vote democrat, leave the constitution alone

[clemson357]

i saw a bumper sticker that said this, and I was wondering what it means because I know most of the democrats here want to get rid of the second ammendment.

[dylanquirt]

i saw a bumper sticker that said this, and I was wondering what it means because I know most of the democrats here want to get rid of the second ammendment.


Its not the second ammendment that i am concerned with, its .50 caliber assult weapons that bother me.

[katja71578]

I think the bumper sticker is in reference to all of the contstitutional amendments propsed by the Bush administration.

[mwjorgens]

i saw a bumper sticker that said this, and I was wondering what it means because I know most of the democrats here want to get rid of the second ammendment.
lets get real here buddy. the 2nd amemendment is never going anyhwere. i think it has more to deal wtih the resitrictions on our other rights. like free spech, being able to protest something you dont agree with, not being illegally searched, not being detained without charges or an attorney, being able to make your own decision about what goes on with your body.......the list goes on. and now that i look at it no american who values their rights can vote republican.

[nubby]

LOL I don't know anyone who wants to get rid of the second ammendment. The only thing I hear about is gun control which I find to be fitting. The constitution doesn't promise you the right to bare machine guns, it allows you to bare arms in a regulated manner. I see no disparity between having gun control laws and the second ammendment.

[bseitz]

LOL I don't know anyone who wants to get rid of the second ammendment. The only thing I hear about is gun control which I find to be fitting. The constitution doesn't promise you the right to bare machine guns, it allows you to bare arms in a regulated manner. I see no disparity between having gun control laws and the second ammendment.

Oh, no?

All told, H.R. 2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS` "60 Minutes"-- "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

This a U.S. Senator speaking and she's just only one stupid enough to say it out loud. You can stop laughing now.


The constitution doesn't promise you the right to bare machine guns, it allows you to bare arms in a regulated manner. I see no disparity between having gun control laws and the second ammendment.

The Second Amendment makes no reference to the types of weapons citizens can possess. It does, however, say "...shall not be infringed". With the expiration of the "Assault Weapons" Ban, do you think that we can now go out and buy fully automatic weapons at WalMart?

[nubby]

No but it does speak of regulation.

Edit: just read where you got your quote and what you left out is that its talking about the assault rifles and fully autmatic pistols that were banned under the clinton administration. You are taking that quote out of context which is a pretty sad attempt at propaganda.

[malonestar]

i saw a bumper sticker that said this, and I was wondering what it means because I know most of the democrats here want to get rid of the second ammendment.


This is most likely attacking the War on Freed....er...Terror, and what the Govt. has done in light of it. Think "Patriot Act."

For the last 20 years we have witnessed a Buddhist-like cycle of crime, legislation, loss of rights, followed by more crime.

(1) A crime situation comes into existence.

(2) In order to deal with this crime situation the Justice Department or some arm of government claims expanded powers are required to deal with the situation in order to prevent more crime in the future.

(3) These laws invariably stomp on protections guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but citizens are promised they will be safer and the crime will be prevented and that the laws will only be used against "bad guys" - you know, drug traffickers, terrorists, and [bad guy label here].

(4) Invariably the new laws do not prevent crimes and more are committed, almost always due to government ineptitude in using the surveillance powers and the laws it already has. In cases of malfeasance or incompetence on the part of agents representing government, no one is ever punished.

(5) There is then a stampede on the part of congressmen ("moo") to pass more draconian laws, most of which they don't read or understand, all of which trample ("moo") on the rights of US citizens in the name of making them safer, which they don't.

(6) The cycle then repeats itself once more but with one slight twist: the laws do not prevent more crime or terrorism and use of the laws rapidly broadens out, being applied to persons and crimes for which they were never originally intended, frequently sweeping up hapless citizens and making criminals where no criminals would have been before.

Precedent examples are legion of which the following is just one:

In the 1980s, the War on Drugs escalated. RICO statutes were enacted, which allowed the easy civil forfeiture of property among other things. The public was assured these laws would only be applied against drug kingpins. However before long the allure of easy property seizure with its corresponding payoff to law enforcement became too much temptation and suddenly there were hundreds of statues allowing property seizure, most of which had nothing to do with drugs. Then RICO statutes were applied against abortion clinic protesters and others never targeted when the laws were originally passed.

After the bombing of the Murrah Office Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, there was a big push ("moo") to pass new anti-terrorist laws. But those laws didn't prevent 9/11. In reality, the issue wasn't more laws, but incompetence at enforcing the laws already extant with intelligence information already in hand.

For example, "Federal officials in both the intelligence and law enforcement community were repeatedly warned that terrorist attacks in the United States were likely. The respected Israeli journalist Ze'ev Schiff reported that when the former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service warned Attorney General Janet Reno, FBI Director Louis Freeh, and Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet that terrorist cells were being set up on US soil 'they looked at him forgivingly and claimed that he was exaggerating.'"

There was sufficient intelligence for the FBI to know that something was afoot in the US long before 9/11. Indeed FBI agent John O'Neil, who was ironically killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center, had become an expert on Islamic terrorist cells and was trying to warn the upper echelons of his organization that something desperately required their attention. But O'Neil was considered too "uppity" by his superiors in Washington, who didn't want to hear about it. So while incompetence reigns, what is the answer to fighting terrorism? More destruction of constitutional protections, of course.

The primary issue of the War on Terror is that any statue, law, surveillance or regulation, can and will be used against ordinary citizens in the future just by shifting a few definitions here and there! To be more concise: Have slippery slope, will slip. Once a precedent for abusing civil rights is set in place and supported by the courts, the abuse can be expanded by simply changing the definition of those conditions required to legally trigger the legal action.

What goes around comes around. Poor laws written today will inexorably be broadened to ensnare all sorts of people who were never originally intended as targets. By this time in our nation's history, we're all criminals because we inadvertently break thousands of laws and regulations of which we are unaware.

Justice requires a level playing field or it becomes corrupt. Beware the definition of a "terrorist," which easily broadens to include almost anyone government wants to include in that category. Beware when habeas corpus is suspended simply by definition. Beware blurry ill-defined legal terms and definitions! Beware when property is confiscated merely upon accusation. Beware of being able to imprison people secretly for an indefinite period without trial, especially by calling it witness protection or military justice. Beware, beware, beware! Just a slip of the definitions and anyone can be made to fit. A terrorist or enemy combatant loses a lot of rights without even a trial just by being accused of being one and there is little appeal. Why? Because Johnny A. and Georgie B. say so, catch them if you can.

As powers granted under the War on Freedom, there will come a day in our lifetime when the name of John Ashcroft will be cursed for the precedents set in place today, as "they" are applied where "they" were never intended and where we were assured "they" would never go. How do I know that? Because "they" have done it before and "they" will do it again.

[dmb@uvm]

i saw a bumper sticker that said this, and I was wondering what it means because I know most of the democrats here want to get rid of the second ammendment.

The amendment that Bush tried to pass to outlaw gay marriage.

[bseitz]

No but it does speak of regulation.

At the time the Contitution was written, "well regulated" meant that you had a gun, it worked, and you knew how to use it. Take look at the Federalist Papers and some of the writings of the Founding Father to see what the 2nd Amendment actually meant. The following sums it up pretty well:

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Cox, Pennsylvania delegate to the 1st Continental Congress

[bseitz]

This is most likely attacking the War on Freed....er...Terror, and what the Govt. has done in light of it. Think "Patriot Act."

For the last 20 years we have witnessed a Buddhist-like cycle of crime, legislation, loss of rights, followed by more crime.

(1) A crime situation comes into existence.

(2) In order to deal with this crime situation the Justice Department or some arm of government claims expanded powers are required to deal with the situation in order to prevent more crime in the future.

(3) These laws invariably stomp on protections guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but citizens are promised they will be safer and the crime will be prevented and that the laws will only be used against "bad guys" - you know, drug traffickers, terrorists, and [bad guy label here].

(4) Invariably the new laws do not prevent crimes and more are committed, almost always due to government ineptitude in using the surveillance powers and the laws it already has. In cases of malfeasance or incompetence on the part of agents representing government, no one is ever punished.

(5) There is then a stampede on the part of congressmen ("moo") to pass more draconian laws, most of which they don't read or understand, all of which trample ("moo") on the rights of US citizens in the name of making them safer, which they don't.

(6) The cycle then repeats itself once more but with one slight twist: the laws do not prevent more crime or terrorism and use of the laws rapidly broadens out, being applied to persons and crimes for which they were never originally intended, frequently sweeping up hapless citizens and making criminals where no criminals would have been before.


Kinda like gun control...

[DMBSignGuy]

Oh, no?

All told, H.R. 2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS` "60 Minutes"-- "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

This a U.S. Senator speaking and she's just only one stupid enough to say it out loud. You can stop laughing now.




The Second Amendment makes no reference to the types of weapons citizens can possess. It does, however, say "...shall not be infringed". With the expiration of the "Assault Weapons" Ban, do you think that we can now go out and buy fully automatic weapons at WalMart?

:rolleyes: i guess you forgot the rest of the amendment too. lets put the whole thing up for everyone to see.

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.

i underline the important part. not only do i underline that important part...james madison, who wrote that amendment, also underlines that part...and also the supreme court underlines that part in three separate cases.


Cases v. United States 1942
''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.''

Lewis v. United States 1980
''Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia''

Hickman v. Block
Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment is a right held by states, not by private citizens.


how nice it must be to be able to take only parts of the constitution and find meaning in them. I try not to do that, but thats just me.

edit: found one more case for ya:

Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965) and Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), cases not involving the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has affirmed that today's militia is the National Guard.

[DMBSignGuy]

At the time the Contitution was written, "well regulated" meant that you had a gun, it worked, and you knew how to use it. Take look at the Federalist Papers and some of the writings of the Founding Father to see what the 2nd Amendment actually meant. The following sums it up pretty well:

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Cox, Pennsylvania delegate to the 1st Continental Congress

how about quoting the person who wrote the second amendment...let alone the rest of the bill of rights. Madison clearly intended the 2nd amendment to apply to a well regulated milita. His first proposal of the amendment shows that with an extra clause in it for people who would not have to bear arms for religious reasons. now why would you put that in unless you are talking about a milita that is needed to protect the state.

edit: to add to my post above...for a more contempary explination

"Since Miller was decided, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, the courts have decided that the Amendment guarantees a right to be armed only in connection with service in a "well regulated Militia." The courts unanimously have rejected the NRA's view that the Second Amendment is about the self-defense or sporting uses of guns. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote, the courts "have analyzed the Second Amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias, rather than individual rights." United States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318 (1988)"

[DMBSignGuy]

i saw a bumper sticker that said this, and I was wondering what it means because I know most of the democrats here want to get rid of the second ammendment.

id rather it be properly understood.

[dylanquirt]

[QUOTE=bseitz



The Second Amendment makes no reference to the types of weapons citizens can possess. [/QUOTE]


You guys can keep your guns...I'd like to see bullet control...thats not under the 2nd amendment..hahahaha

[bseitz]

:rolleyes: i guess you forgot the rest of the amendment too. lets put the whole thing up for everyone to see.

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.

i underline the important part. not only do i underline that important part...james madison, who wrote that amendment, also underlines that part...and also the supreme court underlines that part in three separate cases.


Cases v. United States 1942
''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.''

Lewis v. United States 1980
''Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia''

Hickman v. Block
Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment is a right held by states, not by private citizens.

how nice it must be to be able to take only parts of the constitution and find meaning in them. I try not to do that, but thats just me.


Did you read what you wrote? The first 2 cases make the point that the government CANNOT restrict the possession of a firearm that has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". And what weapons would fail this test? If I'm not mistaken, Hickman is another gem out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned Court in the country, and only applies to the poor bastards on the west coast. I'd love to see this one taken to the SCOTUS for a final ruling (after Bush appoints a couple more Justices). BTW, other courts have rule differently with reference to the collective right.



how nice it must be to be able to take only parts of the constitution and find meaning in them. I try not to do that, but thats just me.
yeah, right. :lol

[nubby]

Dylan, awesome observation and technically 100% true.

[bseitz]

You guys can keep your guns...I'd like to see bullet control...thats not under the 2nd amendment..hahahaha

:lol :lol :lol such a clever little liberal...

[DMBSignGuy]

Did you read what you wrote? The first 2 cases make the point that the government CANNOT restrict the possession of a firearm that has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". And what weapons would fail this test? If I'm not mistaken, Hickman is another gem out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned Court in the country, and only applies to the poor bastards on the west coast. I'd love to see this one taken to the SCOTUS for a final ruling (after Bush appoints a couple more Justices). BTW, other courts have rule differently with reference to the collective right.




yeah, right. :lol

im not sure you read what i wrote. either way...see what you want...the amendment, our founding fathers and the courts have all said that the 2nd amendment applies to a well regulated milita.......which by todays standard is the national guard.

[bseitz]

You guys can keep your guns...I'd like to see bullet control...thats not under the 2nd amendment..hahahaha

That's OK, I've got enough to last a lifetime. Molon labe (look it up)...

[dylanquirt]

Dylan, awesome observation and technically 100% true.


Thanks Nubby....thats what we need, a bunch of Rep. shooting blanks....hahahah. tax the fucking shit out of those bullets!

[dylanquirt]

That's OK, I've got enough to last a lifetime. Molon labe (look it up)...


THATS AWESOME BSEITZ!!!!! i am soo happy that you've been stockpiling.....paranoid, party of one!

[bseitz]

im not sure you read what i wrote. either way...see what you want
See what I want? I just saw what you wrote. Can you read fucking English? Don't feel bad though. Your pretty typical of the gun control crowd.


..the amendment, our founding fathers and the courts have all said that the 2nd amendment applies to a well regulated milita.......which by todays standard is the national guard.
If they meant only the Militia had the right to bear arms, they would have said that only the Militia had the right to bear arms. They specifically said "the People" which in every other part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights means, THE PEOPLE.

[DMBSignGuy]

See what I want? I just saw what you wrote. Can you read fucking English? Don't feel bad though. Your pretty typical of the gun control crowd.



If they meant only the Militia had the right to bear arms, they would have said that only the Militia had the right to bear arms. They specifically said "the People" which in every other part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights means, THE PEOPLE.


Gun control is not the issue here. The issue is the 2nd amendment. One fails to realize that the 2nd amendment applys to what the federal government cant do. The states can choose if an individual has a right to bear arms if they want. Some states actually say that. But in terms of the second amendment thats not the case.

Its interesting how you seem to be at odds with the one person who wrote the second amendment and yet still think you are correct in your assesment. You always say they....whos they......Im talking about Madison...the only one needing mention in regards to the second amendment.

One must really understand the period in which the amendment was written to understand its meaning...

"At the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" — a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. Most of the adult male population was required by state law to enlist in the militia. The militia was "well regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various legal requirements. They were, for example, required to report for training several days a year, to supply their own equipment for militia use, including guns and horses, and sometimes to engage in military exercises away from home.
The purpose of the militia was expressed in the Second Amendment — to assure "the security of a free State" — against threats from without (e.g. invasions) and threats from within (e.g. rebellions, riots, etc.).
The "militia" was not, as some gun control opponents have claimed, simply another word for the armed citizenry. It was an organized military force, "well regulated" by the state governments. Noah Webster's Dictionary of 1828 defines "militia" as: '...the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.' "

Its not about what you think it means...its about what they said it meant. Again...talk to Madison....not your ever elusive "they".

to add...i havent said anything to my views on gun control...dont know how i can get lumped into the "gun control crowd" when i have not expressed anything on gun control.

[nubby]

I see nothing wrong with gun control. I'm an advocate for owning guns but think it only wise to make sure guns don't get in the hands of people who shouldn't have them lik ex convicts, sex offenders, young kids. "Gun control" means just what its name implies. As I have said before I am aware of no politician that wants to completely ban guns. I'm sure there are but they are the very small minority. The quote provided earlier about (D) Dianne Feinstein only applied to the guns specifically banned under Clinton's administration. How do I know this? I did a research paper on gun control and I wrote a letter to her. She is for the protection of second ammendment right however she made the distinction between assault riffles and sub-machine guns, and pistols and rifles.

[clemson357]

The amendment that Bush tried to pass to outlaw gay marriage.

thankyou

i was genuinely asking, for all of you trying to lecture me. no, i wasn't trying to bring up another second ammendment thread.

[DMBSignGuy]

thankyou

i was genuinely asking, for all of you trying to lecture me. no, i wasn't trying to bring up another second ammendment thread.

oooh :p ...i think on this board you gotta specify. But its good that you did cause obviously people, not you, need some help in understanding the 2nd amendment.

but yes...the other post was correct...it would be in regards to Bush attempt to amend the constitution with a ban on gay marriage.

