When is it gonna end? This is getting too screwed up. Someone has to tell the gun owners they HAVE to lock up their guns. http://www.alternet.org/flo

[Kulindahr]

I can never agree to that. 'The right of the people' is not core within the amendment.

So you choose deliberate ignorance over history: the sole reason the Constitution passed was because the first ten amendments were promised, to guard the rights of the people. That's why they're called "The Bill of Rights" -- the whole point is about the rights of the people.

The whole constitution covers the rights of the people.

This should help: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/

See, with the glaring exception of the right of habeus corpus, the entire Constitution prior to amendments is about government power.

As such it can be reasonably inferred that 'the people', in whole or individually, are being referenced in EVERY part of it, so trying to determine whether 'the people' refers to individuals or a collective in regards to the 2nd is as redundant as trying to do the same with any other.

Well, since none of the Bill of Rights refers to the people as "a collective", but to individuals, this is reasonably correct -- except that few sections of the Constitution have anything to do with "the people", other than the foundation that the people are assigning to government the exercise of some authority derived from the rights of the people.

And Heller being 'quite correct' is dubious on a 5-4 vote. 'Quite' is the far more operative word there than 'correct'. The decision is about as fair as electing a President that more than 2/3rds of the population doesn't support.

I know -- it should have been 9 - 0, the same decision, except stronger, because there is no doubt from colonial common law or the writings of the Founders and Framers that the Second is first of all -- as is true of all rights -- an individual right.

I haven't suggested that grammatically it is more relevant than 'the people', but since, as already stated, the definition of 'people' encompasses everybody (collective or singularly) as the fundamental overlying of the constitution, it takes a lesser role (since already established) when being specific to parts of the constitution. As such, the following is most relevant:

1. Being necessary to the security of a free state
2. A well regulated militia
3. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The third IS the amendment -- it's the essential statement (just diagram the sentence). The rest is commentary, first giving a reason and second describing the sort of militia.

I disagree. Since, the police are a paid and trained state force, they constitute a perfect example of 'well regulated militia'.
The military are the direct parallel of a noble's private troops.

Militia means NOT GOVERNMENT -- that's basic to the entire concept. It's why when the National Guard is called up by the feds, they cease to be militia.

A noble's private troops' main function was to keep the peace -- they are the exact parallel of a police force. Under the militia model, they also served to stand against the king's army, thus being the opposite of a national military in that they were expected, when local rights were infringed, to stand against that military.

The whole militia concept is loaded with the checks and balances notion built into the Constitution: the militia exist to preserve the security of the free state, which means on the one hand to be ready to be called up for service of that state against outsiders and on the other to stand ready to oppose the government should it become tyrannical.

Furthermore, even regarding the state police as a standing army, they are the standing army of the state, not the federal government, which means, looking at it in a historical context, whether you call them police, standing army or militia, they serve the same purpose, providing the security of the state over federal government, the whole point of including the amendment in the first place, to satisfy anti-federalists that their respective states would retain power over themselves.

Fifty years ago I might have granted this point. Since then, however, local law enforcement have become little more than an extension of the federal law people. If state police forces were required to arrest federal agents intruding on their turf, if federal agents were required to obtain local permission before doing so much as stepping out of their cars in a local jurisdiction, you might have the beginnings of a case.

And yet in your interpretation, you have ignored 'well regulated'. Something being CONTINUALLY done in the gun debate by pro-gunners.

LOL

Apparently you haven't read my posts -- my entire position rests on "well-regulated" (which has little to nothing at all to do with regulations). This entire situation exists because law-makers refuse to treat the militia seriously or to exercise their authority to assign some substance to the "discipline" portion of a well-regulated militia. While Wayne LaPierre ignores the well-regulated aspect except for lip service, the liberals in government assign it no importance at all -- in fact, they're afraid of the possibility (truth be told, all but honest politicians are afraid of it, so they're in broad company).

 

[Kulindahr]

This is absolutely my understanding of the meaning of "militia". Were the US Government to attempt breaching citizen's liberties too far, the State could call it's police force to defend it' citizens. We have seen events where such threats existed. Kennedy threatened the use of the National guard against state troopers at Ole Miss, for example.

Then you understand a small part of the militia system/concept. Armed persons under the authority of a local government counted as formal militia, i.e. militia in uniform, but only that because they could (hopefully be counted on to) wield their power against the central authority.

Perhaps the best examples of this in modern times have been in Wyoming and Montana, where the courts have upheld the supremacy of the local sheriff, as representative of both state and people, over that of federal agents.

There's no debating this. All this postulating over meanings and grammar, yet the gun advocates consistently ignore that the Amendment explicitly mentions regulation.

It mentions no regulation at all -- it mentions something entirely different: well-regulated. As understood by Gen. George Washington and the Continental Congress (along with the entire English-speaking world at the time), "well-regulated" meant possessing their own weapons suitable for battle and being competent in using and maintaining them, having competent officers and obeying those officers, standing and maintaining discipline under fire (Washington praised a certain contingent for being particularly well-regulated because they kept formation and retained their weapons while obeying their officers while retreating), etc. The term has to do with taking the duties of a militiaman seriously and adhering to the best code of conduct while in battle or awaiting it (there were comments about well-disciplined during Valley Forge, in relation to troops who stole food from the area not being well-regulated).

When you mention regulation, the term today is closer in meaning to what the Founders meant by "discipline", except even then the term today implies something imposed from the outside rather than a matter of internal character. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to provide for the discipline of the militia, which means to set standards to which that internal character can be trained -- and at that point, the cries of people being sloppy with their firearms showing a poorly-regulated militia are quite accurate, though likely improperly meant, for the fact is that any militia that is well-regulated, i.e. which is possessed of the character necessary for those expected to stand for people's rights, is going to know that one does not leave one's equipment strewn about in such fashion that anyone at all could wander in and make off with any part of it. Indeed, a word employed by Washington and other officers for some of the non-well-regulated militia of the time is appropriate to such behavior" slovenly.


But more important than debating small points here is that not a single advocate of attempting to reign in criminals and the insane by burdening the law-abiding has yet to reply the the one substantive point made in this thread that would actually deal with the issue. The proposals from that side are aimed de facto at crippling the militia, while the solution here involves strengthening it. They rely on wanting to eviscerate the militia rather than just simply apply the content of that concept by use of the Article 1 Section 8 authority of Congress to establish an order of discipline for the militia which would deal with the quite slovenly behavior of some of its members.

In fact, after some recent news items once again demonstrating just how slovenly some of our militia members are, I would delight to see a bill introduced "To remedy the slovenly and lazy manner of the militia", one recognizing that anyone capable of picking up and aiming a firearm is in fact part of the militia -- and requiring them (us) all to bloody well act that way!

The fact is -- under both militia concept of the Founders and federal law -- that every able-bodied (legal) resident of the U.S. is a member of the militia. A second fact is that we the militia have to a great extent been slovenly, either directly or by failing to impose on our fellow militia members the seriousness of their duty as militia. In good American tradition, Congress should be passing legislation to remind us of our status and the relevant duties by once again requiring us all to enroll in a local militia, to be trained properly in our duties, and to sign off that we will accept the penalties imposed for failing to meet those duties.

And for the whiners who will shed tears that this would create "an armed state", that's just bloody rubbish -- all it would do is to acknowledge that we in fact are already an armed state, and to require those who have chosen to exercise a sacred right that to be a member of a body of people standing up for the security of a free state comes with very, very hefty responsibilities.

 

[T-Rexx]

Florida 13-Year-Old Finds Family Gun, Shoots 6-Year-Old Sister
Another tragic shooting involving kids.
May 6, 2013 |


A 6-year-old Florida girl is in critical condition after being shot by her 13-year-old brother, Florida officials say. According to the Florida Sun-Sentinal, the teen found the gun when the siblings were home alone.

Nobody has ever been killed by a gun. They are killed by a person wielding a gun.

 

[TX-Beau]

Then you understand a small part of the militia system/concept. Armed persons under the authority of a local government counted as formal militia, i.e. militia in uniform, but only that because they could (hopefully be counted on to) wield their power against the central authority.

Perhaps the best examples of this in modern times have been in Wyoming and Montana, where the courts have upheld the supremacy of the local sheriff, as representative of both state and people, over that of federal agents.



It mentions no regulation at all -- it mentions something entirely different: well-regulated. As understood by Gen. George Washington and the Continental Congress (along with the entire English-speaking world at the time), "well-regulated" meant possessing their own weapons suitable for battle and being competent in using and maintaining them, having competent officers and obeying those officers, standing and maintaining discipline under fire (Washington praised a certain contingent for being particularly well-regulated because they kept formation and retained their weapons while obeying their officers while retreating), etc. The term has to do with taking the duties of a militiaman seriously and adhering to the best code of conduct while in battle or awaiting it (there were comments about well-disciplined during Valley Forge, in relation to troops who stole food from the area not being well-regulated).

When you mention regulation, the term today is closer in meaning to what the Founders meant by "discipline", except even then the term today implies something imposed from the outside rather than a matter of internal character. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to provide for the discipline of the militia, which means to set standards to which that internal character can be trained -- and at that point, the cries of people being sloppy with their firearms showing a poorly-regulated militia are quite accurate, though likely improperly meant, for the fact is that any militia that is well-regulated, i.e. which is possessed of the character necessary for those expected to stand for people's rights, is going to know that one does not leave one's equipment strewn about in such fashion that anyone at all could wander in and make off with any part of it. Indeed, a word employed by Washington and other officers for some of the non-well-regulated militia of the time is appropriate to such behavior" slovenly.


But more important than debating small points here is that not a single advocate of attempting to reign in criminals and the insane by burdening the law-abiding has yet to reply the the one substantive point made in this thread that would actually deal with the issue. The proposals from that side are aimed de facto at crippling the militia, while the solution here involves strengthening it. They rely on wanting to eviscerate the militia rather than just simply apply the content of that concept by use of the Article 1 Section 8 authority of Congress to establish an order of discipline for the militia which would deal with the quite slovenly behavior of some of its members.

In fact, after some recent news items once again demonstrating just how slovenly some of our militia members are, I would delight to see a bill introduced "To remedy the slovenly and lazy manner of the militia", one recognizing that anyone capable of picking up and aiming a firearm is in fact part of the militia -- and requiring them (us) all to bloody well act that way!

The fact is -- under both militia concept of the Founders and federal law -- that every able-bodied (legal) resident of the U.S. is a member of the militia. A second fact is that we the militia have to a great extent been slovenly, either directly or by failing to impose on our fellow militia members the seriousness of their duty as militia. In good American tradition, Congress should be passing legislation to remind us of our status and the relevant duties by once again requiring us all to enroll in a local militia, to be trained properly in our duties, and to sign off that we will accept the penalties imposed for failing to meet those duties.

And for the whiners who will shed tears that this would create "an armed state", that's just bloody rubbish -- all it would do is to acknowledge that we in fact are already an armed state, and to require those who have chosen to exercise a sacred right that to be a member of a body of people standing up for the security of a free state comes with very, very hefty responsibilities.

Really? Here's one of the things Washington had to say on the subject.

"...The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia would be a genuine source of legislative honor and a perfect title to public gratitude. I therefore entertain a hope that the present [congress] will not pass without carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and thus providing, in the language of the Constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions..."

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/union/state6.html

(emphasis mine)

Where oh where is the "stand your ground?" The "castle doctrine" the worry little Suzy will be molested, the crippling fear Alice has every time she leaves the bar? Where is that?

HE WAS WORRIED BECAUSE THE US HAD NO PROFESSIONAL STANDING ARMY!!!!!!!!!!!

You always wander back to 1791 in your unsightly fanaticism, despite the fact that you cherry pick to support your vigilante fantasies - it's still completely irrelevant.

We already REGULATE FIREARMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only question is how much. ALL the rest of that is just bullshit you are using to obscure the point.

 

[Rolyo85]

It's hilarious either way - the claim that "well regulated" means some 18th century standard of behavior, is just absurd. We. Don't. Live. In the. 18th. Century. I don't care what they meant if it is not relevant to current times, which - judging by Kuli's description - it isn't. The people writing the Constitution knew it would get outdated and would need updating. But they didn't count on a gun-erectile culture that has no respect for human life, and a semi-retarded "conservative" "justices" who'd turn the provision to defend against invasion into an over bloated children slaughterhouse.

 

[Kulindahr]

But we are not discussing the Bill of Rights in whole here, we are being specific to the amendment. So no, i'm not being ignorant, i'm being on topic.

You want to pull one amendment out of not only its context in history but of the document of which it was a part, and you call that "being on topic"? Sorry, but that's like giving credit for a book report which deals with just one chapter with no regard for the rest of the book.

Well, as i stated in my last post on here. It just isn't relevant to the debate anymore. People or persons doesn't matter, though it may have saved a lot of time debating over the years if the drafters added persons instead of people, since that is more conclusive in its meaning of individual (person), unlike people, which is the same when you add the plural (refers to groups of). What evidence is conclusive exactly that the drafters meant individuals?? The case for that didn't convince the democrat appointed justices, nor one of the republicans i think, during Heller.

READ THE HISTORY. I keep reporting it, and you just go on as if there is none. Over and over in the discussion of the Second Amendment the phrase "every man" is used -- a phrase that means individuals. And any justice who wasn't convinced was being deliberately obtuse, since none of them would have argued that freedom of speech, of religion, or any other of the protections in the Bill of Rights applies only to groups.

And the word "person" would not have worked, since then morons would argue that groups don't have these rights, only individuals, so we'd have bonehead Republicans offering legislation to ban the Sierra Club and every other citizens' group from politics because they're not individuals.

I'm guessing that this issue has been dealt with at some point. I was thinking earlier today that the state police should always have jurisdiction over federal agents in their own state. I then wondered about whether or not this jurisdiction issue is circumvented with permission from state government???

I know that a sheriff in Wyoming had a deputy arrest federal agents for crossing a police line which plainly said no admittance except by permission, with the department phone number given, and the courts agreed he acted properly. That should be the standard.

My turn to laugh, seriously. How on this planet does 'well regulated' have little to nothing to do with regulations???? The etymology of the words argue my case.

Consider these sentences:

Jesus prevented them into Jerusalem.

The workers depended from the bridge for their support.

The words look familiar to us; they use the same letters in the same order, but they aren't actually the same words. I refer, obviously, to "prevented" and to "depended", which at the time those sentences are lifted from meant "went ahead (of)" and "were suspended (from)", respectively. The meanings of those clusters of letters have changed, though, so the statements either make no sense or are misleading in today's language.

The same is true of "well-regulated". That phrase has a specific meaning, and it didn't have to do with lists of rules for doing things; as I've pointed out, it had mostly to do with the character of the people involved. What we call "regulations" have next to nothing to do with being "well-regulated"; it certainly didn't mean some arbitrary set of rules, though it could include rules aimed at making the (in this case) militia be better well-regulated, the meaning of which was understood as I already described:

As understood by Gen. George Washington and the Continental Congress (along with the entire English-speaking world at the time), "well-regulated" meant possessing their own weapons suitable for battle and being competent in using and maintaining them, having competent officers and obeying those officers, standing and maintaining discipline under fire (Washington praised a certain contingent for being particularly well-regulated because they kept formation and retained their weapons while obeying their officers while retreating), etc. The term has to do with taking the duties of a militiaman seriously and adhering to the best code of conduct while in battle or awaiting it (there were comments about well-disciplined during Valley Forge, in relation to troops who stole food from the area not being well-regulated).

But much of what we would call "regulation" came under the meaning of "discipline" -- as I've noted, a requirement for proper storage of weapons not in use would come under the meaning of discipline.


