Gun Control

[To_The_Point]

Pretty easy to read, no press 2 for the poll in mexican.

[Fencergrl]

Pretty easy to read, no press to for the poll in mexican.

Somebody needs to take their medication. This thread makes no sense.

[Beeblebrox]

Pretty easy to read, no press 2 for the poll in mexican.

I can't wait to see who votes no. I need to identify new houses that are safe to break into.

[erooMynohtnA]

I can't wait to see who votes no. I need to identify new houses that are safe to break into.

There is a no option?

[I_luv_saber]

You ever read a thread title and go, "Ohhhhh boy..."?

I just had one of those moments.

[trickery dickery dock]

Although I agree with you, this is the wrong forum...these morons have probably forgotten that the second amendment makes all the others relevant. With things going like they are, I wouldn't be surprised if everything fell apart and we had to take back the country. I'm just glad that I have a few guns myself.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I think Beeblebrox should break into Trickery's house.

You know, just to see what happens....

[fencerchica]

Sigh... it is really kind of gross that my being supportive of gun ownership (under reasonable regulation) apparently puts me in the company of such goons.

On a related note, I was glad to hear that Adrian Fenty supports the amendment to grant DC representation with an expansion in gun rights in the district in "exchange". I love Eleanor Holmes-Norton, but it's unfortunate that she has been taking the opposite position on the issue. DC needs representation, and it also needs a reform to its gun laws. The Heller decision has got to mean that the clock is ticking on that one, too.

[Fencer X and Y]

Although I agree with you, this is the wrong forum...these morons have probably forgotten that the second amendment makes all the others relevant. With things going like they are, I wouldn't be surprised if everything fell apart and we had to take back the country. I'm just glad that I have a few guns myself.

Okay, quiz time. Which of these is correct?
"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."

or

"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."

Does it matter? Well yes. In the first case it's pretty clear that the amendment is meant to apply to an individuals right. In the second case it is much more likely that the punctuation and especially the capitalization of the "People" implies that the Federal government would not be allowed to infringe on the right of states to keep and organized militia (now known as the national guard). So which one of these is correct? The national archives have both copies. Some states ratified one version some ratified the other. Really, it shouldn't even matter that much since the first ten ammendments to the constitution of the United States of America was never directly meant to apply to the states anyway and was meant to protect the States from the big bad Federal government. So all I'm trying to say is: stop using a 223 year old document as your only justification of why you should be allowed to have a gun unless you're also ready to cound your black slaves as 3/5th of the population for representation and taxation purposes. It's called a "living" document for a reason. It was written by human beings who probably couldn't predict what a nation 100 times larger by both size and population would need in 250 years.

Also, if everything would fall appart who would you be taking the country from? What is your defenition of things "falling appart?" You know who else "took" the country when things were falling appart? Lenin. (I could name one more person but damn that Godwin's law). So think about that.

[Hauptman]

Let me start by saying that I personally don't have a problem with either interpretation of the amendment in terms of the results; let people own guns or not.

However, the problem with the interpretation making the right to bear arms an individual right is that you could then leave off the entire first part of the amendment that speaks of militias and the security of a free state and you wouldn't change that interpretation's meaning at all.

I just don't see the founding fathers including all that language and not intending for it to play a part in the meaning of the amendment. That just doesn't make sense to me.

On a side note, the original poster's lack of ability to speak in an intelligent, non-partisan, manner on the subject speaks volumes. If you can't respect the opinion of people who respectfully disagree with you then you obviously are no better than that which you claim to hate.

[erooMynohtnA]

Sigh... it is really kind of gross that my being supportive of gun ownership (under reasonable regulation) apparently puts me in the company of such goons.

QFT

I imagine it's like the kid who eats paste coming up to you and saying "shweet, you like shausage on your pizzsha too?"

[Philistine]

{snip}In the first case it's pretty clear that the amendment is meant to apply to an individuals right. In the second case it is much more likely that the punctuation and especially the capitalization of the "People" implies that the Federal government would not be allowed to infringe on the right of states to keep and organized militia (now known as the national guard).
{snip{

This point is substantially undercut by the fact that capitalization and punctuation were not standardized in the late 18th Century.

Also, relative power between the federal government and states in keeping a militia was given by Article I, Sec. 8 of the main body of the Constituion: "Congress shall have the power...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;"

The Second Amendment doesn't really seem to add anything to that on the issue of control/organization of militias, and thus doesn't seem to be necessary to ensure the continued ability of states to have militias.

{snip}However, the problem with the interpretation making the right to bear arms an individual right is that you could then leave off the entire first part of the amendment that speaks of militias and the security of a free state and you wouldn't change that interpretation's meaning at all.

I just don't see the founding fathers including all that language and not intending for it to play a part in the meaning of the amendment. That just doesn't make sense to me.
{snip}

This law review article attempts to respond to this argument, by showing such prefaratory clauses were in common usage in contemporaneous state constitutions for other provisions.

--Philistine

[Hauptman]

This law review article attempts to respond to this argument, by showing such prefaratory clauses were in common usage in contemporaneous state constitutions for other provisions.

