Its simple logic. The second amendment says no infringing on our right to keep and bear arms and that means none. If congress wants to ban guns they must amend the constitution. THey cannot pass any anti-gun law without amending the constitution.
If they want to ban people from owning nuclear arms then they must pass that in a constitutional amendment.
The fact that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is in a consitutional amendment means that forefathers wanted 2/3 of the congress to have to support ANY anti-gun law forcing them to make it a constitutional amendment.
If they want to ban people from owning nuclear arms then they must pass that in a constitutional amendment.
The fact that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is in a consitutional amendment means that forefathers wanted 2/3 of the congress to have to support ANY anti-gun law forcing them to make it a constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court decides that. The Constitution also says the Freedom Of Speech shall not be abridged, but we abridge it all the time for different reasons. No right is absolute, that would be insane.
Well the fact that game laws, hunting and firearm licensing can be used to disarm and disenfranchise unfavored groups is well documented. The English used game laws for this purpose quite effectively.
In the US, it is also well documented that hunting and firearm licensing has been used in a similar fashion to disarm or disenfranchise blacks and native Americans. Michigan's handgun licensing scheme was passed in the 1920s with the active support of the KKK in response to the acquittal of a black man who used a handgun to defend his family against a racist white mob that had gathered outside their home as the police stood by and watched. Quite a famous case, actually.
The licensing scheme required a permit ("permission") from local police officials before purchasing a handgun. And whaddya know, all the police officials at the time were white.
I don't know hwo it works in the reset of the country but in vermont all the tags i think are sold to anyone who can hold a gun or they tags get entered into a lottery and you can buy into it based on how much land you own.
With out the fees from selling tags and boater registation the state would be unable to enforce anyone of the hunting regulations or know how many animals are taken.
With out the fees from selling tags and boater registation the state would be unable to enforce anyone of the hunting regulations or know how many animals are taken.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I do think in context of the generation of the 2nd one would be on sound ground to argue that the latest and greatest weaponry would be appropriate for the population to hold.
"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."
I think the idea was to populate among the people the ability to insure freedom from external as well as internal threats to that freedom. I further think that any law that infringes on that notion including those with the USSC blessings are at odds with the 2nd! Of course, I don't want folks to carry AK 47s about no more than I want dangerous felons about on 'reasonable' bail.. but, that is the wording and until it is amended I think if folks want to enact law making it illegal to hunt ducks with 'assault' weapons fine but, they should still be able to park a M1 Abrams in the driveway.
Thanks for this very interesting read.
Over the years I also came to think that every democracy should be organized the way Switzerland is, and even more democratically.
Excerpt: << Like America, Switzerland won its independence in a war fought by armed citizenry. Since independence in the 14th century, the Swiss have been required to keep and bear arms, and since 1515, have had a policy of armed neutrality. Its form of government is similar to the one set up by our founders ? a weak central government exercising few, defined powers having to do mostly with external affairs and limited authority over internal matters at the canton (state) and local levels.
The Swiss boast that they have the weakest central government in the West. They feel a strong central government weakens citizen initiative and individual responsibility. I wonder where they got that idea!
A Swiss publication states, "The Swiss do not have an army, they are the army." The eighteenth-century economist Adam Smith considered Switzerland the only place where the whole body of the people were successfully drilled in militia skills. As far back as 1532, Machiavelli commented in his book The Prince , "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."
Gun ownership is a matter of community duty, for the Swiss consider national defense too important to be left to professional soldiers or those who join the army to learn civilian job skills.
Every able-bodied male from about age 21 receives 17 weeks of military training, and for the next thirty years engages in decreasing increments of mandatory training amounting to about one year of direct military service. He then serves on reserve status until age 50 or 55. Enlisted men take home automatic-assault rifles and officers their pistols, ammunition, and necessary equipment and supplies. Voluntary marksmanship training is common. Almost anyone can purchase surplus machine guns, antiaircraft and antitank weapons, howitzers, and artillery pieces, as Americans could at one time. Yet the crime rate is so low, statistics aren't even kept.
In 1978, the Swiss refused to ratify a Council of Europe Convention on Control of Firearms. Switzerland was then pressured by other European governments to adopt a law barring foreigners from purchasing guns in Switzerland which they could not purchase in their own countries, and requiring a license for Swiss citizens. Outraged citizens forced the central government to abandon any idea of such a law, and the one canton which had enacted similar legislation had it overturned the following year in a referendum.
A popular story at the turn of the century concerned an earlier visit by the Crown Prince and later Kaiser of Germany, Wilhelm Hohenzollern, to view the Swiss militia in training. He supposedly asked the Swiss commander how many men he had under arms. When the commander answered one million, Wilhelm asked what would happen if five million of his men crossed the Swiss border tomorrow. The Swiss commander replied that each of his men would fire five shots and go home.
No one knows whether this had anything to do with the scrapping of the German plan to flank France at the onset of World War I by passing through the northern Swiss lowlands, or of the French plan to attack the German flank through Switzerland, but most Swiss and many historians think it did.
During World War II, Hitler coveted the Swiss gold reserves and needed lines of supply and communications through Switzerland to supply Axis forces in the Mediterranean. An analysis of Switzerland's well-armed citizenry, mountainous terrain, fortifications, and civil-defense preparations convinced German military planners to forgo an invasion. >>
There is much more in that text.
Swiss citizens do not go around with automatic weapons; they mainly keep them at home, or in caches they share with other citizens, caches that are only opened in case of emergency.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter