Political Crossfire Forums

[wyldejackyl]

Blinky wrote:
I will take you up on your offer. Where do you personally draw the line for weapons that can/should be allowed?

Also, if the 2nd amendment is to cover weapons necessary for the security of the state, surely gun owners cannot justify using their weapons for defence of their personal private property from domestic criminals?

I would say any weapon of war that cannot cause lasting damage to the environment by chemical, biological, or nuclear means. You are asking us who believe in the 2nd amendment to walk the tightrope so you can pick apart our argument, no? One would hope personal accountability and reasonable checks on weapons legality would be warranted and no more- but modern times/lawyers/laws have complicated things. Ideally, our government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Ideally also the citizenry takes steps to make sure it stays informed and up-to-date on all important issues. This doesn't happen anymore with a biased media and a lazy populace. So what have you? Sheeple. This same breed of people refuses to accept responsibility for itself when it blames inanimate objects like guns for social problems, when in fact it should look inward to...the social problems themselves, and not the manifestation of them. Furthermore, the idea of a government as "nanny" should be discarded, as that's been tried before and ends up being extremely oppressive (power corrupts, etc).

The second amendment, I believe, provides for defense of the state (I thought that the Federal gov was supposed to have LESS power and the individual states were only to use the Fed as a mediator?), as well as the defense of oneself. I recall that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was of utmost importance. Security of the state starts at a local level. If one cannot be secure in his own possessions with his own family, etc..what security does the state have? Using your argument, why do we have police forces? They certainly aren't militia. I'd be all for defending myself over relying on those incompetents..but the police department would beg to differ. ;)

[Vulcidian]

The 1st and the Second amendment are completely different.


The first amednment says that.

"Congress shall make no law..."

While the second amendment says a well regulated militia


The first amendement is telling them laws they cannot pass. The second is making a suggestion but puts no real limit on their lawmaking powers. You have the right to bear arms, but what the arms are is completely up to the government.

I am not saying that I agree with this. But as far as I can tell there is no constitutional flaw in my argument. Only a flaw of being against public opinion.

I think we should be allowed to have some weapons. But what I think and what actually is doesn't seem to coincide in this matter.

[perdidochas]

Blinky wrote: private_citizen wrote: To bear arms mean to keep arms to defend yourself, your family, your land, and your fellow citizens.

In the time of our forefathers, there was no Anthrax, nor were there atom-splitting bombs. (Thank GOD)

They wanted you to be able to spare your life from an intruder, to keep your home safe from invasion and to keep your country safe and not succumb against your will.

You're right about anthrax and atom bombs - single shot muskets and pistols were the weapons of the day.
If what you say is true, then the second amendment should only cover these guns, not M16s, AKs or any other modern weaponry.

In that case, the First Amendment should only apply to direct speech and the printing press, and not include electronic media, nor any method of printing not used in the 1780s. Also, since computers weren't thought of at the time, any search/seizure of records available through the Internet, etc. should be perfectly legal (without a warrant) and phones should be susceptible to tapping at all times. After all the 4th Amendment should only apply to concepts known in the 1780s.

[mathurin]

Blinky wrote: mathurin wrote: to be short, since it is late and i really need to sleep

it starts with a history lesson
the colonist had just thrown out a poweful centralized government that had become oppressive, being paranoid they set up the articles of confederation, an extremely powerless government, it soon was falling to pieces, the states decided to amend it, but the group sent to amend it decided to start over, making a federal type government which we are currently under, when they took it back to the states the reaction was kind of like this "WHAT, are you crazy, we just sent you to repair the gov, not remake a new one, we just threw off a strong centralized government that had turned oppressive, why would we create a new one?!?!"
so a limit to the power of the new gov was created in the bill of rights, specifically forbiding many things which the gov could not oppress

when read carefully they are prerequisites for rebellion

freedom of information, without which nobody would know such oppression is occuring
right to arms, obvious, to rebel you need weaons, we have seen plenty of "rock rebellions" on TV
and down the line to what are basically protections of subversion and ensuring that the judiciary cannot become a tool of oppression by requiring jury trials


now that we have a history lesson, we understand that the 2nd was made to protect our ability to rebel
so, the 2nd garuntees what arms we would need to overthrow the government

what are those?? where to draw the line?
that is a very good question and everyone has a different answer, if you want to discuss it then ask, i will be happy to, but suffice to say for now, i can assure you that i have met nobody who really believes we need nukes to overthrow the gov

nukes are strategic weapons, we dont need them to overthrow the gov, we dont need them to defend the country, thus they are not a militia weapon

thanks for asking blinky, i forgot i hadnt given the whole story

I will take you up on your offer. Where do you personally draw the line for weapons that can/should be allowed?


ok, where do i think the line should be drawn?

squad level anti-personel weapons, basically firearms

tanks are and planes are not guerilla weapons, any main battle units in civilians hands would be grossly outnumbered and undersupplied, they would be a liability rather than an advantage

i want basically one step backward in modern gun control, i want the current ban and importation on new legal full auto weapons removed, this does not allow for sale to general public, a person must still be licensed to own them, and since 1934 that have been only a couple (two i think) incidents involving legally owned full autos, the restriction had no basis in logic, it only exists to jack up prices, and it needs to be removed

RPGs and such weapons? (as i am sure you will ask)
thats a good question, i think we need to do a slight revisit to the 1934 act and put them into it, similar to full auto rifles, licensed and taxed, however i dont want the ammunition treated like grenades, heavily taxed per round, it should be treated as ammunition, not as a seperate device
RPGs are not addressed in the 1934 law because they didnt really exist at the time


Blinky wrote:
Also, if the 2nd amendment is to cover weapons necessary for the security of the state, surely gun owners cannot justify using their weapons for defence of their personal private property from domestic criminals?

the objective for giving the right was for defense, mostly from oppressive govs, or as a detterent against oppressive govs, state security and defense are just happy side effects

regardlless of the intention of the right, the gun is their property, which they can use anyway they wish. or perhaps your voice should only be used for political or artistic speech, thats why the 1st was made

[mathurin]

Vulcidian wrote: The 1st and the Second amendment are completely different.


The first amednment says that.

"Congress shall make no law..."

While the second amendment says a well regulated militia


The first amendement is telling them laws they cannot pass. The second is making a suggestion but puts no real limit on their lawmaking powers. You have the right to bear arms, but what the arms are is completely up to the government.

I am not saying that I agree with this. But as far as I can tell there is no constitutional flaw in my argument. Only a flaw of being against public opinion.

I think we should be allowed to have some weapons. But what I think and what actually is doesn't seem to coincide in this matter.

we are discussing what items the laws are about, if someone claims that the 2nd amendment only covers weapons of the day, then the first also only applies to items from the time periods, meaning that congress "shall make no law" against only things they had at the time

also, you are comparing apples to oranges
if you want to make comparisons
"congress shall make no law...."
".....shall not be infringed"
that is the comparison

and you have yet to answer my question, if the 2nd amendment doesnt actually protect anything, and was never intended to, then why was it penned to begin with
if it has no meaning as you suggest then why write it, its like putting up stop signs but not making any law about them, why bother.

provide some kind of credentials for yourself or some supporting evidence or we will assume you are a crackpot with no legal education or understanding of constitutional law, and have made this theory up to justify banning firearms, which it appears you have

do try to answer my points, i get so tired of making them only to be ignored, again, not debate

[Vulcidian]

"we are discussing what items the laws are about, if someone claims that the 2nd amendment only covers weapons of the day, then the first also only applies to items from the time periods, meaning that congress "shall make no law" against only things they had at the time

also, you are comparing apples to oranges
if you want to make comparisons
"congress shall make no law...."
".....shall not be infringed"
that is the comparison

and you have yet to answer my question, if the 2nd amendment doesnt actually protect anything, and was never intended to, then why was it penned to begin with
if it has no meaning as you suggest then why write it, its like putting up stop signs but not making any law about them, why bother.

provide some kind of credentials for yourself or some supporting evidence or we will assume you are a crackpot with no legal education or understanding of constitutional law, and have made this theory up to justify banning firearms, which it appears you have

do try to answer my points, i get so tired of making them only to be ignored, again, not debate"

1. I never claimed they just delt with the weapons of the day, that was a post by someone else. Obviously the constitution can be applied to the general principles as they stand in the modern world.

2. My point was that the first amendment states specifically what laws congress cannot make. The second amendment does not say people are entitled to firearms, it says that militias are important to the security of the state. A militia with only their hands to fight with is still a militia, and they still have weapons. And this would be constitutional.

3. The second amendement protects the existence of militias. It does not says they are allowed to have weapons, but the government is allowed to decide what kind. Congress cannot abolish militias, that is the essence of the second amendement, not guns.

I say again, the second amendement does protect militias. But not firearms.

As far as sources and credentials:

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment:

"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."

These are my primary sources.

Other sources for argument 1 regarding nuclear weapons being allowed.

Defintion of bearing Arms from Dictionary

Bearing arms means: "to carry weapons"

Defintion of weapons from the same source: An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.

I call attention to the titles of Nuclear weapons and Nuclear missiles

It is agreed that Nuclear technology can be used to construct nuclear weapons which commonly take the form of missiles. And as stated earlier, weapons are arms. We have the right to bear arms, therefore we have the right to possess nuclear weapons.

Other sources for Argument 2 of government regulation.

according to the common modern dictionary regulation means To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.

Therefore the government by modern standards which we all accept has legislative authority over the militias. They can decide what arms the militia can bear, but they cannot take these arms away if the law says they are allowed to bear them. So, arms cannot be taken away unless a law is passed saying they can be taken away. My argument holds, people are entitled to whatever weapons the law says they can have. It is therefore not unconstitutional to take arms away if it is a law passed be the legislature, or an executive order from the president.

Now, why was the second amendment pinned?

My answer is for the protection of the militias. So the states could maintain freedom in the face of federalism. This was because the climate of the time was distinctly anti-federalist in the states. The climate has since changed, and federal legislative authority is federalist in nature.

To support this:

This is the climate in in the late 18th and early 19th century.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

------Ok, so the amendment worked when our country was distinctly anti-federalist. But, especially since the confederacy lost the civil war, power has become centralized in the federal governmet. Is this constitutional? There are dozens of supreme court decisions to back this up. Such as Brown vs Board of Education, which ended segregation.

The climate of today is strictly federalist and it has been supported by the supreme court interpreting the constitution, as they are allowed to do by the constitution.

The federal government doesn't want a bunch of armed citizens so they are inclined to strip you of your arms. And they have every constitutional right to do so in the modern world view.

I for one believe we need arms. I think we have the right to overthrow our government if it is not looking out for our interests. But if we are to do this, we cannot appeal to the constitution anymore. It has been taken by the federal government as a means to establish it's power.

You will not win the gun argument by appealing to the modern constitution. You must change the modern constitution itself if you want to protect your right to bear firearms. It's not really the fault of our founding fathers, they couldn't have seen this coming.



[/b]

[mathurin]

Vulcidian wrote: mathurin wrote: we are discussing what items the laws are about, if someone claims that the 2nd amendment only covers weapons of the day, then the first also only applies to items from the time periods, meaning that congress "shall make no law" against only things they had at the time

also, you are comparing apples to oranges
if you want to make comparisons
"congress shall make no law...."
".....shall not be infringed"
that is the comparison

and you have yet to answer my question, if the 2nd amendment doesnt actually protect anything, and was never intended to, then why was it penned to begin with
if it has no meaning as you suggest then why write it, its like putting up stop signs but not making any law about them, why bother.

provide some kind of credentials for yourself or some supporting evidence or we will assume you are a crackpot with no legal education or understanding of constitutional law, and have made this theory up to justify banning firearms, which it appears you have

do try to answer my points, i get so tired of making them only to be ignored, again, not debate


1. I never claimed they just delt with the weapons of the day, that was a post by someone else. Obviously the constitution can be applied to the general principles as they stand in the modern world.

thank you, so arms in the modern definition, or at least modern arms equivalent to the somewhat generic old definition of arms, do count


Vulcidian wrote:
2. My point was that the first amendment states specifically what laws congress cannot make. The second amendment does not say people are entitled to firearms, it says that militias are important to the security of the state. A militia with only their hands to fight with is still a militia, and they still have weapons. And this would be constitutional.

so what the hell does cannot be infringed say??

it does not state weapons, it says arms, the weapons of war

ill tell you what you dont seem to understand

"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."

first section is a qualifier, this is why we need the right
second section is the right

you reinterpret it, but what degree do you hold, what papers have you published, or similarly, who supports this argument of yours that has a degree and/or papers published on the subject
Vulcidian wrote:
3. The second amendement protects the existence of militias. It does not says they are allowed to have weapons, but the government is allowed to decide what kind. Congress cannot abolish militias, that is the essence of the second amendement, not guns.