[clemson357]

Its not the second ammendment that i am concerned with, its .50 caliber assult weapons that bother me.

ok, i will not be drawn into another debate about guns, because i find like most other things the people arguing about it are uninformed. But, let me just say there is absolutely no such thing as a .50 caliber assault weapon. literally, it hasn't been invented. The .50 caliber rifles available to civilians are generally bolt action, there are a few that aren't but none of them hold more then 5 bullets. Rapid fire .50 caliber guns are too big to put on some planes, i seriously doubt any human being could lift one.

[DMBSignGuy]

i find like most other things the people arguing about it are uninformed.

agreed.

[bseitz]

Gun control is not the issue here.
Gun control is all about the abuse of the Second Amnedment.


The issue is the 2nd amendment. One fails to realize that the 2nd amendment applys to what the federal government cant do. The states can choose if an individual has a right to bear arms if they want. Some states actually say that. But in terms of the second amendment thats not the case.
How about the First Amendment? Can states ignore that one too? Or maybe the 4th? Then I suppose you'd support Roe v. Wade being overturned so that states could decide whether a woman can have an abortion "if they want". The hole's getting deeper and deeper.


Its interesting how you seem to be at odds with the one person who wrote the second amendment and yet still think you are correct in your assesment. You always say they....whos they......Im talking about Madison...the only one needing mention in regards to the second amendment.
You keeping mentioning Madison. How about providing a few quotes that explaining his feelings on the meaning of the Second Amendment. I've got lots from others that were there.


The purpose of the militia was expressed in the Second Amendment — to assure "the security of a free State" — against threats from without (e.g. invasions) and threats from within (e.g. rebellions, riots, etc.)
Interesting that you ignored the Founders intent to keep "the State" from enslaving the people.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Cox, Pennsylvania delegate to the 1st Continental Congress

That pretty much says it all, huh?


to add...i havent said anything to my views on gun control...dont know how i can get lumped into the "gun control crowd" when i have not expressed anything on gun control.
Your willful misinterpretation of the Second Amendment leads me to conclude that you support gun control (actually law-abiding citizen control).

[bseitz]

I see nothing wrong with gun control. I'm an advocate for owning guns but think it only wise to make sure guns don't get in the hands of people who shouldn't have them lik ex convicts, sex offenders, young kids. "Gun control" means just what its name implies. As I have said before I am aware of no politician that wants to completely ban guns. I'm sure there are but they are the very small minority. The quote provided earlier about (D) Dianne Feinstein only applied to the guns specifically banned under Clinton's administration. How do I know this? I did a research paper on gun control and I wrote a letter to her. She is for the protection of second ammendment right however she made the distinction between assault riffles and sub-machine guns, and pistols and rifles.


They all say their for protecting the Second Amendment (to say otherwise would be political suicide). The definition used to determine what constitutes an "assault weapon" includes such characteristics as a folding stock (makes it easier to store, not easier to carry), a bayonnet lug (I wonder how many bayonnet murders have been committed in the last century), a flash suppressor, and other ridiculous cosmetic features that have nothing at all to do with the lethality of the weapon. Machine guns (full-auto) have been heavily regulated since 1934. The intent of using the cosmetics of military weapons was to scare the sheep into thinking that they were actually banning full-auto weapons. So you think she supports the right of all qualified, law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun for protection? :lol Do you?

[DMBSignGuy]

Gun control is all about the abuse of the Second Amnedment.



How about the First Amendment? Can states ignore that one too? Or maybe the 4th? Then I suppose you'd support Roe v. Wade being overturned so that states could decide whether a woman can have an abortion "if they want". The hole's getting deeper and deeper.



You keeping mentioning Madison. How about providing a few quotes that explaining his feelings on the meaning of the Second Amendment. I've got lots from others that were there.



Interesting that you ignored the Founders intent to keep "the State" from enslaving the people.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Cox, Pennsylvania delegate to the 1st Continental Congress

That pretty much says it all, huh?



Your willful misinterpretation of the Second Amendment leads me to conclude that you support gun control (actually law-abiding citizen control).

You should read up on the 10th amendment as well. The 2nd amendment deals with the governments inablity to deny people thier rights to bear arms in a well regulated milita. Thats it. Everything else is left up to the states per the 10th amendent. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Whatever is not expressly permitted or denied by the federal government is left to the states. The 2nd amendment expressly denies the federal governments ablity to deny people their right to bear arms for a well regulated militia.

The states cannot ignore the 1st amendment, nor another other amendment, 14th amendment takes care of that. By your take on the 2nd amendment...one can interpret the 1st amendment as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." and leave out the rest.

Heres a Madison quote:

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."

The issue of the state repressing its own people is an issue not exclusive to the 2nd amendment alone....it was an issue that Madison tried to deal with in his original 19 proposals for the bill of rights....it was later taken care of by the 14th amendment. although i would argue that the 10th amendment is enough.

Tench Cox, yea cause hes considered the father of the Consitution and also wrote the 2nd amendment........oh wait thats Madison.

Your willful misinterpretation of the Second Amendment leads me to conclude that you support gun control (actually law-abiding citizen control).

I guess you mean Madisons willful misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, though i dont see how thats possible. And as i said earlier...gun control is a different topic....left up to the states...who can give an individual the right to bear arms if they so choose.


heres a good Jefferson quote for you....

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)


now lets all toast to James Madison. :monkey

[DMBSignGuy]

off to work i go...unfortunatly any posts will not be able to be responded to for quite some time....until then...... :monkey

[nubby]

They all say their for protecting the Second Amendment (to say otherwise would be political suicide). The definition used to determine what constitutes an "assault weapon" includes such characteristics as a folding stock (makes it easier to store, not easier to carry), a bayonnet lug (I wonder how many bayonnet murders have been committed in the last century), a flash suppressor, and other ridiculous cosmetic features that have nothing at all to do with the lethality of the weapon. Machine guns (full-auto) have been heavily regulated since 1934. The intent of using the cosmetics of military weapons was to scare the sheep into thinking that they were actually banning full-auto weapons. So you think she supports the right of all qualified, law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun for protection? :lol Do you?

No, but I'm not for that either.

[Holla9]

You should read up on the 10th amendment as well. The 2nd amendment deals with the governments inablity to deny people thier rights to bear arms in a well regulated milita. Thats it. Everything else is left up to the states per the 10th amendent. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Whatever is not expressly permitted or denied by the federal government is left to the states. The 2nd amendment expressly denies the federal governments ablity to deny people their right to bear arms for a well regulated militia.



In recent years, there has been considerable dispute as to whether the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the United
States Constitution, Amendment II, protects an individual`s right to
bear arms, or only state power over militias. This dispute appears to
have been resolved based upon historical scholarship and linguistic
evidence which amply demonstrates that what the Second Amendment to
the United States Constitution guarantees is a right of law-abiding,
responsible adults to acquire and possess arms for lawful purposes.
(See, e.g., 4 Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, 1639-40,
Karst & Levi eds. (1986); Levinson, The Embarrassing Second
Amendment, 99 Yale Law Journal 637. (1991); Khates, Handgun
Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82
Michigan Law Review 204, 244-52, (1983); Shalhope, The Ideological
Origins of the Second Amendment, 69 Journal of American History 599
(1982)).

The United States Supreme Court has yet to definitively rule on the
specific subject of the individual versus states` rights debate, but
the court has of late recognized that the Second Amendment phrase
"right of the people" refers to individual rights, just as the rights
of the "people" found in the First and Fourth Amendments are
individual rights (United States v. Vergudo-Urquidez, 110 S. Ct. 1056,
108 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1990)).



http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02400
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A06698

[bseitz]

The 2nd amendment expressly denies the federal governments ablity to deny people their right to bear arms for a well regulated militia.
I ask, sir, what is the militia. It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. - George Mason

So you'll agree then that the government may only deny the right to bear arms to politicians?


Tench Cox, yea cause hes considered the father of the Consitution and also wrote the 2nd amendment........oh wait thats Madison.
Here's what some other insignificant historical figures had to say:

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.
- John Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrany in government - Thomas Jefferson

A free people ought...to be armed... - George Washington

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. - Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

From http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm: (excellent analysis of the subject):

When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a Bill of Rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, and the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service."

In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Eldridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption for the scrupulous to excuse everyone from military service.

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted to the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "for the common defense".



I guess you mean Madisons willful misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, though i dont see how thats possible. And as i said earlier...gun control is a different topic....left up to the states...who can give an individual the right to bear arms if they so choose.
How is gun control a different topic since it is the manifestation of the government's infringement on a Constitutional right? It's odd that you think that the Second Amendment is somehow different from all the others (the ones you apparently like). Let me get this straight; the states "can give an individual the right to bear arms if they so choose" (apparently even if they qualify as a member of the "militia")? Why not the right to speak? Or assemble? Isn't that what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was made to prevent? I'm confused. Enlighten me.



heres a good Jefferson quote for you....
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

Back to a time when every able bodied man was considered a member of the militia. Perfect. I love it.


now lets all toast to James Madison. :monkey
I'll drink to that!!! Have a nice weekend. :)

[bseitz]

No, but I'm not for that either.

I'm shocked..:eek:

[chellek23]

Ok, I started writing this earlier today but had to leave before I finished. It looks like much of what I was going to mention has been brought up, but here are some additional links and info on top of all the good info already mentioned. :D
---
The 'liberal' Constitutional Law proffessor Laurence Tribe of Harvard University has taken a lot of flack for writing that he believes the 2nd Amendment absolutely does protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms and does not just pertain to militias. (short story below)

This law article written by Levinson, which was mentioned in an earlier post looks at the two arguments and would also disagree with the 'states right' interpretation: The Embarrassing Second Amendment (http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html)

So while SCOTUS "precedent" may be on the 'militia' argument side it is doubtful that it will remain that way given that prominent Constitutional scholars aren't even backing that reasoning.

Another article on TRIBE interpretation (http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html)
------

08/27/99
Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals
By Tony Mauro, USA TODAY


Publication of the first volume of a revised edition of a legal treatise would not ordinarily make news.

But even before it began arriving at law schools last week, Laurence Tribe's American Constitutional Law was causing a stir.

Tribe, a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978, the right to bear arms earns Tribe's respect in the latest version.

Tribe, well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as "wholly irrelevant." Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, "admittedly of uncertain scope," to "possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."

None of Tribe's new thinking changes his view that gun-control measures are "plainly constitutional," but his shift has been enough to anger gun-control advocates.

"I've gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who said, 'How could you?'" Tribe says. "But as someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how it fits."

Tribe's views on the Constitution are of more than passing importance.

Earlier editions of Tribe's treatise have been quoted more than 50 times in Supreme Court opinions - by liberal and conservative justices - and by the top courts of India, Germany, Russia and Canada, among others.

The new edition also deals with the law on impeachment developed from President Clinton's trial, as well as the Supreme Court trend cutting back on congressional power.

"He has an audience well beyond law students," says Drake University law professor Tom Baker, who assigns Tribe's book to students. "For Larry Tribe to say that there's more to the Second Amendment than originally thought is very important, and reflects an open-mindedness that some don't expect."

Glenn Harlan Reynolds of the University of Tennessee adds: "He legitimizes this whole new body of scholarship, and it will force judges and others to face the issue on its merits."

At the usually conservative law school at Pepperdine University, professor Douglas Kmiec recommends the book to "the very best students." On the Second Amendment, Kmiec says, Tribe's book offers "a fair and evenhanded appraisal of what is still an inconclusive right."

[2SteppingInVA]

and now that i look at it no american who values their rights can vote republican. And now that I look at it that is possibly the biggest bull shit I've heard from an ignorant liberal yet.

[DMBSignGuy]

I ask, sir, what is the militia. It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. - George Mason

So you'll agree then that the government may only deny the right to bear arms to politicians?



Here's what some other insignificant historical figures had to say:

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.
- John Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrany in government - Thomas Jefferson

A free people ought...to be armed... - George Washington

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. - Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

From http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm: (excellent analysis of the subject):

When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a Bill of Rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, and the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service."

In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Eldridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption for the scrupulous to excuse everyone from military service.

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted to the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "for the common defense".




How is gun control a different topic since it is the manifestation of the government's infringement on a Constitutional right? It's odd that you think that the Second Amendment is somehow different from all the others (the ones you apparently like). Let me get this straight; the states "can give an individual the right to bear arms if they so choose" (apparently even if they qualify as a member of the "militia")? Why not the right to speak? Or assemble? Isn't that what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was made to prevent? I'm confused. Enlighten me.




Back to a time when every able bodied man was considered a member of the militia. Perfect. I love it.



I'll drink to that!!! Have a nice weekend. :)

damnit man...your making me rethink my argument :lol I need a drink. :D

[DMBSignGuy]

How is gun control a different topic since it is the manifestation of the government's infringement on a Constitutional right? It's odd that you think that the Second Amendment is somehow different from all the others (the ones you apparently like). Let me get this straight; the states "can give an individual the right to bear arms if they so choose" (apparently even if they qualify as a member of the "militia")? Why not the right to speak? Or assemble? Isn't that what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was made to prevent? I'm confused. Enlighten me.


i dont want to leave you hanging here so i'll respond. In the context of my previous argument, ie that the 2nd amendment applies to a militia, it makes sense. Using that arguement the 2nd amendment applies to the arming of a well regulated militia and therefore leaves all other individual bearing arms issues to the states, using the 10th amendment.
But, holding the belief that the 2nd amendment applies to an individual's right to bear arms then that does not apply and the states have no say, ie. through the 10th and 14th amendments.



there were some good quotes there...but i dont think quoting anti-federalists, who where opposed to the 2nd amendment, let alone the bill of rights, as a finished product, is the best way to go....

but yes...have a good weekend and partay hartay. :monkey

[DMBSignGuy]

Gotta love researching an issue like the 2nd amendment. Got an interesting article to read on the 2nd amendment.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0%2C1030%2C267921%2C00.html


i'll highlight a few parts that i found most interesting pertaining to my original argument.

"For at least 62 years, the law has been that it only applies to the bearing of arms in the government-regulated militia -- the militia defined in the Constitution and by Congress, which is the National Guard. Never has the court said that it grants an individual right. All of a sudden, if they change that, everything would be up for grabs."

Which, according to many people who have studied the Second Amendment, would be a travesty. Neither history nor logic provides a solid basis for believing that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a gun, Wills writes. "Those who believe there is a natural right to own guns can argue their case on many grounds," he says, "and the arguments may be sound or strong. It is just not a constitutional right."

Malcolm contends that individual rights to weapons was a clearly established principle when the Founding Fathers met to create the U.S. Constitution. She said that the individual right to own weapons dates as far back as the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

George Washington University history professor Lois G. Schwoerer, has examined Malcolm's assertions and found that gun ownership in England was tightly limited by class and religion and was always subject to regulation. Her critique of Malcolm is part of the Chicago-Kent Law Review issue that examined the Second Amendment.

Wills counters that any claims that the Constitution ensures an armed citizenry as a bulwark against the potential tyranny of government is a myth. "You can't read the amendment apart from the body of the Constitution," he wrote, "and the body of the Constitution defines taking up arms against the United States as treason."

i knew there were people that agreed with me :p now to get some sleep....damn 2nd amendment keeping me up all night :lol

[DMBSignGuy]

Man im obsessed....God i love this stuff......i found some more awsome information, best yet in my opinion on the 2nd amendment.

It really goes for a combination of both theories presented and even talks towards how the 2nd amendment is a federal ban on action against the people.

To start i found this awsome quote of Madison about the amendment process...

"The proposition of amendment made by Congress, is introduced in the following terms. "The Convention of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institutions...Under any other construction of the amendment relating to the [right to keep and bear arms], than that it declared the [right to keep and bear arms] to be wholly exempt from the power of Congress, the amendment could neither be said to correspond with the desire expressed by a number of the States, nor be calculated to extend the ground of public confidence in the government." --- James Madison, REPORT OF 1799 on the Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions


I found this to be most very interesting about the 2nd amendment...

It is of great interest to note that in the ensuing years since this Amendment was ratified that commas have been inserted after the words "Militia" and "Arms", providing misconstruction of a very explicit restriction on the legislatures and the government. These commas appear in virtually all presentations of the 2nd Amendment today, including the official NARA presentation, and in no early publication that we have found to date.

being that this is how the amendment was actually worded...

http://www.barefootsworld.net/images/f16b1234.jpg

now i found a document from the Senate that addresses partially the idea of the 2nd amendment though seems to leave it more open than anything but does nail down the issue that it applies to the federal government not the states....i'll quote...

Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state\2\ or private\3\ restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition,
seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the
maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html


the conclusion to all this suggests that the second clause is the bar against any and all Federal actions by any branch...executive, legislative or judicial.

if effect a...

