US Supreme Court hears Heller v DC

[Skinview]

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments today in the hugely important Heller v DC case, and will decide if the Second Amendment recognizes a right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or if it grants states the right to maintain militias. Observers of the proceedings today are predicting a 5-4 decision in favor of the individual rights interpretation, possibly even a 6-3 decision. We will not know for sure until the decision is handed down at the end of June.


Analysis: Defining a right of self-defense
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 12:04 pm | Lyle Denniston |

Analysis

The Supreme Court’s historic argument Tuesday on the meaning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment sent out one quite clear signal: individuals may well wind up with a genuine right to have a gun for self-defense in their home. But what was not similarly clear was what kind of gun that would entail, and thus what kind of limitations government could put on access or use of a weapon. In an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a fervent defender of the right of domestic self-defense. At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient” in that respect. “Why does any of that have any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today?” Kennedy asked rhetorically.

With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment (and with Justice Clarence Thomas, though silent on Tuesday, having intimated earlier that he may well be sympathetic to that view), Kennedy’s inclinations might make him — once more — the holder of the deciding vote. There also remained a chance, it appeared, the Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the Court’s moderates, would be willing to support an individual right to have a gun — provided that a ruling left considerable room for government regulation of weapons, particularly in urban areas with high crime rates.

[Naturist Mark]

After decades of teaching an ahistorical view of the Second Amendment that directly contradicts every judicial ruling, the NRA's revisionist interpretation will finally become the official version thanks to the 5 so called 'strict constructionist' judicial activists.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

Skinview:"Observers of the proceedings today are predicting a 5-4 decision in favor of the individual rights interpretation, possibly even a 6-4 decision."

So who is going to be the tenth justice to cast a vote? Or will Alito just vote twice for the fun of it? :laugh:

Bob S.

[nacktman]

After decades of teaching an ahistorical view of the Second Amendment that directly contradicts every judicial ruling, the NRA's revisionist interpretation will finally become the official version thanks to the 5 so called 'strict constructionist' judicial activists.

-Mark

Something which will not be allowed to stand should they do so.

[brainyguy9999]

I hope that they uphold the Founding Father's viewpoint - that each individual American citizen should have the right to protect themselves, their family, and their country by bearing arms.

I support the Second Amendment right for individuals to keep and bear arms.

Stay nude.

bg

[Skinview]

Skinview:"Observers of the proceedings today are predicting a 5-4 decision in favor of the individual rights interpretation, possibly even a 6-4 decision."

So who is going to be the tenth justice to cast a vote? Or will Alito just vote twice for the fun of it? :laugh:

Bob S.
Dang it, I went to bed last night wondering if wrote 6-4. But if the vote is 6-4, I think we would be looking for Ginsburg's finger prints.

[Skinview]

After decades of teaching an ahistorical view of the Second Amendment that directly contradicts every judicial ruling, the NRA's revisionist interpretation will finally become the official version thanks to the 5 so called 'strict constructionist' judicial activists.

-Mark
There were two prior United States Court of Appeals (DC Circuit and Fifth Circuit) rulings for the individual rights interpretation. It was the conflicts between them and other Federal Appeals courts that led to the Supreme Court to take up the case. And the individual rights interpretation is backed by a vast body of legal and historical scholarship.

[BinCo]

I would hope we could shelve all the rhetoric until the court issues it's ruling.

This could get ugly again, with people asking others to provide proof that more guns lead to more crime, weeks going by and no proof being offered.:)

Let's see what they say. It's funny how people hate judges and call them 'strict constructionist' or 'liberal' judicial activists if they disagree with their own point of view, but love them when the ruling goes their way.

Just because they will, in all likelyhood, uphold that the 2nd ammendment provides an individual right to bear arms does not mean that you have to bear arms. Your life will not change one bit, no matter the rhetoric coming from the anti-gun groups. You will not be in any more danger than you are today. You might actually be able to make yourself safer by being able to own a weapon, get proper training, and be able to defend yourself as opposed to being expected to run away. The choice will ultimately be yours, as opposed to some legislator who thinks you should run away and never stand your ground or else you get to go to jail for killing the person who decides you need to be raped or beaten.

[Skinview]

Something which will not be allowed to stand should they do so.I don't see that happening. A very large majority of voters believe in the individual rights interpretation, and Democrats got burned so badly after they passed the "assault weapons" ban in '94 that they are totally gun shy about the issue. A campaign to take a popular right away from Americans is not going to fly. On top of that, once there is a Supreme Court precident, the court is very, very reluctant to reverse itself.
OTOH, if the Court goes against the individual rights interpretation, there will be a campaign to get that reversed as hot as the campaign against Roe v Wade.

[Naturist Mark]

the individual rights interpretation is backed by a vast body of legal and historical scholarship.

See! The NRA ahistorical position is accepted as fact.

This is far from the first discussion about the 2nd Amendment in this forum. Before anyone starts accusing people of being pro this or anti that ... I suggest they use the search function and see what has been written in the past.

-Mark

[BinCo]

:D

Yeah!! I was............wait for it............wait for it..............Right!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

End of thread, as this subject is officially declared and complete.

Let's all just get along and we will see how the next several years run out. Will the killings go up, down, or stay the same?

[brazhunter]

See! The NRA ahistorical position is accepted as fact.
'Ahistorical' doesn't matter. The Constitution does.

[Naturist Mark]

:D

Yeah!! I was............wait for it............wait for it..............Right!!

Not exactly.

The 5 'strict constructionists' became judicial activists in creating a new individual right to bear arms, as expected, but threw in a twist by making that right subordinate to the militia clause, thus preserving previous legal precedent and upholding most current gun regulations with only a very narrow new window of exception having to do with 'home protection' ( a subject completely absent from the text of the amendment).

Most of the previous argument has been over whether the 'right' to bear arms is a collective one in which the militia clause is dominant (as has been previously ruled), or and individual one in which the militia clause is subordinate (the NRA view never before upheld by the court).

The Scalia opinion untidily splits the difference, which since it is based neither on the text nor history and gives little basis for the divination of the new boundaries will open the gates to lots of litigation over what does and does not represent excessive regulation of the new individual right.

This was a case where the majority knew the result they wanted, and went in search of a justification for it, and came up short. It is a poorly reasoned opinion.

Oddly enough, I do agree with the result. It affirms the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms under reasonable conditions and regulation. And it preserves the right of society to place reasonable regulations on them.

Do not believe the alarmist prognostications that this ruling will result in a massive uptick in gun crimes. Almost all gun laws remain in full force, and the green light has been given to even much more severe regulation (short of prohibition) than present in most current laws. Even though most people think this was an NRA victory, it wasn't. The NRA lost big time.

-Mark

[brazhunter]

Not exactly.

The 5 'strict constructionists' became judicial activists in creating a new individual right to bear arms, as expected, but threw in a twist by making that right subordinate to the militia clause,
Uhhhh.... no.

You can read English can't you. Read the 2nd Amendment and tell me specifically if the right is granted 'to the people' or 'to the militia'.

The language is clear and the concept that it has to be interpreted is sheer nonsense. The concept of Constitutional interpretation is nothing more than a well used attempt to subvert the legislative process to enact and change laws that simply do not have the support of the people and representatives. The the framers of the Constitution had wanted it to be 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms', hasn't it occurred to you that they would have used those exact words?

The Constitution has a clearly defined process for change and that process isn't interpretation, it is Amendment. If you're so sure the 2nd Amendment is wrong, is written incorrectly, is out of date - whatever, then take the steps to change it within Constitutional parameters. In this case you can't because the support to do so does not exist among the people or elected representation.

[missouriboy]

Read the 2nd Amendment and tell me specifically if the right is granted 'to the people' or 'to the militia'.Granted? Uh... no. The 2nd amendment doesn't doesn't grant anything, rather it recognizes and protects a prior right. Please review my post of yesterday.

I'm not picking nits here... an understanding of this foundational point is necessary to seek further conclusions about constitutional meanings.

[brazhunter]

Granted? Uh... no. The 2nd amendment doesn't doesn't grant anything, rather it recognizes and protects a prior right. Please review my post of yesterday.

You are quite correct.

[jon71]

Now why aren't the people who complain about activist judges all over this one? This has to be one of the more imaginative rulings in a long time if not ever. The good news is that it will largely be disregarded. Mayors of major cities everywhere said, pretty much unanimously, that they will change exactly nothing becuase of this. I expect lower courts to abide by the constitution rather than this wild "interpretation" of it. That was the case with the ban on D & E abortions and after a while the Supreme court amended their own ruling. Four justices apparently can read the constitution and this'll be revisited so many years down the road and we'll have five or more who'll get it right.

[brazhunter]

Now why aren't the people who complain about activist judges all over this one? This has to be one of the more imaginative rulings in a long time if not ever.

Because this person who complains about activist judges thinks they got it right for once be READING the Constitution instead of interpreting it to fit their political or social bent.


The good news is that it will largely be disregarded. Mayors of major cities everywhere said, pretty much unanimously, that they will change exactly nothing becuase of this.

Good news that politicians ignore the rule of law because they disagree with it? That's incredible, absolutely incredible.

But hey, if elected officials can ignore the law on a whim, why not everybody else? Hmmm.... maybe that's why so many people feel the need to arm themselves, exactly because they rightly fear government that ignores law under which it is supposed to operate.

[jon71]

The mayors would be following the law. Even thought this is a poor decision it isn't nearly as poor as the nra would have people believe. 95% (at least) of gun laws will stand with this ruling. Even Scalia gave a long list of gun control laws (registrations, bans on concealed weapons, barring convicts and mentally challenged people from owning guns, etc.) that are still permitted and said the list was only partial. This signalled that most gun laws will stand unquestioned, one or two will be taken down, and a few others the supremes haven't made up their minds about yet. There will be numerous other cases in coming years and I predict that liberals and conservatives will alternate in celebrating as those decisions come down. It's still a shame though. D.C.s law was one of the most successful and popular laws anywhere. Roughly 80 to 90% of D.C. residents suppored it and law enforcement loved it. My recommendation would be for D.C. to repass an almost identical law. If a handful of nuts don't like it then we can do this all over again and maybe the S.C.o.t.U.S. will get it completely right next time.

[Naturist Mark]

Uhhhh.... no.

You can read English can't you. Read the 2nd Amendment and tell me specifically if the right is granted 'to the people' or 'to the militia'.

uhhhhhh....yes

The plain English meaning of the sentence has long been in dispute as to whether the phrase "to the people" was meant in a collective sense - meaning the militia - or in an individual sense. In other words which clause is subordinate to the other.

http://goldenstate.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/172/
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1194429843256
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html
http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

The majority of historic analysis and EVERY final ruling in gun cases prior to Heller has settled on it being a collective right.

.The "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment is to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

… Congress, though admittedly governed by the second amendment, may regulate interstate firearms so long as the regulation does not impair the maintenance of the active, organized militias of the states Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86 (1968)

And even this new Scalia opinion blends the individual right with the collective right in order to maintain the authority to regulate.

That remains so, no matter how many times the NRA and its true believers say otherwise.

What is that saying that keeps popping up in the climate change debate? You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

-Mark

[missouriboy]

...In other words which clause is subordinate to the other.I don't even see why there is any controversy about that. Of the following two clauses...

A. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

B. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

...which one is a grammatically correct sentence all by itself?

Clause A is a non-sequitur (in the formal sense) preceding the main sentence to help explain the existence of the main sentence.

And the comma after Arms seems extraneous, but in formal English it really isn't. There are two Subjects (right & Arms) and two Predicates in sentence B. The comma signifies that the following Predicate applies back to the first Subject.

Current English usage may not be quite as stuffy, but the constitution would have to be interpreted in the context of usage as it was in the 1770s.

[Naturist Mark]

Don't assume anything by the commas. Some states ratified the amendment with different punctuation. In the 18th century punctuation was highly variable.

Refreshing though it is to see punctuation at the center of a national debate, there could scarcely be a worse place to search for the framers’ original intent than their use of commas. In the 18th century, punctuation marks were as common as medicinal leeches and just about as scientific. Commas and other marks evolved from a variety of symbols meant to denote pauses in speaking. For centuries, punctuation was as chaotic as individual speech patterns.

The situation was even worse in the law, where a long English tradition held that punctuation marks were not actually part of statutes (and, therefore, courts could not consider punctuation when interpreting them). Not surprisingly, lawmakers took a devil-may-care approach to punctuation. Often, the whole business of punctuation was left to the discretion of scriveners, who liked to show their chops by inserting as many varied marks as possible. NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?ex=1355461200&en=d4bb37ec081198eb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

The original purveyors of the amendment would not have cared about commas, they would have considered the text alone.

To the classically trained founders, the militia clause would have been recognized as an “ablative absolute” from which the remaining text is causally linked.

But that is how a genuine 'strict constructionist' would read the amendment, which is all moot now that the court has ruled and Scalia has decided that both clauses are subordinate to each other ... somehow ...

-Mark

[MJ_KC]

Not exactly.

The 5 'strict constructionists' became judicial activists in creating a new individual right to bear arms

-Mark

I disagree with this statement. In my opinion the justices just clarified what the amendment means and settled a long time argument.

[MJ_KC]

Granted? Uh... no. The 2nd amendment doesn't doesn't grant anything, rather it recognizes and protects a prior right. Please review my post of yesterday.

I agree with this statement. The justices just simply firmed up this fundamental right and strengthened the 2nd Amendment.

[brazhunter]

The majority of historic analysis and EVERY final ruling in gun cases prior to Heller has settled on it being a collective right.

By your, and your cites, then meaning of "the people" is different in the First Amendment then the Second Amendment.

Are YOU a collective right?

[jon71]

The wording of the first amendment is different and much stronger in the first amendment than the second. That is deliberate. Our founding fathers went out of their way to give the strongest possible protection to our first amendment rights.

[brazhunter]

The wording of the first amendment is different and much stronger in the first amendment than the second. That is deliberate. Our founding fathers went out of their way to give the strongest possible protection to our first amendment rights.

Both secure the right of the people but it doesn't need to be 'interpreted', just read it. It's interesting to note when drafting the Bill of Rights, after freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, the very next right they choose to protect was the right to bear arms.

[Bob S.]

jon:"Now why aren't the people who complain about activist judges all over this one?"

Because jon, the connotation of activist judges varies depending on which side of the ruling you fall. It seems that you and Mark believe that the majority were acting as activist judges.

I hate the term as it has been bastardized to denote only those judges that rule against a political belief. That goes for all people, including when I disagree with a decision. I will not accuse the judge of being activist except in extraordinary circumstances, which are rare.

Bob S.

[jon71]

That's sort of what I was saying Bob. I was being a little tongue in cheek.

[MJ_KC]

I hate the term as it has been bastardized to denote only those judges that rule against a political belief. That goes for all people, including when I disagree with a decision. I will not accuse the judge of being activist except in extraordinary circumstances, which are rare.
This is my opinion on a lot of things. People seem to give more credence to a person who provides links to articles that support their position, but both sides can play this game.

Highly educated people can disagree very strongly about what something truly means. They can each write lengthy and well thought out articles supporting their position. The fact that they have written an article and published it does not somehow elevate the opinion piece to the status of fact. It still remains opinion.

[NudeAl]

All I know is I am happy about the out come and glad to see the Constitution upheld. I am glad they interpreted it correctly. I know of no other ammendment that has been interpreted as a collective rather than an individule right. In fact if one were to read other writtings of the authors of the Constitution you would see that is the only interpretation that makes sense. Man it feels great to be a gun owning American today! Stand by for further judicial rulings in the near future from places like Chicago and San Francisco!

[l2ltlarry]

Weren't guns owned by many or most citizens at the time of the 2nd amendment? Why?

I doubt that the average citizen / gun owner gave much thought at all to being part of a "well-regulated militia". I think that thought, at best, was secondary. Primary was, "I'm owning guns for protection of myself and my family and when we get hungry, I will have to go hunting." And guns were also required for other farm purposes, such as do-it-yourself food processing. But of course, since our day is a long ways from the farm, people usually don't think about that.

The not-average citizens / Constitution-writers had a larger view, remembering how easy it was for government to abuse its "subjects" when they are unarmed, hence the "well-regulated militia" preamble to the the 2nd amendment. I'm sure the thought of other countries wanting to take away their hard-won freedom was also top-of-mind at the time.

Surely, knowing its citizens are armed and not knowing how heavily-armed they are, gives governments at least some pause when it comes to dealing with people those governments sometimes look upon as subjects rather than citizens.

We can look abroad and see how governments with unarmed populaces sometimes work, where those in charge can abuse their people with impunity. Would we want to give up our private armaments and see what happens here? I wouldn't.

[Naturist Mark]

By your, and your cites, then meaning of "the people" is different in the First Amendment then the Second Amendment.


That is correct.

In context the term "the people" is different.



I know of no other ammendment that has been interpreted as a collective rather than an individule right.

In article 1 of the main text of the Constitution the term "the people" is used collectively in the provision for "the people" to select the members of the House of Representatives.

The 9th Amendment refers to "the people" in both individual and collective form: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In particular this means the confirmation of the many collective rights conferred by common law. A similar argument can be made for the instance of "the people" in the 10th Amendment.

Some argue that the first Amendment rights of Assembly and Petition are collective rights too, although in my view those rights can still be considered individual rights since individuals do not have to have prior association with one another to collectively exercise those rights.

What I find interesting is that Scalia has not thrown the collective right interpretation into the waste bin, he retains it alongside the individual right in order to allow regulation.

-Mark

[jon71]

Actually in 1776 gun ownership was rare other than people in militias (think of the minutemen). This remained the case until after the civil war. The north permitted defeated southern soldiers to keep their guns. I've never heard a real explanation of why. That was easitly the biggest jump in gun ownership in American history. Even in the old west far fewer people had guns than tv and movies would suggest. Most people were farmers or business people and had no use for them. A rancher would probably own a gun but it would mostly gather dust except for occasionally needing to shoot a horse with a broken leg or a coyote that's getting too close. Outlaws and lawmen would make up a far smaller population that popular entertainment suggests. This makes sense. Would you pay to see a movie about a guy who tills the land and tends to his cattle 10 or 12 hours a day every day?

[jon71]

Larry when you mention places where people don't have so many guns (how dreadful) are you talking about places like Canada and Japan. Places with standards of living comparable with ours. Places where people have lots of personal freedom and live in stable democracies. Oh, lets not forget, places where the crime rate is a fraction of ours. This is true even with Canada having pretty much the same media as us and Japan being the only country in the world where the media is actually more violent than our own. I say that because I'm sure some would like to completely attribute the crime rate to the media.

[d_sarnoff]

For anyone wanting to discuss this topic I would ask that you read the entire 64 page ruling for the court. It is an eye-opener from both a historical standpoint and from the standpoint of the courts knowledge and use of the English language.

Regarding those countries where crime is allegedly so low, do your home work. Since its banning of a number of weapons, Australia's crime rate has increased, same in England. Also, would you like to be arrested in Japan? Read up on their civil rights and I think you might change your mind. Fact is, according to the FBI and the Justice Department, the overall crime rate in America is down for the 14th straight year. And regarding DC's gun ban. There were more murders in DC last year, after many, many years of the handgun ban, than the year prior to their ban.

I am an eighth generation Irish American whose two immigrant ancestors and their eight sons met the British at the battle of Point Pleasant and others.

The second amendment is an individual right.

[BinCo]

Actually in 1776 gun ownership was rare other than people in militias (think of the minutemen).


I would like to see where you go that information. I have read various stories and books about the 18th century and guns were fairly common in the United States. They were used for hunting and for protection on the outskirts of the colonies. They were held onto by the populance and the founding fathers were sure to add that right to the constitution because the Kings of England had outlawed the populance from using them and therefore the populance could be directed with little fear of uprisings. This was a great tactic of the monarchy. An unarmed populance can't rise up against an armed army. Plus, keep in mind, that creating and funding a standing army was a very tough decision in the 1770's. So, the militia, is everyman.

I have said it before, there can be reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but an outright ban by DC, Chicago, San Francisco is illegal. In 32 years it had proven to be an utter failure in Washington DC. DC seems to be in the top 10 highest crime areas every year. If the gun ban works wouldn't it be the other way around? Why do people who live outside of DC and work in it know to "not go on the wrong side of DC after dark"?

What do you call a disassembled gun when your house gets broken into? A stick!

Mark: I disagree that you think the NRA lost this one. They won and big time. They court has finally made the decision that people have an intial right to own a gun and that they can only lose that right, not have it taken away because of where they live. It's a great day for freedom.

[Pizzaguy]

Uhhhh.... no.

You can read English can't you. Read the 2nd Amendment and tell me specifically if the right is granted 'to the people' or 'to the militia'.

The language is clear and the concept that it has to be interpreted is sheer nonsense.


Exactly. For those who cannot grasp the concept of the 2nd amendment, do this:

Look over all other nine amendments first. Do you see something? They all limit gov't and grant specific protections of INDIVIDUAL rights.

Now, look at the 2nd - it does the same thing: the right granted is that of an individual's right to bear arms, and the limit on gov't is that the right to arms cannot be taken away.

You know, if we interpreted the 2nd like the left does the 1st - we'd have a 'right' to have automatic machine guns!!! And if we interpreted the 1st like the left does the 2nd - "free speech" would only apply to words spoken in your home, and THEN only to those words that don't offend anyone!

[alfredr]

l2ltlarry has finally touched on what I think should be getting more consideration when we talk about the Bill of Rights. These first ten Amendments were written and included because some of the states would have had a hard time ratifying the Constitution without them. Why? Because many of 'the people' did not want an overly strong central government that could easily usurp power from the people and the States.

One of the main reasons for the Second Amendment was to enable us to defend ourselves against a government over-reaching its authority, not so much for personal protection from common criminals.

In our system of checks and balances, the Bill of Rights was meant to act as a (nother) check on the Federal government. You have your Preamble that says, let's see if I can get this from memory, "We, the People, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (I had to look it up.)

You can see where a bunch of revolutionaries (Thomas Jefferson said the tree of Liberty would have to be watered occasionally with the blood of tyrants) would think that Preamble was giving carte blanche to the Federal government.

So should the Constitution / Bill of Rights be interpreted in a conservative way or a revolutionary way?

I'm afraid that it is the militia movement that more nearly has a grasp on the correct intent of the Second Amendment. They may be wrong,, but they are right.

[Pizzaguy]

l2ltlarry has finally touched on what I think should be getting more consideration when we talk about the Bill of Rights. These first ten Amendments were written and included because some of the states would have had a hard time ratifying the Constitution without them. Why? Because many of 'the people' did not want an overly strong central government that could easily usurp power from the people and the States.

One of the main reasons for the Second Amendment was to enable us to defend ourselves against a government over-reaching its authority, not so much for personal protection from common criminals.


Can't say I'v heard this argument before, but it DOES make sense.

But from my perspective - I am defenseless without my handgun. It is MOST CERTAINLY the common criminal that I am concerned about. I hike alone a lot - and we'v had enough of people being killed in our parks here.

So, the Governor and his democrat buddies did what they had to do: they amended state law to allow holders of permits to carry guns in our parks. We are no longer helpless when alone in the woods - and my gun that I'v carried for 7 years on the hiking trail is legal now.

Life is certainly different now, I agree. And that is my point: the crimminal element is more brave and brutal than ever before. We'v seen cabbies and store clerks robbed here who complied iwth the creeps' demands and they STILL were killed.