Sadly, the posts since my last merely serve to emphasize my point there: no one here is willing to take the Second Amendment seriously by applying the language of Article I Section 8 to the militia as it today exists under law. That tells me there's another agenda here, and it is one with no more respect for the Constitution than the right-wingers have when it comes to freedom of religion or search and seizure.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's hilarious either way - the claim that "well regulated" means some 18th century standard of behavior, is just absurd. We. Don't. Live. In the. 18th. Century. I don't care what they meant if it is not relevant to current times, which - judging by Kuli's description - it isn't. The people writing the Constitution knew it would get outdated and would need updating. But they didn't count on a gun-erectile culture that has no respect for human life, and a semi-retarded "conservative" "justices" who'd turn the provision to defend against invasion into an over bloated children slaughterhouse.

Rubbish -- useless rubbish, at that.

How is having one's own weapons, being trained (even skilled) in their use, ready to act when called up by the proper authorities, being obedient to one's officers, acting responsibly for and with one's weapons, etc. not "relevant to current times"? I don't know what you're doing instead of reading, but what I've described shows that the problem we have is exactly that the militia has ceased to be well-regulated. That condition must be restored.

And the provision was for far more than "to defend against invasion", as is obvious from any reading of the sources at the time; it covered everything from defending one's daughter from a rapist to toppling a government that became abusive of its power, i.e. everything from self-defense to the right of insurrection against tyranny.


BTW, most years more children are killed playing sports than by firearms. The claim of "children <sic> slaughterhouse" comes from counting as "children" anyone old enough to be covered by their parents' insurance under the Affordable Care Act, especially making sure to include violent criminals shooting other violent criminals.

 

[TX-Beau]

Puh Leeze. (to be envisioned with best drag queen dramatic pose)

The germane point which you always refuse to address is that there is no bar to regulating firearms according to far more recent and relevant law. (or even the FF if you were being honest)

PERIOD.

The only question on the table NO MATTER WHAT THE FUCK WASHINGTON THOUGHT - is how much.

END. OF. STORY.

 

[Kulindahr]

. . . a gun-erectile culture that has no respect for human life

Why liberals insist on being so infantile as to have to drag sex into the issue baffles me.

But aside from that, neither Wayne LaPierre nor Congress has shown any regard for human life in this debate. Leading Democrats want to turn the country into a target-rich environment for criminals, and LaPierre wants -- well, honestly, LaPierre wants his million-dollar salary and perks to continue, and doesn't care about anything else, really; so long as the money rolls in, he's no more concerned about children getting killed than about whether the speakers he invites for the NRA national meeting have much of an acquaintance with truth.

 

[TX-Beau]

Because the right to get a hard on for a firearms is what a bunch of suburban commandos are fighting for.

 

[Kulindahr]

Puh Leeze. (to be envisioned with best drag queen dramatic pose)

The germane point which you always refuse to address is that there is no bar to regulating firearms according to far more recent and relevant law. (or even the FF if you were being honest)

PERIOD.

The only question on the table NO MATTER WHAT THE FUCK WASHINGTON THOUGHT - is how much.

END. OF. STORY.

The FFs' regulation would be simple: every man should have the up-to-date arms of the common soldier.

And according to every mention of the Second Amendment in SCOTUS history, it guarantees a right in the same way as the rest of the rights in the Bill of Rights: pre-existing, individual rights not dependent on government, but which government is directed to protect.

And you don't have to warp that truth in order to address today's issues -- all that's needed is to use the Constitution's authority to Congress to (to use more modern terms) insist that the militia behave like responsible adults.

So far you consistently ignore every call to do that.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the right to get a hard on for a firearms is what a bunch of suburban commandos are fighting for.

Whatever. Equating sex to whatever you want to deride is a sign of a slovenly mind.

 

[TX-Beau]

Kuli - it's impossible to take you seriously on this issue because you are willfully myopic.

You made most of that up, and imagined the rest.

Fact is we ALREADY HAD FAR STRICTER GUN REGULATION PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONALLY THAT WAS ALLOWED TO LAPSE!!!!

Ignore it if you want, but THAT is the truth.