...Guarantor of All other Rights and of the Defense of the Constitution itself.

facinating. :D

[bseitz]

"For at least 62 years, the law has been that it only applies to the bearing of arms in the government-regulated militia -- militia defined in the Constitution and by Congress, which is the National Guard. Never has the court said that it grants an individual right. All of a sudden, if they change that, everything would be up for grabs."
I believe the National Guard was established in 1903. Where is it that "militia" is defined by either Congress or the Constitution? (hint: it's not)

U.S. v. Emerson

Excerpts from Judge Cummings' Decision

"A historical examination of the right to bear arms...bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right."

"The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights."


which, according to many people who have studied the Second Amendment, would be a travesty. Neither history nor logic provides a solid basis for believing that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a gun, Wills writes. "Those who believe there is a natural right to own guns can argue their case on many grounds," he says, "and the arguments may be sound or strong. It is just not a constitutional right."
Who is "he"? Tell "him" to talk to Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law who argues that it is, in fact, an individual right (thanks chellek23!!). The word of Larry Tribe should end the discussion for liberals.


Malcolm contends that individual rights to weapons was a clearly established principle when the Founding Fathers met to create the U.S. Constitution. She said that the individual right to own weapons dates as far back as the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

George Washington University history professor Lois G. Schwoerer, has examined Malcolm's assertions and found that gun ownership in England was tightly limited by class and religion and was always subject to regulation. Her critique of Malcolm is part of the Chicago-Kent Law Review issue that examined the Second Amendment.
Who is this Malcolm character? She's got it backward. The Founders explicitly gave the citizens the right to bear arms BECAUSE of what they'd seen happen in Europe.

Besides, the advantage of being armed forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.
- James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and author of the Second Amendment.


Wills counters that any claims that the Constitution ensures an armed citizenry as a bulwark against the potential tyranny of government is a myth. "You can't read the amendment apart from the body of the Constitution," he wrote, "and the body of the Constitution defines taking up arms against the United States as treason."
"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

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense. - John Adams

"The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!" - Abraham Lincoln


I thought you were reconsidering your position? Come into the light.... :)

[Holla9]

Gotta love researching an issue like the 2nd amendment. Got an interesting article to read on the 2nd amendment.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0%2C1030%2C267921%2C00.html


i'll highlight a few parts that i found most interesting pertaining to my original argument.

Look at the website where you're getting that BS from. Do you really expect people to believe that the 2nd amendment only applies to the National Guard? And why did you ignore what I posted?

[DMBSignGuy]

I thought you were reconsidering your position? Come into the light....

im working on it........which is why my last post...is a better explination of it than the one you were quoting...for that post i found people who were on the other side of the argument.

Besides, the advantage of being armed forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.

now what im coming to a conclusion on, especially which every new Madison quote i read, is that we are to be armed in defense government tyranny. (which im sure we all know :p ) and you spelled that out with the other various quotes...but Madison is the most important of those. :D

So my next question would be how far can gun ownership go for the protection against government tyranny?


I also found this case interesting ....US v. Miller

After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution
dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ``[w]ith 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 with that end in view.''\5\ The
significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was
composed of ``civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon
this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the
laws, on a force that ``comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense,'' who, ``when called for service
. . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time.''\6\ Therefore, ``[i]n the absence
of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun
having a barrel of less than 18 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.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html (linked it before but i'll link it again)

So i would say that my "turning to the light" would be away from the 2nd amendment strictly being in regards to the militia and moving towards an "limited" individuals right to bear arms, simliar to our right to free speech where we cant just yell fire in a crowded theatre. But I am comming to the conclusion that this is infact a federal bar, which ive posted examples of in my previous post......take a look at that one i find it more interesting than the post of mine you quoted.

But until i find more research, i'll doddle about sining my song......."Blinded by the Light" :p :D

[DMBSignGuy]

Look at the website where you're getting that BS from. Do you really expect people to believe that the 2nd amendment only applies to the National Guard? And why did you ignore what I posted?

I'm a fan of Gary Wills, not with everything he says but he does a good job on most things. Brought it up as an alternate opinion. Blame bseitz for me ignoring your post, he writes so damn much...thast alot of reading :lol. It is true that the Supreme Court hasnt difinitively decided on it, but there have been around 30 cases that have decided on the meaning of the 2nd amendment, some of which i posted much eariler in the thread. The question im mainly posing now is how far does the 2nd amendment go in giving us our right to bear arms.....from the founding fathers perspectives, especially Madisons who i give extra weight to, its for the purposes of defense against the government, and say not for hunting. It seems, to me, a right simliar to our right to free speech where there are certain limitations that are placed upon it, ie (cant say fire in crowded theatre). Definitly refining my views on the 2nd amendment.

[OSUturfguyWES]

Several points to comment on. First of all, how many of you have been negatively affected by the Patriot Act? Just wondering, considering how many of you bitch and complain about how horrible it is, even though Dem's and Rep's both agree it's helping to prevent against further problems by allowing law enforcement agenecies more information, something that the democrats claim we don't have enough of and need more of.

I know it hasn't hurt or bothered me in the least personally. I also can be assured that it's helped give the proper govt agencies information to allow them to better protect me and my country.

Second topic, the gay marriage comment. Bush didn't pass a law stopping gay's from getting married. Millions of people in multipe states have outlawed it. What Bush did was push the Defense of Marriage Act, which Kerry supports all the same (last I checked, could have changed in the past few minutes), so regardless of Kerry or Bush, you're still gonna have the same actions from DOMA concerning gay marriage. Getting back to the point, many people in a variety of states hae weighed the issue, and decided that they don't want to allow gay marriage. From there, Bush has made the proper decision for the country to push for it to be something considered federally rather than by state, and for this reason...

