Keeping the Second Amendment

[latigolad78374]

I am not a gun owner but I am not against owning guns.
BUT I believe in gun safety first. Everyone who owns a gun should know how to use it properly. My nephew knew gun safety at 6. My brother, a deputy sheriff, taught him well.
I do not believe you need an automatic to hunt deer. That is not sport. If you decide to eat squirll, what would be left of the thing.
This is the first time I've heard of NRA wanting criminals to own guns. That shows you their mentality.
Just my 5 cents. (inflation)

 

[Centexfarmer]

I am not a gun owner but I am not against owning guns.
BUT I believe in gun safety first. Everyone who owns a gun should know how to use it properly. My nephew knew gun safety at 6. My brother, a deputy sheriff, taught him well.
I do not believe you need an automatic to hunt deer. That is not sport. If you decide to eat squirll, what would be left of the thing.
This is the first time I've heard of NRA wanting criminals to own guns. That shows you their mentality.
Just my 5 cents. (inflation)

Now before I get dragged out on the carpet for implying that the NRA wants criminals to own guns, let me just clarify that denying criminals the right to bear arms is an infringment. Would that be correct? Since the NRA is supposed to be about protecting the Second Amendment it would only stand to reason, right?

 

[latigolad78374]

oh sorry centexfarmer. guess i didn't really read that right, huh. I gotta quit reading these threads at 2am. I'm an insomniac so I gotta have more than 2 cups of coffee.

 

[JackFTwist]

My Grandpa taught me how to shoot a 9mm pistol. The United States Coast Guard taught me how to fire a .45 automatic and an M16. I own a 20 gauge shotgun for killing Copperheads and Diamond Back Rattle snakes on my farm.

My Grandpa insisted that I recite a mantra whenever handling a firearm:

Never point a gun at a man unless you plan on shooting him.​

Never shoot a man unless you plan on killing him.​

As to the topic of this thread, and as a registered and active Demopussy, I firmly support the United States Constitution:



Where I'm personally conflicted, is where public safety/protection enters into the mix.

If the idea is to defend oneself against tyranny or invasion at the end of a gun, then why not take it to it's extreme logical conclusion; the Right to Bear nuclear arms. If my Government or any foreign government has an arsenal greater than my own, how can I properly defend myself?

How about armor and kevlar piercing bullets? How can law enforcement possibly be expected to keep the peace when they are out gunned by the populace?

How can anyone justify the need for RPG's for sport hunting?

Part of what helps me to get a grip on these questions is the fact that most of the hoopla is just that; hoopla.

The National Rifle Association seeks only it's own existence, rather than to protect the Second Amendment. That or they take the arguments to such an extreme that they're not based anywhere in reality, or on very small percentages that hardly reflects the reality on the street; Guns in Schools, Illegal possession from either minors or convicted felons. To hear the NRA's defense even convicted felons who've committed crimes with a loaded weapons shouldn't be denied the "right to bear arms." Bet you'll never hear that in any of their "promotional fundraising" materials.

The rest of it are really tactics of WAR.

If someone is fearful of cutting someone off in traffic, or burglarizing another person's home because they might get their asses shot, if that makes this country a little saner, and perhaps less violent, so be it.

What are the doing in the U.K. right now? Making it illegal to carry knives? Forget about a gun!

But when it comes to day to day protection of the citizenry, I honestly don't feel comfortable with the idea that potential criminals can out gun local law enforcement.

A line must be drawn somewhere.

Is my right to bear arms being infringed upon by my Government by making it unlawful for me to be in posession of the instructions/materials to build a nuclear bomb? Nuclear weapons are "armaments" aren't they?

So how far down the arms "food chain" do we go without "infringing" upon my right to bear an arm?


</IMG></IMG>

I appreciate your long and thoughtful post which struggles with the real issues recognizing there are no clear cut answers.

