights. In no way does the amendment not apply to an individual right.
Strictly speaking, Supreme Court decisions and papers don't mean that much about the intent of the founders
AmusedOneYou respond to a number of points that are universally made when someone says that the second amendment applies only to militias, but I would very much appreciate it if you wouldn't turn Yours Truly into a straw man to be beaten mercilessly. I agree with you; I always have agreed with you, though I will cling to the death to my belief that the amendment states "a well-regulated militia."
I would also appreciate it if you would read the entirety of a post before responding to the first line.
And Torminator, I wouldn't know since I just finished paying about 120 k for mine
If you would please, please, please read a post closely, you would see that I am in complete agreement with you:
You read:
The second amendment argument doesn't hold too much water. and jumped on your high horses. However, immediately after writing that, I continued 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. THIS is what you provided. Evidence to help my case.
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.
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.
the thrust of my argument is NOT that the founders did not believe in an individual's right to bear arms. If you would all please read both of my posts closely and carefully, you would see this to be the case. When I say "that could certainly be construed from the right it does guarantee" I mean to say that militia is a greter threat to the state than individuals with arms; therefore, the lesser right of a person to bear an arm is inherent in the second amendment, which guarantees the right to a militia. The courts have interpreted it that way, and in no way do I mean to say that the courts are wrong in interpreting it that way. In summation, I agree with you, but regardless of what you believe, the wording of the amendment stipulates a militia, which is a greater right and implies an individual right. James Madison, as you will surely remember, argued that rights not in the bill might not be defended because there was a bill of rights. In no way does the amendment not apply to an individual right.
Strictly speaking, Supreme Court decisions and papers don't mean that much about the intent of the founders
AmusedOneYou respond to a number of points that are universally made when someone says that the second amendment applies only to militias, but I would very much appreciate it if you wouldn't turn Yours Truly into a straw man to be beaten mercilessly. I agree with you; I always have agreed with you, though I will cling to the death to my belief that the amendment states "a well-regulated militia."
I would also appreciate it if you would read the entirety of a post before responding to the first line.
And Torminator, I wouldn't know since I just finished paying about 120 k for mine
<< 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
>>Sorry Baffled, I have a gun (Rugger 10/22 combo with a pair of 25 round banana clips), my father has a pair of rifles, an I won't even begin to talk about my cousin who transplanted himself to Texas then renounced his citizenship (don't ask, I haven't even figured it out) and none of use deal in crack or the wacky tobaccy
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,389
- 19,707
- 146
<< AmusedOneYou respond to a number of points that are universally made when someone says that the second amendment applies only to militias, but I would very much appreciate it if you wouldn't turn Yours Truly into a straw man to be beaten mercilessly. I agree with you; I always have agreed with you, though I will cling to the death to my belief that the amendment states "a well-regulated militia." >>
I addressed no one directly. Anyhow, on to the meat of your post...
It also states, "the right of the PEOPLE."
The word "PEOPLE" in the Bill of rights always refers to the individual, separate from the state.
Meanwhile, let's discuss an amendment similar in structure to the Second Amendment:
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."
Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.
Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.
Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.
It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.
"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."
--- Noah Webster of Pennsylvania, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
BTW, original intent HAS been the deciding factor in many Supreme Court cases.
<< 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 >>
I can't tell if you're being serious or satirical.
Take a look at England, then take a look at Switzerland. Tell me whether gun control really reduced crime (in England), or whether responsible gun owners are the best deterrent of crime available (in Switzerland).
<< I can't tell if you're being serious or satirical.
Take a look at England, then take a look at Switzerland. Tell me whether gun control really reduced crime (in England), or whether responsible gun owners are the best deterrent of crime available (in Switzerland). >>
That was Russ and his sense of sarcasm. Look at his other replies in the thread
<<
<< I can't tell if you're being serious or satirical.
Take a look at England, then take a look at Switzerland. Tell me whether gun control really reduced crime (in England), or whether responsible gun owners are the best deterrent of crime available (in Switzerland). >>
That was Russ and his sense of sarcasm. Look at his other replies in the thread >>
Hehe, I thought so. I was in the middle of a write-up for a comp sci project, so I didn't read the entire way through. *smacks self on head* Sorry, Russ.
<< Hehe, I thought so. I was in the middle of a write-up for a comp sci project, so I didn't read the entire way through. *smacks self on head* Sorry, Russ. >>
tsk tsk. You've been around long enough that you should have noticed that Russ is a member of the ATOT gun nut club (as am I).
BTW, original intent HAS been the deciding factor in many Supreme Court cases.
And it should be used more often, but it's hardly a measuring stick of intent.
mea culpa if my post was offensive, and I agree with you with the exception that the purpose of your amendment is the preservation of a well-educated electorate, and the purpose of the second amendment is a well-regulated militia. Were it intentionally broader, it might read something like "Congress shall make no law respecting the right to bear arms, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Semantics at any rate.
And it should be used more often, but it's hardly a measuring stick of intent.
mea culpa if my post was offensive, and I agree with you with the exception that the purpose of your amendment is the preservation of a well-educated electorate, and the purpose of the second amendment is a well-regulated militia. Were it intentionally broader, it might read something like "Congress shall make no law respecting the right to bear arms, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Semantics at any rate.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but if the Second Amendment applied only to state militias then it would be the *only* amendment which did not apply to the individual. HIGHLY unlikely IMO.
If this has been covered already then color me lazy for not reading through the entirety of ATOT Gun Debate #3,225,734.
If this has been covered already then color me lazy for not reading through the entirety of ATOT Gun Debate #3,225,734.
<<
<< Hehe, I thought so. I was in the middle of a write-up for a comp sci project, so I didn't read the entire way through. *smacks self on head* Sorry, Russ. >>
tsk tsk. You've been around long enough that you should have noticed that Russ is a member of the ATOT gun nut club (as am I). >>
*sigh* Yeah. I've been very, very stressed out lately (hence my lack of presence on ATOT), so maybe that's part of my lack of connection.
Where can I sign up for this gun nut club?
I have a friend who just moved to the U.S. about 6 months ago. He is from Liverpool England. He said gun control is NOT working over there. Only the criminals have guns.
If the government got so bad that we had to take arms against it, some how I doubt that any gun that I can procur legally will be of any consequence against their's.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,389
- 19,707
- 146
<< If the government got so bad that we had to take arms against it, some how I doubt that any gun that I can procur legally will be of any consequence against their's.
>>You'd be surprised what millions of lightly armed civilians can do against a major military power. Ask the Afghanis, the Vietnamese, and the Swiss.
<< Where can I sign up for this gun nut club? >>
We'll send the black chopper by next Thursday. Be outside your house at 2300.
<<
<< Where can I sign up for this gun nut club? >>
We'll send the black chopper by next Thursday. Be outside your house at 2300. >>
Sweet! I'll meet you across the street, it'd be suspicious if a copter landed right next to my dorm.
Eh, I think gun laws are adequate at the moment, and I don't really care if it gets more strict since I'll never own a gun myself. As always, things just need to be actually enforced to actually make a difference.
<< << Where can I sign up for this gun nut club? >>
We'll send the black chopper by next Thursday. Be outside your house at 2300. >>
ROFL
<<
<<
<< Where can I sign up for this gun nut club? >>
We'll send the black chopper by next Thursday. Be outside your house at 2300. >>
Sweet! I'll meet you across the street, it'd be suspicious if a copter landed right next to my dorm.
>>It doesnt land, they beam you up.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter