should ever one be able to bare arm's it is one of your rights.

"It is clear from the words of the founders of this country that the right to 'keep and bear arms' is an inviolable personal right. They protected this right by the Second Amendment to the federal constitution and by provisions of the constitutions of the states. This is a subject for debate only by those ignorant of our history, or those that purposely wish to deny us our rights and, ultimately, to subjugate us under the tyranny of government perverted from its constitutional foundations." - Rich Mason

One of my favorite qoutes from Rich Mason.
Why should we as free Americans not be able to have guns?
Take away our constitutional right to bear arms and what is next, freedom of speach??

The right to bear arms is strictly a collective right under the constitution as determined by every court ruling except one - A federal circuit court in Louisianna I do believe.

It would seem to me the 2nd amendment is as clear as mud on the right of the individual to bear arms for personal reasons. I guess that's why gun rights supporters generally leave out the "militia" part inorder to clarify it in the direction of their biases."

If what you say is true, Dingo, I'd like to hear your explanation of the following: how does a militia get made if one doesn't personally own a gun?

It is my understanding a militia is to be made of non-military civilians gathered for the soul purpose of defending (or overthrowing a tyrannical) government. If one is not to keep and bare arms within the home, how are they to assemble for the militia if/when the time comes?

There's been a long debate on gun control here.

Jaime,

In frontier days it was necessary to have guns in the home to organize against say French and Indian raids. I guess the analogy would be the old time volunteer fire department.

I think now "the well regulated militia" is defined primarily as the Nat. Guard.

I have read a little bit of background stuff on the 2nd amendment and it is my impression that there was some worry about the Federal government having monopoly police power and in the spirit of checks and balances the states were to maintain their own somewhat separate military establishment. The National Guard seems to be kind of a hybrid and I guess is now considered the stand in for the old militia.

I've never been in favor of bare arms - everyone should be forced to wear long sleeves.

I do have a serious response to the whole question of an armed militia vs. the individual right to bear arms, but should this stuff be moved to the Second Amerndment thread in progress?

I think the point was to have a "militia" that is not controlled by the Federal Gov't. The Nat'l Guard is controlled by the gov't so I don't consider it a citizen militia. It's not as if the citizens decided to rise up against the gov't they could all go the their respective bases and ask the gov't for their weopons. As for individual gun rights, I believe Americans have a right to own a gun to protect themselves. The only thing outlawing guns would accomplish would be to take them from law abiding citizens and leave only criminals with guns. My feelings on the subject anyway.

And my feelings too.

One can have all sorts of FEELINGS about the personal right to bear arms as a constitutional right but as of today it is pretty much a legislated right and enjoys little respect beyond that. There are plenty of sources on the internet that will make that point. I present a link and an excerpt showing the most significantly cited case on the matter.

I personally support intelligent weapons control but don't argue about it much because I realize this is a subject where evidence has little impact.

by Amitai Etzioni
Tuesday, May 16, 2000

http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/5237-1.html

I thought that the Bill of Rights were individual rights. Or are they some sort of hybrid government/individual rights? It appears that the 2nd amendment allows the government to regulate the militia, but it also allows the people to bear arms. Publius feared a standing peace-time army, so he reasoned that an armed populace could help with national security (and fight a tyrannical government! - Sorry Ted Kennedy).

The irony of some of the comments in the Federalist Papers is that there is an argument to be made that the populace should be armed relative to our enemies (tanks, aircraft etc.), so that the standing army can be avoided, but by quick call, the militia would be armed and ready.

Mark

I tend to agree with most of what you stated, Mark. FYI- "Publius" is not a "he." It is a "they."

The Federalist Papers, a series of articles written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were originally published under the 18th century "anonymous" equivalent of "Publius."

Could you please share with our members some of the information you gathered from the Federalist Papers regarding this matter? I think it would be most helpful for everyone to get a good understanding of how much our forefathers feared the overreaching hands government and why the second amendment is necessary for us to protect ourselves.

Yeah, I knew it was authored by the three men that you mentioned. I guess I was focusing on Hamilton. I believe he penned as much as 85% of the letters (but I may be wrong here - this is off the top of my head).

I have a worn-out copy of the FP at home and I just looked in the index the other night under militia. I believe it is on pages 182 - 187 (some memory huh!) that Publius discussed at length the problem with peace-time standing armies. He also thought it would be absurd to assume that the militia could be asked to serve in a regimented fashion as it would hurt the economy, along with the individual militia-men's ability to support their families. It seemed to me that what was necessary was a populace that was already armed so that the states could then organize them without having to arm them.

I tend to think that a well-regulated militia might imply some rules though, as to gun-ownership (licensing, background checks, etc.).

Mark

Any of you ever wonder why, if gun control laws are so clearly a violation of Second Amendment rights, the NRA doesn't pursue their agenda through the court system - especially as the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the interpretation of the Constitution? Why, instead, they concentrate all their efforts (and massive finances) on lobbying Congress to prevent legislation?

It is because the Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, but only to "well-regulated militias". Before the Bill of Rights was written, the "regulation" of these militias had already been defined in the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 authorizes Congress

Congress was to organize and arm the militias, but recognizing the militias' state role, the Founders reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. The Militia Act of 1792 subsequently expanded federal policy and clarified the role of the militia. It required all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established the idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as directed by the State legislatures.

During the War of 1812, the militias were used to back up the regular army which was raised and trained by the federal government. Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militias, which came to be known as the national guard, provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903 the Militia Act of 1792 was replaced - no snickering, now - by the Dick Act, which affirmed the National Guard as the Army's primary organized Reserve. In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight.

The National Defense Act of 1916 and its Amendments in 1920 made use of the term "National Guard" mandatory and put the National Guard on the general staff. The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 made the National Guard a component of the Army and, with the Total Force Policy of 1973, virtually eliminated the need for a Second Amendment - designed to address state militias - at all.

The federal courts agree. In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Individual states can ban firearms altogether, if they so choose.

In 1939, the Supreme Court addressed the extent to which the federal government could limit a citizen's right to bear arms in United States vs. Miller, which Dingo has already cited. Here, the Court refused to strike down a law prohibiting the interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun on the basis of the Second Amendment. SCOTUS rejected the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" and held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias. In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia.

Both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right - and in no uncertain terms. Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1972 : "A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment... There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police." In 1976, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated in United States v. Warin. The court's decision reads, in part: "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant... all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."

The only alternative for gun advocates like the NRA is to reject the system of judicial review that has led to a perfect record of court defeats and focus on preemptively pouring money into campaign contributions in an effort to prevent any kind of regulation. Even if one accepted their misreading of the Second Amendment, though, the only right guaranteed at all is the right "to keep and bear" arms. It says absolutely nothing about regulating them for safety, design, or caliber. The gun lobby, simply, has no argument; there are no Constitutional grounds for opposing any restrictions on arms.

Nice slant, Wertz. Did you ever think perhaps the NRA wants NOTHING to do with the government whatsoever? Perhaps their reasoning is that NO new laws need to be made because the 2nd amendment is sufficient. Thus, no new laws need to be interpreted in the Courts. Perhaps they further recognize the need for gun ownership has MUCH to do with keeping the government out of our homes and personal lives. I do not purport to speak for the NRA, however, so these are just suppositions.

Also, please don't lump people who chose to want to keep and own guns with those in the NRA. It makes it too easy to over-generalize those who want to have guns for the sake of guns and those who want them to protect themselves from their government.

It honestly amazes me when people claim there should be gun control enacted by the government. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I always want the security blanket for the day when a really dastardly Ashcroft type wants to use the military against innocent American citizens or when we start to get taxed without representation.

Also, lest I misrepresent myself: I am merely presenting what I believe is the literal meaning of the Second Amendment and how it has been approached historically. Personally, I am not opposed to the individual right to bear arms in the least. I just don't believe that that right is Constitutionally guaranteed. Nor do I think it need be: we have enough legislation to cover gun ownership, licensing, and registration without the Bill of Rights. I would like to see restrictions of gun ownership in terms of design, type, and caliber (I do not, for example, see the need for individual possesion of automatic weapons, ground to air missiles, or chemical and biological weapons), but I do not, by any means, advocate anything approaching an abolition of arms.

Was I lumping? As I am one of those who wants to keep and own guns (or at least have the right to do so), I already make the distinction between people like myself and members of the NRA. Just wanted to make that clear.

That said, I don't see a lack of gun control as much of a security blanket against a hostile or tyrannical government. Individuals are never going to own enough tanks, bombers, battleships, or heavy arms to stand up to the mlitary which such a government would control. Plus, the dastardly Ashcroft types would be the first to garner the support of the ad hoc white supremacist lunatic fringe militias that are already armed to the teeth. In addition, weapons like neutron bombs and the "missile defense system" could be used specifically for domestic use: wipe out the pesky populace, but leave the real estate intact. How cool is that for an autocratic regime like the one we've currently got?

THe "militia" excuse by liberals gets me very time. A militia by definition is a citizen army. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that all citizens were armed so that when the militia was called up everyone would have a weapon. Pretty darn simple isn't it. Now lets connect the dots. THe citizens bought their weapons, thus making their rifles personal property and protected by the Contitution as well. My personal property is off limits to the government, and any one person for that matter. As long as I use it in accordance with existing laws, the government has no say or authority to take it, or prevent me from using my money to buy as many as I want. Liberals are scared of people who take responsibility for themselves, who know they don't need government to protect them or decide what is safe or best for themselves. I don't need another mom and Dad, and I'm over 21 so my real mom and dad don't tell me what to do either.

"Militia" was, by definition, a citizens army. This has evolved - through Constitutional legislation - over the past two-hundred years or so. Read a bit of history (in fact, for your convenience, I provided a bit in my last posting). You seem to have a strange notion of the sanctity of personal property as well. My marijuana stash is personal property. That should also, by your reckining, be protected by the Constitution. Is it?


Maybe some are. I suspect more are scared of right-wing lunatics who are armed to the teeth and full of hatred for... well, liberals, for example.

It might help if we go back to basics. Here is the unexpurgated 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

Notice, "A well-regulated Militia" stands as the primary consideration. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was the means at that time to provide a base for that objective(since then superseded by the Nat. Guard). One hears the term "Mission Statement" tossed around frequently, particularly in business circles. What was the "Mission Statement" here? To provide a well-regulated Militia for the protection of a free State, not to give every Tom, Dick and Harry the right to "pack iron" for whatever cockamamie reason he chose.

Wertz provided us with a further constitutional perspective on the militia.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...

What I get from this is that the militia is a federal-state entity not a private one.

I realize guns are a huge identity thing so of course we have posters who just sort of make it up as they go along to keep alive their mythological vision of the 2nd. Amendment. HeatherRob, for instance, gives us this little gem:



HeatherRob, you might want to dig up your basis for this bit of constitutional history. I'm waiting to be educated.

Dingo,

Read pages 182 - 187 of The Federalist Papers. Publius discusses the need to avoid a standing army (a tool of the King's to oppress the masses). He also discusses the practicality of having an armed populace that can be summoned (and thus regulated - i.e. managed or organized into a fighting force) when the country is at risk from outsiders (not to mention from a tyrannical government). Having an armed populace will allow the mobilization to commence quickly.

Mark

When you quote me, don't incriminate yourself as well. Despite your wish, I can buy weapons legally, unlike the purchase of Marijuana. So to compare them is incorrect. BY the way though you put words in my mouth and said I hate liberals, I do not. Perhaps you hate me because I believe in limited governmental powers, thus reducing you and so inclined people to enforce your socialist type views on me.

Well Mr. Dingo talk about people who make up things. You posted too many incorrect staments to refute. But one I'll clear up, the National Guard did not replace the "militia". THe national guard is actually controlled by each state's governor, thus ruling out your federal army prattle. And your claim that it was not meant for every tom, dick and harry to own a gun for whatever cockamamie excuse is like a curveball out of left field. Again a typical socialist, liberal arrogance that you have the right to determine when, where and how many weapons one can own. Liberals like you add to the 2nd amendment, while those of us who recognize that the Constitition is not a living document, not open to revision or changing with the breeze, read it as it is written. "For the Purpose of maintaing a well-regulated militia", who makes up the militia? Some mysterious race of federal beings who are not subject to the laws of America. No, citizens, who own everything in this country, even tanks and guns in U.S. Army arsenals, which are all paid for by U.S. taxpayers, the owners of everything in this country.

