The cases show that many legal minds and scholars have ruled on this and have much more background and experience in this particular area.

I'm not dismissing the author's credibility. I'm sure he's a fine author and has excellent sources. The problem is, his expertise has nothing to do with what the legal minds have been following for 225 years.

Ruling law is not parsing words. It's background and understanding. The federalists and anti-federalist did not discuss (where even challenges of a duel were not uncommon) a well-schooled electorate or books when talking about the sovereignty of our new nation. There was more to the intent and meaning of this amendment besides grammar and spelling.

Yeah, I understand. You have no answer for the clear meaning of the sentence. That much at least is clear.

It doesn't seem there's any point at all in you and I discussing it further, but here's the bottom line (Schulman again):

Assuming that is the case, that would mean that the 60 plus courts I just cited are as clueless as me. So, are you stating they don't have a clear meaning of the sentence as well?

And finally, the Supreme Court can't read? Just when I thought I'd heard it all, there's always something new...

That's surprising? I've been used to the idea of judges who can't read a clear sentence for years and years.

OK I'm assuming you're still referring to the clear definition of "Militia" here and how it pertains to the 2nd amendment.

Aside all the squabbling over which author is expert or which court has authority. There's one thing that cannot be denied. And that is there are millions of private citizens who are not part of a militia that legally own guns in the U.S.

All these courts and legal eagles say only a organized militia can keep and bear arms then that makes a helluva lot folks felons. Obviously someone with more authority, power, looks, money..whatever, thinks private citizens have the right. And it's been that way for a long time.

Ah, no, Hercules. It certainly can be denied and I do deny it. You're begging the question we've been discussing. Whether "they" all say that or not is exactly what is in dispute. Dayton Rocker has been arguing the pro and I've been arguing the con, but I'm just about out of patience with it.

I just wanna be clear. Are you stating that all Americans who own guns currently are felons?

Not at all. I'm saying that being part of a militia is not a prequisite for having the right to bear arms according to my understanding of the Second Amendment. I've been arguing that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right. DR has been arguing the opposite, and you seem to agree with him.

Oooooh hell no. My point was that so far millions of law abiding citizens who are NOT part of a militia own guns. This despite all the debate over whether "Militia" enters into the 2nd amendment wording or not. So I agree!

Sorry for the confusion.

Sign me
Gun-toting Texan (Legal w/CHL )

Alrighty, then we're substantially in agreement! I would argue however that all armed citizens ARE part of the General Militia, but that's a separate though related issue.

Where did it say that? We're talking about a right...not a statute of law.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we're not allowed to have one. And my point of argument states we don't have the individual RIGHT to have one either.

Furthermore, the "legal eagles" say nothing about only an organized militia. A militia can be unorganized (a favorite debate point), but it must be regulated. Regulated was defined as supplied with the proper weapons and supplies, regular training, chain of command, etc at the time of the framing.

If Iraq suddenly invaded us, we had no standing army, had no national guard, and no police force (conditions the framers experienced), Billy Bob and all his drinking buddies could get their shotguns, set up on a hill, and pick off every one of those them thar varmints. That would be an unorganized militia used for the common defense.

Now, If Billy Bob and his beer drinking buddies form a militia for their own purposes , they'd get Waco'd. Common defense is the key and the reason all the gun laws hold up in court.

We have organized militias in place. And the feds cannot stop the states from having one nor arming them. That was the whole point.

But anyhow, what is a "General Militia"? Furthermore, how is that well regulated?

Who are the General Militia? Well, the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 were ...




Quoted from Saved by the Militia by Prof. Randy E. Barnett from National Review Online.

"It" didn't say that. But aren't YOU saying that by using all these references to legal interpretations that only a militia...OK a organized militia has the right to own a gun??

There are millions of Billy Bobs and red-necks that own guns and we own them legally. So somewhere, someone higher up disagrees with you.


All gunlaws hold up???? Lessee:
Ohio CHL ban struck down

Izdaari, never thought of Flight 93 being an example of a general militia. Not disagreeing with you, just a very interesting way to look at it!

Puleeze....that's ridiculous. The passengers in flight 93 were a lot of great things, but a militia wasn't one of them.