I hold my gun to defend me - and it's worked twice now, without a shot fired! But had I not had it - I don't think I'd be here (that one was 3 against one...) I should have shot them just to save the next victim...

[alfredr]

About the prevalence or lack of firearms in earlier days. according to family history, my great-great-grandfather was a gunsmith who settled in 1848 in northwestern Illinois at the suggestion of a friend because there was no gunsmith between St. Louis and St. Paul. I think it says there was more demand than supply of firearms.

[l2ltlarry]

jon, I was thinking of places like England during the founding of the United States; the astute colonists did not want to make that same mistake. Also places like Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, the former Soviet Union. Wherever people are abused without recourse by their governments. And history both past and current has plenty more examples.

------------------------------

Back when Richard Neely was Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court he stated that "West Virginia has the most heavily-armed citizenry in the nation. And it also has the lowest rate of violent crime." Back then, it's been said that West Virginians believed in the 4 'G's of good citizenship: God, gates, guns, and "get the heck off my property".

I've read other figures on rates of gun ownership and rates of violent crime that disagree a little bit with Neely. Having lived in West Virginia, however, I know that almost everyone had lots of guns. And people treated each other well, for the most part. And law enforcement tended to be very respectful of the people. Generally, they were not heavy-handed or arrogant and they didn't exhibit very much macho-ism.

And yes, guns were essential farm tools.

[Garden]

Our family has been the victim of an attempted home invasion here in rural California. I am here to tell you the only thing between the three invaders, my wife, two daughters and me were my weapons. We had dialed 911 but the Sheriff was not going to make it in time.

I do believe that if you are going to own firearms, you should be well trained and store them in a safe place. Owning a firearm is a personnel choice that should not be taken lightly and is not for everyone.

Those of us who chose to own lawful weapons have the right to do so.

If you choose not to own a weapon no one is forcing you to do so.

Former member of the United States Army with many hours of weapons training. Guess I am well trained.

Garden

[NudeAl]

I find all this discussion regarding the ruling amusing at this time. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individule not a collective right. Now they did also say that the government could offer reasonable regulations no convicted fellons, no mentally unstable persons etc.

As to what the writers of the Constitution meant lets look at what the father of our nation said about firearms.

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.”
George Washington

I think we can see quite easily now where they were going with this it is right that all our other rights depend upon.

[jon71]

Larry your examples make no sense. Most of Europe , Canada, Japan, and other places that have strong gun control laws have extremely low crime rates. Also claiming that people are being abused in places like Iraq and Iran because of a lack of guns is pure fantasy. There is no connection between the two and the nra claim that more guns would solve the problem is the kind of nonsense they like to tout but remains completely disconnected from reality. How do you reconcile that with places like Sweden and France where they don't have the guns but are very high on the scale of personal freedom? The same is true in the U.S. The claim that states with more guns have less crime can't be backed up with any facts. The crime rate fell in D.C. after this law went into effect. It has risen and fallen since then based on numerous factors just like the crime rate has risen and fallen in places without strong laws. It sounds like Richard Neely has a strong capacity for wishful thinking. I'm sure a lot of people would LIKE to believe that's true but wishing doesn't make it so.

[BinCo]

I am not going to go thru this again Jon71. Last year we had a very long thread on gun rights. I challenged anyone to come up with statistics that show that less guns equal less crime. The only close approximation is Japan. But they have a very low general crime rate, not just violent crime. Every statistic found in 9 pages of Google searches for gun crime statistics show that outlawing guns does not change the crime rate and it tends to goes up. Sweden, GB, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Canada, etc. If they have tight gun laws the only people who pay them any attention are the law abiding people who would not commit a premeditated crime anyway. Criminals are planning on breaking the law anyway, so why should they care?

That challenge still stands today, as NO ONE has brought forth any evidence to the contrary. Not even a very well educated gun guy who is banned. The Brady campaign is full of itself and has never shown that it's legislation has stopped a single crime. Guns have stopped numerous crimes, why do you think the police have them? Self-defense? Sometimes they get to shoot a guy with a knife, they kill him dead. Sometimes they get to shoot a person who wants to die, but is too chicken to shoot themselves and leave the reat of the world out of it.

[l2ltlarry]

For whatever it's worth, which may not be very much, I understand the Bible to support an individual right of self-defense. This from the "man of peace" himself.

Matt12:28-19 "... how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house." And Luke 11:20-26, "... When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

To me, this is just stating a logical principle. How can anyone say to brutal people and even brutal governments, "Go ahead. Take my stuff. Kill my family. Kill me." That way of thinking is what doesn't make sense to me.

[jon71]

Well I will keep telling the truth. It's up to you if you want to continue or not. You will never find evidence that more guns equal less crime. I've at least provided anecdotal evidence that gun control laws work. Considering that a lot of this debate is looking at "what if things were different" that's probably the best anyone could do. We can look at all the countries that have far fewer guns and have far less violent crime. Then we can look at ourselves will all the guns we have and lots of violent crime. Those dots pretty much connect themselves. You are free to imagine that if other countries had more guns they wouldn't see more crime with it. You can imagine that if we had fewer guns our crime rate would go up. Personally I don't buy that premise and I never will.

[l2ltlarry]

I recall that his research on this question was pooh-poohed by those who trust their governments to protect them. I'm not that trusting that anyone can protect me but myself.

And probably it would be wise to find out more about Chief Justice Richard Neely before lightly dismissing him as guilty of wishful thinking. He's written at least two books, one of which is, 'Take Back Your Neighborhood'.

Further, my own growing-up experience supports my "more guns, less crime" conclusion. So far, I haven't been convinced by anyone to deny my own experience.

[l2ltlarry]

I'm thankful that, due to a supreme court decision, women and girls are no longer obligated to reproduce themselves, even after they intentionally or inadvertently become pregnant.

And I'm thankful that the 2nd Amendment's meaning -- at least until the makeup of the supreme court changes -- has been brought back to the meaning that the Father of our Country considered it to have from the beginning.

As you can see, I'm not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. I'm individualistic.
We know that Republicans and conservatives would happily get rid of females' rights to choose not to reproduce themselves. And Democrats and liberals would just as happily disarm "we, the people".

[brazhunter]

Well I will keep telling the truth. It's up to you if you want to continue or not. You will never find evidence that more guns equal less crime.
You are not telling any truth. You are stating your opinion. The truth is there's almost no relationship between guns and crime. There are many places that have lots of guns and lots of crime, many places that have lots of crime and no guns, and vice versa, globally and within the US. Crime is a cultural and social condition that has little to do with the presence of certain types of hardware. Certain types of crime may be more prevalent: home invasions are a lot lower in places where home owners are likely to be armed. I suppose gang banger shootings would be less likely if they didn't have guns but then how often is it, really, that minors (and adults) with criminal records legally have firearms? Well ,that would be never. How has it not occurred to you that somebody who's willing to sell crack or meth to a child, or beat or stab somebody to death for $5, is simply going to abide by gun control laws?

[Pizzaguy]

There are many places that have lots of guns and lots of crime, many places that have lots of crime and no guns, and vice versa, globally and within the US. Crime is a cultural and social condition that has little to do with the presence of certain types of hardware.

BINGO!

My landlord in Michigan (who I rented from during the period 1985 to 1999), finished grade school in 1926. He attended one of those quaint, one-room school houses that dotted the landscape back then. All kids walked to school (that's why those schools dotted the landscape ... there was no transportation back then) and many boys carried rifles to school at times. He said he remembers that the teacher "... only allowed us to bring our rifles inside if it was raining, otherwise, we lined them up on the porch outside..."

Boys would often hunt on the way home from school, and even with guns on the porch, no one ever heard of a 'school shooting', and back THEN a teacher might wash your mouth with soap for saying "PoopY" in class!

It isn't guns that are causing our problems, it's the culture we live in.

[BinCo]

Well I will keep telling the truth. It's up to you if you want to continue or not. You will never find evidence that more guns equal less crime. I've at least provided anecdotal evidence that gun control laws work. Considering that a lot of this debate is looking at "what if things were different" that's probably the best anyone could do. We can look at all the countries that have far fewer guns and have far less violent crime. Then we can look at ourselves will all the guns we have and lots of violent crime. Those dots pretty much connect themselves. You are free to imagine that if other countries had more guns they wouldn't see more crime with it. You can imagine that if we had fewer guns our crime rate would go up. Personally I don't buy that premise and I never will.

Jon71, There are many reasons that we have a lot of gun crime in the US. BUT, the people who commit gun crime are already criminals and we have very weak sentencing for them. We have a 'take all you can' culture that sees very little reason for restraint. We have a large population of underprivaledged people who are contantly being pushed by so-called 'victim advocates' who just fan the flames of jealosy. We have a large drug problem that encourages people to keep pushing their drug needs. We have a very high expectation of people that depresses many who can't get what they want. And we have a population of greedy, needy people who are pressured from all sides to 'keep up with the Jones'.

You have provided nothing to support your position, which you have clearly stated that you will never change. I would encourage you to spend a little time over the next several weeks looking at the results of a very innocuous google search. Try something simple like "gun crime statistics by city", as opposed to "why guns cause crime". You might be surprised to find out what the Dept of Justice has to say about gun ownership. You might also be surprised at how many people stop criminals on their own while the police are on the way. My wife was one of those statistics when her first husband decided she was NOT going to divorce him no matter how many times he beat her. So, after she left, she bought a 9mm. He came and kicked in the door at her parent's house. She put the gun in his face and he left, cursing, but never came back.

As far as other countries, again, look it up because my challenge is still on the table.

[Procrastinator]

... I should have shot them just to save the next victim... I'm a Bible reading, church going, nudist.

I find that non sequitur hilarious.

Thank God I'm an atheist.

Joe

[Pizzaguy]

So you have no regard for their next victim? These creeps were killing people for what ever was in their wallet.

""Thank God I'm an atheist."" ROFL!

[Procrastinator]

So you have no regard for their next victim? These creeps were killing people for what ever was in their wallet.

I didn't say I have no regard for their next victim. I just thought it funny that a bible reading church goer was lamenting the fact that he didn't murder three people.


""Thank God I'm an atheist."" ROFL!

I can't take credit for that - I read it on a bumper sticker.

Joe

[Pizzaguy]

I didn't say I have no regard for their next victim. I just thought it funny that a bible reading church goer was lamenting the fact that he didn't murder three people.


Killing in self defense isn't murder. As I drew my gun, my mind was thinking - "If they don't back down RIGHT NOW, shoot." I had three pieces of human debris run so fast, that I'd have had to shoot them in the back! :laugh:

But what did I do? I let them go, to rob and perhaps kill another person. I did no one a favor there, in this way, the one to come to harm probably was their next innocent victim.

I think the perps should suffer, not the innocent. But apparently YOU can't think things thru well enough to understand that. How long have you been a liberal? :rolleyes:

[usmc1]

You are not telling any truth. You are stating your opinion. The truth is there's almost no relationship between guns and crime...

Truth can be pretty unruly with a bite sharper than a junk yard dog:

The FBI's "Crime in the United States"`estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

Murder is a crime.
Two-thirds of all murders in the U.S. are committed with guns.
There is a relationship between guns and crime.

[jon71]

Binco you say that I haven't proven gun laws work. I've given anecdotal evidence at least. You've offered NOTHING to suggest they don't work. You fail your own test. Also you and others keep saying that they'll fail since criminals break the law. Should we legalize all drugs since druggies will keep shooting drugs and popping pills anyway? Should we legalize theft since thieves will continue to steal? Should we legalize murder since murderers will still kill people? I don't accept the premise that because we don't have 100% success we should completely give up. We can put forth an honest effort and accomplish what we can.

[Procrastinator]

Killing in self defense isn't murder.

This is what you wrote:"I should have shot them just to save the next victim..." That's would not be self defense, that would be murder. I'm reasonably sure that the precept against murder goes all the way back to the Ten Commandments, but you would undoubtedly know more about that than I would.


I think the perps should suffer, not the innocent. But apparently YOU can't think things thru well enough to understand that. How long have you been a liberal? :rolleyes:

How long have I been a liberal? Why do you assume I'm a liberal? A belief that people shouldn't murder could well be a conservative tenet, don't you think? Besides, my political leanings aren't germane to the discussion. I was pointing out what I see as the hypocrisy of a Christian (who wears his Christianity on his sleeve through his tag line in every post) lamenting the fact that he didn't murder three people. Throwing it back on me by stating that I "can't think things through" only illustrates your inability to defend your position.

While I have your ear, I'm puzzled by a few other things that you wrote:


But from my perspective - I am defenseless without my handgun. It is MOST CERTAINLY the common criminal that I am concerned about. I hike alone a lot - and we'v had enough of people being killed in our parks here.

So, the Governor and his democrat buddies did what they had to do: they amended state law to allow holders of permits to carry guns in our parks. We are no longer helpless when alone in the woods - and my gun that I'v carried for 7 years on the hiking trail is legal now.


Let me get this straight. You claim that thugs have murdered people hiking in parks in your area. Is that correct? That seems very unlikely to me. Are they doing it as part of a robbery? If so, they aren't too bright, as most hikers probably don't carry a lot of cash on them. Also, I'd think that thugs on a trail would stand out a bit from the typical hikers. That would be a bit of a disadvantage as they were hoofing it away from the crime scene.

I'd love to read about these hiker murders. News like that would be so spectacular that I'm sure it would be easy for you to do a quick search and bring up a few links. Thanks in advance for doing that.

Joe

[nuovonudo]

I hope that they uphold the Founding Father's viewpoint - that each individual American citizen should have the right to protect themselves, their family, and their country by bearing arms.

I support the Second Amendment right for individuals to keep and bear arms.

Stay nude.

bg

amen!

what is really scary is that there were four justices on the court that were willing to override the clear language of the second amendment. just goes to show how important judicial nominations are. another good reason to defeat senator obama in november . . .

(oops, i just posted something political again!)

[nuovonudo]

btw, y'all: forgive my ignorance, but what exactly does "ROFL" stand for.

[usmc1]

btw, y'all: forgive my ignorance, but what exactly does "ROFL" stand for.

"taint ignorance if you ask, tis when folks don't bother to find out!

ROFL =:rotflmao: Rolling On Floor Laughing

ROFLMAO, well hell, I'm betting you can figure that one out.

[usmc1]

You are not telling any truth. You are stating your opinion. The truth is there's almost no relationship between guns and crime. There are many places that have lots of guns and lots of crime, many places that have lots of crime and no guns, and vice versa, globally and within the US. Crime is a cultural and social condition that has little to do with the presence of certain types of hardware. Certain types of crime may be more prevalent: home invasions are a lot lower in places where home owners are likely to be armed. I suppose gang banger shootings would be less likely if they didn't have guns but then how often is it, really, that minors (and adults) with criminal records legally have firearms? Well ,that would be never. How has it not occurred to you that somebody who's willing to sell crack or meth to a child, or beat or stab somebody to death for $5, is simply going to abide by gun control laws?


FBI Reports 66% of Murders Involve Guns<o:p></o:p>



& CDC Reports:<o:p></o:p>

More than half firearm deaths are suicides<!-- google_ad_section_end --><!--endclickprintinclude-->



<!--startclickprintinclude-->Story Highlights<o:p></o:p><!-- google_ad_section_start -->
Recent Supreme Court ruling on guns focused on protection from home invasion<o:p></o:p>
Suicides accounted for 55 percent of nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005 in U.S. <o:p></o:p>
More gun-related suicides than homicides and accidents in 20 of last 25 years<o:p></o:p>
Research shows if gun in home, higher likelihood of suicide or homicide in home

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<o:p></o:p>http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html



(http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html)


No wonder the rest of the world thinks we’re nuts!

[brazhunter]

There is a relationship between guns and crime.

My bad. Shouldn't have wrote relationship, should have used 'cause'.

[brazhunter]

Research shows if gun in home, higher likelihood of suicide or homicide in home
The Kellerman report. Tell my why you'll accept as valid a report done by a researcher funded by gun control lobbyists, but you won't accept as valid anti-global warming research funded by groups who don't accept global warming?

Do I smell hypocracy?

[Naturist Mark]

My bad. Shouldn't have wrote relationship, should have used 'cause'.

Oh well then, guns don't 'cause' crime. Women having babies cause crime.

...

Ya'll are getting way way way off track here.

The four opposing justices were not voting against the right of 'self defense', they were not voting to 'overturn' the second amendment, they were voting to sustain the historical and judicial precedent that the second amendment granted a collective right rooted, as plainly stated, in the militia. That was the legally controlling precedent in the law until now. That view did not ban guns, or self defense, but it did allow regulation of firearms, perhaps including local bans, perhaps not - that has yet to be decided.

The 'right of self defense' has always existed in the US under common law, that has not changed.

What I've been trying to explain is that this new ruling is NOT the grand individual right to firearms that some people are claiming. It did NOT abolish the collective right view based on the militia clause, it BLENDED the two, retaining the power of government to regulate firearms with only a tiny window of change. This ruling even allows certain local firearms bans - such as in schools.

Arguably it is not a bad result. The USA is a gun culture, individual ownership of firearms is a longstanding hallowed tradition. Criminal elements are relatively unrestrained by law (even if commerce is not). It makes sense to affirm the right of law abiding citizens to own arms under common sense regulations. This new ruling does that, but it achieved that result by creating new meanings out of whole cloth in an act of judicial activism just as creative as Roe v. Wade that the very same so-called 'strict constructionist' judges criticize.

Sooner or later the jubilant NRA fans are going to realize that they lost this ruling. It will be interesting to watch.

-Mark

[jon71]

Also keep in mind this is a VERY conservative supreme court. It has 7 Republicans and only 2 Democrats. It was only worse just before Clinton came into office when the only Democrat was conservative Byron White. I look forward to seeing a more balanced court sometime in the not too distant future.

[usmc1]

The Kellerman report. Tell my why you'll accept as valid a report done by a researcher funded by gun control lobbyists, but you won't accept as valid anti-global warming research funded by groups who don't accept global warming?

Do I smell hypocracy?

I wouldn't know what you might be smelling. Sniff around, maybe its soemthing nearby.

But, as to hypocrisy, I'd suggest that the Center for Disease Control is hardly a tool of "gun-control" lobbyists. It was, however, a Republican controlled congress that cut its funding for anything related to gun violence.

[brazhunter]

I wouldn't know what you might be smelling. Sniff around, maybe its soemthing nearby.

But, as to hypocrisy, I'd suggest that the Center for Disease Control is hardly a tool of "gun-control" lobbyists. It was, however, a Republican controlled congress that cut its funding for anything related to gun violence.

The Kellerman study was the ultimate source for that statement.

[brazhunter]

judicial precedent that the second amendment granted a collective right rooted, as plainly stated, in the militia.
It IS NOT plainly stated to the militia.

The right is clearly granted "to the people".

Can't you read?

Do you think the people who wrote the BoR were stupid or sloppy that they didn't right "to the militia" and it took others to interpret what they meant?

[usmc1]

The Kellerman study was the ultimate source for that statement.

Ultimate, or original source? Which statement? The Federal Bureau of Investigation's about murders or the Centers for Disease Control's about suicides?

Are you suggesting either is inaccurate or not factual? If so, what's your proof? You don't like a chap named Kellerman?

[brazhunter]

Ultimate, or original source? Which statement?

"A gun in the home is...". That comes from a study done by Kellerman. Also note that the CDC nearly lost funding because if garbage claims from studies done by Kellerman and a few others who did 'research' commissioned and funded by Brady Campaign, VPC, and others. I forget if it was Kellerman but Johns Hopkins staffs or did staff somebody who was doing research funded by same. Studies are then reported as "Johns Hopkins says..." when in fact they may not have had anything to do with it.

[LV89121]

We have the greatest system of government in the world, except when it works to disagree with our personal opinions. Liberal, conservative. it is our system accept it.

[usmc1]

"A gun in the home is...". That comes from a study done by Kellerman. Also note that the CDC nearly lost funding because if garbage claims from studies done by Kellerman and a few others who did 'research' commissioned and funded by Brady Campaign, VPC, and others. I forget if it was Kellerman but Johns Hopkins staffs or did staff somebody who was doing research funded by same. Studies are then reported as "Johns Hopkins says..." when in fact they may not have had anything to do with it.

Nah, that's just flap-doodle from the right-wing noise machine.

What you're referring to is part of the whole Clairmont Institute's claim that the AMA and CDCs research into "gun violence" as a health issue were thinly veiled attempts to provide statistics in support of gun control.

They, the NRA, and other pro-gun pressure groups and K-Street lobbyists managed to prevail on a Republican controlled congress (not a big battle there) to cut CDC funds as punishment.

Violent death by suicide is a mental health issue.
More than half of all suicides is self-inflicted with a gun.

Therefore:

Gun violence is a mental health issue in half of all suicides.

And as such, it (gun violence) is an appropriate area of statistical study and anlysis for the CDC despite all the right-wing's flap-doodle and yammer-yammer to the contrary.

Suicide is a terrible thing. Since more than half of all suicides involve a gun, I would think that anyone with a moral compass and ethical grounding would would want to drill into the issue and find ways to prevent and reduce self-inflicted death by firearms.

Gun enthusiasts, in particular, I think, should take the lead in helping to find ways to keep weapons out of the hands and away from criminals, vulnerable and unstable people, and children rather than trying to engage in glossing over the truth and trying to discredit the messengers of truth.

[Baron Lake]

LV89121, I concur with your opinion that our system of government is the best what am. However it sure aint perfeck. Lord knows the last eight years has proven that. But one of the really neat things about it is that we don't just have to "accept" its shortcomings. We can work to fix em. So pay attention and get busy please. :) (There, I done my part)

b.l.
(Gun owner and user, just to stay a bit on topic).

[jon71]

It should be pointed out that suicide attempts with guns are successful over 90% of the time. Jumping from a high place only 34% of the time and attempted overdoses 2% of the time. Btw my source is the Nashville Tennessean. That is in addition to the fact that if there is a gun in the house people are much more likely to attempt suicide to begin with, and thats with everything else taken into account. Tragically domestic violence also goes up.

[Naturist Mark]

It IS NOT plainly stated to the militia.

The right is clearly granted "to the people".

Can't you read?since you feel the need to insult, may I ask where you were the day they explained the English word 'rooted'?

Do you think the people who wrote the BoR were stupid or sloppy that they didn't right "to the militia" and it took others to interpret what they meant? Actually I believe they DID (grant a) "right" to the militia, although your sentence structure is even odder than the sentence structure in the Amendment ... I believe they "wrote" to the people in reference to the party identified in the ablative absolute segment of the sentence, not to the non sequitur introduction of another previously unstated party.

Do you believe that every controlling court decision made before Heller was by stupid and sloppy senior jurists? Did you notice that there are at least 3 other places in the the Bill of Rights and Constitution where 'the people' is used in a collective sense rather than exclusively individual?

Surely you don't mean to insult the Founders by saying that they were too stupid and sloppy to simply write: "Congress shall make no laws restricting the right to own or use firearms for the purpose of self defense and hunting" if that is what they meant instead of using the form that was ratified which was expressed exclusively in military terms.

Please sir, apologize to the Founders for that scurrilous defamation!

-Mark

[nuovonudo]

ROFL =:rotflmao: Rolling On Floor Laughing

ROFLMAO, well hell, I'm betting you can figure that one out.

yes, and given that this is naturist/nudist website, that form of laughter would be most appropriate. tho' i'd like to keep my A on ... !

thanks for the explanation!

--andy

[brazhunter]

since you feel the need to insult, may I ask where you were the day they explained the English word 'rooted'?
It is not rooted in anything. It is plainly stated.



Actually I believe they DID (grant a) "right" to the militia,
The BoR does not grant rights, it protects them. But you have yet to tell me how "the right of the people", means something other than "the people".


Surely you don't mean to insult the Founders by saying that they were too stupid and sloppy to simply write:
That would seem to be what you're implying but continuing to push the notion that clear language, isn't.

[NudeAl]

One thing I hate is the hang the gun mentality.

A gun is just a tool, an inanimate object incapable of shooting itself. It can be used for good or ill that just depends on the user and his or her intent. I am quite sure there are a number of lives saved through use of firearms you never hear about these events though as they don't fit the mold. The shooter at that church in Colorado last spring was stopped by a woman with a concealed weapons permit. A private citizen who chose to take a stand and not be a victim. I am also fairly certain many others would have died if it were not for her actions. How many other events like this happen and never generate any media attention? I have a permit and I carry. I have never had to draw my firearm however I intend to never risk being without it.

If we want to ban inaniment objects due to the deaths they cause we should start with the number one killer the auto. More people die on our roads than anywhere else.

[usmc1]

One thing I hate is the hang the gun mentality.

A gun is just a tool, an inanimate object incapable of shooting itself. It can be used for good or ill that just depends on the user and his or her intent. I am quite sure there are a number of lives saved through use of firearms you never hear about these events though as they don't fit the mold. The shooter at that church in Colorado last spring was stopped by a woman with a concealed weapons permit. A private citizen who chose to take a stand and not be a victim. I am also fairly certain many others would have died if it were not for her actions. How many other events like this happen and never generate any media attention? I have a permit and I carry. I have never had to draw my firearm however I intend to never risk being without it.

If we want to ban inaniment objects due to the deaths they cause we should start with the number one killer the auto. More people die on our roads than anywhere else.

Hey Al, isn't "ban the gun" a bit of an over statement? I'm only aware of attempts to restrict the sale of fully-automatic assault weapons and handguns.

I've got some weapons, but don't go around strapped all that much. I'd be tempted to cap some dude in a pickem up truck with the "cold dead fingers bumper sticker" just for the hell of it, just so that I could...pry it, etc.

I'll tell you what, you probably really don't want short-fused guys like me carrying around AKs

Ok, but seriously, other than fully automatic assault weapons and restrictions on hand guns, what outright banning of weapons are you referring to?

[brazhunter]

I've got some weapons, but don't go around strapped all that much. I'd be tempted to cap some dude in a pickem up truck with the "cold dead fingers bumper sticker" just for the hell of it, just so that I could...pry it, etc.

I'll tell you what, you probably really don't want short-fused guys like me carrying around AKs
So what you're saying is rather than being worried that someone else may harm you, you're worried about your own ability to control your emotions when you're empowered by the presence of a firearm? :D


Ok, but seriously, other than fully automatic assault weapons and restrictions on hand guns, what outright banning of weapons are you referring to?
Semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, rifles that shoot too far, rifles that are too accurate, handguns that are too small, handguns that are too big, guns that have 'stuff' on them that makes them look a certain way, handguns, rifles and shotguns that hold too much ammo... I could go on. Not a session in congress goes by that some bill isn't introduces trying to ban or restrict one or many of those firearms.

Fully automatic firearms are only banned if they were manufactured after 1986 (or 1984?). I've heard, can't confirm, that there are more fully automatic weapons in civilian hands than the government. M16s are running about $15,000... and then if you want to shoot it you have to be able to afford ammo at, now, a 50 cents a round. A thirty round mag will cost you $15. Ammo's been going up faster than gas. Expense may be the ultimate gun control.

[Pete Knight]

If we want to ban inaniment objects due to the deaths they cause we should start with the number one killer the auto. More people die on our roads than anywhere else.
Not a good analogy, a car is a mode of transport, thats its prime function, it isn't designed to kill, it only does so through the ineptitude of the operator, the prime function of a gun is to kill, to the best of my knowledge there have been few cases of a gun accidentally transporting anyone to town, there are more cars on the road than guns in the street so the odds won't look good when compared on results, how about presenting them as percentages?

Pete Knight

[Mr. Natura]

Actually I believe they DID (grant a) "right" to the militia,

-Mark

Their militia ment ever man between the age of 18 and 44. ;) Yes they expected every abled body man to armed in the USA and to be willing to defend this country in time of need.

Mr. N

[usmc1]

So what you're saying is rather than being worried that someone else may harm you, you're worried about your own ability to control your emotions when you're empowered by the presence of a firearm? :D

Nope, that's your spin. Just don't provoke the tall guy with the Bruce Dern, rat-eater smirk, honey. He looks like his butt is a bit chapped and he might go off on you. He's close to about fed up with the reactionary right and its constant bleating about being picked on by them ole lefties trying to make a decent world out of this current mess.



Semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, rifles that shoot too far, rifles that are too accurate, handguns that are too small, handguns that are too big, guns that have 'stuff' on them that makes them look a certain way, handguns, rifles and shotguns that hold too much ammo... I could go on. Not a session in congress goes by that some bill isn't introduces trying to ban or restrict one or many of those firearms.

Fully automatic firearms are only banned if they were manufactured after 1986 (or 1984?). I've heard, can't confirm, that there are more fully automatic weapons in civilian hands than the government. M16s are running about $15,000... and then if you want to shoot it you have to be able to afford ammo at, now, a 50 cents a round. A thirty round mag will cost you $15. Ammo's been going up faster than gas. Expense may be the ultimate gun control.

Well lordy, lordy and boy howdy people in positions of responsibility want to do something about automatic, semi-automatic, and high round capacity weapons being easier to come by than love in Juarez's zona rosa. Geez, figure that! Dang, what is the world coming to?

I'll tell you what about them there shot guns, if you can't bag a rabbit, squirrel, or bring down a mallard with three shots you probably don't need to be gettin' up off the couch. Stay home and watch reruns on the NFL channel and drink beer and day dream about being Davy Crockett's side kick or fending off F11s in the name of whatever the hell the founders had on their mind.

And truthfully, you don't need a $15K m16 to go fully automatic, get yourself one of them Danish army M1s from the cmp for about $800 and file down the trigger sear, and you're good to go---if you can't bring 'em down with an 8-round spray, you need to stay out of the fight and back in camp typing up next of kin letters.

[jon71]

Actually the car analogy is a pretty good one. No one is talking about getting rid of all cars. At the same time things are changing. Sometimes congress will pass a law establishing higher fuel efficiency or mandatory air bags or anti-lock brakes. These changes make cars safer and reduce injuries and fatalities. Originally the auto industry didn't want to include seat belts because they thought that gave the impression that cars were unsafe. They resisted but enough people pushed that they became standard. Opinions were mixed about air bags at first too, now they're standard. We have side-impact and roll-over support beams, crumple zones, daytime running lights, and dozens of other changes. Some of these originated with the auto industry and others were forced upon them. Our roads are safer because of this and new innovations come about all the time. The biggest difference I see is that sometimes the auto industry comes up with this improvement themselves to have a better product. When's the last time the gun industry came up with a safety feature on their own?

[Naturist Mark]

(Originally Posted by NudeAl)
If we want to ban inaniment objects due to the deaths they cause we should start with the number one killer the auto. More people die on our roads than anywhere else.

Not a good analogy, a car is a mode of transport, thats its prime function, it isn't designed to kill, it only does so through the ineptitude of the operator, the prime function of a gun is to kill, to the best of my knowledge there have been few cases of a gun accidentally transporting anyone to town, there are more cars on the road than guns in the street so the odds won't look good when compared on results, how about presenting them as percentages?

Pete Knight

I think it is a good analogy in this respect. A car is a dangerous object in untrained or incompetent hands, so society regulates its use by requiring drivers to be trained and tested. I'd like to see the same level of responsibility among lawful gun owners.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

Their militia ment ever man between the age of 18 and 44. ;) Yes they expected every abled body man to armed in the USA and to be willing to defend this country in time of need.

Mr. N

Yep, mostly. At least of able bodied white freemen who may or may not be required to be landowners. But yep, the essential point is that the local militia was a cadre drawn from ALL the eligible members of the entire community - which is why when writing in the context of the militia and military arms (keep and bear arms was a distinctly military term in the late 18th century) the term "the people" meant the militia.

Keep in mind that before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights only restricted the Federal Government - so the States and local governments were free to "infringe" the right to "keep and bear arms", but even more implicitly, since they are the organizers of the militia - those who make the militia "well regulated" it is their job to train, make rules, require certain arms and exclude others and everything else that is part of running a militia. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the Federal Government from interfering with the militias.

A purpose that was effectively shattered by the Civil War.

I absolutely do agree that part of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the Federal Government from passing laws to disarm "the people" - which effectively means disarming the militia too. But it did not similarly restrict the States.

Independent state militias were effectively ended after the Civil War, the National Guard is usually held up as the modern counterpart of the militia - but it is clearly under Federal control. In my view the closest modern equivalent are state police, sheriff departments and local constabulary and their civilian auxiliaries.

After the passage of the 14th Amendment the application of the Bill of Rights was extended to the states - but that would not preclude state regulation of the militia since state and local militias are by definition creatures of the state. In other words, the state can regulate because the right protected belongs to the state - acting as the militia as "the people" collectively.

Practically, if not strictly constitutionally, the 2nd Amendment protection of State Militias from the power of the Federal Government has been a moot point since the Civil war. With or without the 14th Amendment the right to bear arms has always been subject to the whim of the States, most granted rather generous rights, after all we have a long tradition as a gun culture, but gun regulations have seldom been overturned by the courts when the States or their subdivisions have decided to act.

All this means is that for well over a century the 2nd Amendment has been largely impotent. It does not stop States from regulating firearms, and since the civil war has had no effect in preventing the Federal government from controlling state militias at will. The reason that guns remained largely legal and available to the public is because that is what they, through their elected representatives wanted. But that is all different now that the Supreme court has recognized an individual right in the 2nd Amendment for the first time (actually by incorporating part of the common law right of self defense into the Amendment, even though it is not mentioned). But this is a very narrow individual right that does not abolish the right of the States to regulate firearms, but limits it in a few respects.

The result is not all that bad, but the reasoning is rather tortured.

-Mark

[brazhunter]

And truthfully, you don't need a $15K m16 to go fully automatic, get yourself one of them Danish army M1s from the cmp for about $800 and file down the trigger sear,

File down the sear? I haven't heard that one for years.

I really wouldn't mind having an M1 Carbine but I'm equally not interested in 8-12 at Club Fed so action would remain legal I assure you.

[brazhunter]

which is why when writing in the context of the militia and military arms (keep and bear arms was a distinctly military term in the late 18th century) the term "the people" meant the militia.
The US Code authorizing the militia came well after the BoR.

The people just does not mean the militia but keep trying.

[nuovonudo]

A gun is just a tool, an inanimate object incapable of shooting itself. It can be used for good or ill that just depends on the user and his or her intent. I am quite sure there are a number of lives saved through use of firearms you never hear about these events though as they don't fit the mold. The shooter at that church in Colorado last spring was stopped by a woman with a concealed weapons permit. A private citizen who chose to take a stand and not be a victim. I am also fairly certain many others would have died if it were not for her actions. How many other events like this happen and never generate any media attention? I have a permit and I carry. I have never had to draw my firearm however I intend to never risk being without it.

well said.

[NudeAl]

Hey Al, isn't "ban the gun" a bit of an over statement? I'm only aware of attempts to restrict the sale of fully-automatic assault weapons and handguns.

I've got some weapons, but don't go around strapped all that much. I'd be tempted to cap some dude in a pickem up truck with the "cold dead fingers bumper sticker" just for the hell of it, just so that I could...pry it, etc.

I'll tell you what, you probably really don't want short-fused guys like me carrying around AKs

Ok, but seriously, other than fully automatic assault weapons and restrictions on hand guns, what outright banning of weapons are you referring to?


Well, it may not have been an out right ban but it had that effect. I was referring to the topic of this thread which is Heller Vs., DC The district has had a law on the books since 1976 in which PROHIBITED handgun ownership. Further if you maintained a rifle or a shotgun in your home it MUST be stored unloaded and disassembled and locked up. I also believe though am not quite sure that the cities of San Francisco and Chicago have similar laws on the books and will now be challenged in court.

Further the assault weapons ban, which has sunsetted, was not really a ban at all. True certain makes and models were prohibited however weapons were still sold that some may have considered assault weapons, i.e., scary looking. In point of fact the US has regulated fully automatic firearms since the 1920s, the era of the Tommy gun, so the statement about fully automatic weapons being banned by the Brady bill is a misnomer. In fact you can get a permit for fully automatic weapons but it is very cost prohibitive.

I am glad you feel safe enough to never feel the need to arm yourself I however do not share that opinion. I live by the, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it rule. It never fails that when seconds count the cops are only minutes away. Finally it may interest you to know that the cops have no duty to protect your life. This is a misconception, they will try to protect you however legally they are not required to do so.

I am sure you were joking about the urge to kill some NRA stereotypes. However it is just that type of an attitude that perpetuates that sort of thinking. In every state that has revised its' concealed carry laws the effect has been the reverse crime has decreased. Also these concealed carry permit holders are a very law abiding bunch with fewer than 10 percent commiting any crime at all. If we still claim to honor and revere the Constitution then we must allow for all the things it protects not just the parts we like.

So good luck, I hope we both never have a reason to regret our decisions.

[Naturist Mark]

The US Code authorizing the militia came well after the BoR.

The people just does not mean the militia but keep trying.

The militia existed in the colonies long before the Bill of Rights were written.

The 2nd Amendment was written just over a decade after those militias had successfully participated in the overthrow of an occupying army. You might have heard about it ...

"The people" in that sentence in the 2nd Amendment meant the people as the militia - as others have pointed out, the militia was composed of all eligible members of the public.

However, with the Heller decision the Supreme Court has asserted new meanings into the Amendment that are not present in the text - including the common law right of self defense in the home, by extending the right to own and use firearms to individuals independently of the militia whether organized or not, but still subjects the individual to regulation. And this from the same people who criticize the decision that the right to privacy follows under the 'penumbra' of the Constitution.

-Mark

[MoonShadow]

All this flap over the 2nd Amendment to own guns is just a smokescreen for gun enthusiasts to have their guns. I mean, think about it ---- we don't need any "militias" of individuals other than our armed services. IF our government were to "invade", "provoke", or create any other hostile means against the people of these united states, it is OUR government to begin with and OURS to change with or without guns.

The thinking today is that people want to own guns, not as part of any "militia" but personal ownership for whatever reasons (hunting, target shooting, collecting, or taking human lives). To keep squabbling over an antiquated amendment written for the times it was written in which has no applicability to today's times is such nonsense, imo.

Instead, states should do their own thing regarding gun ownership which many have done already. Better yet, amend the 2nd Amendment.

Personally, I don't care who owns guns or not but I find it most amusing how the 2nd Amendment is debated and bickered over when it was written for the era of its time. People don't buy guns as part of a "militia"; they buy them because they want them period.

Sorry, bit off-topic of Heller vs DC but just my thought

[brazhunter]

Sorry, bit off-topic of Heller vs DC but just my thought
Not off topic at all. While I disagree with most of what you said, you've done it respectfully and without a lot of hype and insinuation.


IF our government were to "invade", "provoke", or create any other hostile means against the people of these united states, it is OUR government to begin with and OURS to change with or without guns....
To keep squabbling over an antiquated amendment written for the times it was written in which has no applicability to today's times is such nonsense, imo.
That's not always possible. It's been estimated (in a study not having anything to do with firearm ownership) that in the 20th century somewhere between 150 and 200 MILLION people have died at the hands of their own governments which is probably greater than the number of people killed because of international wars in what was one of the bloodiest centuries in history. It wasn't unique however. Governments have long used force over disarmed citizens... well subjects, to maintain power.


Better yet, amend the 2nd Amendment.
That's the way it's supposed to be done, not by judges 'interpreting' clear language into something it isn't. In over 200 years though, nobody has attempted that and it's quite simply because the popular and political support to do so doesn't exists.

[Mr. Natura]

"The people" in that sentence in the 2nd Amendment meant the people as the militia - as others have pointed out, the militia was composed of all eligible members of the public.


-Mark

I would recommend that you look up the writings of the founding fathers (such as the Federalist papers) and read them. They without a dought wanted all people to be armed to fight tyranny of a fedral government and for self protection. Thomas Jefferson said that we should have a revelution every 10 years to keep the politicans in line.

Even without the 2nd Amendment the fedral government would have no authority to make any gun laws. We the people, rightly so, have not given them that authority. The problem is that most Americans have not held .govs feet to the fire and demanded that the Consitution be up held. We have the fox gaurding the hen house and thats never good.

Mr. N

[Mr. Natura]

The people just does not mean the militia but keep trying.

Could not agree more. ;)

[Naturist Mark]

I would recommend that you look up the writings of the founding fathers (such as the Federalist papers) and read them. They without a dought wanted all people to be armed to fight tyranny of a fedral government and for self protection. Thomas Jefferson said that we should have a revelution every 10 years to keep the politicans in line.

Even without the 2nd Amendment the fedral government would have no authority to make any gun laws. We the people, rightly so, have not given them that authority. The problem is that most Americans have not held .govs feet to the fire and demanded that the Consitution be up held. We have the fox gaurding the hen house and thats never good.

Mr. N

I have read the Federalist Papers, and quite a bit more. You will not find them arguing that armed individuals on their own can oppose a tyrannical government, but an armed citizenry as a militia can, and that is the major reason behind the 2nd Amendment.

Most of the Founders had a profound distrust of a standing army and the possibility of an oppressive federal government. Understand they had had a very recent experience with a tyrannical government and standing army that was brought down (in major part) by citizen militias. Thus the 2nd Amendment was written with the aim of preventing the new federal government from abolishing or crippling the militias. Most importantly by preventing the Federal government from being able to disarm it. They saw the militias as their bulwark against the new government turning into a tyranny like that which they had just thrown off.

It is correct to say that the Founders did not want the Federal government to be able to regulate firearms, that was the job of the States who ultimately ran the militias. The 2nd Amendment was a "do not touch" sign to the new Federal government with respect to militias. But note that the 2nd Amendment was never meant to apply to the States - they were expected to 'regulate' the militias by providing guidance, funding, training, and all necessary authorizations for the procurement of arms and other supplies by the local militias. Some militias were 'State Militias', but most were local - however local governments are creatures of the State, and the States had ultimate authority over them. Under our federal system the Federal government does NOT have authority over the States. Each State is seen as sovereign in and of itself, while the Federation or 'nation' enjoys a parallel national sovereignty. By ensuring that the Federal government could not disarm the militias, the States were assured that their sovereignty would not be compromised.

As I have mentioned before, most of that went into the water with the Civil War. From then on there was no doubt that in fact, if not in theory, State sovereignty was something less than national sovereignty. Still, regulating firearms remains primarily a State function. Most federal regulations (such as the Brady Bill) rely on the Commerce powers rather than any inherent federal authority to regulate civilian arms. The new ruling of the Supreme Court does nothing to change any of that with the single exception of placing a small set of options out of the authority of States to regulate.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

All this flap over the 2nd Amendment to own guns is just a smokescreen for gun enthusiasts to have their guns. I mean, think about it ---- we don't need any "militias" of individuals other than our armed services. IF our government were to "invade", "provoke", or create any other hostile means against the people of these united states, it is OUR government to begin with and OURS to change with or without guns.

The thinking today is that people want to own guns, not as part of any "militia" but personal ownership for whatever reasons (hunting, target shooting, collecting, or taking human lives). To keep squabbling over an antiquated amendment written for the times it was written in which has no applicability to today's times is such nonsense, imo.

Instead, states should do their own thing regarding gun ownership which many have done already. Better yet, amend the 2nd Amendment.

Personally, I don't care who owns guns or not but I find it most amusing how the 2nd Amendment is debated and bickered over when it was written for the era of its time. People don't buy guns as part of a "militia"; they buy them because they want them period.

Sorry, bit off-topic of Heller vs DC but just my thought

Moonshadow,

If we restrict guns any further, how will Americans kill other Americans? Knives, Strangulation? Poison?

FYI:

Homicide trends in the U.S.
Weapons used

Homicides are most often committed with guns,
especially handguns

Like the homicide rate generally, gun-involved incidents increased sharply in the late 1980's and early 1990's before falling to a low in 1999. The number of gun-involved homicides increased thereafter to levels experienced in the mid 1980's.

During this same time period, homicides involving weapons other than firearms have declined slightly.

To view data, click on the chart.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.png (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm)[D] (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/d_weapons.htm)
Gun homicides by teens and young adults rose sharply
beginning with the mid-1980's and fell after the early 1990's


Gun homicides by persons 18-24 years old declined after the peak in 1993 but have not returned to the levels seen prior to the mid 1980's.
The trend in nongun homicides shows little change, declining or fluctuating slightly for all age groups.
Gun homicides by adults 25 and older declined through 1999, but have increased since then.
The sharp increase in homicides from the mid-1980's through the early 1990's and much of the subsequent decline is attributable to gun violence by juveniles and young adults.
To view data, click on the chart.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapage.png (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weapagetab.htm)[D] (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/d_weapage.htm)
Homicides of teens and young adults are more likely to be committed with a gun than homicides of persons of other ages

The percentage of homicide victims killed with a gun increases with age up to age 17 and declines thereafter.

To view data, click on the chart.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gunpctage.png (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/gunpctagetab.htm)[D] (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/d_gunpctage.htm)
Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.

See also Additional information about the data (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/addinfo.htm).

Note: The victims of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks are not included in this analysis.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Now how many died from 9/11?

The 9/11 attack killed 2,973 people, including Americans and foreign nationals but excluding the terrorists. The 9/11 death toll was calculated by CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/death.toll/

What was the national response to 9/11 and these 2,973 deaths?

What is the national response to one year's homicide death rate (see charts above)?

National homicide deaths are no less worthy then 9/11 deaths.

[Sanslines]

I would recommend that you look up the writings of the founding fathers (such as the Federalist papers) and read them. They without a dought wanted all people to be armed to fight tyranny of a fedral government and for self protection. Thomas Jefferson said that we should have a revelution every 10 years to keep the politicans in line.

Even without the 2nd Amendment the fedral government would have no authority to make any gun laws. We the people, rightly so, have not given them that authority. The problem is that most Americans have not held .govs feet to the fire and demanded that the Consitution be up held. We have the fox gaurding the hen house and thats never good.

Mr. N

How would you suggest that mere people fight a federal government? Will the armaments of a mere people ever be equal to the modern, well equiped, and well armed government forces with multiple layers of armed protection that will quickly crush any uprising?

[Skinview]

How would you suggest that mere people fight a federal government? Will the armaments of a mere people ever be equal to the modern, well equiped, and well armed government forces with multiple layers of armed protection that will quickly crush any uprising?
This was a grave concern when the nation was founded. There are multiple references in state constitutions that standing armies are dangerous to liberty. A militia defense system reduces the need for a large army. The militia is also supposed to be as well equipped as the army. The military that we have today would shock and alarm the founders. What we were supposed to have is what Switzerland has now. Every man is given an assault rifle and amunition to keep in his home, and he is well trained in the military arts. Many Swiss have a heavy machine gun in their attic. And they don't really have an "army". Thats why Madison wrote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Its not enough that everyone is armed.

[Skinview]

However, with the Heller decision the Supreme Court has asserted new meanings into the Amendment that are not present in the text - including the common law right of self defense in the home, by extending the right to own and use firearms to individuals independently of the militia whether organized or not, but still subjects the individual to regulation.

Its not present in the text because the right to bear arms does not come from the 2nd Amendment. It is ancient. The text of the 2nd Amendment even implies this. It does not say "the people shall have" or "are given" a right to bear arms. It says the right "shall not be infringed." It exists already.

[Skinview]

It is correct to say that the Founders did not want the Federal government to be able to regulate firearms, that was the job of the States who ultimately ran the militias.They didn't want any level of government regulating firearms.


The 2nd Amendment was a "do not touch" sign to the new Federal government with respect to militias. But note that the 2nd Amendment was never meant to apply to the States - they were expected to 'regulate' the militias by providing guidance, funding, training, and all necessary authorizations for the procurement of arms and other supplies by the local militias.

Not so:

Article. I.
Section. 8. The Congress shall have the Power...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, Supress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Article. II.
Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of... the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

- US Constitution

The Feds were to be very much "hands on". State governments could be tyrannical too. Split loyalty between the States and the Federal government allowed the militia to oppose either, IMHO.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally Posted by Naturist Mark:
However, with the Heller decision the Supreme Court has asserted new meanings into the Amendment that are not present in the text - including the common law right of self defense in the home, by extending the right to own and use firearms to individuals independently of the militia whether organized or not, but still subjects the individual to regulation.
Posted by Skinview:
Its not present in the text because the right to bear arms does not come from the 2nd Amendment. It is ancient. The text of the 2nd Amendment even implies this. It does say "the people shall have" or "are given" a right to bear arms. It says the right "shall not be infringed." It exists already.

The right which was not present in the text is the right to self defense, which SCOTUS just inserted into the 2nd Amendment. Previously it was a common law right, now it is a Constitutional right, at least as far as self defense in one's own home is concerned.

The right to bear arms was a State right and common law right before the 2nd Amendment (and still is), and in most States (44) and in most respects is an individual right under State law, although it has never been an absolute or 'unregulated' right.

And yes, the 2nd Amendment does not grant a right to bear arms, it prohibits the 'infringement' of the pre-existing right as it existed in the States by the Federal government. However, that has now changed in that a new standard has been introduced, that of the common law right of self defense which is no where mentioned in the text, but is now part of the Amendment, and now allows the Federal government to infringe on the State's regulation of firearms.

I've said it before ... the NRA types may look at the Heller decision as a victory (and I do agree with its immediate outcome if not its legal basis), but in the long run it is going to be seen as a death blow to the NRA's vision of the Right to Bear Arms.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

They didn't want any level of government regulating firearms.
The 2A only applied to the Federal government.



Not so:

Article. I.
Section. 8. The Congress shall have the Power...
Yes, of course the Federal Government had the power to call up the local militias in times of emergency. That is how General Washington built his Continental Army. It was the fervent wish of many of the Founders that this be the ONLY way an army could be called up - they had a great allergy to the notion of Standing Armies ...

The purpose of the 2A was to keep the Federal government's hands OFF the militia without the assent of the States in the normal run of events. In particular by making sure that the Federal government couldn't eliminate the militia by disarming the populace. They only wanted to the States to run the militias - and even then the States should be mindful not to fall into tyranny with a well trained populace able to act as a militia against internal as well as external threats to the commonweal. Of course the States could pass laws to disarm their populace, but then who would enforce the disarming if the militia was without arms?

Now I am surprised that no one is disputing the meaning of the phrase "well regulated militia". Probably because the NRA tends to disregard it as a meaningless preamble that could be replaced with dot dot dot followed by "the right of the people" ... no such luck. Many people today attribute a modern meaning of regulation - law and rules governing an activity, which admittedly is incorporated in the meaning, but in 1790 when speaking of the military and arms its meaning was more precisely "To put in good order", as in the maintenance of a machine, or gun. In this case, they were concerned with keeping the militia in good order.

And of course we know that it failed utterly. Standing armies took shape almost immediately. The independence of State militias were permanently quashed by the Civil War, and by the time the National Guard was created in the early 20th century they were fully federalized. The individual right to carry firearms (keep and bear arms is a strictly military term) remained under the jurisdiction of the States - which for the most part only lightly regulated it, at least until the later half of the 20th century.

-Mark

[Skinview]

But yep, the essential point is that the local militia was a cadre drawn from ALL the eligible members of the entire community - which is why when writing in the context of the militia and military arms (keep and bear arms was a distinctly military term in the late 18th century) the term "the people" meant the militia.No, the militia is a subset of "the People", and no, "keep and bear arms" isn't a military term. Scalia comprehensively explodes that assertion in Heller (long, but sometimes colorful):

b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (herein after Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (herein after Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added). Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Lawsof England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist . . . shall or may have or keep in his House . . . any Arms . . . ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia membersto “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16–17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else. See, e.g., 3 A Compleat Collection of State-Tryals 185 (1719) (“Hath not every Subject power to keep Arms, as well as Servants in his House for defence of his Person?”); T. Wood, A New Institute of the Imperial orCivil Law 282 (1730) (“Those are guilty of publick Force, who keep Arms in their Houses, and make use of them otherwise than upon Journeys or Hunting, or for Sale . . .”); A Collection of All the Acts of Assembly, Now in Force, in the Colony of Virginia 596 (1733) (“Free Negros, Mulattos, or Indians, and Owners of Slaves, seated at Frontier Plantations, may obtain Licence from a Justice of Peace, for keeping Arms, &c.”); J. Ayliffe, A New Pandect of Roman Civil Law 195 (1734) (“Yet a Person might keep Arms in his House, or on his Estate, on the Account of Hunting, Navigation, Travelling, and on the Score of Selling

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (herein after Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)
—————— them in the way of Trade or Commerce, or such Arms as accrued to him by way of Inheritance”); J. Trusler, A Concise View of the Common Law and Statute Law of England 270 (1781) (“if [papists] keep arms in their houses, such arms may be seized by a justice of the peace”); Some Considerations on the Game Laws 54 (1796) (“Who has been deprived by [the law] of keeping arms for his own defence? What law forbids the veriest pauper, if he can raise a sum sufficient for the purchase of it, from mounting his Gun on his Chimney Piece . . . ?”); 3 B. Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson 84 (1804) (with reference to state constitutional right: “This is one of our many renewals of the Saxon regulations. ‘They were bound,’ says Mr. Selden, ‘to keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of their own person’”); W.Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States31–32 (1833) (with reference to colonists’ English rights: “The right of every individual to keep arms for his defence, suitable to his condition and degree; which was the public allowance, under due restrictions of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation”); 3 R. Burn, Justice of the Peace and the Parish Officer 88 (1815) (“It is, however, laid down by Serjeant Hawkins, . . . that if a lessee, after the end of the term, keep arms in his house to oppose the entry of the lessor, . . .”); State v. Dempsey, 31 N. C. 384, 385 (1849) (citing 1840 state lawmaking it a misdemeanor for a member of certain racial groups “to carry about his person or keep in his house any shot gun or other arms”).

(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying
-—————— 8 See Pa. Declaration of Rights §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3083 (“That thepeople have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state. . . ”); Vt. Declaration of Rights §XV, in 6 id., at 3741 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State. . .”); Ky. Const., Art. XII, cl. 23 (1792), in 3 id., at 1264, 1275(“That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”); Ohio Const., Art. VIII, §20 (1802), in 5 id., at 2901, 2911 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . ”); Ind. Const., Art. I, §20 (1816), in 2 id., at 1057, 1059 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State. . . ”); Miss.Const., Art. I, §23 (1817), in 4 id., at 2032, 2034 (“Every citizen has aright to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State”); Conn. Const., Art. I, §17 (1818), in 1 id., at 536, 538 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state”); Ala. Const., Art. I, §23(1819), in 1 id., at 96, 98 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State”); Mo. Const., Art. XIII, §3 (1820), in 4 id., at 2150, 2163 (“[T]hat their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned”). See generally Volokh, State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Tex. Rev. L. & Politics 191 (2006).

a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms”
—————— 9 See Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90, 91–92 (Ky. 1822); State v.Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840); State v. Schoultz, 25 Mo. 128, 155(1857); see also Simpson v. State, 5 Yer. 356, 360 (Tenn. 1833) (interpreting similar provision with “common defence” purpose); State v. Huntly, 25 N. C. 418, 422–423 (1843) (same); cf. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.243, 250–251 (1846) (construing Second Amendment); State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 489–490 (1850) (same).

from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief18–23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (some-times) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase“keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context—the same mistake they made with respect to “keep arms.” It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petitioners’ inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion to use it except in discussions about the standing army and the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those

military discussions include not only “bear arms” but also “carry arms,” “possess arms,” and “have arms”—though no one thinks that those other phrases also had special military meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant. See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349–351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10 Cunningham’s legal dictionary, cited above,
—————— 10 See J. Brydall, Privilegia Magnatud apud Anglos 14 (1704) (Privilege XXXIII) (“In the 21st Year of King Edward the Third, a Proclamation Issued, that no Person should bear any Arms within London, and the Suburbs”); J. Bond, A Compleat Guide to Justices of the Peace 43 (1707) (“Sheriffs, and all other Officers in executing their Offices, and all other persons pursuing Hu[e] and Cry may lawfully bear arms”); 1 An Abridgment of the Public Statutes in Force and Use Relative to Scotland (1755) (entry for “Arms”: “And if any person above described shall have in his custody, use, or bear arms, being thereof convicted before one justice of peace, or other judge competent, summarily, he shall for the first offense forfeit all such arms” (quoting 1 Geo. 1, c. 54, §1)); Statute Law of Scotland Abridged 132–133 (2d ed. 1769) (“Acts for disarming the highlands” but “exempting those who have particular licenses to bear arms”); E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”); E. Roche, Proceedings of a Court-Martial, Held at the Council-Chamber, in the City of Cork 3 (1798) (charge VI: “With having held traitorous conferences, and with having conspired, with the like intent, for the purpose of attacking and despoiling of the arms of several of the King’s subjects, qualified by law to bear arms”); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in force in Kentucky 482 (1822) (“[I]nthis country the constitution guaranties to all persons the right to bear arms; then it can only be a crime to exercise this right in such a manner, as to terrify people unnecessarily”).

gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated tomilitary affairs (“Servants and labourers shall use bowsand arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms”). And if one looks beyond legal sources, “bear arms” was frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer & Olson, What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amend-ment?, 6 Georgetown J. L. & Pub. Pol’y (forthcoming Sept.2008), online at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1086176 (as visited June 24, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of “bear arms” from the founding period). JUSTICE STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “‘bear arms . . . for the purpose of killing game’” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (JUSTICE STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the

carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11 JUSTICE STEVENS places great weight on James Madison’s inclusion of a conscientious-objector clause in his original draft of the Second Amendment: “but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Creating the Bill of Rights 12 (H. Veit, K. Bowling, & C. Bickford eds. 1991) (hereinafter Veit). He argues that this clause establishes that the drafters of the Second Amendment intended “bearArms” to refer only to military service. See post, at 26. It is always perilous to derive the meaning of an adopted provision from another provision deleted in the drafting process.12 In any case, what JUSTICE STEVENS would conclude from the deleted provision does not follow. It was not meant to exempt from military service those who
—————— 11 JUSTICE STEVENS contends, post, at 15, that since we assert that adding “against” to “bear arms” gives it a military meaning we must concede that adding a purposive qualifying phrase to “bear arms” can alter its meaning. But the difference is that we do not maintain that “against” alters the meaning of “bear arms” but merely that it clarifies which of various meanings (one of which is military) is intended. JUSTICE STEVENS, however, argues that “[t]he term ‘bear arms’ is a familiar idiom; when used unadorned by any additional words, its meaning is ‘to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.’” Post, at 11. He therefore must establish that adding a contradictory purposive phrase can alter a word’s meaning. 12 JUSTICE STEVENS finds support for his legislative history inference from the recorded views of one Antifederalist member of the House. Post, at 26 n. 25. “The claim that the best or most representative reading of the [language of the] amendments would conform to the understanding and concerns of [the Antifederalists] is . . . highly problematic.” Rakove, The Second Amendment: The Highest Stage of Originalism, Bogus 74, 81.

