Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Go through the federalist and anti-federalist papers, the convention debates, and then go through the first 50 years of articles, editorials, and court cases to find PROOF that the framers intended the 2nd Amendent to the Bill of Rights to mean that the states had a right to maintain an armed military unit when Art. 1 Sec 10 of the constitution clearly states "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,".
|
I'll bet I've read them as much as you. Again, we've looked at the same thing and have come to different conclusions (like Dilbert and myself on the 9/11 stuff). I stand by my conclusions, though. BTW, subsequent court cases tell me what judges thought of the Amendment after the framers. They don't tell me what was in the minds of the framers. As for the National Guard, it should be regulated internally, not by Congress or presidential order. I feel it's a mistake to have another federally controlled military force.
Under Title X in the US Code,
Quote:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
__(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
__(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
|
I think that language is quite clear. A 'well regulated militia' is the organized militia outlined in section 1: the organized militia; the National Guard and Naval Militia. Those are the only current organizations in the US that could be reasonably classified as well regulated militia.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
How does that square with your interpretation that the states have a right to armed militia as protection from a central government when the constitution clearly denies them that so called right?
|
My interpretation is that communities (not states, proper) have a right to a well regulated militia, and that militia has the right to be armed. That militia, however, should be absolutely responsible for the firearms they are allowed to have. If they go on a rampage, they are disbanded, are no longer a well regulated militia, and thus lose their right to arms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
That would be because the PEOPLE are the militia, not the national guard, especially when the guard is federally funded, federally armed, and under federal jurisdiction at the presidents command. The 2nd Amendment is clearly an individual right so that the states have ACCESS to a well-regulated militia. The ONLY thing the states have to do with it is appoint its officers.
|
I'm personally not well regulated, so what you're saying doesn't make sense. I do not have any formal firearm training, and would be a horrible member of a militia armed with guns. I'd only have the right to bear arms if I meet qualifications: being a member of a militia, and that militia being well regulated. I am not a member of any militia.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archetypal fool
I agree with most of what you said, Will. I'll also point out that your last point a few posts back was a very important one.
|
Thank you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archetypal fool
It's easy, at least in principle, to assume that removing guns from the population would solve these problems, but I feel that it would do the exact opposite. The fact is, there are evil, sick, degenerate people out there who are more than willing to kill others. It's disgusting, and a travesty, but that's the nature of the beasts we are. That being said, we will always have problems like these. As so many people have already said, if you're willing to kill people, for what ever reason, then breaking a gun law is nothing to you.
|
Well, we'd have to look at a country wide gun ban to be sure. I took the UK for example. They have relatively lower crime rates than the US across the board, and their gun related crimes shot down after their gun ban. While other crimes went up slightly, they also are pretty low now. There aren't home made firearms being used. Sometimes people will smuggle guns in, but the amount is negligible. They are islands, so if we implemented it, we could have trouble with Mexico or Canada, but I wonder how different it would really be.
As I said before, you won't have a man with a knife killing 33 people in one go. If firearms were suddenly less prevalent, knife and blunt object crime might go up, but how difficult is it to carry mase or a taser with you? You'd have some trouble fighting off a criminal with a gun using mase, but a knife needs proximity so it's more likely to do the trick.
I like your idea of getting rid of ALL guns, and giving police officers non lethal weaponry. I'd vote the hell out of that measure.