If a gay couple is married in Vermont, then moves to Ohio, where gay marriage is not allowed, then what's the point of the marriage certificate. Because Ohioans certainly aren't going to redeem that marriage certificate, but the Vermont couple will want the benefits anyway. Who is right? That is something that the law is being pushed for so it stays out of the courts. Realistically, Ohio has full right to deny any gay marriage benefit to someone because it's illegal in that state. The whole purpose is to keep problems like this from arising all over the place. If it's nationally disallowed, which it should be, then there are no court cases required, and there are no rights violated. Should a national law be made for this topic, maybe even allow the few states that currently allow it to keep that ability, but make it clear to those folks that the gay marriage certificate becomes null and void once they cross the state border.

As far as the gun control, that's a difficult topic because I wish many of these criminals didn't have the horrible weapons that they have, but I believe everyone should have the right to own a gun if properly trained on how to use it.

[bseitz]

Blame bseitz for me ignoring your post, he writes so damn much...thast alot of reading :lol.

Just trying to be helpful :)

[Holla9]

I'm a fan of Gary Wills, not with everything he says but he does a good job on most things. Brought it up as an alternate opinion. Blame bseitz for me ignoring your post, he writes so damn much...thast alot of reading :lol. It is true that the Supreme Court hasnt difinitively decided on it, but there have been around 30 cases that have decided on the meaning of the 2nd amendment, some of which i posted much eariler in the thread. The question im mainly posing now is how far does the 2nd amendment go in giving us our right to bear arms.....from the founding fathers perspectives, especially Madisons who i give extra weight to, its for the purposes of defense against the government, and say not for hunting. It seems, to me, a right simliar to our right to free speech where there are certain limitations that are placed upon it, ie (cant say fire in crowded theatre). Definitly refining my views on the 2nd amendment.

Most states seem to think that it gives individuals the right to bear arms.

The U.S. Constitution and 44 States have Constitutional provisions enumerating the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 26

That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare... That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.


Alaska Constitution Article I, Section 19

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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.


Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.


Arkansas Constitution Article II, Section 5

The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

Those are just a few. The rest can be found here-
http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections#With

[bseitz]

So my next question would be how far can gun ownership go for the protection against government tyranny?

I also found this case interesting ....US v. Miller

... Therefore, [i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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.
Besides the fact that a short-barreled shotgun is an extremely effective weapon in Close Quarter Combat and therefore does have military application, the Court in Miller went off the rails by the implication that only certain personal firearms could have a military application. ALL firearms have a military application and the Court was reaching for the thinnest possible thread to rule against this particular plaintiff.


So i would say that my "turning to the light" would be away from the 2nd amendment strictly being in regards to the militia and moving towards an "limited" individuals right to bear arms, simliar to our right to free speech where we cant just yell fire in a crowded theatre. But I am comming to the conclusion that this is infact a federal bar, which ive posted examples of in my previous post......take a look at that one i find it more interesting than the post of mine you quoted.
So were do we draw the line? Since the main thrust of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the citizens to throw off a tyrannical government, it follows that the founders would have expected the citizens to be as well armed as the government and would therefore reject ANY limitations on the types of arms possessed by citizens. There has to be a balance between public safety and the protection of our individual rights (as with the First Amendment example you cited). I would draw the line on any weapon that is likely to inflict mass casualties (in the hundreds) under normal use. Bazookas, anti-aircraft weapons, missiles, etc. would seem tip the balance between legitimate Constitutional Rights and public safety. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934, but are available to those willing to go through the expense and hassle.

The key is to ensure that those in government understand that the citizens of this country have the means to resist any attempt to reverse the master/servant roles in our Republic.

When citizens fear their government, you have tyranny; when the government fears its citizens, you have freedom - Thomas Jefferson

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
- Joseph Story, United States Supreme Court Justice, 1833

[bseitz]

Most states seem to think that it gives individuals the right to bear arms.

In fact, 38 of the 50 States are considered "shall issue" with respect to concealed carry permits, meaning that they are required to issue a permit to any qualified applicant that passes the necessary background checks. Two states (Vermont and Alaska) effectively have no gun laws at all and any resident can purchase (after a NICS check) and carry a concealed weapon without ever notifying any State agency at all.

Bet that scared all the libs silly!!!! :evil

[DMBSignGuy]

So were do we draw the line?

exactly...that is the question of the day, which has yet to be answered definitively by the courts or any legislative body. Thats what i get to ponder next :D .

There has to be a balance between public safety and the protection of our individual rights (as with the First Amendment example you cited).

i agree 100%.

Where the trick comes in is where do you draw that line. If we draw it at the mass casualities, whats considered mass casualities, surely automatic weapons can inflict mass casualities, should we ban them? Now one can argue that since its not specified by the federal government, it is left up to the states. Which leads to Holla9's post.
Most states seem to think that it gives individuals the right to bear arms.

states can think what they want...if the federal government says no...then its no :D . But it goes along with what i said earlier. the 2nd amendment is a federal ban on denying citizens thier rights to bear arms and so the states cannot deny them either. But as bseitz stated earlier where do you draw the line between individual rights vs public saftey. And issue that can, and seemingly has, been left up to the states, with the federal government having the power to step in if a state goes to far in either denying or allowing the arming of the people. Each of those state amendments show how each state wants to deal with the peoples ability to bear arms, each narrowing the scope of the purpose of what bearing arms means within that state.

Bet that scared all the libs silly!!!!
:lol why is it that i never fit into peoples definition of a liberal :lol I swear I am left of center....though not by much. ;)