I say again, the second amendement does protect militias. But not firearms.

rofl

just keep stating it, with no support beyond your own half baked arguments. maybe someday it will be true



Vulcidian wrote:
As far as sources and credentials:

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment:

"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."

These are my primary sources.

Other sources for argument 1 regarding nuclear weapons being allowed.

Defintion of bearing Arms from Dictionary

Bearing arms means: "to carry weapons"

Defintion of weapons from the same source: An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.

I call attention to the titles of Nuclear weapons and Nuclear missiles

It is agreed that Nuclear technology can be used to construct nuclear weapons which commonly take the form of missiles. And as stated earlier, weapons are arms. We have the right to bear arms, therefore we have the right to possess nuclear weapons.

Other sources for Argument 2 of government regulation.

according to the common modern dictionary regulation means To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.


you misunderstand, in order for your assertion to be taken seriously you must provide logical arguments behind it, which you havent. or, have some reputation or education as a constitutional or historical scholar, or, be referencing an opinion of one, as wolverine did



Vulcidian wrote:
Therefore the government by modern standards which we all accept has legislative authority over the militias. They can decide what arms the militia can bear, but they cannot take these arms away if the law says they are allowed to bear them. So, arms cannot be taken away unless a law is passed saying they can be taken away. My argument holds, people are entitled to whatever weapons the law says they can have. It is therefore not unconstitutional to take arms away if it is a law passed be the legislature, or an executive order from the president.


seriously, what part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Vulcidian wrote:
Now, why was the second amendment pinned?

My answer is for the protection of the militias. So the states could maintain freedom in the face of federalism. This was because the climate of the time was distinctly anti-federalist in the states. The climate has since changed, and federal legislative authority is federalist in nature.

climate hasnt changed that much

a milita is not a militia if it has no arms, just as a person is not a citizen if he has no arms, he is a subject, subject to the whims of his government, unable to fight back with any kind of effective force

do you remember the shot heard round the world?
what were the british doing on that fateful day?
trying to take a store of weapons, that was their orders, attempts at disarming the militia is what started the revolutionary war, yet somehow you think the founding father who lived during the revolutionary war would have been totally happy with letting the gov pass laws restricting weapons??


Vulcidian wrote:
To support this:

This is the climate in in the late 18th and early 19th century.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment


Vulcidian wrote:
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789


your own quote disputes you, how can you think this states that the intent was to protect militias, yet disarm them?

Vulcidian wrote:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

yet again, i love how you quote things which attack your thoughts


Vulcidian wrote:
------Ok, so the amendment worked when our country was distinctly anti-federalist. But, especially since the confederacy lost the civil war, power has become centralized in the federal governmet. Is this constitutional? There are dozens of supreme court decisions to back this up. Such as Brown vs Board of Education, which ended segregation.

brown V board of education is based on a constititutional ammendment which applies the equal treatment ammendment to states

just because our country is becomeing less anti-federalist does not mean guns are useless, i would argue the opposite, that having a nation full of willing sheep requires guns in the hands of anti-federalists even more

however the fed has been overstepping its bounds for years, we just refuse to rein it in, with the modern lazy person shouting "government, solve my problems!" we will soon be in an oppressive gov

Vulcidian wrote:
The climate of today is strictly federalist and it has been supported by the supreme court interpreting the constitution, as they are allowed to do by the constitution.


as they are INSTRUCTED to do by the constitution

did you ever stop to think that the change in climate is EXACTLY why the 2nd was incorporated, to protect the right to arms for when the oppressive gov finally showed its hand.

i think that the founding fathers were at least clairvoyant enough to know that at some point the people might become complacent, which could lead to legal arms banning, which leads to oppressive govs. unfortunatly they werent clairvoyant enough to know that fellows like you would try to creatively interpret it so that it means absolutly nothing

Vulcidian wrote:
The federal government doesn't want a bunch of armed citizens so they are inclined to strip you of your arms. And they have every constitutional right to do so in the modern world view.


for the first part
of course, every government has one thing on its mind, consolidating power, i really think that the founding fathers are smarter than we give them credit for, having only a 2 party system, nothing gets done!
meaning, nobody gets enslaved by them because neither side can consolidate power

as to the second part, only your claim says so, i havent heard this claim anywhere else, and unless you have a law degree then your opinion of constitutional law isnt worth the hard drive space it takes up on this server

