| (Pages: 1, 2, 3) | |
BANNED  Posts: 7326 Joined: 10 Apr 2007     | |
Paperboy  Posts: 34 Joined: 18 Dec 2008     | If I've misread the above argument (which is admittedly difficult with all the legal talk),I apologize for the following statment. In the statement "Right of the people...to bear arms," it sounds like the OP is saying that the militia IS the people represented with their right to bear arms uninfringed, when its been establish that the united states military is a BRANCH of the government. That's not the people. That's the government. What would infringe on the rights of the people would BE the laws and the government that acts according to them (Embodying them). So, then the amendment can't mean that the established militia is the ONLY one to have guns, because that would mean the GOVERNMENT only has the guns, which means that the PEOPLE have none, which means the PEOPLE have no right to bear arms. Have I gotten lost? |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 396 Joined: 3 Sep 2008     |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia Look at the definition. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 108 Joined: 8 Sep 2008     |
It means that because the government needs an army to protect society, the people need guns to protect themselves from the government. Therefore the peoples rights to have weapons shall not be abridged. Wrangling the wording of the constitution isn't the right way to go about gun control, the constitution is clear on that. The right way is to argue that the world has changed and that the peoples right to armed uprising is less necessary and the amendment should be repealed. I'm a second amendment supporter, but please don't try render the constitution meaningless, it makes it too easy for others to mangle the intent of amendments you do support. Instead amend it, this is a democracy after all if the people want gun control they should get it. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2686 Joined: 23 Jan 2008    |
Allow me to translate this, since apparently you're not getting the idea: "Since a well regulated militia is necessary, and might be necessary at any point, you guys should be allowed to keep and have guns." |
Paperboy Posts: 34 Joined: 18 Dec 2008 | See, I agree with Whitemage, but even if you twist the words, it doesn't seem to make much difference. The text provided argues on behalf of the people. And why'd you link me to the wikipedia definition, James? The definition provided there uses terms such as "generally" and is clearly not authoritative in any sense of the word. The "clearly" in your "this clearly states that only militia..." is a pretty big reach. How is it clear in the least? Whitemage is right. If the redcoats across the street at the time qualified as the "militia" (which your logic says they did), then I doubt then that civilians defending themselves against tyranny would be condemned in the constitution. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3567 Joined: 13 Aug 2008    | My two cents: It's not the gun. It's the prick who pulls the trigger who's the problem. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 212 Joined: 25 Sep 2008    | my thoughts is why if a militia was the only expected outlet for guns to be used why is it that the founding fathers had no problem whatsoever with people during their era owning guns who were not in a militia |
Beat Writer Posts: 212 Joined: 25 Sep 2008 | my thoughts is why if a militia was the only expected outlet for guns to be used why is it that the founding fathers had no problem whatsoever with people during their era owning guns who were not in a militia |
BANNED Posts: 7326 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
The problem is you're forgetting that the Bill of Rights did not apply against the States when it was written, only against the Federal government. In other words, when it was written, the Second Amendment was only meant to prevent the Federal government from taking away the guns from the People, because the States needed Militias, and for that they needed the People to show up with Guns. Take away the right of the People to have guns in their home, and the Federal government could render any State-armed militia weaponless by seizing any centralized armories. Remember: that's how the Revolution started--British troops getting attacked at Lexington and Concord on their way to seize the contents of the armory at Concord. The problem with looking to the Second Amendment as words of limitation is that you're forgetting that the Bill of Rights was originally a check only on the power of the Federal government--therefore the language it uses is going to be specific to that task. If someone thinks that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, or that it is evidence that there's a Fundamental Right to Bear Arms without it being specifically enumerated (and remember, rights like Marriage and Privacy and Interstate Travel are never enumerated in the Constitution, but are still held to be Fundamental Rights), you're using language that was meant to express the rights of the States against the Federal government as if it was meant to express the rights of the Individual against State AND Federal governments. Can you see where your mistake is now? You're using the language of the Constitution for a task it was never intended to undertake. User was banned for: Guido Age: Origins - Return to Jersey Shore with Morrigan. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2507 Joined: 24 Sep 2008   | I would personally read the second amendment the same way that the OP is, but unfortunately the US Supreme Court did not. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2585 Joined: 5 Nov 2008   | That is not the full second amendment. The full second amendment states "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 second amendment does protect the rights of all citizens of the United States to own guns. Gun control does not prevent people from killing each other, look at Newyork City. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 194 Joined: 23 Oct 2008  | 1. U.S. gun ownership is regulated, and if people want to use a gun illegally, they are going to get a gun anyway, look up the Iron River coming up from mexico. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1812 Joined: 15 Oct 2008    |
What the fuck are you talking about? You have to get a license for a gun in America, plus a seven week background check on handguns. A ban would prevent guns from being sold period. |
BANNED Posts: 7326 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Actually, Australia does it much the same way America does it, a mix of federal and local laws. Even after the changes that came in the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre, my guess is that Australia's laws are much more like those of America than they are like the Netherlands. User was banned for: Guido Age: Origins - Return to Jersey Shore with Morrigan. (Permanent) |
Muckraker  Posts: 262 Joined: 22 May 2008  | "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" The amendment doesn't even say you have that right. It's a given, apparently. It just says that it can't be infringed. I mean, it's not even a complete sentence, but the fact that it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does seem to indicate that there is such a right. You can be against people keeping and bearing arms, but I think you'll find that under the infringement category of that amendment. Feel free to change the Constitution, if you think you can. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 996 Joined: 25 Sep 2008    |
Oh dear oh dear OH DEAR! What the fuck am I talking about? That's how you have to get your point across? I'm very sorry that I got something wrong, dear sir. You could at least not be an ass about it. Thanks. 'sides, isn't it dependent on the state you live in? Still, I wonder how all these accidents happen if the guns are so ridiculously regulated. Yes, I know that the media likes all these accidents and will probably highlight each of them. It's apparently so heavily regulated that soccer moms and dads can get their hands on a handgun. Wow. |
Beat Writer Posts: 212 Joined: 25 Sep 2008 |
well truth be told that is very dependent on the state I live in Wyoming which probably sits as one of the least restrictive gun control states all you need to get a rifle is to be eighteen with no past of mental illness and no felony's and pass the background check that takes about twenty minuets and for handguns just substitute eighteen for twenty one. That being said even though every one and their mom owns a gun in Wyoming people are not fleeing in terror and we don't have violent gun massacres every week heck my mom does not even bother to lock the door. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3011 Joined: 18 Sep 2008    | How about you live your life in your mothers basement the way you want to live it, and I'll live my life in my own home clinging to muh guns and muh religion fer sekurity. live and let live, me having a gun isn't going to infringe on your right to live, and you taking my gun away isn't going to stop some gangbanger from knocking down your door and pistol whipping you. On the other hand, if the gangbanger comes in my house, he won't be around to pistol whip anyone else ever again. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2640 Joined: 1 Aug 2008   |
Hmmm I walked into a gun shop and walked out with this http://www.teamglock.com/Glock-Buyers-Guide/Glock-32.htm in 30 min. Not to mention gun shows private individuals where you don't need a backround check. Or you can buy them off the street(stolen) This debate on this is sort of redundant as the supreme court ruled it an individual right a few months ago......
Hey a fellow "bitter clinger"! as Our great master Obama labels us. |
Beat Writer Posts: 212 Joined: 25 Sep 2008 | now personally I think background checks at gun shows are reasonable and one of the few things I have a strong disagreement with the NRA. Recently I traded in a revolver at a gun show for a .22 semi automatic and it was somewhat disheartening when the guy did not even bother to see my id much less do a background check. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2640 Joined: 1 Aug 2008 |
Hmm an issue with backround checks is that how can I as an individual sell a gun(there are ways just more difficult) would I have to have a middleman transfer the gun and do a check or what. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 4784 Joined: 20 Aug 2008     |
Everywhere American cities and states have passed private concealed-carry permit laws, the violent crime rate has gone down because criminals now have to weigh the probability that their victim may be armed and within his rights to shoot and consider if the crime is worth that risk of death that comes from not knowing who's packing. On the flip side of that coin, the laws in Britain are such that if someone invades your home you might as well pour them a cup of tea and ask them would they please kindly not steal from you because if you shoot them you're the one guilty of murder in the first. It may be some inherent cultural superiority in the Netherlands (or Scandinavian countries, which have the same strictures against gun violence and the same low rates of personal and property crime) or it may just be that continental Europe has cameras everywhere in the cities so criminals know anything they do may be caught on tape. In America, where that level of surveillance is (for now) considered to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment (and possibly the Fifth), we need a...shall we say, more direct way of dealing with the problem. American gun ownership and rights of self-defense is rooted in this country's individualistic culture and outlook, something continental Europe rather famously doesn't abide by---as P.J. O'Rourke said of Sweden in Eat the Rich, "Sweden has created this wonderful system for achieving economic equality, but it only works on Swedes." |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 621 Joined: 21 Aug 2008   | Guns = death. The end. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 4784 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 |
Besides being brutally fucking obvious, what point were you trying to make there? I rather like having the option to inflict death on someone under certain circumstances like, say, someone trying to break into my house and threaten my family, my life, and my property. There are certain cases where a 12 gauge shotgun needs to be used to make a point. Does this mean that I (or any reasonable non-fucked-up person) am going to walk into my friendly neighborhood Catholic church on Sunday and shoot altar boys simply because I am allowed by law to protect myself and those close to me? No, and the big key here is that an armed populace is a safe populace precisely because it levels the playing field between decent people and violent crazy people (to say nothing of the government---lord knows for awhile there a revolution was a pretty damned plausible option and depending on how the next few years go it still might be one.) |
BANNED Posts: 7326 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Yet the safest town in America is in a state with almost no concealed carry; so is the fourth most dangerous--in fact, THEY ARE IN THE SAME STATE, ONLY 70 MILES APART http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/real_estate/best_worst/index.html Now that we're in a recession, let's see just how those statistics hold up. Ever think about whether a lot of those stats correlate with things like the tech bubble and the housing bubble, and other upswings in the economy as well as they do with the passage of those laws? Fact is, the issue of guns and crime deterrence is a much more complex issue than looking at a few cities and states that have passed private concealed-carry permit laws. There's no easy answer like 'pass private concealed-carry permit laws and crime will go down'. The answer is a lot more nuanced than that. User was banned for: Guido Age: Origins - Return to Jersey Shore with Morrigan. (Permanent) |
Infamous Scribbler Posts: 621 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 |
How could you POSSIBLY argue with that? Here was I thinking that I had masterfully chosen a concise sentance that people could accept as true without arguing with me non stop. Guns do equal death. I'm not going to bother to go much further with this because I had a similar horrible conversation last night. This is my opinion, guns are bad. The world would be a better place without them. Gun restrictions should exist if only to keep gun owners and their families safe. I do realise that it is only one part of the problem. And I'm entitled to share my opinion. |
Paperboy  Posts: 19 Joined: 12 Aug 2008   |
I know what'll help. Let's make it illegal for people to bring guns with them at school. That should once and for all put an end to school shootin- Oh wait... |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 996 Joined: 25 Sep 2008 |
Thanks for your answer :) |
Copy Clerk Posts: 91 Joined: 9 Nov 2008  | The second amendment is in place so the other rights of the people are respected and any attempt to remove them will be knowingly met with rebellion the removal of this amendment will remove all power the people have to reject any law / order i.e no more free speech or removal to the right to protest (a government big enough to provide every thing u need is big enough to take every thing u have the founding fathers new this (((YouTube))) ((Freedom of Speech and H.R. 1955 pt. 1)) take a look at this and u will know what I mean |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 4774 Joined: 12 Nov 2008   | As Cheeze stated, bills of rights are there to protect people against heavy handed governmental interference, not to be a part of the law which deals with creating a stable society. The law is your parents, telling you that you can't go out after dark. The Bill of Rights is the social services, telling your parents they can't beat you up with a stick or lock you in a cupboard for 5 days.
Basically, what this guy just said. If one intends to make guns illegal, there has to be a reason for it other than gun crime, because it will have little to no impact on those crimes. Let me illustrate why:- Criminal 1: "Shall I get myself a gun this week?" Criminal 2: "Are you mad? They are illegal!" Making things illegal doesn't prevent crime. In fact it creates a whole lot more as you now have to deal with people who have (up until now) been law abiding citizens who happen to own firearms suddenly becoming criminals because a suit in Washington signed a bit of paper. The UK has been trying for years to deal with massive amounts of knife crimes, even banning "combat knives". Crimes involving knives have been steadily rising inspite of all of this because the actual causes of those problems are never addressed - poverty, and lack of employment and education among the underclass. So instead of gun control, or banning knives, or having weapon amnestys, why not ban poor people? Why not ban uneducated people and ban socio-economic black-spots? Should we give the people in those situations employment, education, and prospects to improve their lives? Tabloids: "No! They are like that because they are all lazy scum!" Ahhh... fuck my beautiful dream then. |
Beat Writer Posts: 194 Joined: 23 Oct 2008 | I don't think it helps to restrict gun ownership, but it does help to verify that those owning them are responsible. And I think that we are slowly getting there. Indiana just started offering a lifetime concealed weapons permit, the catch being that they can run a background check on you at any time, where as before it was only when you applied for your four year permit. So, you fail the check, you loose your permit. I think the next step is requiring first time applicants to take gun safety and use classes (nothing too serious, maybe one saturday of training), which could be waved for veterans and a few others. At the end of the day, guns are not going away, the best we can do is to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain them, and to make sure those people who choose to purchase them are properly trained. Believe me, I see so many jackasses carrying firearms that have absolutely no idea what they are doing, it makes me sick. I have no problem calling out said jackasses, either. And please don't use the "if someone tries to rob me, I'm going to get all action hero-y and shoot them down" argument for gun ownership. That's not what it's about, and those who think they are not going to be pissing their pants when they get robbed and are going to be capable of not getting themselves killed are kidding themselves. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1812 Joined: 15 Oct 2008 |
It's my right to be an anonymous ass on the internet. The one week thing is, but unless you buy a handgun off of the street, you still need a license.
I live in California with probably the most restrictive gun laws in the US, and I could purchase a shotgun or rifle fairly easily. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1645 Joined: 12 Sep 2008   |
LMAO Those stats fuckin failed with Orem in third which is allowed Open Carry. You can carry a gun in Utah in the Open and not be arrested for it nor do you need a permit unlike a concealed carry. So now that you castrated your stats please stand down Euro. |
Muckraker  Posts: 330 Joined: 14 Dec 2008 | If guns people... cars make people drive drunk |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3) | |
Why is the "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" part in Article I if not to restrict copyright laws?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.80758.1060870
It's simple--only the most iron-clad argument is listed. Doesn't mean there weren't other arguments for what follows, just that the grounds that no one could argue with was listed.
It's a Constitution, not an attempt to make a comprehensive argument. That's why you have that Tenth Amendment catch-all:
"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."
The whole idea was that the language of the Bill of Rights was to protect rights, not to be used as a weapon to restrict the scope of them.