The unorganized militia are classified as members of a militia that are not in the national guard or naval militia. Simply owning a gun does not make you a member of anything. What organization did they belong to?

Here's the Army National Gaurd's definition of the militia:


As stated by the framers, these are members taken from the populace. Not THE populace.



Notice the "organized into militias"? That's a crucial point everyone seems to leave out. The militia was clearly a military group...not a civil one.

Now, the constitutional charter of the guard. Remember this is a government site:


Like I said before, the second amendment kept the feds from disarming the states.

Now, Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:


The second amendment was an amendment. Not a new article, section, or clause. For you word parsers using the "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is", here is Madison's original draft:


It states what it is, what it was for, and who was exempt. The final cut left out the exemption. The NRA makes up the rest.

Many of these examples taken from:
http://www.arng.army.mil

no, all that is required to be considered a member of the militia is that you are an able bodied citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 per US code (ie federal law)

these are the unorganized militia, meaning they are not organized nor controlled by the federal government. they stay well regulated the same way as the military does: constant training. they are just unpayed and supply themselves with their own equipment. the purpose of the unorganized militia's duty is to defend the republic and constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. they are required for the security of a free state, meaning we keep the republic free from invaders and tyrannical governments. the objective the framers meant for the militia to keep the government from getting out of control. it really isn't that difficult.

my breakdown of the second amendment, using dictionary.com for definitions.

"a well regulated militia, being nessecary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"---2nd amendment.

1) "a well regulated militia"-- regulated means: controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law, and militia has been defined by Izdaari already.

2) "being nessecary to the security of a free state"-- the militia is the force that is supposed to keep the government in check and keep them from getting out of control and keep the state secure, from internal threats and external threats. the framers were mostly oppossed to standing armies, as they had just broke from a country that had a huge standing army and they felt standing armies were, in the words of one framer (forget who) "the bane of liberty" they felt citzen militias were the best way to defend the republic, from all threats to it.

3) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"-- to keep means to retain possesion of; to have as a supply; To provide with maintenance and support. to bear means to carry from one place to another; transport. and arms are weapons, especially firearms; Instruments or weapons of offense or defense; weapons considered collectively.

4) "shall not be infringed" simple, and staight forward. the only thing I feel is nessecary to define is infringed; To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate; To encroach on someone or something.

not hard to understand, right?

That's a complete fabrication. Nowhere does anything say that. What it DOES say, is that the militia consists of able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. It doesn't make them automatically a member. That's simply a requirement.

With your logic, the constitution would be discriminating age. You would be denied the same "right" as someone younger (or older as the case may be). If it were an individual right (which it's not) and you were not automatically the member of a militia (because you're too old), you could not have a gun to defend yourself.

Keep looking for loopholes. 50-60 courts haven't found one.

Your entire argument is absurd.

I'm sorry DR, I don't discriminate based on gender. the people in general have a right to keep and bear arms (...the right of the people to keep and bear arms) the militia (organized and unorganized) is simply the pool that is eligible by law for military service and who can get called up. the framers intended that all citizens be able to fight for the republic if nessecary. (many in the original militias were well over the age of 45)

remember, stalin outlawed guns, as did hitler. an armed populace is a free populace, and fear the government that fears your guns.

No, you are still making stuff up to make a point. And that one is a doozy.

There is nothing, anywhere, that suggests all citizens should be able to fight (most didn't even own a gun. Roughly 15% of the population did. And many of those didn't even work. ) nor had to fight.

You cite:


But leave out why. Just like the NRA. You keep making up stuff to justify being led by mob rule.

When you start citing sources that are as authorative (meaning, no articles with an opinion written by Joe Shmuck from Gun Conspiricies, Inc) as the 50-60 courts that have concluded that basically, you have no idea what you are talking about, we can discuss this further. Otherwise, rename this thread to "Gun Nuts and the People That Love Them" and I'll simply lurk and enjoy the entertainment.

Speaking of sources...do you have one for the above-referenced quotation? I am not picking, I had just never heard that before and my hunch says 15% seems awfully low.

