SCOTUS is stacked with conservatives. Is it just libertarians who are fighting on the front lines (so to speak) of this issue? I was under the impression that the second amendment was a staple of conservative politics. Was that one of the things tossed out when the NeoCons arrived on the scene?

The Neo-Cons are gungrabbers in sheeps' clothing. Bush promised to renew the Ugly Gun Ban if it hit his desk; only intense lobbying by GOA, CCRKBA and the Johnny-come-lately NRA kept that from happening. And any gunowner who thinks Hillary and her ilk wouldn't just LOVE to turn the USA PATRIOT Act and other such monstrosities loose on gunowners is deluding themselves. The Neo-Cons not only sold out gunowners themselves, they handed the gungrabbers a whole plate full of extra-Constitutional and -Judicial powers with which to harass the gunowning community.

The Neo-Cons are traitors on the gun issue, as on so many others.

Well jesus, at least you guys know where I stand. I hate liars, whether I agree with them or not.

Perzacktley. That's why I'd almost rather have Obama or Hillary, much as I detest them both. At least they fly their colours openly and don't hide behind a false flag and false words.

To paraphrase Edwin "Fast Eddie" Edwards; they're crooks, but they're honest crooks!

That's pretty much where I stand too. I mean of all people the GOP is going to nominate John McCain in light of what has happened over the last 8 years.

I agree Will, this is an issue the 'neo' conservatives really don't care about at all. However, they will campaign on it to get the significant gun rights vote.

This truly is a disgusting election from a gunowner's perspective. We had one chance, just one, and we blew it. Unless the every other gunowner in the US is planning a write-in campaign and I missed the memo, we totally botched (or allowed to -be- botched -for- us by hostile interests) Ron Paul's primary run. There's eighty-friggin-million of us, for Christ's sake, and we couldn't get this man the GOP nomination. The -only- progun candidate in the field, the only such candidate in God-alone-knows HOW many years...and we fucking blew it. And now we get Bad (McCain), Worse(Obama), and Terrifying To Contemplate(Hillary). I feel like I came back from Prague and found that Kafka had beaten me home. That's what doing in a free-ish country will do I suppose; their politicians still get in fistfights over the budget.* Whole country lacked a working national government for seven months; got along just fine. Hunters all over the place. Folks thought the photos of my folks' shop and my Mom shooting her .50 were hysterical: not perhaps as far as they'd take things, but nothing repellent or frightening. One of the gun-friendliest countries in Europe, surplus hardward all over the place if you knew where to look, and all legitimate. Machine-guns in surplus shops that you could take home for about $1,200 with the proper paperwork. Getting the "B" license seems somewhere between getting a CCW and a Form 4 in US in terms of expense, time, and difficulty. Oh, and ammo's about $.03 per round over there. Now, this is for Czech citizens only, mind; no foreigners. But for those with a mind, it could be quite simple. A client of mine hunted wild hogs with an M1-A...she a female lawyer in her mid-late 30s with a child.

And I come home to find the U.S. sinking into precisely the morass that Europe spent most of the last century killing itself in. Europe, having experianced both Fascism and Socialism first-hand, are appalled and darkly amused (and sometimes deeply frightened) by the way the U.S. seems to be sliding into some unsavoury hybrid of the two.

McCain. Obama. And the She-Clinton. It's enough to put a man off his whiskey.




*The willingness of politicians to assault one another is always a good measure of their honesty, especially when done over arguments of principal.

WHOA, WHOA, let's not get crazy.

The problem is, it puts a man back onto his beer.

Do you really think a Paul presidency would have made a difference? The issue is equally under the purview of acts of Congress and the COurts

Look at his attempts to "restore" the 2nd amendment while in Congress:

Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007 - No Cosponsors

Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005 - No Cosponsors

Second Amendment Protection Act of 2003 - Four Cosponsors

Second Amendment Protection Act of 2001 - Three Cosponsors

Putting the legal question aside, there is no support in the Congress or the country for the removal of all reasonable gun control legislation.

And back to the legal issue, it would be shocking to see the USSC declare that individual rights under the 2nd Amendment are absolute and subject to NO government regulation or restriction.

I really don't see how they can confiscate guns from the owners. I just don't see it happening, it would be impossible to.

I know several people that collect guns and I really don't see them peacefully just handing them over. Quite a few are veterans and to tell them after serving in the military for this country that they could not own guns.... I think we would most definately see the makings of a revolution.

I would hope even the most ardent anti-gun visionary would understand that to start going and taking people's guns would create more problems than just allowing legally owned guns would ever create.

I also believe that people like myself who never really cared much about the gun debate because it wasn't really an issue for them, would stand up for gun owners and make sure that the confiscation of such would not happen. I would without doubt.

I think that it has been a non issue for me because I always felt that the government could nor would ever be able to take guns away from their owners.

I do have issues with the extremist gun owners that believe with their CCW they can carry their guns on properties that wish not to have guns. I truly believe and always have if you want someone to respect your right to carry, respect their right to say not here.

Other than that, I have no issue with people owning guns and in fact I am leaning more towards supporting the right to own.

:orly:

The second amendment was neither a liberal or conservative 'staple'. It was written specifically to allay the fears of the anti-federalists over the alarming power the constitution gave congress over arming the militia, thereby guaranteeing that congress could not disarm the militia.

Quoted for truth.

Dune, the nominations were already stacked against us simply because of clinton and obama. With the 'angry white man' demographic, all it took was the spectre of a black man or a clinton woman in the whitehouse to unabashedly support mccain, leaving true conservatives pissing in the wind.
It also doesn't help that we have our own internal problems between the 80 million of us, such as little elmer fudds who will believe the bullshiat lies about nobody wanting to take away their huntin' gun and that nobody NEEDS an 'assault weapon'.

We are our own worst enemy because we can't come together.

new orleans after katrina.

I'm not getting into this again. You know that I, as well as many other liberals (Dems) would prefer that guns were at least more controlled. Conservatives (you know, conservatives like John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, David Hackett Souter, Clarence Thomas) traditionally are less for gun control and more for gun liberty.

which of course stands to reason why liberals(dems)are quite comfortable redefining 'shall not be infringed' to mean 'reasonable regulations'.....as long as only they get to define whats reasonable for everyone.

INCREDIBLY comfortable, yes. Of course now the conservatives have been heavily split since the introduction of the neocons. Now there are conservatives like you, or libertarian conservatives, and fascist conservatives (a contradiction in terms, yes) like Bush and several of the conservative justices I listed above. With conservatives fractured, it's not a good time for people with a libertarian view of firearms.

and this position gives you no pause at all, knowing that your manipulations could be turned against you later by polar opposite political groups using the same methods?

It doesn't give me pause because, unlike you, I am in support of gun control. It has nothing to do with the government or totalitarianism, but rather simply about public safety. I know you like to equate people who dislike guns with sheeple, but I think you know that we both are highly critical of the government (albeit in different ways), and neither of us could ever be called pawns or sheeple. We're free thinkers who differ strongly on an issue or two revolving around guns and the ability to protect one's self from an oppressive government.

What I was getting at in my previous post is that if you really want to start having victories in Second Amendment cases you need to kick the neocons out of the republican party for good. Just as it's my responsibility to get the corrupt bureaucrats out of the Green Party... wait.... actually our problem is mostly that people are getting stoned on the couch watching The Price is Right when they should be voting. I do what I can to help the Dems because there are a lot fewer neocons in their party, but shoot if the conservatives can week out the fascists I'd be fine going back to some of the ideals held by traditional conservatives.

That's not what I was getting at. Yes, I know you support gun control, therefore any/all measures to remove/restrict/regulate firearms, especially in civilian hands, however, what I was asking you was would you be this incredibly comfortable with a politically bent group simply redefining constitutional terms to fit their agenda to impinge upon liberties that you yourself might value highly, by using the same methods and manipulations you advocated because of your support for gun control?

dk....do you think the framers intended the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights to be absolute?

Who should define and interpret these vague Constitutional terms ?

What is an "abridgment" of free speech in the 1st Amendment.

When does search and seizure become "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment?

What is "just compensation" in the 5th Amendment?

Who defines a "speedy" trial in the 6th Amendment?

When is bail "excessive" in the 8th Amendment?

Honestly? It depends on what they were trying to fix. If I agreed with them and found their logic sound, and felt that their requests or demands belonged in the Constitution, I'd back them. If not, then I'd fight them. That's generally how a constitutional democracy/republic works.

I don't hold the Constitution in holy reverence, so changing it in order to help people is just fine with me. Bear in mind that the Constitution was just fine with slavery when it was originally signed. At the time, it was a "liberty" of white people to own black people. I'm sure there were quite a few people who were adamant that their right to own slaves was being taking by an oppressive government that was seeking to steal their valued liberties.

Will, are you familiar with the 13th amendment? You know, the one which was enacted using one of the methods outlined in article 5 of the constitution, required ratification by 27 states I believe (2/3rds at the time) and abolished slavery in 1865.

Do you have a problem with the perscribed methods for "changing" the constitution?

What does "helping people" mean? Can that have limits?


-bear

I'm familiar with all amendments. the 13th was ratified in 1865. Before then? Yeah, it would have been legal for me to own a black guy. So from 1787 to 1865, those 98 or so years, my right to own slaves would have been Constitutionally kosher (so long as he or she was black). Despite the clear declaration of conscience, in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, I could have had some poor soul picking fruit in my back yard for nothing.

The Constitution was written by men. All men are flawed. The Amendments are written by men. All men are flawed. Pretending that the Constitution or even BOR are perfect is ludicrous. We do our best to make it as fair as possible, OF COURSE, but blind adherence to the documents as gospel truth doesn't make one a patriot, it makes one a zealot.

That's very stirring. I'm not sure that any of what you wrote is in dispute...certainly not by me. I think that makes what you offered a red herring.

Honestly...it is stirring. You haven't unfortunately answered most of my questions.

Let me try again:

Do you have a problem with the perscribed (sic) methods for "changing" the constitution?

What does "helping people" mean? Can that have limits?

-bear

I was trying more to provide the context of what I was trying to communicate to dksuddeth.

Do I have a problem with the amendment process? Not specifically. I do take issue with the fact that so many bureaucrats have found their way into being representatives of the people, and as such pose a danger to the amendment process, but other than that, it seems reasonable.

Helping people is about allowing a reasonable amount of equality and fairness in government, while still allowing for a balance of freedom. I can't get more specific than that without discussing a specific situation.

I have come to the conclusion that allowing people to own guns is our last hope. While I have tried to e optimistic about our government recent events have worried me to the point that perhaps armed revolution or protection is not as ludicrous as I once believed.

I see rich people building fortresses, I see a government corrupt, I see people who just don't seem to care, I see heightened possibilities of civil unrest here. I truly believe that having armed civilians and a population with weapons maybe our saving grace in these days ahead.

I hope and pray I am as wrong as can be. In fact I pray I have never been more wrong in my life.

I do know that I am learning about guns these days and plan to go to a range as soon as I can and practice my once decent shooting.

Gd I hope I am wrong but a dollar on the verge of collapse, a government so out of control, a press that seems to be so full with bias and yellow journalism that we no longer know what to believe, drugs in our water supplies, greedy assholes that get bonuses for laing people off and shipping jobs overseas, knowing our economy is holding on by only the belief of the people in the monetary system.... and that belief is fading fast, an educational system bankrupt and so horribly deficient that it is scary, a lazy society more worried about who got voted off American Idol than what is going on in government and the rights we are losing, a society drugged in many ways (Viagra, Wellburin, Xanax, Prozac, Ritilin, and on and on... "have a problem take a drug"), a generation that has no respect for their parents because we made spankings and true punishments (groundings, NO, etc.) crimes, but most of all a world that seems to be so topsy turvy and full of negative energy that even the most positive of people are losing it.

Perhaps, it is just me seeing this and I am living some weird surrealistic fantasy life in my mind.... but I am scared that I'm not, that what I am seeing is a society as we know it ready to crumble into anarchy and a weird socialistic/fascist oligarchy/dictatorship mix.

Please tell me I need help and I am crazy........ someone please tell me all I see and am worried about is in my mind and caused by all the drugs and gambling I did. Please.

wholeheartedly, absolutely, positively, 1,000% hell yes. The notion that rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable regulation is a 20th century creation that came about when, I believe, government found that it could not control people who were using rights to undermine policy objectives. Much in the same way that the incorporation doctrine 'magically' appeared after the 13th Amendment.

The document defines these terms quite adequately. vagueness is only brought in to play when people disagree with others having that much freedom that they can't be controlled.

free speech zones, for one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux When does search and seizure become "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment?

when the police stop someone open carrying a handgun, just for open carrying a handgun, even though it's quite legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux What is "just compensation" in the 5th Amendment?

current market value of the property, usually before the government body declared it 'blighted' or condemned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux Who defines a "speedy" trial in the 6th Amendment?

should be the defendant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux When is bail "excessive" in the 8th Amendment?

when it would leave the 'bailee' with no real property afterwards.

the perfect example of how rights became subject to 'reasonable regulation'. A term that is now subject to interpretation by the very entity designed to protect rights and is often twisted and manipulated in order to achieve a public policy objective. Rights went from unalienable to subjective because people want to contol other people.

so you destroy the constitution to create your better world.

I wish I could offer you some promising words to allay your fears, but I can't. what you fear is happening is truly happening and it is only a matter of time before chaos ensues. People will then have to make a choice between freedom and liberty or life under martial law. Unfortunately, I see most people in this country responding to the fearmongering and will not only reject freedom, but outright demand the dictatorship presented to 'feel safe'.

Read your response in the context of slavery. Have you seen the Constitution? Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

This was the work of the original framers and owning a slave was Constitutionally protected. It was a right. Of course from the Southern perspective (to paraphrase you) rights went from unalienable to subjective because people in the North want to control people in the South.

So either you must admit that you are okay with the idea that the framers made mistakes and were fallible (and thus the Constitution isn't always perfect), or you have to admit that you support slavery.
"Destroy the Constitution"? Is it in your capacity not to exaggerate or make appeals to emotion?

Aren't "amendments" changes? Does this mean the constitution already destroyed?

Fair enough.
Why not use the process, or at least not advocate side stepping the process to achieve your stated gun control goals?
How about DC's unconstitutional handgun ban. I'm curious about your notion of "helping people" in this situation.

-bear

I'm not sure what a gun control amendment would look like. What would be better? Maybe the Supreme Court actually makes a clear decision about the Second Amendment instead of dancing around it or avoiding it.
No one is helped by having a ban on guns in DC, while West Virginia, only a few miles away, has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. It was doomed to fail.

Are we looking at the SAME constitution?

Is this how you justify backdooring the constitution? by warping reality and blurring your vision? Back then, slaves were considered 'property', therefore, people had a 'right' to own them. Property and persons were two totally seperate entities, so i'm finding it difficult, near impossible, to understand why you are confusing the two.

EVERYBODY is fallible, including the founders/framers, so I greatly resent your intimation that I support slavery...especially since you can't seem to understand that while WE agree that the constitution has never and will never be perfect, that WE can't agree that there is a LEGAL and PROPER way to amend it instead of saying 'fuck the constitution, my way is the right way'.

I call it like I see it will. If you can't do something the correct way, you fudge it til it turns out the way you want it, hence you destroy the constitution. If it can overlooked in one instance, why can't it be done for all instances? Why even have it?

so, in essence, what you're really saying is that you KNOW making laws banning handguns does nothing, because CRIMINALS will just ignore them, so you want to remove EVERYBODIES rights for the shortcomings of a few.

dk...not withstanding your definitions of such terms as "unreasonable", "speedy", "excessive", etc, the Constitution, by intent of the framers or not, is vague in many of its articles and amendments and subject to interpretation.

The framers were wise enough to include a process for adjudication and not just a process for amendment.

Neither process will please all of the people all of the time, but far better than no Constitution at all.

Backdooring? It's our patriotic duty as free American patriots to defend the liberty of not being shot by people. And you've still not addressed the fact that SLAVERY was in the original CONSTITUTION. That "right" had to be taken away by the backdooring of the Constitution by Abraham Lincoln. A PATRIOT.
That's how IT starts! When some people hate freedom and our peaceful way of life and decide that it's time to take an antiquated Amendment way out of context and say 'fuck peace and happiness and the AMERICAN DREAM' because they want to have a gun, they are manipulating the Constitution in order to have a gun and put people in danger.
So you think it's okay to bathe the Bill of Right in the blood of all of the innocent people that have died to to firearms? Doesn't that give you PAUSE?
So in essence what you're saying is that you KNOW that CRIMINALS should be allowed to have guns so that they can commit CRIMES against EVERYBODY?


Can we stop with this exaggerated and nonsensical way of posting? It's not getting anyone anywhere, and it damages the discussion. Using buzz phrases intended to evoke an emotional response (such as "destroy the constitution") that really have nothing to do with anything, while kinda funny, doesn't belong in respectful discourse.

yes, backdooring. Meaning that you can't make the changes you want according to the legally prescribed methods in the constitution, so you ignore them and appoint a group of people to power that will.

You cannot show a constitutional right to slavery because it did not exist. The reason slavery was possible was because slaves were considered PROPERTY. how many times must you read that to understand it?

'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' seems to be a damn fine indicator that there is actually a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, so how is that 'out of context'?

strawman and irrelevant to the question asked.

non-sensical.


well will, when you advocate ignoring the supreme law of the land and the law on how to amend it, you're advocating the destruction of the constitution....excuse me, just the parts you don't like.

I can't believe you responded to the insane exaggerated and nonsensical arguments I posted to illustrate that things were getting off track. And then you hit us with "supreme law of the land" and "destruction of the constitution".

Is this the same respectful discourse in which we assert that because someone supports gun control, they also support slavery? Just want to be clear on that.

In any event, there's really no question that the 2nd Amendment, as written, has about as much place in modern society as the 3rd Amendment, which is to say that it doesn't have any place and cannot be read in a way that makes sense. Everyone (including the Supreme Court) is fully aware of the fact that there's no way to amend it through the formal process to clarify either a collective or individual right because we don't have anything close to enough support in either one direction or the other. So we dance around the issue, and we're likely to do so until we either have some seriously ballsy Supreme Court justices or a great deal more agreement on how we feel about guns in this country.

I don't really think either is likely.

As a historical side note, the Emancipation Proclamation had no legal effect. Lincoln, whatever he might have been, had the same impact on abolition as Woodrow Wilson had on giving women the right to vote. Slavery was abolished in the United States by the passage of the 13th amendment, not by executive order.

Umm, are you making this up? Because lots of folks have NO problem with the wording of the second in terms of modern society when you consider that the militia is defined as including ALL men in the irregular militia.

willravel, I thought you had lost it, but then I remembered you never use allcaps unless you're demonstrating something.

which is why any place that has strict laws outlawing guns have such low crime rates. anyway, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or crime, it's about the PEOPLE remaining free and soveriegn and ensuring the government stays its servant. Something i'm sure alot of people in here loathe and ridicule because they believe that people can't handle freedom.

Actually, that was my first attempt at mimicking the posting style, but it was too subtle.
Well put.

Thank you for illustrating exactly how not to convince anyone of anything, ever.

You know that Bush uses similar language in his speeches, right? About people who "hate freedom" and how Iraq is about "freedom and democracy". He says those things because he can't possible defend his positions so he tries to rely on people being distracted by charged words and phrases. There's not really much content.

The difference between Bush and myself is that he is out to take your freedom and feeds you bullshit doing it. I'm trying to help you keep your freedom and showing you the truth and reasons why.
Hell will, just listening to Bush blather and get away with it should be enough reason for ALL people to want to ensure we have guns.

Well first off if Bush threatened me, I'd probably just laugh. I don't need a gun to defend myself from a retarded person. Even if he hauled me off to Gitmo, I get along really well with military people (just ask Crompsin).
/kidding

The point I'm trying desperately to make is that your message is riddled with the same bizarre language. "...can't handle freedom"? I mean you can't possibly think that makes sense. Yes, I realize that you and Bush don't have the same agenda, but you seem to be using similar language. Doesn't that make you think at all? I mean, could you stop? I don't think there's anyone who "can't handle freedom", because you're using too broad a definition of freedom. If you would have said, "people can't handle the freedom of having a lot of guns in the hands of the public", that might have made more sense, though even then the use of freedom isn't quite right.

Can you just say what you mean without making these grandiose, dksuddeth vs. the freedom-haters soap box proclamations? I've had gun debates with other members (longbough comes to mind) where neither party resorts to Bushisms. They tend to go well.

In fact, the federal appellate courts have been split on the "individual" vs "collective" rights interpretation with more leaning towards the 2nd amendment providing a collective right of the "state" to arm its militia or at best, a limited right of indiviuals to bear arms as active members of the "state" militia.

I think there is little doubt, also, that the framers intended militia to mean just that, as they were a newly founded frontier nation which had won its independence based on irregular militias. The problem is that, rightly, that definition makes no sense anymore. We don't have colonial militias that preserve order and security.

You can rant all you want about how irregular militias are essential to protect us from the tyranny of government, and that's a wonderful notion, but the reality of the situation is that "irregular" militias barely exist on a national scale and certainly do not rise to the level of "being necessary to ensure the security of a free State." It's an antiquated use of the word militia combined with one of the worst phrased sections of the whole Constitution.

My point is that the 2nd Amendment, in and of itself, has horrible syntax at best and is anachronistic at worst. The way it's worded provides equally bad support for either a collective or an individual right all revolving around whatever the hell you want to make "well regulated militia" mean. I'm not saying your reading isn't a valid one, but it's hardly a clear, authoritative one and I think it's unlikely that either the country through the amendment process or the Supreme Court will ratify either that one or the alternative any time soon.

I don't need to "rant" at all about it nor do I need to agree with you.

The Japanese were very concerned about invading the US and finding a gun behind every tree. Every modern dictator has been very concerned with controlling private gun ownership from Hitler to Stalin to Mao.

So I don't think history is on your side in this discussion.

I do agree that the phrasing of the second sucks and I look forward to the upcoming ruling.

There was also a time when we all needed spears or we wouldn't have meat, but that time has also passed. Our methods have evolved.

I agree with this, we seem to have a select group that would feel okay, perhaps even giddy, if the rights of others went by the wayside and they could feel more comfortable and happy in their lives.

There are choices people make, if you do not own a gun and believe they are dangerous, who are you to take another's right to own one away? As long as they aren't convicted felons or have severe psyche issues, why should you care? Criminals will get guns, no matter what, our entire country's history shows that. Why should law abiding citizens not be allowed to own a gun? Who are you to demand someone else's right be infringed upon, deleted or interpreted in a way only your side approves of? Even law abiding citizens in every other aspect will still get guns, what you are you going to imprison everyone who owns or buys a gun? You think the War on Drugs has been a money pit?????? A war on guns would laugh at the chump change spent on any other war we have ever had.

If someone says something you do not like to hear, who are you to demand he have no right to say it, or to demand he get fired? Why not just turn the channel? What gives you the right to not allow the man/woman to say it? Nothing in this world would make me happier than a law that would silence Farrakhan, Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell, Sharpton and so on..... but in doing so 2 problems arise: 1) I don't truly silence them they just go underground and create more problems than if I had let them have their say.... 2) someone may someday decide they do not like what I have to say and silence me.