Vulcidian wrote:
I for one believe we need arms. I think we have the right to overthrow our government if it is not looking out for our interests. But if we are to do this, we cannot appeal to the constitution anymore. It has been taken by the federal government as a means to establish it's power.


i am glad you think so, if so then why are you attacking the portion of the constitution that garuntees our right to arms
are you playing devils advocate

just because the current gov has been allowed to go beyond its constitutional powers does not mean the constitution is worthless, we just need to make a concerted effort to stuff the monster back in the bottle

Vulcidian wrote:
You will not win the gun argument by appealing to the modern constitution. You must change the modern constitution itself if you want to protect your right to bear firearms. It's not really the fault of our founding fathers, they couldn't have seen this coming.


they did see this coming, which is why they wrote in the 2nd, what they didnt see coming is the creative rewrites, otherwise it would have been more expressly stated

[Vulcidian]

As Chairman Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

I never said, once again, that you don't have the right to bear arms. I said you have the right to bear whatever arms the government will allow you to bear because according to the second amendment the government has the right to regulate militias.

You can have weapons, but only the weapons they want you to have.

During the time of the founding fathers the political climate was anti-federalist and pro-gun. The constitution was interpreted to support these claims. They did not feel it was necessary to be as specific as would be required today. As I maintain, the second amendment would allow for nuclear weapons to be possessed by civilians if the government did not have the power to regulate the militias. But they regulate our militias so that we are not allowed to have them.

I must apologize, because I feel I did not adequately distinguish the arguments that I was attempting to make.

The second argument was that the second amendement is no long sufficient to protect our right to bear arms. The federal government over the past few hundred years has consolidated power, and has legally and constitutionally debunked the second amendment in its original form.

My point is that our USA governmental system does not support our right to bear arms, and that it does so with constitutional power that it has consolidated through legal means. We could try and "return to it" as some of you suggest, but as I said that means we can have nuclear weapons.

We need to find some middle ground. I think we need to redefine the second amendment to state specifically what kind of constitutional power the government has on regulating weapons. It is not clear in the modern world.

--------I may not be a law professor or a famous historian, but does that mean my opinion is meaningless? I think that is a very bourgeoise mentality. Just because I'm not a recognized expert, does not automatically discount my opinion. Does that mean that since I'm not a politician, I shouldn't be allowed to vote?

I'd like to think I can have my own opinion. And my arguments are logically constructed. Militias can be regulated, people have the right to bear arms, but the government can regulate what those arms are. They could even limit it to swords if they wanted to, those are still arms.

Your argument against Nukes is not logical. Why not bombs, or anti-tank weapons? or RPG's?

You system is based off of your opinion. Your definition of the arms that should be allowed is only your opinion and it is completely arbitrary. I have not stated what kind of arms I prefer, or which I think are best, because that is irrelevant to the argument. What is relevant is that the government can tell you what the arms are, and can do so with constitutional power. They are doing so today.

They cannot infringe on your right to bear the arms that they have said you can bear. But they can make laws as to what weapons you can have. If they pass a law saying you can have no guns, no guns. If they take away your guns without a law, that would be unconstitutional. But if they make a law, which I've show they can do so constitutionally because they can regulate the militias, there is nothing constitutionally that you can do about it.

I don't agree with this in principle. But in order to find a solution you must first understand the problem.

[mathurin]

no i dont think you understand


if the gov is given the power you suggest it is, the power to decide what, if any arms the militia can have, then they can totally disarm the militia. a militia without arms is not a militia, your point contradicts itself


your interpretation of the 2nd is radical and extreme, something nobody i have ever heard of has ever suggested, if you wish it to be taken seriously you must back it with something, and so far your arguments have been insufficient, especially when you post quotes which contraindicate your own assertion
in this case you must have either major research with cited points, a degree in a relevant field, or the support of someone who has either. you have none, so we can easily assume that you have made this up to go along with your ideas
while someone does not have to have a degree to be taken seriously, they must have some paper backing them, if only to show you have done the research, if you want respect then go do you research and come back with cited arguments or find someone who has, until then you are a hack trying to find enough wiggle room in constitutional law to justify banning guns without removing the 2nd

your arguments are a twisted web, so let me help you out
without the 2nd ammendment congress has no limits on its power on creation of law, you claim that the 2nd amendment is there to give congress the power to regulate militas, but you dont realize that:

1. powers given to congress are not found in this section of the constitution, this section outlines limits on governmental powers
2. congress already has this power, there is no need to expressly outline it


they can ban arms with no militia value, this is what the supreme court has said back in the 1930s, are you suggesting that you are a better constitutional scholar than them?