Mark,

The accessible listings about militias were under chapters not pages so I don't think I found your reference. What I did read was Chap. 29 by Hamilton and Chap. 46 by Madison and you can see the considerable difference in their thinking on the matter of the militia. Check this out:

Hamilton, Chap. 29

THE POWER OF REGULATING THE MILITIA, AND OF COMMANDING ITS SERVICES IN TIMES OF INSURRECTION AND INVASION ARE NATURAL INCIDENTS TO THE DUTIES OF SUPERINTENDING THE COMMON DEFENSE, AND OF WATCHING OVER THE INTERNAL PEACE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. THIS DESIRABLE UNIFORMITY CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY CONFIDING THE REGULATION OF THE MILITIA TO THE DIRECTION OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY.

Madison, Chap. 46

Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that THE FIRST AND MOST NATURAL ATTACHMENT OF THE PEOPLE WILL BE TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. TO THESE WOULD BE OPPOSED A MILITIA AMOUNTING TO NEAR HALF A MILLION OF CITIZENS WITH ARMS IN THEIR HANDS, OFFICERED BY MEN CHOSEN FROM AMONG THEMSELVES, FIGHTING FOR THEIR COMMON LIBERTIES, AND UNITED AND CONDUCTED BY GOVERNMENTS POSSESSING THEIR AFFECTIONS AND CONFIDENCE. IT MAY WELL BE DOUBTED, WHETHER A MILITIA THUS CIRCUMSTANCED COULD EVER BE CONQUERED BY SUCH A PROPORTION OF REGULAR TROOPS.


It almost sounds like they are setting the stage for the civil war. Of course we know who won that one.

Even with his strong states right anti-federalist bias it seems to me Madison is still subordinating the militia to the states.

HR,

Since you managed to turn my post into hamburger I'll submit it again.



Going around calling people socialists and liberals is I guess your best shot given your strange uninformed and disconnected discourse.

I want to add that the Federalist Papers are not our law, while the Constitution and what the Supreme Court ruled are. So while referencing the Federalist Papers may give us insight into what our Founding Fathers wanted, it really has no bearing on our law.

I never said you hated liberals. I said liberals were afraid of right-wing lunatics who were full of hatred. If that's how you wish to identify yourself, please don't blame me. For the record, I don't hate such types, I pity them. And I'm not trying to force (or even "enforce") any views on you or anyone else.



Make that "the Federalist Papers may give us insight into what some of our Founding Fathers wanted". Three of them, in fact: John Jay, who was ill at the time and contributed very little; James Madison, who eventually changed his mind on many of the Federalist positions (under the influence of Thomas Jefferson and others); and Alexander Hamilton, who wrote two-thirds of them and who was an elitist and a closet monarchist - not the best authority on what the Constitution came to be.

Bottom line up front, in the humble opinion of this military member......the private ownership of arms is what sets our great country apart from the rest of the world. I believe the 2nd Amendment protects the viability of the first.

In almost every case recently, mass shootings and crimes committed with a firearm, the criminals would not have been able to legally get a gun in the first place. Why are we so intent on punishing innocent law abiding gun owners?

People say that we require licenses for driving cars, etc... but that does not stop auto accidents. That said however I fully support maximum penalties for crimes involving the use of a gun.

I'm just wondering if there are any examples where the 2nd amendment protected the 1st.

DTOM109, since you were upfront, I will do the same.

I am all for private ownership of firearms with conditions. I'd like to see mandatory training before purchase and greater safety features in products. Firearms are designed to do only one thing: punch holes in things, animals, and people. I suppose some can be used to chop down trees, but we have other, more efficient tools for that.

I am all for waiting periods. Murders of passion would definately be reduced, as proven here in Colorado. Governor Owens ® repealed the waiting period. Shortly after, a man bought a gun and blew away his family. The waiting period is back.

We would be wise to do more "well-regulation" and less "not infringed."