I just don't understand how in the freest country this Earth has ever known and all the great things we could accomplish, people would rather waste time and money trying to stamp out other's rights because "they" don't feel anyone should have that right because "they" are more educated, civilized, etc.

Screw you and your self righteous indignations..... Millions have worn the uniforms that protect those rights you want to destroy...... Millions have died to insure we keep those rights, and millions of law abiding citizens enjoy those rights, who the fuck are you to decide to take them away?

Damn well said, Pan.

While that's a good point Pan, the entire problem with the 2nd Amendment as I've tried to outline in this thread is that it does a very poor job saying exactly what right it intends to confer on anyone. I'm not SURE that the framers intended to allow every individual to own a handgun for personal protection. I'm not SURE that they didn't. I personally think that they meant to immortalize and protect the process that they used to usurp British control over the colonies and that that process is both beyond meaningless 200 some years later.

Which says nothing for the fact that the vast majority of guns owned in this country are not owned or used with even the slightest thought towards local communities protecting themselves from a tyrannical federal government. I think there's a lot of merit to that right, given our history, but I don't think it's in any way the same as allowing people to have guns limited only by "reasonable restrictions."

Preliminary disclaimer: I don't care much about guns one way or the other. It's not an issue that gets me excited. That said, however, there has been an increasing amount of research that shows gun control legislation originated in the second half of the 19th century as an effort to ensure that newly freed blacks couldn't get firearms. Here are two academic law review articles, one from Georgetown Law Review and one from Chicago-Kent Law Review.

Then there is the discussion about what the framers of the 14th Amendment thought they were accomplishing. As you probably know, the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 to ensure that newly freed blacks would get full rights of citizenship and that Southern states couldn't re-enslave them under pretense (an effort that pretty much failed, as Jim Crow got institutionalized.) Jonathan Adler over at the Volokh Conspiracy (one of the law-related sites I really enjoy; it's a collection of law professors with libertarianish views) quotes this tidbit that I thought was fascinating: This has implications in terms of the 14th Amendment's intent to incorporate the bill of rights, which didn't actually happen for decades afterwards, but also speaks to what the understanding of the 2nd Amendment was in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed to force the states to recognize federal rights. Interesting, eh?

I would agree with that last paragraph if we were a stable country, with far less crime. However, we aren't. We are a country very fractionalized and very different in many ways. I aired my fears somewhere above and I feel gun ownership is what allows us to keep the government in check to some degree.

I also believe a man/woman has every right to protect their property and self, by any means necessary. If a man comes in to my home to rape my wife or steal things that I have worked hard for, I should have the right to own a gun to protect my domain.

The problem we have is not the guns that are legally owned, the problem we have are the guns illegally gotten, the gangs, the militants and the overall nutjobs that get them illegally. We cannot in anyway stop those guns from being gotten.

We are in horrible financial times and history shows that in times like these crime increases greatly. With city police forces and county sheriffs working massive caseloads and their funding in a majority of places being cut, it is more and more a necessity for us to find ways to protect ourselves. Taking guns away allows us to be sitting ducks for those criminals, nutjobs and so on that have gotten their guns illegally.

So to make laws taking guns away from the lawful citizens would make no sense, it would in fact create more problems, the government would see an opportunity to jump in and take more rights away and in a very short time we would have a total dictatorship.

Did the founding fathers foresee us having the types of guns we have available now? I seriously doubt it.

But in he same vain, do I think they would frown on people owning guns to protect self, family, property and so on? I seriously doubt that.

My belief is that our founding fathers would accept gun ownership as a necessary evil. Necessary to protect the people.

I do not know 1 gun owner that does not treat their gun(s) with utmost respect. They know firsthand the danger and they take extreme caution and care to make sure their gun(s) are not going to hurt anyone accidentally.

Maybe when times are better financially, we are more stable and less fractionalized as a country and people are more willing to compromise with one another in this country and abroad, we can talk about gun control and perhaps work on something acceptable to the many.

Until those conditions are met, I think discussions of gun control are nice to have philosophically, but to truly try to put into place are unrealistic and meant solely as a self righteous, feel good about "how wonderful and civilized a person I am" and have no true care about the nation or others as a whole.

Truly ask yourself, if you are for gun control, what are you going to do about those illegally purchased? How are you going to get all the guns owned legally, let alone the illegal ones? How many trillions are you willing to spend to get those legal guns?

But most importantly ask yourself if you have an intruder at 2 AM and you hear your kids/wife/husband whomever screaming for help, wouldn't you want to have something to protect them with?

Do you truly trust your government enough to believe that if the citizens weren't freely armed they would maintain the representative democracy?

But most of all, as long as the neighbor to your left or right doesn't go shooting aimlessly and waving his gun around in his yard as a toy, why do you care if he has a gun, carefully stored and locked?

I have no idea who in my neighborhood owns a gun and it is none of my business to know, but I am sure a few do.... probably many more than I would ever think do. And for the most part, I don't think any are going to start some shooting spree in the neighborhood.

Pan, I have to disagree with you. The founding documents of our nation all point to one very specific thing....that is that 'the people', meaning you and I, are the soveriegn rulers of our nation. The government was created to protect our rights and liberties, but that the government was not to be trusted completely with that responsibility, therefore it was up to the people to ensure that they would ALWAYS be in control. More people willing to fight and be better armed than any governments standing army. The founders didn't care what technology would have wrought, just so that the people would always be stronger than any standing army.

I disagree, it's not that the founders didn't care so much, as Pan said, they did not anticipate it. Nor did they have to or should they have had to. I agree that there is certainly room for restriction, especially considering the development of modern weaponry. However, I also agree that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to bear arms and that that right is there to protect those individuals from their government should tyranny emerge. Problem is, in the modern world, the kind of arms necessary towards that end are unacceptable in the hands of individuals. What SCOTUS really needs to address here, and I hope they do, is what level of restriction on arms is acceptable under the Constitution.