[Vulcidian]

Honestly I'm trying to explain this as carefully as I can.

The government can legislate what weapons are to be considered arms for a militia...

They cannot take those arms away unless the repeal that law with a law that exculdes what those arms may be.

For example, if the law were to say we could have machine guns. They could pass a law saying we cannot have machine guns, and we cannot have them. This is constitutional because they can regulate the militas, if that is also defined elsewhere in the constitution, bravo.

There is no contradiction in that argument....

Once again, no I am not a supreme court Justice. But the evidence for the support of my argument is clear. Not only does it match the definitions of the words in the amednment, but the government does this regularly. The assult weapons ban has not been found unconstitutional, it was simply allowed to lapse. They could reinstate it whenever they want and that would not be unconstitutional. This is an example of the very power I clearly defined in my subsequent arguments.

My argument is not radical. It is simply common sense. Your argument is motivated by your own person feelings towards guns. My argument is a simple analysis of what the amendment says, how that can be interpreted, and how it is interpreted.

You are not guarenteed by the government to have guns. Only arms, and they can define arms. If they restricted arms to swords, you would only have swords. Sticks...sticks...

Instead of trying to make my argument seem radical because I'm not appealing to Gun sages to make it, try viewing it objectively, realize the government can and does interpret it this way, and then allow your bias to intrude to come up with a result.

[mathurin]

Vulcidian wrote: Honestly I'm trying to explain this as carefully as I can.

The government can legislate what weapons are to be considered arms for a militia...

They cannot take those arms away unless the repeal that law with a law that exculdes what those arms may be.

For example, if the law were to say we could have machine guns. They could pass a law saying we cannot have machine guns, and we cannot have them. This is constitutional because they can regulate the militas, if that is also defined elsewhere in the constitution, bravo.

There is no contradiction in that argument....


the supreme court defined the arms protected by the second ammendement as arms with a militia use, it is the supreme courts job to intepret the constitution, not yours, and since they have already said that the 2nd protects arms with a militia purpose, your assertion is moot unless you have some authority on the matter, which you dont appear to have
i posted an exerpt and citation from miller case in 1938

while legislature can do alot of things, it does not mean what they do is legal or constitutional


Vulcidian wrote:
Once again, no I am not a supreme court Justice. But the evidence for the support of my argument is clear. Not only does it match the definitions of the words in the amednment, but the government does this regularly. The assult weapons ban has not been found unconstitutional, it was simply allowed to lapse. They could reinstate it whenever they want and that would not be unconstitutional. This is an example of the very power I clearly defined in my subsequent arguments.


clearly you have not even done any research on the rulings which the supreme court has made
it matches what you want the words to say, and using modern terminology
saying "a well regulated militia, being neccesary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not saying "congress can regulate the militia, and ban all arms" its saying "militias are important, so you cant ban arms"

that the assault weapons ban wasnt rendered unconstitutional is a big question to me, i heard it was challenged several times, but didnt hear much beyond it being dismissed over technicalities or ignored

Vulcidian wrote:
My argument is not radical. It is simply common sense. Your argument is motivated by your own person feelings towards guns. My argument is a simple analysis of what the amendment says, how that can be interpreted, and how it is interpreted.


by radical i mean it is unheard of, nobody has suggested such a thing, if it was common sense then it would be pretty common in the gun debate, yet i have been here in the this debate forum for about 3 years and in the general debate for much longer, yet i have never seen this, therefore it is a radical departure from the norm

it also flies in the face of a supreme court quote and everything i know about the people and historical situation that generated the constitution and the 2nd ammendment



Vulcidian wrote:
Instead of trying to make my argument seem radical because I'm not appealing to Gun sages to make it, try viewing it objectively, realize the government can and does interpret it this way, and then allow your bias to intrude to come up with a result.

i realize that this is the way in which many anti-gun types want it to be interpreted, and that the gov will always attempt to grab power, and limit the powers, and rights of its citizens or subjects (depending on how far along it is in its attempts) and so they will also attempt to claim exemption of all the bill of rights and any liberties which we feel we have

unless we force them to recognize our rights then we will not have them, the 2nd is the only real teeth we have for the protection of the others, do you understand that much at least


http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller_compilation.html
Quote:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power--"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia--civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.