In response to AuthorMusician, I must say that I can't quote any legal cases of the 2nd Amendment protecting the 1st. (Although it would be interesting research.)
I claim that in the more theoretical sense, that a society that has the tools to overthrow a tyrannical government, can thus protect the right of free speech, which is usually the first freedom to be denied to a population by oppressors.
I can't argue too strongly with your cases for waiting periods, but I would have issues with mandating everyone to undergo mandatory firearms training, it would be an extreme waste of time for many people, maybe just a competency test of some kind.
Above all, my hope is that the Supreme Court would once and for all rule that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individuals right to keep and bear arms, so that we would not have to walk the same road as countries like Brtain, Australia, and Canada to name a few. In every case that I have found, registration leads, ultimately, to confiscation.

DTOM109,

Well, let's say you've been through basic military training. That should be enough proof that you know which end of the tube is the business end. However, if you've never had formal firearms training, I do believe there are many things you need to learn for your own safety and the safety of others.

For example, how many casual firearm customers know that they need to clean their weapons after each use? How many know the proper way to hand a pistol or revolver to another person? How many are so unaware that they put a cartridge into the chamber of an automatic (thinking Glock here) and proceed to wound or kill themselves? How many are unaware of what can happen with a ricocheting bullet? Or what the different kinds of bullets and loads are for? How to handle a jammed cartridge? I could go on, but this list could also become quite long.

You know, we are funny critters. I once took a motorcycle riding training class with a friend who wanted to start riding. I had about 25 years experience at the time and didn't think I'd learn a darn thing. But I did! I learned proper hard braking technique in several different situations, plus a very cool cornering trick. Point is I thought it'd be a big waste of time too, but it wasn't.

I understand the anti-tyranny argument regarding an armed population. You're in the military; do you think people with the typical civilian armament (pistol, revolver, shotgun, deer/elk rifle) would have a chance against an army? Probably not. So military-grade weaponry would have to be taken from the National Guard armories. Since the National Guard is composed of citizen-soldiers trained in the use of these weapons, our best defense against tyranny is the National Guard. I'll concede that the deer rifles may come in handy to take the armories. Also veterans, especially special forces. A friend of mine holds this distinction and has described exactly how he'd do it and what he'd go for (tank). It was a fun conversation over a brewski.

I'm also not against G. Gordon Liddy's notion that we should all be issued military-class weapons and trained in their use with periodic retraining. This would likely cut down on house burglaries and rapes.

Hope you had a good holiday and thank you for your service to our country.

A little coercive don't you think? What about people who don't want weapons?

One thing you can be sure of, it would increase the number of military-class weapons that would be burglarized. Hopefully the burglars would appreciate their constitutional responsibility to not use these weapons to hender their fellow citizens' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Dingo,

The idea is to be more like Switzerland. Maybe you're right. The next city riot could be a bigger mess than they already are.

I suppose a person could opt out of the weapon and do something else like communications or medicine. Maybe this sort of scheme is only viable in rural and small town areas?

Although I'm not against the Switzerland model, I don't think that it is viable or even necessary here in the US. Switzerland has a long history of being surrounded by nations warring with one another for it's entire existence. Also, their population is smaller and closer in mind set concerning national defense.

There will be some, but I don't think that the majority of people interested in buying a gun would have no idea of which end is the business end, but you make a point.

True, we have a formidable military, of which I am a part, but history is full of instances of partisan guerrillas with civilain weapons rising up and defeating or standing ground against a superior force. And in that extreme case I would guess many National Guard units may mutiny and join the citizenry. I pray to god that would never happen here.
I'm trying not to be an extreme gun nut, but I've been following examples in other western countries of late, and registration leads to confiscation. Canadian gun owners have just 7 days remaining to register their firearms, I wonder how long it will be before the government starts declaring certain types of guns are illegal, until none are legal.

DTOM109,

Understood. I'll bet I am in a database somewhere after buying a pistol a few years back. There was a lot of paper work.

A few years earlier, I was browsing in a gun shop near Manassas, VA, and this guy comes up to me and asks if a bolt-action rifle could be made "fully automatic". I suggested that he take up a different hobby like bridge or chess. He snorted and walked away. Wonder if he asked the gun dealer the same question?

Anyway, please keep us informed on what's going on in Canada and Europe.

What do you think of the police and FBI wanting to fingerprint bullets? I'm not entirely against the idea.

Switzerland has the second highest hand gun murders (the US being the first.)

And Im with Dingo, if you dont want a weapon then you shouldnt be forced to have one.