My only point of disagreement is on that I believe A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, qualifies the rest of the sentence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And I should add I belong to anti hand gun organizations and own a hand gun I wanted to see if the hand gun qualification test was a joke and it was, I who had never fired a gun got 100% on questions like: "should you point a loaded gun at your children?" Now that I have the gun, I don't know what to do with it.

Amusingly, I had the gun owners endorsement when I ran for county clerk even though I would have voted "no" on every CW permit application. Living in a hunting state, I have hunted (but never shot) and so many people hunt that it is impossible to categorize everyone who holds a gun or rifle by some stereotype or another.

I agree with you on the NRA. They have lost credibility by opposing any limitations on weaponry and related items, such as armor piercing bullets which kill our cops and AK47s, my God who needs those, they bring terror to our streets. The policies that the NRA insisted on regarding sales and registration left Dylan Harris and Eric Klebold with their arsenal for Columbine.

Home stored weapons are a problem, most school shootings were guns gotten out of grandpa's gun cabinet.

Some rational dialogue needs to take place. There are people who target shoot. There are people who hunt and eat what they kill, those I respect (trophy hunters can rot in hell in my opinion). I know families that depend on venison for their meat supply in the winter months.

I don't want armed paranoids running the streets. I thought the vigilante who pulled a gun on the subway should be prosecuted, God spare us wild firing and ricochets on a closed moving train. Some one may feel a legitimate right to own a gun for home protection, although shooting an armed intruder in your home is one thing, shooting a fleeing intruder in the back is homicide in my opinion. And lest we forget the children who get shot by thir parents climbing into their homes long after curfews and their parents mistaking them for intruders.

So it is not so cut and dry. Reasonable people may differ, but hopefully, will dialogue. And then maybe we can find some consensus on a more sane gun and rifle policy in this country.

Thank you again for your post. It shows that reasonable and rationale minds may see things differently and come to common understandings that will ease the problem. Thank you.

 

[Andreus]

the bad guys are getting the guns from the law abiding citizens and they are getting them over the porous borders with mexico.

tighter weapons legislation wont work without fixing the mexico border situation and increasing money to law enforcement.

BUT

if the bad guys cant steal the weapons from the public, it will have a trickle effect over time, IMO, and as the weapons are taken from the criminals as they commit crimes with them, the availabliity will slowly be reduced.

 

[Andreus]

the constitution does not guarantee the right to own semi automatic weapons.

the constitution is an evolving document. It has kept up with human and scientific evolution in many ways.

when it said all men are created equall, it really meant, all white men who own property. that was changed as our society evolved and a next evolution is needed if we really care about the generation that is to follow us.

Americans need the courage to do the right thing.

Taking these killing machines out of the hands of the bad guys is the right thing.

legislation is the first step.

 

[Centexfarmer]

That's where SCOTUS having not incorporated the Second Amendment and the text "well-regulated" comes into play.

So in your response to Andreus' comments about legislation what you're saying about:

Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Is that legislation, which regulates, will ultimately be determined constitutionally by SCOTUS, is what will "regulate?" Or are you saying that in your view SCOTUS hasn't incorporated or touched the Second Amendment that other Amendments have taken precedent when legislating the use of firearms?

Let's say for the sake of Andreus' argument that "the constitution is an evolving document" wouldn't it stand to reason that weapons evolve too?

When the Constitution was ratified the weapons of choice included, pistols, muskets, swords, picks, knives, bayonets, and cannons. When the militia was called up they were to arrive with their armaments. Where they not?

An argument can be made that since we now have an established military that the Second Amendment is longer necessary, using some of the logic presented in this thread.

I always thought, considering world history at the time, that the inability for the people to rise up and arm themselves against tyranny was one of the basis for the establishment of the Second Amendment.

That the Government receives its rights from the people, and not the other way around. And that "We the people" meant that we had the "right to bear arms" in case of just such a need.

Have I been wrong?

In my view there's been far too much extremism in the alleged defense of the Second Amendment.

One only has to look at BATF, and the events that took place at Waco, and Ruby Ridge, to know that "the people" have no real defense against our government. Should our government consider us enemies of the state.

With Habeas Corpus being withdrawn, which in itself is a violation of Constitutional Law (IMO), that groups like the National Rifle Association, which seems to always be at odds with the American Civil Liberties Union, are missing the bigger picture here.

The reality is, there isn't a need for anyone to own armor/kevlar piercing bullets, and semi/automatic weapons, without there also being a need for nuclear and tactical weapons as well.

Then there's the whole "registration" issue. Why does the government need to know how heavily armed "the people" are?

There are no simple black and white answers to any of these quandaries in my opinion.

How does one regulate a civil society without the perceived or real violation of our Constitutional rights?
</IMG>

 

[Kulindahr]

Where's Kulindahr ?

I've had this little problem -- couldn't get thru to JUB directly, so I could only get into threads I'd already posted in, via the e-mail notices I get.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank Jack for posting this quote:
“when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

According to that statement, what the Second Amendment means is that every member of the militia (by Federal Code, that's everyone 16 to 60 capable of using a weapon) is supposed to own ("supoplied by themselves") and have available ("when called for service") a personal military weapon (or weapons) of the latest military type ("kind in common use at the time"). That language comes close to being what Patrick Henry and others wanted -- remember "the great aim is that every man be armed"?
See, folks, that bit about the militia in the Second Amendment is what's called an explanatory clause. It gives a -- not the, or all, just one -- reason for the main statement. The main statement is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It has no restrictions or loopholes. What the explanatory clause does is to remind everyone -- well, everyone back then who was decently educated -- of one of the big reasons for that was: insurrection against the government.
Don't think so? Well, gee, what had they just come through? And who'd been called on? and what problem had they had? In reverse order: they hadn't had enough arms, because the militia they'd called up didn't own enough to fight an insurrection -- the American Revolution.
Which brings to mind another piece of that explanatory bit: "a well-regulated militia". We've already seen that "militia" refers to everyone 16 to 60 capable of bearing arms, so what does "well-regulated" have to do with it? Right off the notion that it has anything to do with the government even keeping tabs on the militia, let alone registering, etc., or restricting types of arms, has to be thrown out: there's nothing of that in those words at all. See, we have to do a bit of history here; we find that "regulated" doesn't mean "subject to (government) regulations" -- what it means is well-trained, properly supplied, not just with weapons but gear.

So if you read the language, of the amendment and of SCOTUS, you discover that every one of us, age 16 to 60, is supposed to:

1. own an up-to-date, well-cared for military personal weapon comparable to that commonly used around the world
2. have personal gear appropriate for combat, including but not limited to body armor, helmet, Kbar, and canteen.
3. be well-trained with all of it, not just individually but in groups.

Sorry, if you don't like it, but that's what it means.





In accordance with which, I propose that JUB in the U.S. organize a militia, which I propose we call the "Rainbow Rifles". Since the right is currently infringed by restrictive legislation, we would have to limit ourselves to the most powerful semi-automatics available -- done, of course, in rainbow camouflage.

 

[Kulindahr]

If the idea is to defend oneself against tyranny or invasion at the end of a gun, then why not take it to it's extreme logical conclusion; the Right to Bear nuclear arms. If my Government or any foreign government has an arsenal greater than my own, how can I properly defend myself?

I can't give a quotation, but from reading a lot of the writings from back then, the Framers meant "keep and bear arms" in the sense of personal arms. Larger arms were the province of towns or neighborhoods, which is why a lot of villages back then, and even at the time of the Civil War, had cannons sitting on the courthouse lawn.

How about armor and kevlar piercing bullets? How can law enforcement possibly be expected to keep the peace when they are out gunned by the populace?

Historically, dependence on law enforcement, in the U.S., is a recent phenomenon. Early on, the town constable's job was to keep a careful watch, and on observing some crime, "raise the hue and cry, and call upon the well-armed citizenry". Besides which, if you read a few more amendments, you'll find the notion strongly held that the populace is supposed to be able to outgun the police, because police as government, and not "the people". The Framers feared what we see today -- a police force that looks more and more like an army, and in many parts of the country acts like an occupying force.

The National Rifle Association seeks only it's own existence, rather than to protect the Second Amendment. That or they take the arguments to such an extreme that they're not based anywhere in reality, or on very small percentages that hardly reflects the reality on the street; Guns in Schools, Illegal possession from either minors or convicted felons. To hear the NRA's defense even convicted felons who've committed crimes with a loaded weapons shouldn't be denied the "right to bear arms."

Excuse me, but that's too full of errors to pass by.

First of all: I'm an Endowment Member of the NRA, who just turned down a chance to become a Patron Member at a discount, because I would feel cheated at having achieved that without the traditional effort. Now....

1. The NRA never wanted to be a political organization. It only turned into one when liberals started turning America toward being like Europe, where the politicians are allowed to tell people what's good for them -- and threatening the Second Amendment.
2. Many arguments seem to be taken to an extreme, but in context of the wording of the Second Amendment, they aren't. The word people avoid is "infringe" -- which means "don't even get close to". A fringe is a decorative trim on a garment, long strings dangling off, which aren't important to the garment at all, expect that they're attached. "Don't infringe" means "don't even think about touching grandma's dress; don't even touch the fringe". Taken seriously, that means that any regulation, restriction, qualification, etc. having to do with the acquisition, possession, transport, storage, carrying, etc. of personal firearms, ammunition, and gear, are off-limits; any such laws are null and void.
3. "Guns in schools" is an issue raised by the anti-self-defense types. The NRA only responds because the issue has been dragged out to whip up emotions for more (useless) firearms laws. As a matter of fact, taking in the last twenty years, a student in the U.S. is more likely to get struck by lightning... twice! than to be harmed by a firearm at school.
4. The NRA does not suggest at all that violent felons, once released, be permitted firearms. In fact NRA materials I've seen cited an early U.S. court case on the matter in which the judge likened allowing a violent felon to have firearms to permitting a man to smoke a cigar in a barn where dry straw covered the floor. The NRA does, however, support the right of non-violent felons to petition, after a reasonable period of time, to have the free exercise of their right restored, and if no further crimes have been committed, to have that grant be a requirement. And they don't care if the crime that go the felon the "violent" label involved "merely" an unloaded or even non-functional weapon; as in Project Exile, an effective NRA-supported program adding extra time merely for the possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, if the weapon was visible and thus presented a threat (psychological or actual) to a victim, it was "used".

If someone is fearful of cutting someone off in traffic, or burglarizing another person's home because they might get their asses shot, if that makes this country a little saner, and perhaps less violent, so be it.

A survey some years back of felons in prison revealed that the thing most likely to make them turn away from a house was an NRA sticker (second was any police association sticker). And I recall friends in Miami telling me how much more polite traffic on the freeways got after a couple of "road rage" shootings.

What are the doing in the U.K. right now? Making it illegal to carry knives? Forget about a gun!

My parents watch the BBC America broadcast of the Prime Minister answering questions from Parliament. One night Blair actually had to defend the right of housewives to keep cutlery in the kitchen....

But when it comes to day to day protection of the citizenry, I honestly don't feel comfortable with the idea that potential criminals can out gun local law enforcement.

But law enforcement isn't required to protect the citizenry -- SCOTUS and other courts have made that clear! Which means that citizens need to arm themselves, become "well-regulated", i.e. trained, and protect themselves -- which citizens do to the tune of 2.2-2.5 million times a year in the U.S. They would also be able to do, then, what a Boy Scout in Lebanon, Oregon did one night: came to the aid of two policemen pinned down by a criminal who was firing at them and their car (the kid, after yelling at the cops and offering help, popped some rounds from his Ruger 10-.22 at the bad guy, pinning him down so the cops could get from behind their car to better places).

So how far down the arms "food chain" do we go without "infringing" upon my right to bear an arm?

Basic logic, and traditional practice: individuals get individual weapons, groups get group weapons.

Now before I get dragged out on the carpet for implying that the NRA wants criminals to own guns, let me just clarify that denying criminals the right to bear arms is an infringment. Would that be correct? Since the NRA is supposed to be about protecting the Second Amendment it would only stand to reason, right?

Actually the current position of the NRA regarding repeat-offender violent felons is that there shouldn't be any question of them owning guns, because they should be behind bars, permanently.
But, no; denying those who have shown a repeated propensity for applying violence to achieve their wants is no more an infringement than is it an infringement of the 1st Amend. to deny people the privilege of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. As one famous justice once said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".

BTW -- since I spent most of my effort here shedding light on what the NRA is really about -- several posters have complained that people without good training shouldn't have firearms. Many NRA instructors will tell you that there is hardly a state statute in existence that requires what they would consider even the bare minimum of training -- and that is a common attitude; every NRA member I know who has acquired a Concealed Handgun License, or whatever it's called locally,
has scoffed at the skimpy coverage of material. Around here, anyway, it's no longer possible to take a course from an NRA instructor which will give just what's required by the state for the CHL -- you can take a course that contains the state requirements, but you will also have to study what the area's instructors have decreed must be known.
If you want extremes.... a couple of NRA Foundation guys I met firmly believe that everyone who owns a firearm should be required to turn out once a month for a day of drill and training -- to be certain they all had the proper skills and knowledge to use their weapons.

I'd want to drill with the Rainbow Rifles, with a .300 mag semi-auto (shiny pink stock), rainbow carhardts (with a codpiece), with a rainbow flag sewn on one shoulder of my uniform and an Oregon flag on the other... and under the rainbow flag it would say "I'm the NRA".

 

[frankfrank]

It is the whole American culture that fosters violence, not guns. People were killing each other long before there were guns. If you take away guns, people will find other ways to kill each other.

I agree completely with all aspects of your post, Negasta...and I'm a "flaming liberal!" My strong belief that the Second Amendment applies to individuals puts me at odds with most of my liberal/progressive brethren, at least on this issue.

I assume there are statistics somewhere which summarize American murder statistics, including the weapon of choice in the murder. I also strongly suspect that if all gun murders were removed from the totals, the U.S.A. would STILL have one of the highest homicide rates among industrialized countries.

 

[frankfrank]

If you're talking about SA, then what the fuck are you rambling on about the 2nd Amendment and the USA for then?

The situation between USA and SA is TOTALLY different...

No reason that somebody in RSA can't follow issues that pertain to the USA. After all, for better or worse (usually the latter!), "American" issues often have impact across the entire planet. The USA has certainly done things that have impacted on South Africa...

I hope that you, and Negasta, and all others, continue to pay attention to what the United States does - even including "internal" issues which often turn out not to be entirely internal. Without the world watching us, there would be no anti-war demonstrations in other parts of the world, nor the election of leaders who will work for "the people" (such as in many Central and South American nations), etc. Without being observant, the populations in these places wouldn't be aware of the U.S. tendency to influence or ruin elections in the "third world" and assure the installation of puppet leaders. Because you (collectively referring to billions of people not living in the USA) are being observant, SOME of the most extreme tendencies for the U.S. to run roughshod over internal affairs in foreign countries, has been curtailed.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance - I forgot who said this - but this saying applies globally when there's a superpower seeking to deprive the entire planet of liberty, and turn entire populations and continents into slaves to assure more and more corporate profit, greed, and fatter portfolios...

 

[Andreus]

the price of liberty is eternal vigilance

but lets not bother with keeping up with that gun thing....lol

this guy was really offensive and insulting and it turned out he wasnt even american.

don't say that we should mind our words but not our weapons

that makes no sense to me

 

[Kulindahr]

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance - I forgot who said this - but this saying applies globally when there's a superpower seeking to deprive the entire planet of liberty, and turn entire populations and continents into slaves to assure more and more corporate profit, greed, and fatter portfolios...