Sounds to me like 'figures' from the professor from Emory University, Michael Bellisiles' discredited book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture."
But correct me if you have other sources DR, I too, think the 15% is far to low from all that I have read.

only 15% owned guns? the people of the time had to rely on guns for: protection (from foreigners, "savage" indians, wild animals) and food. in fact many times when an military force took a base and set the people there free, they let them keep their guns, knowing they could not survive without them. I would GUESS that every household had a weapon, but I don't really know for sure.



first, I thought I made it clear: the people have a right to keep and bear arms, in reality it needs no reason WHY, it is a right. but to satisfy you: the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army, their intention was that anyone with a weapon could defend the republic. this is WHY the people have the right to keep and bear arms. also, the people make up the militia, and seeing as the militia is nessecary to the security of a free state, the people have the right to keep and bear arms for use in defending the republic.

and how does the people keeping weapons lead to "mob-rule"? how does defending a basic right of the constitution justify mob-rule? I fail to se your logic.

The fact is that no matter what people will find a way to get guns. So why not let everyone be elligable to get one instead of not allowing anyone to get one, but run the risk of a criminal picking one up on the black market.

CP

This is how these debates get based on opinions instead of facts. People read what they want to read and believe what they want to believe.

I am not a gun grabber. If you've followed my debate, you would have seen that. The 300 million horses are already out of the barn, so it's not like we can herd them all back in.

My point is, is that if we are going to CONTINUE to pour more hardware back into society, we should make some reasonable attempt to make sure they get into in safe hands.

While it is true that 99.8% of guns are in safe hands, that .02% is alot of people getting hurt. Not including the half million or so not being victimized by the gun, but by the result of having a gun (robbery at gunpoint, etc).

We don't need to make it easy for irresponsible people to get guns. Criminals aren't criminals until they've committed their first crime.

But we need to make it easier for responsible people to have guns more available....as in conceal and carry. I believe that to be the best detterent to crime. Criminals prey on the weak...that's why crimes using knives, baseball bats, etc are not as disproportionate as gun crimes. The cowards don't want to get close enough to get hurt.

But if a considerable portion of the population were trained and licensed to conceal weapons for protection, random violent crimes would go way down. However, that's only an assumption. for example, would black on black crimes RISE if less guns were available in those neighborhoods? At the risk of being stereotypical, my bet is gang bangers and the like figure the other person is packing...hence drive-bys.

As far as the other arguments on here I've yet to address, the population was not as armed back in the colonial times as much as you want to believe (regardless of who's studies you want to discredit. Amazing how everyone comes out of the woodwork to trash the researcher, but nobody comes forward with their own scientific data). Firearms were scarce and they were expensive. Most were just a bunch of poor farmers trying to make a living.

Wouldn't the best way to deter crime be to remove the causative factors of criminal behaviour?

Impossible, you can't just get rid of it, criminals will be able to get to guns via the black market anyway.

CP

You can't get rid of crime either, but you can do what you can to minimize it. If fewer people were forced to live in poverty and despair, they wouldn't become criminals.

Poverty doesn't have much to do with guns.

CP

It does if it leads to crime.

The poverty and despair is caused by being lazy with too many people willing to bail you out and make excuses for you. If you want to get out of poverty, get a damn job.

So, if being lazy leads to poverty and poverty leads to crime, it should be illegal to be lazy.

Obviously, this is a ridiculous argument. My point is, is that having no respect for your fellow man leads to crime.

I don't know where to begin with this, so I'll simply say this: If poverty is a result of laziness, does that mean that two-thirds of the world's population is just lazy?

Get this back on topic.

You could always start another thread in the Poverty & the Homeless forum if you wish to discuss the correlation between poverty and gun usage.

What always makes me mad, is people saying that firearms should be outlawed. Let's think for a moment here........... If firearms are outlawed, who has firearms?............................... THE OUTLAWS!!! As many of you are aware, firearms were outlawed for a while in parts of Europe. Statistics show that when this happened, the crime rate went (gee, what a surprise) UP!

I don't know many people who want guns outlawed. Many of us just want some types of control to increase the chances of getting firearms into responsible hands. But even that premise turns us into "gun grabbers" - thus the reason your statement is so common.

http://www.codyexpress.com/BadMan/polscelebs.htm







You were saying????