Yes Switzerland does have the second highest handgun murder rate next to the US. But the rate is 1.42 per 100,000.
That's compared with a US rate of 5.28 per 100,000.
Switzerland has a handgun prevalence of 14%, and a murder rate of 1.17%,
compared with the US rate of 29% and 7.59% respectively.

And I wouldn't want to force a gun on anybody that did not want one, but on the flip side, should someone be able to tell me I can't own one?

Bill,

My take on The Federalist Papers is that the intent is important if you believe in the penumbra rights. If you wish to take the Constitution literally, then we would throw out all commentary. This would be analogous to the Parol Evidence Rule that is inserted into many business contracts. This typically means that if it isn't in the contract, then it has no standing. Prior oral agreements or discussions are void.

In the instance of the 2nd amendment, from a literal standpoint, it would seem that the militia should be regulated AND that the people should be allowed to own weapons.

While you are correct in your characterization of the Federalist Papers being of a limited viewpoint, it does seem to help frame the reference point of many of the parts of the Constitution.

Mark

Just out of curiosity what about the right of ex-cons to own guns. They are citizens. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that excludes them. I find the NRA curiously silent on this issue. What's your take on THEIR gun rights?

Dingo,

In theory, an ex-con is just that, an ex-con. They have purportedly paid their debt to society and now are free to enjoy their constitutional rights. But, you and I know, that many ex-cons are hardened creatures and probably are more likely than not to commit new crimes. I don't think that the Consitution prohibits ex-cons from owning weapons, but we could amend the Constitution to allow them to. Right? I mean, even if Congress passes a law that say's they can't own a weapon, does that make it Constitutional?

Mark

These laws apply to convicted Felons.

In my opinion anyone hardened enough to commit a felony should not own a gun. I can't quote recidivism rates off the cuff, but I think they must always be considered a danger to society.

At the very least I would be comfortable with prohibiting guns to those convicted of violent/assault crimes.

What you seem to be saying is your right to own a gun has no constitutional standing since the 2nd amendment doesn't make the distinction that you are making.

Deep down I think most people know that the 2nd amendment claim to an individual's right to own a weapon is bogus and simply narrowly self-serving because in the final analysis they won't give that same right to those they fear, even if they are citizens.

Am I reading that right? Are you interpreting that to say a gun has a "constitutional standing" rather than an individual? I'm confused, Dingo

[At the very least I would be comfortable with prohibiting guns to those convicted of violent/assault crimes.]

I meant ay at the MOST I would be comfortable .......

The constitution could be amended.....I am staunchly pro 2nd Amendment, but I realize some provision may need to be made periodically to ensure a safe society. This is not the same populace as 1776.

Even this tampering makes me uncomfortable....the old slippery slope cliche

Jaime, I'm saying "YOUR RIGHT to OWN a gun has no constitutional standing" if you don't apply that rule to ALL citizens since the 2nd amendment doesn't make distinctions between classes of citizens.

Another thought is they don't make distinctions between classes of "arms." Are you prepared to let your neighbor own a tank?

Time to revive this thread, temporarily perhaps.




I really don't have room for a tank in my driveway. Perhaps some kind of smaller APC but I don't think so.



Since you said what you think I will also take the opportunity. I think that deep down people against the Second Amendment's protection of gun rights are secretly afraid and cynical of their fellow citizens. If "those they fear" means convicted felons, well, they also lose the right to vote... so much for that.

Waiting periods are ridiculous. A few towns over, some nut killed his mother with a shovel. If I have to wait seven days to buy a shovel I will be most displeased.

Going back to the "original intent" argument. I find it hard to believe that a group of people, lets call them the Founding Fathers, who had just won a war in no small part to the personal familiarity and skill of their citizen-soldiers with firearms, would write an entire amendment for the purpose of creating yet another government body. Especially considering that many of the "modern" armies of the time considered firearms nothing more than hand held artillery and had their soldiers look away as they fired.

The Constitution is a well-written, sleek document. A glaring bump like that would have been noticed right away, especially as an addition. Also, since the Constitution is full of checks and balances, the Second Amendment would fall under that category. The final check and the ultimate balance.

Maybe you need to widen your driveway. Of course you didn't address the issue.