I like that. It's an excellent rationale for why the United States should not only work to kill every "gun control" proposal brought up in the U.N., but actively press to have the U.N. require all it's members to have an even stronger version of the Second Amendment: so that future U.S. presidents who want to invade someone will think twice about it.

 

[opinterph]

In an attempt to better understand the variety of opinions [as espoused by JUB members within this thread] relating to the possession of arms (weapons,) I copied the first 46 posts into a single “external document” and initially masked the identities of the various contributors. I then reviewed all the comments and highlighted a number of remarks which, IMO, do not add anything substantive to the overall discussion. That left 29 posts with comments (at least broadly) relative to the topic. Of these, perhaps only one-third include comments which relate directly to the specific-topic introduced by the original poster.



Other posts seek to expand the discussion to include:

Limitations on persons and types of weapons​

Legitimate purposes for possession of weapons​

• Militia

• Prevent Government tyranny

• Protection of self and community

• Sustenance-hunting of game animals

• Sport

Sources of weapons used to commit crimes​

Elements and sources of violence in America​

Proper Weapons Training​

National Rifle Association​

All of these additional topics most assuredly relate to the original post; however, indirectly. Each probably deserves its own thread. (I may return to post additional comments relating to some of them, if I find the time/motivation.)



As to the question of “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 right to bear arms uninfringed is dependent on the people being members of a well regulated militia.

Ergo, all firearms must be well regulated, and those that keep them must belong to said militias.

It is time to begin to remove the gun/rifle arms from those who do not belong to the militia, totally under the regulations of the state, to enforce this amendment. And that is keeping the 2nd Amendment.


…

The original poster, JackFTwist, suggests that the right to bear arms, as established in the Second Amendment, applies only to that portion of the population who belong to the militia. He also suggests that persons not belonging to the militia should be disarmed. He points out more specifically (in Post #37) that “a well regulated militia” is the essential purpose of the Second Amendment.

ICO7 notes (in Post #39) that the militia includes all able-bodied citizens and that the right to bear arms is a direct right of the people. Negasta also notes (in Post #2) that it is the peoples’ right that shall not be infringed.

Kulindahr cites the Federal Code (in Post #45) to illustrate that the militia consists of most citizens of the general population. However, he also suggests that a militia is not the only reason citizens have a right to bear arms – specifically noting that “one of the big reasons for [the Second Amendment] was [to protect the citizens’ right to mount an] insurrection against the government.” centexfarmer also notes (in Post #42) that “one of the bases for the establishment of the Second Amendment” was to provide the means “for the people to rise up and arm themselves against tyranny.”

centexfarmer introduces the argument (in Post #42) “that since we now have an established military, the Second Amendment is longer necessary.” One of the points of reasoning behind this argument is mentioned by JackFTwist (in Post #14) in his remark “a nation with a miniscule budget and barely tolerable of a most-small standing army.” But, as Kulindahr points out (in Post #46), we not only now have a formidable standing army, we also have “a police force that looks more and more like an army, and in many parts of the country acts like an occupying force.” He suggests this proliferation of government control is an important reason the founding fathers used the word “infringe” to indicate that “any regulation, restriction, qualification, etc. having to do with the acquisition, possession, transport, storage, carrying, etc. of personal firearms, ammunition, and gear, are ‘off-limits’ [to federal authority].”

ajacobs suggests (in Post #43) that “quotes from the founding fathers” make the intent of the Second Amendment clear, though he doesn’t offer any examples.

JackFTwist suggests (in Post #14) that constitutional law supports the view that “the intent … is the militia and its staffing and provisioning.” He cites United States v. Miller as evidence. This 1939 ruling involves a case in which the defendants had been released on the basis of the trial court determination that prosecution would violate the Second Amendment. No briefs or other appearances were filed on their behalf, so the Court acted on the basis of the Government's representations.

According to FindLaw:

In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. 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.” 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.” Therefore, “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.”