 

[TX-Beau]

This is what this absurdity of unregulated firearms is really about.

 

[TX-Beau]

- - - Updated - - -



Whatever. Equating sex to whatever you want to deride is a sign of a slovenly mind.

See above post.

 

[Durango95]

The left is losing the gun debate so now they do what they always do. Attack and try and minimize any opposition. It is just that now the opposition is very large and growing. The 90% poll often referenced was bogus. The real stats are right at 50/50 leaning more toward not passing any new legislation. The despicable ploy to use the death of children to force through their communist agenda failed.

To all those non-citizens on this particular thread, after perusing gun laws in your respective countries, I have come to understand your point of view as best I can. You are truly used to being ruled over or reigned over, which ever you prefer. You like having a father/mother/nanny figure lording over you and calling the shots. America was formed rejecting those ideas.

I will give you one anecdotal analogy. I have two nephews by my next youngest sister. I love my nephews. I wouldn't trust my nephews in a room containing anything I'd want to keep. When they were young my sister took the position that everyone knew that they were thieves and would steal from anyone, yes including their own grandmother, so it was up to everyone else to not put temptation in their way. The only reason I can think why she adopted this train of thought was that it just was too much work and would require too much attention to actually parent the boys and correct them. She was a pretty lazy sort of parent.

This is the same attitude of those promoting these stupid gun restriction laws. The position is don't so anything to the criminals, obviously because none of the proposed laws address this at all. Punish law abiding citizens in hopes that the criminals will not perpetrate more crime. Stupidity just cannot be cured.

 

[White Eagle]

That's not really how it works. But keep trying. And good job at being a dick to the guy being polite with you.

Thanks, but that's ok. I got him to make his cites didn't I?

 

[White Eagle]

The left is losing the gun debate so now they do what they always do. Attack and try and minimize any opposition. It is just that now the opposition is very large and growing. The 90% poll often referenced was bogus. The real stats are right at 50/50 leaning more toward not passing any new legislation. The despicable ploy to use the death of children to force through their communist agenda failed.

To all those non-citizens on this particular thread, after perusing gun laws in your respective countries, I have come to understand your point of view as best I can. You are truly used to being ruled over or reigned over, which ever you prefer. You like having a father/mother/nanny figure lording over you and calling the shots. America was formed rejecting those ideas.

I will give you one anecdotal analogy. I have two nephews by my next youngest sister. I love my nephews. I wouldn't trust my nephews in a room containing anything I'd want to keep. When they were young my sister took the position that everyone knew that they were thieves and would steal from anyone, yes including their own grandmother, so it was up to everyone else to not put temptation in their way. The only reason I can think why she adopted this train of thought was that it just was too much work and would require too much attention to actually parent the boys and correct them. She was a pretty lazy sort of parent.

This is the same attitude of those promoting these stupid gun restriction laws. The position is don't so anything to the criminals, obviously because none of the proposed laws address this at all. Punish law abiding citizens in hopes that the criminals will not perpetrate more crime. Stupidity just cannot be cured.

You've gotten back to your old way of posting. I'm gonna have to see the cite on that in red. You have to prove by a reasonable cite that it is 50/50.

 

[Durango95]

You've gotten back to your old way of posting. I'm gonna have to see the cite on that in red. You have to prove by a reasonable cite that it is 50/50.

I'm sure by reasonable site you meant liberal. I know how you people are. Here's a liberal rag for you.....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-backing-for-immigration-bill-strong/2103419/

 

[White Eagle]

Fair enough, thanks. But it still don't change my mind. There needs to be stricter gun control. Mainly background checks. However the 97% was back in Jan. So this still don't change my mind. I'm for background checks.

***As he repeats himself***

 

[Durango95]

Fair enough, thanks. But it still don't change my mind. There needs to be stricter gun control. Mainly background checks. However the 97% was back in Jan. So this still don't change my mind. I'm for background checks.

***As he repeats himself***

I see. Did you actually read this study? http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Read this where it cites current law and restrictions.

If this was vigorously enforced, there would be no need for further regulation.