What part of "I don't know many" are you having trouble with?

Platypus,

Any teacher of rhetoric and literature will confirm that the unspoken portion of that statement is often "but there aren't enough to matter." DR himself may only be interested in keeping firearms out of the hands of the irresponsible, but who, pray tell, is going to make the decision as to whether you or I are "responsible?" BTW, I didn't say how many there are, leaving the question of "how many" in exactly the same place as DR. I'm simply pointing out that the unspoken "not enough to matter" corrollary is questionable, given who they are...

Heinlein said it best: "When only cops have guns, it's called a 'police state.'"

I'd like to propose that we place exactly the same restrictions on computer, printer, printing press, typewriter, radio, videocamera, etc ownership as we place on weapons.

If you aren't "responsible", then you can't publish a newspaper or website. After all, facts can be dangerous.

FWIW: Under anything except the most restrictive "responsible" paradigm, I'd be permitted to have a weapon. Does that make you feel warm and fuzzy?

FWIW v.2: As of now though, I don't have any firearms. Now do you feel warm and fuzzy?

Gun owners are in the same position as the Isrealis. It would be possible to compromise with the moderates, if it was not for the extremists who want you eliminated completely.

That's another thing that irks me. Presidential candidates are always saying they'll increase gun security? How are they going to do that, pray tell?

perfectly said, if a person is going to commit a violent crime, would he really care to be committing another by having an illegal gun ?

More so, even if he/she couldn't get a hold of a gun, that probably wouldn't stop them. You don't need a gun for violence...knives, bombs, and cars (among other things) can do the job just as well as a gun.

If you are irresponsible with your printer, people don't die. That's an absurd comparison.

I happen to care for the wives, husbands, sons, and daughters that bury their family members because we gave an irresponsible idiot the "right" to own a gun.

The only requirements right now are legal age, no felony convictions, and a pulse.

Do you feel relief that some wives, husbands, sons, and daughters didn't bury dead family because they did have the right to own a gun, and use it in self defense? I do.

So, tyrants are mistaken when they restrict freedom of the press because "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

BTW, the only requirements to vote are legal age, no felony convictions, and a pulse..... I take it you have no objections to irresponsible voting, to those who theoretically give the go ahead to armed gov't goons taking your property at gunpoint, taking your children, at gunpoint, busting down your door in the middle of the night in a no-knock search, at gunpoint....

Irresponsibility is the risk of freedom. Mayhap you'd be better of figuring out ways of maximizing responsibility rather than minimizing freedom.

Outlaws will get guns anyway, you either have to get rid of all guns, which is impossible or allow all to get them to protect themselves fromt the outlaw minority.

CP

So, are you suggesting there are people of legal age and without a felony conviction who want a gun to defend themselves, but can't?

That's absurd.

Anybody of age without a felony conviction can get all the guns they want, but there are still 10,000 murders a year. How is more guns without any additional regulation supposed to help that? Anybody they really wants or feels they need a gun already has one.

Of course, this is where the "it's their own stupid fault they got killed" rhetoric usually comes in, so have at it.

True, Dayton, very true. But what are we going to do for more gun regulation? Longer background checks? I don't think that's going to do much. Those hand sensors? What happens if a person buys a gun that only they can use with the intention of killing? The hand sensors aren't going to stop them. Here's a little fact for you: In some countries, it's required for men between certain ages to all be in the army reserves. Those men are able to keep their weapons at their houses. In just about every house then, you have a person who is in posession of, and knows how to use an automatic weapon. The crime rate in those countries is quite low.

Dayton, get your facts straight.

If you live in Public Housing, you can't have a gun, regardless of whether you're a felon or over 18. If you're under a Temporary Restraining Order, its a felony to possess a firearm. A TRO (aka TPO) involves no juries, no rebuttal, no witnesses, and NO FINDING OF FACT or wrongdoin, merely an allegation.

If you've been convicted of a MISDEMEANOR domestic violence charge, its a felony to possess a firearm.

What, exactly, do you find "absurd." The fantasy that a non-felon over 18 may not be able to get a gun to defend herself, or the fact that a non-felon over 18 may not be able to get a gun to defend herself?