Here's a great report by the Attorney General about his department's conclusions on the issue. I agree almost entirely with their findings:

so, what you're saying is that is that the 2nd Amendment is so that people can protect themselves against tyranny, but to do so would require that the people have weapons equal to the government, and that even the founders, most notably george washington and thomas jefferson, agreed that the people should be equally as armed as the government, but they couldn't and shouldn't have imagined machine guns and therefore it shouldn't apply anymore?

DK, you have chastised me when I brought up the right to bear nuclear weapons, saying that it is a red herring or strawman, but isn't that the logical conclusion to "weapons equal to the government"? The government has nuclear weapons.

Yes, another handgun carry/firearm debate gets de-railed into citizens carrying nuclear warheads. I love it. :thumbsup:

:shakehead:

Will, if I thought that even for one second, the government would use a nuclear weapon on its own soil, against american citizens, then yes....we'd have the right to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons. Logically, and in reality, the government not only could not do that, but would not do that. Not only would it be total political anhilation to do so, current laws regarding the release of nuclear weapons make it so that it is practically impossible to do so.

Now, one would also think that the government would NEVER use military hardware against its citizens, but we already know that they have in the past and there is no reason not to think that they wouldn't in the future, so you have to ask yourself, who do you think is the sovereign ruling body of america? Is it the people or is it the body of government? If it's the people, how do they do that without being equal to the standing army? If it's the government, how do they manage that when the constitution plainly states that it's the people?

well, you knew it was only a matter of time anyway as most gun control proponents have to have a latch on the idea that weapons can/must be regulated.

I would have thought it legally impossible to spy on Americans 10 years ago, too. That aside, I'll still take your thought to it's logical conclusions. What could our government (police, paramilitary, military) theoretically use against it's citizens? Tanks, attack helicopters, mortar fire, missiles, EM or microwave weapons, cluster bombs... I mean this is a long and scary list. Do you think anything I just named should be realistically released to the public?
I've already discussed how I believe that a people under militaristic, tyrannical rule would defend themselves: bombing campaigns. The US military is basically useless against guerilla tactics being carried out from within a civilian population. When it comes to traditional warfare, the US is second to none. It makes no sense to attempt to go toe to toe with the military industrial complex face to face. Bombing supply routes, bombing production facilities, and hitting small patrols is how you do it.

if you don't trust the government, why would you want their hands to be the only ones with them? Also, why would you want to place 'bombing campaigns only' restrictions on us? wouldn't it be more advantageous to have us equally armed in the first place?

It's not a restriction, it's the only viable option.

Again, the US is the fucking tits when it comes to conventional warfare. If the US military and us populace were equally armed, the military would wipe the fucking floor with us without breaking a sweat... even if every man woman and child were taught how to properly operate a gun. We (the angry populace) would be decimated, and THEN the bombing campaigns would begin against military targets by us. Why not skip the part where tens of thousands to millions die? It's madly cheap and easy to build bombs. I'd say it's easier to make bombs than it is to take a course on how to shoot, seeing as how one can build a bomb without any classes easily.

It's not about being advantageous, but rather pragmatic. In this highly hypothetical situation, the goals would be:
1) Disrupt the aggressors' ability to wage war.
2) Keep civilian deaths to an absolute minimum by not giving the aggressors civilian targets.
3) "Hearts and minds" with those who were apathetic.
etc.

The idea of directly challenging any well trained and organized military force won't work.

You forget about all the 'upsets' in military history. Just look at the most recent war in Iraq. We have them out manned out gunned etc. It really doesn't matter if you think a populace can or cannot beat an army. That's not relevant to restricting the right to bear arms.

Just because you don't think the people can't win, doesn't mean we shouldn't be armed.

Also, you have to understand the military is made of 'THE PEOPLE.' Direct orders to kill countrymen will not be followed by our military universally.

It's not the case I'm making. DK is making that case, so it's he that you should bring this up with. Frankly, I don't have a dog in that fight.
Just because you're armed doesn't mean you stand a snowball's chance in hell against people with superior fire power and that are highly organized.
I would have said the same of the ATF and FBI before Waco. I would have been wrong.

I don't get it, you're saying we shouldn't be armed because there isn't a snowballs chance in hell we could win?

Just because you think the people couldn't win, why would you restrict their right to bear arms. I dont understand your logic at all.

Second time, I'm just shooting down his argument, not making one to support my side. DK argues that the populace should be armed so as to fight the military should we ever fall under tyrannical rule. I said that's not how it works. I'm not arguing for gun control, but against guns for everyone.

Ok, I guess I understand your argument now. However, you're saying you are against guns for everyone while the only ones being restricted guns rights are citizens and not the government? (police, military, etc.)

Actually it's both. Citizens should have a phased stand down (meaning that the most dangerous weapons are retired on both sides at the same time) with the police as they shift over to non-lethals, and the military should have a phased stand down with other major world militaries, all verified by UN weapons inspectors, starting with nuclear weapons. We need to do our best, within reason, to un-ring some of the bells we've rung so far as horrible weapons.

<h2>Achtung !</h2>

This can only happening because the people do not have enough guns, not because they have too many! (...and I am in favor of gun control in densely populated areas...I think it works well in NYC....but this story is outrageous)

Please forgive me for jumping so late into this fight, coming off another hiatus...

Samcol, I don't think I have ever been in agreement with you, but I support this statement probably more than you do.

Seeing Will's follow up, that it is somehow up to the UN or some other Bureaucratic body to determine who should have weapons or at any capacity is redonkculous.

Why is the UN a disorganized body, or for that matter any formal matter any govermental body allowed to tell us what we can or cannot own as matters of weapons? Seriously. What purpose does the Bill of Rights stand? It seems people like to interpret it into modern times when it serves as a means to their political ends. Militias no longer exist, should the populace disarm?

This is the most asinine argument I have met. Why should I not have the right to own any weapon the government possesses? Since when has any goverment known whats best for 'the people'?

I suppose by many peoples logic, the 3rd amendment is invalid as it really has no place in our modern times.

You know what, I'll end it here. IN the context of our times, you tell me what a Militia means, if it goes against the concept of a citizenry armed, I might consider the fact we don't have the right to carry weapons.