--Philistine

Interesting article. I'll have to think a bit about the arguments he makes.

Let me bring up an additional point; how does this interpretation not conflict with Heller ruling?

If the Right shall not be infringed, how is it that the Supreme Court still finds in favor of regulation. It seems somewhat contradictory that you can't pass a law outlawing handguns, but you can pass laws limiting who can own one. That seems in conflict to me.

And who will decide what constitutes "arms"? Handguns? Assault rifles? Assault vehicles? Explosives? Rockets? Times change and so we end up with interpretation whether we like it or not; the founders could not have anticipated some of these arguments and so original intent becomes a moot point.

[Philistine]

{snip}

Let me bring up an additional point; how does this interpretation not conflict with Heller ruling?

If the Right shall not be infringed, how is it that the Supreme Court still finds in favor of regulation.

The same way it can find in favor of (and Congress can pass) laws which act to regulate speech, despite 1st Amendment language that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

--Philistine

[Fencer X and Y]

This point is substantially undercut by the fact that capitalization and punctuation were not standardized in the late 18th Century.

But still I don't think that the scribes went around and randomply put commas and capital letters wherever they felt like it. If there's a comma there it probably means something. Again, I'm not arguing either for or against. I just wanted to point out that blindly hiding behind the 2nd amendment as your only justification to own a bazooka, as was done by trickery, is probably not going to work (yes I am exagerating).

..."Congress shall have the power...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;"

The Second Amendment doesn't really seem to add anything to that on the issue of control/organization of militias, and thus doesn't seem to be necessary to ensure the continued ability of states to have militias.

I'd have to disagree that the second ammendment doesn't add anything. The bill of rights was promised to the states as a protection against all the powers that the fedral goverment was given in the constitution. I believe I even read somewhere that many states would not ratify the constitution without some sort of clear limits on the powers of the federal government (I may be mistaking on that last part however). "...and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" to me sounds so vague (and quite honestly confusing, I see what you mean about punctuation not being standardized) that of course the states would want some sort of assurance that that wouldn't mean that one day Congress would decide that the discipline for state militias to be trained would be to only be trained in hand to hand combat. Perhaps I'm understanding it wrong but again I'm not arguing for or against the validity of the second amendment as a guaranteed protection of an individual's right to own firearms.

I'm glad that you brought up the fact that there are laws that do abridge "the freedom of speech (Alien and Sedition Acts something passed by the founding fathers themselves), or of the press (gag orders issued federal judges etc...); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (as long as they have a permit to do so)" why can't the same be applied to the second ammendment? Why should there be no laws that infringe on the right of the people to bear arms?

[AndrewH]

So all I'm trying to say is: stop using a 223 year old document as your only justification of why you should be allowed to have a gun unless you're also ready to cound your black slaves as 3/5th of the population for representation and taxation purposes.

That's for the courts to decide, not you or any Brady Campaign spokesman who apparently knows what's best for people.

I'm late to this party, but we've already had this discussion extensively, a couple of times I believe. Go ahead and search for those threads.

PS- I live in New Jersey and certainly know what a gun is. At least we can have them with normal sized magazines, and available in the color black, unlike California.

[Fencer X and Y]

That's for the courts to decide, not you or any Brady Campaign spokesman or the NRA who apparently knows what's best for people.

fixed that for you
And I basically agree. Of course if the people as a whole feel that that part of the constitution is wrong or confusing then it's also up to the legislation to ammend it.

PS- I live in New Jersey and certainly know what a gun is. At least we can have them with normal sized magazines, and available in the color black, unlike California.

I do live in California. San Francisco and LA are not the only places in California. There are parts of Califonia that are just as conservative as the general population in the midwest or the south.

[trickery dickery dock]

fixed that for you
And I basically agree. Of course if the people as a whole feel that that part of the constitution is wrong or confusing then it's also up to the legislation to ammend it.


I do live in California. San Francisco and LA are not the only places in California. There are parts of Califonia that are just as conservative as the general population in the midwest or the south.

Hmm. Let me guess which part of cali-foreign-ya you're from...SAN FRANCISCO? I suppose you're one of those activist morons who'd rule the Constitution unconstitutional if you had half a chance. The US Constitution is neither confusing or wrong. Just because you're too stupid to READ THE DOCUMENT doesn't mean that it needs to be ripped up and walked on.

[fencerchica]

Hmm. Let me guess which part of cali-foreign-ya you're from...SAN FRANCISCO? I suppose you're one of those activist morons who'd rule the Constitution unconstitutional if you had half a chance. The US Constitution is neither confusing or wrong. Just because you're too stupid to READ THE DOCUMENT doesn't mean that it needs to be ripped up and walked on.

Assuming you're not simply trolling, how do you reconcile your alleged Christian beliefs with the way you treat the people here? You're like the guy I saw last Friday with a Jesus fish on his car who tried to run down a pedestrian in a crosswalk at the supermarket. Or the other guy I saw last Monday with a Jesus fish on his car who was parked across two spots right in the front row of the parking lot at work.

[erooMynohtnA]

Assuming you're not simply trolling...

That is a joke, right?