You're ignoring serious cultural differences between the US and countries like Switzerland. Those two bits of data (guns in every home and low crime rate) don't correlate. In Japan, hardly anyone at all has guns, and they also have a very low crime rate.

The problem in America is not the number of guns, nor is it who owns them. The problem is a culture of violence. The citizens of the US are, as a group, among the most violent people on the planet. If we had no guns, we would be killing each other with lead pipes and knives.

Until we can figure out how to address the root issue (violence), I for one would prefer fewer rather than more guns. I personally don't need to fire a pistol to feel like a man. I don't feel the need to carry one inside my jacket in order to not be afraid.

Violence can sometimes end a problem. Violence will never solve a problem.

Gosh, I stand corrected.

You are correct. If the court sees probable cause to put a TEMPORARY restraining order against someone, you can't get a gun. Those poor defenseless stalkers. I see your point.

AS far as public housing, I don't know.

And I believe you are correct about domestic violence offenders. The poor wife beaters can't defend themselves with uzi's either.

So, what is that? About .0000000000002 of the population?

But let's look at who CAN get a gun with ease.

People with the IQ of a doorknob.
Gangbangers who haven't been convicted yet.
People with mental illness, but not diagnosed.
Alcoholics and drug addicts who haven't been treated.


Just a few samples. I'm sure there are lot more scarier people, but I'm too lazy to think about it.

[quote]Gosh, I stand corrected.[/quote] - Somehow, I get the feeling you don't....

[quote]You are correct. If the court sees probable cause to put a TEMPORARY restraining order against someone, you can't get a gun. Those poor defenseless stalkers. I see your point.[/quote] No, you don't get the point. The court does not have to see "probable cause", that's not the standard.

[quote]The basis for a restraining order need not include violence. In Massachusetts, over half of the 60,000 restraining orders in domestic cases issued every year do not, according to a 1995 state report, involve so much as an allegation of physical abuse. [/quote]

http://reason.com/9802/fe.young.shtml

http://reason.com/9805/letters.shtml


[quote]AS far as public housing, I don't know.[/quote] You do now.

[quote]And I believe you are correct about domestic violence offenders. The poor wife beaters can't defend themselves with uzi's either.[/quote]

Offendors? They've never been convicted, hell, they've never even had criminal charges FILED against them. You don't get it, do you? Read the linked article.

[quote]But let's look at who CAN get a gun with ease.

People with the IQ of a doorknob.[/quote] I suppose we should have a test for them then, right. We'll make sure Buford is conducting the test for all them darkies, 'cause he knows they're dumb as a post. Buford's got lotsa testing experience from back in the 50's with voting registration.

[quote]Gangbangers who haven't been convicted yet.[/quote] Duh, "innocent until proven guilty", except, apparently, in your world.

[quote]People with mental illness, but not diagnosed.[/quote] If they have mental illness, but it isn't diagnosed, then how are we supposed to know they have "mental illness?"

[quote]Just a few samples. I'm sure there are lot more scarier people, but I'm too lazy to think about it.[/quote] Gotta respect you for your honesty.




[quote]citizens of the US are, as a group, among the most violent people on the planet.[/quote] Compared to who? Provide a full ranking of all the countries on the planet.

[quote]Violence can sometimes end a problem. Violence will never solve a problem. [/quote] Huh? Person attacks me and/or my family, I kill them, problem ended = problem solved. Violence does solve some problems. Examples of problems solved by violence - Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Bonnie & Clyde, The Dalton Gang, American slavery. A blanket belief that violence never solves problems flies in the face of fact and history. A conviction that violence always solves problems is just as loony.

The correct question is : can violence solve Problem X, and how much of what type is appropriate? The correct amount of violence is important in both human affairs and opening a stuck jar. Smack the jar against the counter without enough force, nothing. Hit it too hard, big mess. Get it just right and you're on your way to slidin' that PB&J sandwich down the ol' gullet.

Incidentally, the threat of violence lies behind EVERY government limitation upon the citizenry, from zoning regulations, the Endangered Species Act and handicapped parking spaces to criminal incarceration.