Also for the record... I hope I read it right, but Hosts article is awesome.

Really, for all the boogeymen I hear coming up on this board I think the bottom line of the above article is telling as to why the second amendment should stand un-infringed.

I didn't mean anything by that DK, other than I don't think our forefathers who wrote and passed this amendment expected Uzis, automatic rifles, guns capable of going through brick walls, bullets that explode on impact, etc.

While I have come to be pro-gun, I am not sure how far I want to go with it. I realize that if you want an illegal gun or illegal bullets they are easy to come by, but I'm not sure legalizing them is in our best interest either.

I feel if the government did rise and some fought back even with Glocks, rifles and so on, that it would create enough noise to stop the government's move.

However, Waco and especially Ruby Ridge shows what the government can be capable of. In those events the government had far more fire power. And I believe always will. You pull out a glock they have an MK... you pull out an MK they pull out a bazooka... and so on... the government will always win firepowerwise.

That being the case, how much firepower do you need to protect your home and what is too much? That is the big question.

As for stockpiling for a Martial Law type government takeover.... I feel that would be best done in an underground militia type banding of like minded people. Rather than have just 1 person be over armed with "illegal" weapons.

I think that part of the 2nd amendment makes this acceptable. It clearly states: Thus, a "private" militia built of citizens that has structure and is solely for the purpose to protect the people from government abuse, should be allowed as it is our Constitutional right and perhaps these days we should have them prominently in every state. The governor could even name the head of the militia based on a list of nominees given by the militia. Those would be the places for the extreme armaments.

The government claims states do have "militias" but they somehow seem to be called "the (insert state here) National Guard" and are not independent but rather a "part-time" division of a Federal armed force (Army, Air Force, etc). I do not believe this is what the founding fathers deemed a "militia" necessary to the security of a free state. This became a way for the Federal government to control them and basically destroy the idea of independent state and citizen controlled militias. I believe we need these back if for no other reason than to put fear into government that it is truly being watched by the people and needs to be truly honest with the people.

Do I see this being allowed? Unfortunately, no. The government is too paranoid to allow it and there is that group of citizens that go giddy when rights get taken away that would demand government do something to stop these militias.

The question then is, why is government so paranoid that they would never allow these militias to be formed?

Sorry, Pan made the point roughly. The FF's could not fathom a great many things, I think that point spreads from weapons to social issues. All the same, I do not think they would be all that hyped with a federal government that was so restricting and overpowering as things are now.

That is true. Nor could they fathom a government so tentacled and becoming so corrupted and influenced by lobbyists, media, nations outside of our own. I think the vast majority of them would be ashamed of the government we have today.

I do believe though that the battle between people believing in the people and wanting more freedom and those wanting to take freedoms to feel "safe" has been a battle in our country since day 1.

I find it somewhat hypocritical and odd that the same people accusing our country of torture, among conspiracy theories, grabs for power and demanding we end the war are usually the same people arguing that we need gun control and that citizens should not be legally armed in any way.

I still have yet to hear 1 good argument on how we, the people, will maintain the rights we enjoy without the threat of an armed populace.


These last 2 posts (well your edit) of ours were happening simultaneously I think....lol.

We seem to have similar thoughts at the same time.....

Scary, never thought this would happen between us... must be the recent full moon.

will, i appreciate your attempt at 'shooting down' my argument, but I think you seriously overestimate our military and are extremely underestimating the american public at large. If you truly believe that 12 to 18 MILLION have no chance against even the total cooperation of the military strength at 4 million, then there seems to be no reasoning with you in that sense. Not that you don't have the ability to, I just feel that you're not truly seeing the numbers correctly.

Strawman. I never said it was up to them to determine who should have weapons at all, not even close. Sometimes I think members are just arguing with themselves or their own dopplegangers.

What I said is that the parties who would disarm decide on what to give up and the UN acts simply as referee. They make no decisions, but rather simply make sure no one is cheating.
If you think that 12-18 million people would get involved in an American revolution in this period in history, you must be hopped up on goof balls. It'd probably be a lot closer to tens of thousands, if that. I'll tell you what: you make me a list of everyone who openly attacked the US government after the incident at Waco.

And there would be no central organization, but rather it would be groups of friends, and even though some would be ex-military or law enforcement, the odds of them having the organizational skills overall to do anything is laughable. We'd probably get a dozen or so minor victories for the populace, see them quelled, and then it'd be the government using them to demonize the resistance and also using it as an excuse to crack down on what little liberties we have left.

this sounds familiar also. It sounds like several of the arguments given around 1775. But that seemed to work out ok in the end, didn't it?

It's kinda like saying we should do away with the first amendment because the government is so corrupt we can't affect change by utilizing the 1st anymore. I just don't understand attacking the 2nd amendment from that angle at all. :orly:

Fortunately, I already anticipated this argument, and responded to it:
People in the 1700s weren't insanely lazy and lethargic. They didn't have American Idol to appease them and distract them from the problems in their country.

I'm not sure people are "insanely lazy and lethargic". I would argue more and more people are starting to come out of their stasis and pay attention to what's going on.

Would they pick up guns and fight against the police or military, thought, is the question. And the answer, at least for now, is absolutely not. We've already got illegal domestic spying, kidnapping and torturing of people, prison without trials, mass media control, endless wars over control of natural resources, etc. Just when do these revolutionists come out of the woodwork? When does DK open fire?

I 'open fire' when/if they come for me, my family, or friends and neighbors. I'll consider widening that range of people when I can see more people doing the same.

The problem is that we've been conditioned for 80 years to trust and rely on the government, that it's taking along time to show that people need to distrust the government. Hell, look at yourself will. You still believe that there are things that only the government can do, or must do, to ensure public safety, or your safety. This is a mindset that a free people must be able to step away from, but until a majority can do that, we'll still be faced with the soccer moms/dads who will balk at anything other than sanctioned government protection.