Nice runaround. If you accept the second amendment as an absolute right of citizens as individuals to bear arms then you have to give it to ex-cons. Where in the second amendment do you find the basis for an exception? You guys simply want to have it both ways. My bogus quote stands.



Do you want to translate that?



While your at it you might want to translate that too.

Though the Constitution mentions life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights, there are in reality no rights that are absolute. Your life, your happiness and your pursuit of happiness can be taken away from you should be break the law.

So, it is with the "right" to bear arms. This explains the question about giving ex-cons the right to bear arms.

Ex-cons have no right to vote either - unless the state decides to return that right to them.

I do believe in the Second Amendment, but not as an absolute. The states have taken it upon themselves to modify and codify the means by which bearing arms happens and/or is restricted. So far the State's right to do that has not failed in court.

And by the same token the states have a right to completely ban the personal ownership of guns - right?

Seems to me like you want to have it both ways too.

Actually Dingo - you make an excellent point. I think the states have the right to codify/modify the right to bear arms - and that has been upheld in court (so what I think is immaterial), but I don't think the states have the right to completely negate the right.

I don't own a gun.

I am not a member of the NRA.

However, I do believe citizens have the right to bear arms. What kind of arms, under what terms, is something that the states set up. I suppose one could argue that the states don't have the right to institute modifications to the second amendment, and I would have a hard time denying that argument. However, like I said - what I think is immaterial because the courts have already ruled that the states do have the right to do that.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Founding Fathers meant the citizens to have the right to bear arms. They all did - both guns and/or swords. As far as my reading has shown me (and so this is a personal opinion) the militia and the ordinary citizens were one and the same. Plowing a field one minute and answering the claxon of war the next - or hunting for supper.

When the citizen/militia showed up on Lexington Square they brought their own personal weapons.

Holy cow. Let's all take a collective look here.

1) Of course the framer's intent was for the "individual" right to keep and bear arms. Every single one of the Bill of Rights is a INDIVIDUAL right. Pick another than the second and try to turn it into a collective right. Lawsuit city. Does freedom of speech only pertain to GROUPS? Does the protection from illegal search and seizure only pertain to groups? The militia was made up of who......? INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS. Persons who disagree do so out of FEAR.

2) Since it is uncontestably an individual right, hence, not granted but GUARANTEED by the Constitution, (The Constitution does not grant rights, it guarantees them.) it cannot be infringed upon. THEREFORE, the original Gun Control Act of 1934 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is why liberals who love the increase in armed violence FEAR admitting that it is an "individual" right.

3) I say liberals (who supposedly are all for big government protecting the little guy) are armed violence loving because they fight for an individuals freedom on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, from a womans right to do whatever she wants with her own body, to a homosexual's right to sleep with whatever gender he/she chooses. UNLESS you merely want to protect YOURSELF.

4) The police seem to retain the right to protect themselves, whether on duty or off, yet Joe Schmo (who by the way has never even had a speeding ticket) is prohibited from carrying a gun. Why? Because he's dangerous? HE OBEYS THE LAW!

5) Gun control lowering crime is a myth that has been proven to actually have the opposite effect. USE LOGIC and you cannot fail to see the obvious. MURDERING PEOPLE is against the law. A MURDERER seems to think TAKING A PERSON"S LIFE is perfectly o.k.. DO YOU THINK A MURDERER CARES THAT IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO CARRY A PISTOL?

A law abiding citizen does.

6) Therefore, Gun control removes firearms from safe people. Criminals love this. If I was going to rob a person, I PRAY TO GOD THEY DON'T HAVE A GUN.

Most gun control proponents will claim that it is the police's job to protect us. cow-poopie. A cop's pistol is on his side to do one thing. Protect him or her SELF. Guns are good enough for them to protect themselves but you and I are too stupid? Too criminal? I wonder how it feels for the police to enforce removing a right from you or me that they themselves enjoy? How come the liberals aren't all over this one? Where's my bleeding-heart, freedom for the little guy on this one?

They won't admit that the second amendment is for you and me because that would mean they are wrong on a semantic issue. People are being raped, robbed, and murdered without the means to simlply PROTECT THEMSELVES. And the Gun grabbers are worried about semantics.

THE TRUTH IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE AND YOU ARE AFRAID.