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms, and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made. At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

(Post #44) SCOTUS having not incorporated the Second Amendment means that any perceived limitations to the right to bear arms cannot be held against the states, only the federal government. … Without the incorporation against the states, the states can legislate gun ownership all it wishes, outside of banning weapons altogether.

Also from FindLaw:

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private 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.

It is my observation that case law in the lower federal courts tends to incorrectly support the notion of “dual sovereignty” between the states and Congress regarding the militia. Of course, this implicitly allows the federal government to preempt state regulation, especially when considered in the context of many other state-federal conflicts in which the Court has allowed preemption of state law. In this scenario, Congress is also allowed to regulate the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms as well as requiring national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether.

The alternative is to recognize that the Second Amendment is intended to benefit the state governments and that it therefore represents a citizen-held right that is binding on the federal government. From this viewpoint, the right to bear arms is held directly by the people and may not be preempted by the federal government. I think it is appropriate for the individual states to regulate arms – but regulations must be reasonably designed to preserve the basic right of eligible citizens to keep and bear arms. For example, you cannot own atomic weapons because they pose an unreasonable risk to the community. Other specific weapons and/or features may be similarly restricted in the interest of public order or community safety. Convicted felons may legitimately be denied gun ownership. Etc.

It is also true that “to bear arms” implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

 

[Andreus]

thanks for your opinion on the validity of OUR opinions as well as a hefty work out on the scroll wheel of my mouse as I tried to figure out where the criticism of US ended and YOUR OPINion began

you lost me when you started saying other people's opinions arent valid, so ....

if you have an opinion please feel free to state it as simply as posible. Otherwise, you kind of lost me in the whole .... i did this and that with your posts... stuff.

your points are Facts and everyone elses are opinions off topic...lol

not realistic

thanks

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm going to have to go re-read, but it seems to me from the Federalist Papers and similar sources, that there was an ambiguity concerning "sovereignty" over the militia -- the governors could call on them, but so could Congress. The difference between "a militia" and "the militia", and other distinctions may play a role.

 

[Andreus]

Were they truly off topic or just part of the natural ebb and flow of any JUB thread?

it would seem that some people interpret any differing opinion an off topic comment.

 

[opinterph]

I [disregarded] remarks which, IMO, do not add anything substantive to the overall discussion …

Were they truly off topic or just part of the natural ebb and flow of any JUB thread?

The remarks which I perceive to offer nothing substantive ARE, (for the most part,) appropriate bits and pieces of a typical thread. For example, Post #3 consists entirely of a simple affirmation regarding the content expressed in a previous poster’s statement. There is nothing wrong about posting a public comment to demonstrate agreement or support toward a concept that has already been posted. However, the affirmation itself does not add anything substantive to the overall discussion. It informs readers that a particular poster is aligned with “substantive” remarks previously posted in the thread – it does not ADD additional substance. My intent was to identify the variety of opinions – not to assimilate some relative measure of each position’s popularity.

Other posts seek to expand the discussion to include …

All of these additional topics most assuredly relate to the original post; however, indirectly. Each probably deserves its own thread.

Again, I am not suggesting that the less-directly-related topics do not belong in the thread. But, it is important to recognize the fact that those [important] topics do not address the Constitutional issue raised by the original post. I do not discourage a continuation of discussion relating to any of those topics, within or without this particular thread.

I apologize if the explanation of my methodology was too complicated for some readers. And, I regret any personal trauma other posters may have experienced as a result of my attempt to narrow my own participation to the actual topic.

By all means, please continue to post comments relating to the various subtopics surrounding this issue.

 

[Andreus]

and i apologize if thinking out of the box is too complex for some minds.

perhaps the person who started the thread could let us know what he intended.

i am sure rude wasn't on his agenda.

now where the hell did we put that ignore button.

 

[JackFTwist]

the person who started this thread was looking for some good discussion, which is what happened, and the complexity of the issue has been grappled with which has been noted by the thread starter with some thanks for the great discussion

please PM the thread starter who is curious about your comments