If fellow revolutionists follow the same line of thought, then we'll just have isolated incidents where the police overpower one person in a house at a time. So either you have to assume the responsibility of not just defending your family, friends and local n neighbors, but all of your countrymen... or the revolution simply cannot and will not happen until they infringe on a very small neighborhood.

In 2005, when hurricane Katrina hit the SouthEast, gun confiscation by the government was widespread. Did you or any other Second Amendment proponent do anything about it? Did anyone, except for some journalists and bloggers? Of course not. So when "they" came for people's guns, nothing happened. Even leaving gun confiscation out for a minute, it was back in August of 2006 when Bush proposed extending Guantanamo practices of indefinite detention and summary trial by military commissions to include American citizens. AMERICAN CITIZENS! In response, revolutionaries stormed military bases across the nation.... oh wait nothing happened.

The Second Amendment, as a function of governmental control, only works when the gun owners are able to stand up to the government with their guns and force them to do the will of the people. That's simply not the case, therefore defending the Second Amendment on the basis that without it gun owners wouldn't be able to keep the government in check is completely incorrect.
DK, you know I don't trust the government. I'd like to see the entire Bush Administration behind bars. I'd like nothing more than to completely reorganize half of all the federal organizations from the FBI to FEMA.

We just happen to disagree on guns. In other words, there but for said disagreements go I.

I think you need to add at least one zero to the end of that. Maybe more.

Reliance on government is a given. All else is anarchy.

Trust is another issue.

Here's a heads up...the last days of this Supreme Court Session are approaching (only the SCOTUS itself knows when that is, but history places it usually around this time), and one of the cases remaining to be decided is Heller.

It is also worth noting that Justice Scalia is the only justice without a majority opinion from the march sitting when the Heller case was argued.

-bear

Looks like DC needs a smackdown by the courts again.

heller denied permit for handgun

From the article -

How is this even possible? I thought the court ruling was very clear?

it was indeed clear. DC is only trying to muddy the waters and delay things as long as possible, while making it seem dangerous for residents to register semi-autos (they are still 'illegal'), well, they are going to get smacked. The courts ruling was very clear.

You have to wonder if DC is doing this in the hopes that the next incarnation of the supreme court (i.e., after the next justice retires) is more pro-gun control... They seem to be trying to delay as long as they can - and for what? That have to know that they're going to be overturned...and one would think that such an overturn would be an unpopular move in the eyes of their constituency.

Or do they just not care?

If it was my world, guns, bombs and every other type of weapon would cease to exist. Testosterone-filled macho men would be forced to conduct themselves as intellectuals or be locked up. Sounds horrible doesn't? What a nightmare it would be not to be able to dress up like commando and go target practicing and get hard on.

I doubt it. SCOTUS left the door wiiiiiiide open for almost any kind of regulation short of a total ban. If DC wants to limit "legal handguns" to 5-shot revolvers manufactured by Colt, and make the permit to keep one cost $100,000 they can do just that.

Because in your world the physically weak being at the mercy of the physically strong is a good thing? I take it you've never been in a fight with someone who significantly outweighed you. Now bear in mind that the average female is 30% lighter, 5 inches shorter, and has 25% less skeletal muscle mass than the average man. I guess "rapist" is a good career choice in your world.

On the topic of guns and rape, I wonder how many women are willing to use a gun on close friends and family members.

If he's trying to rape them, I'd imagine -quite- willing, unless the "lie-back-and-enjoy-it" ethic of the anti-self-defense lobbies in this country has gotten into their heads. I don't have a discreet number for the amount of attempted rapes halted through firearms use on a yearly basis, but I'll see what I can find.

I dont think it was clear at all.

Scalia, writing for the majority, said: "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem (guns and crime), including some measures regulating handguns."

The DC city attorney has determined that it is with the city's purview to classify semi-autos as something other than a handgun for purposes of regulation. It may very well go back to the courts.

The problem is that they're retroactively classified semi-automatic weapons as fully-automatic weapons, all laws of physics and technical data to the contrary notwithstanding. They've simply renamed something, calling it something it clearly is not, in order to keep disarming as many victims as possible.

I guess that will be for the courts to decide....in another 5 years or so.

It appears to me that DC is abiding by the letter of the law "including some measures regulating handguns."

No, I've never been in a fight at all. I move in different circles than such animals, so I don't think in terms of fighting. I'm glad you have your weapons to protect you.

If we're lucky, it took -how- long to get from Miller to Heller? And of course, there's always the risk that a less-leftist court would worsen the situation in a new hearing.

Thank you SOOOoooo much, Justice Scalia...[/sarcasm]

This isn't an oversimplified structuralist world of binary opposites. I'm afraid you might be disappointed.

As do I. However, sometimes such animals have an unfortunate tendency to come -to- you, and frequently in packs.

Perhaps. Point taken.

Sorry, double post.

although SCOTUS did leave the door open for lots of regulation, it was held in the decision that DC MUST issue Heller his license. Along in the rest of the decision that a ban on 'commonly used' weapons cannot be constitutionally banned, a 7 round semi-auto magazine cannot be made illegal by trying to redefine a semi-auto that feeds a magazine from the bottom as a fully automatic weapon. If thats the case, I've got a Glock worth 15k in DC.

I see not much has changed while I've been away.

You guys still post links that you think support your argument yet obviously haven't bothered to read.

The reason Heller was turned away was because he didn't bother to bring in his handgun to the police department, so it could be inspected and tested as per the registration process.


As for the difference between semi-automatic and revolvers, gun owners are going to find it very difficult since nothing indicates a right to a particular *type* of gun. Nonetheless, that's not why Heller was "denied" his application. Personally, I would prefer a revolver in the commission of a crime since it offers less chances at stray casings after a shooting, but there has been long standing restrictions on semi's based on all kinds of things...including how many bullets can be held. To my knowledge, there has been no successful challenge to restrictions against the extended clips gun owners used to have access to. At least in California we haven't had legal access to extended clips for many years now, we've always had to keep our guns unloaded and locked during travel, and maintain trigger locks during storage.