objected to going to war but had no scruples about personal gunfights. Quakers opposed the use of arms not just for militia service, but for any violent purpose what so-ever—so much so that Quaker frontiersmen were forbidden to use arms to defend their families, even though “[i]n such circumstances the temptation to seize a hunting rifle or knife in self-defense . . . must sometimes have been almost overwhelming.” P. Brock, Pacifism in the United States 359 (1968); see M. Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War 336–339 (1923); 3 T. Clarkson, Portraiture of Quaker-ism 103–104 (3d ed. 1807). The Pennsylvania Militia Act of 1757 exempted from service those “scrupling the use ofarms”—a phrase that no one contends had an idiomatic meaning. See 5 Stat. at Large of Pa. 613 (J. Mitchell & H.Flanders eds. 1898) (emphasis added). Thus, the most natural interpretation of Madison’s deleted text is that those opposed to carrying weapons for potential violent confrontation would not be “compelled to render military service,” in which such carrying would be required.13 Finally, JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “keep and bear Arms” was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to “hue and cry” or “cease and desist.” (This suggestion usefully evades the problem that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a military reading of “keep arms.”) JUSTICE STEVENS believes that the unitary meaning of
—————— 13 The same applies to the conscientious-objector amendments proposed by Virginia and North Carolina, which said: “That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”See Veit 19; 4 J. Eliot, The Debates in the Several State Constitutions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 243, 244 (2d ed. 1836) (reprinted 1941). Certainly their second use of the phrase (“bear arms in his stead”) refers, by reason of context, to compulsory bearing of arms for military duty. But their first use of the phrase (“any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms”) assuredly did not refer to people whose God allowed them to bear arms for defense of themselves but not for defense of their country.

“keep and bear Arms” is established by the Second Amendment’s calling it a “right” (singular) rather than “rights” (plural). See post, at 16. There is nothing to this. State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular “right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right [singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe 3083–3084; Ohio Const., Arts. VIII, §§11, 19 (1802), in id., at 2910–2911.14 And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467–468.15
—————— 14 Faced with this clear historical usage, JUSTICE STEVENS resorts to the bizarre argument that because the word “to” is not included before “bear” (whereas it is included before “petition” in the First Amendment), the unitary meaning of “to keep and bear” is established. Post, at 16, n. 13. We have never heard of the proposition that omitting repetition of the “to” causes two verbs with different meanings to become one. A promise “to support and to defend the Constitution of the United States” is not a whit different from a promise “to supportand defend the Constitution of the United States.” 15Cf. 3 Geo., 34, §3, in 7 Eng. Stat. at Large 126 (1748) (“That the Prohibition contained . . . in this Act, of having, keeping, bearing, or wearing any Arms or Warlike Weapons . . . shall not extend . . . to any

[Skinview]

Not a good analogy, a car is a mode of transport, thats its prime function, it isn't designed to kill, it only does so through the ineptitude of the operator, the prime function of a gun is to kill, to the best of my knowledge there have been few cases of a gun accidentally transporting anyone to town, there are more cars on the road than guns in the street so the odds won't look good when compared on results, how about presenting them as percentages?

Pete Knight

If you consider that nearly half of all housholds have a gun in them, and the few people who are accidentally killed by guns, it turns out that someone in a house with a gun and a car is about 18 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car. Now if you want to deliberatly kill someone, you can easily substitute some other weapon for a gun.

[Skinview]

Our roads are safer because of this and new innovations come about all the time. The biggest difference I see is that sometimes the auto industry comes up with this improvement themselves to have a better product. When's the last time the gun industry came up with a safety feature on their own?

Lets see, trigger guards; half **** on a flintlock; that whatcha call it disconnect so the gun won't go off when it gets dropped on the hammer; then when did that SAFETY switch come along that prevents the gun from being fired at all?; the grip safety on a 1911 pistol; some pistols won't fire without the magazine - those are the features I know of.

[Skinview]

Ultimate, or original source? Which statement? The Federal Bureau of Investigation's about murders or the Centers for Disease Control's about suicides?

Are you suggesting either is inaccurate or not factual? If so, what's your proof? You don't like a chap named Kellerman?

Yes the CDC is a HCI tool, and Kellerman is an MD who has no qualifications as a criminologist. His crap studies have been thoroughly debunked.

http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm

[Skinview]

Violent death by suicide is a mental health issue.
More than half of all suicides is self-inflicted with a gun.

Therefore:

Gun violence is a mental health issue in half of all suicides.

Stevie Wonder is blind.
Love is blind.
God is love.
Stevie Wonder is God.


And as such, it (gun violence) is an appropriate area of statistical study and anlysis for the CDC despite all the right-wing's flap-doodle and yammer-yammer to the contrary.No, its not. Violence, with a gun or otherwise, is in the field of criminology. Criminologists are the experts in studying crime. MDs are not. Plane crashes kill people. That does not make plane safety something that MDs know anything about. You ride in a plane designed by MDs, I'll ride in a plane designed by engineers.


Suicide is a terrible thing. Since more than half of all suicides involve a gun, I would think that anyone with a moral compass and ethical grounding would would want to drill into the issue and find ways to prevent and reduce self-inflicted death by firearms.Focusing on firearms will not help that at all. Japan has almost no guns, and twice the suicide rate. Guns don't commit suicide, people commit suicide.

[Skinview]

Do you believe that every controlling court decision made before Heller was by stupid and sloppy senior jurists?Not Emmerson and Parker... Not VT and KY State Supreme Courts... Not... etc...


Did you notice that there are at least 3 other places in the the Bill of Rights and Constitution where 'the people' is used in a collective sense rather than exclusively individual?Its not collective in the BoR. That's addressed in Heller.

[Skinview]

Let me get this straight. You claim that thugs have murdered people hiking in parks in your area. Is that correct? That seems very unlikely to me. Are they doing it as part of a robbery? If so, they aren't too bright, as most hikers probably don't carry a lot of cash on them. Also, I'd think that thugs on a trail would stand out a bit from the typical hikers. That would be a bit of a disadvantage as they were hoofing it away from the crime scene.

I'd love to read about these hiker murders. News like that would be so spectacular that I'm sure it would be easy for you to do a quick search and bring up a few links. Thanks in advance for doing that.

Joe

There have been some terrible murders on the Appalachian Trail. The overall crime rate there is low, but the ones I read of sent chills down my spine. Thug kills stranger type crimes. Bill Bryson wrote about them in his book A Walk in the Woods.

http://www.aldha.org/arrest02.htm

[Naturist Mark]

No, the militia is a subset of "the People", and no, "keep and bear arms" isn't a military term. Scalia comprehensively explodes that assertion in Heller (long, but sometimes colorful):

b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.”

(dot dot dot)

I thought Scalia was supposed to be a genius, instead he resorts to a comedy routine plagiarized from Dr. Irwin Corey.

Unable to refute the military application of the term "keep and bear arms" he instead breaks it down to the terms "keep arms" and "bear arms" when analyzing the literature. I suppose he could next drill down to the very letters themselves.

You see, I've been questioning the sound basis of Scalia's arguments (if not the actual outcome of his opinion), so parroting, or even quoting them back to me is minimally persuasive.

Indeed the reviews of Scalia's opinion in Heller are tending to ranking it as rather short of the Scalia standard.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Its not enough that everyone is armed.

You have not said what this well armed militia will ultimately do???? What specific actions will they take and why will they take them????

[Sanslines]

.........
Yes, of course the Federal Government had the power to call up the local militias in times of emergency. .............
-Mark

The modern day equivalent of the militia of old is called the National Guard.

[Procrastinator]

There have been some terrible murders on the Appalachian Trail. The overall crime rate there is low, but the ones I read of sent chills down my spine. Thug kills stranger type crimes. Bill Bryson wrote about them in his book A Walk in the Woods.

http://www.aldha.org/arrest02.htm

Sure there have been terrible murders on the Appalachian Trail. As they say, sh*t happens. You would have to agree though, that serious stranger-on-stranger crime while hiking is statistically insignificant - something not even worth thinking about.

It just boggles my mind that someone would feel a need to be armed while hiking, for protection against the infinitesimally small likelihood of an attack. I shouldn't play Dr. Freud, but I suspect such a need would be not so much for personal protection, but more for an artificial feeling of superiority and power over others.

BTW, I guess Pizzaguy hasn't had time to find those links to the stories of the murders in his local parks. Maybe he'll have time over the long holiday weekend.

Joe

[Mr. Natura]

You will not find them arguing that armed individuals on their own can oppose a tyrannical government, but an armed citizenry as a militia can, and that is the major reason behind the 2nd Amendment.

-Mark

You might have missed these quotes in your reading.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.


[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

I could go on but why??? :rolleyes:

Mr. N

[Naturist Mark]

You might have missed these quotes in your reading.

...

I could go on but why??? :rolleyes:

Mr. N

Indeed, why?

None of those quotes suggests that individuals have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government.

But individuals working together as a militia could.

Remember, this wasn't just theory to the Founders. They had just done it.

-Mark

[NudeAl]

Sure there have been terrible murders on the Appalachian Trail. As they say, sh*t happens. You would have to agree though, that serious stranger-on-stranger crime while hiking is statistically insignificant - something not even worth thinking about.

It just boggles my mind that someone would feel a need to be armed while hiking, for protection against the infinitesimally small likelihood of an attack. I shouldn't play Dr. Freud, but I suspect such a need would be not so much for personal protection, but more for an artificial feeling of superiority and power over others.

BTW, I guess Pizzaguy hasn't had time to find those links to the stories of the murders in his local parks. Maybe he'll have time over the long holiday weekend.

Joe

You may think it statistically insignificat but to those it happens to it is most significant.

I hiked in the woods after a horrific attack upon a mother and her adult daughter here in Washington state in June of 2006. At first the police thought it was a wild animal attack due to the mutilated condition of the bodies. An autopsy indicated the cuts were made with a knife. I grew up hiking in the woods usually carrying my 22 rifle and for the most part I do feel safer there than in a city. However, I choose to NEVER become a victem. I take full responsibility for my own and my families safety that is why I carry a firearm. It may interest you to know that the courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect you. They will make every effort to do so however ultimalty it is you own responsibility to do so.

[Naturist Mark]

The modern day equivalent of the militia of old is called the National Guard.

Yes, many people say that, even a few courts, but I find it unpersuasive. The National Guard is part of the standing army, under Federal control. The power of governors to command the Guard in their states is nominal - and cannot be used to oppose Federal encroachment - as several southern governors discovered during the civil rights movement when they tried to use the Guard to resist desegregation. Guardsmen are issued arms, and do not typically keep them at home or use them for self defense.

Probably the closest modern equivalent to the militia are the citizen auxiliaries of State and local police and sheriff departments.

The citizen militias that the Founders were so intent on preserving haven't really existed since the Civil War forcefully settled the issue of who is in charge - regardless of Constitutional or statute law.

-Mark

[Skinview]

Yes, many people say that, even a few courts, but I find it unpersuasive. The National Guard is part of the standing army, under Federal control. The power of governors to command the Guard in their states is nominal - and cannot be used to oppose Federal encroachment - as several southern governors discovered during the civil rights movement when they tried to use the Guard to resist desegregation. Guardsmen are issued arms, and do not typically keep them at home or use them for self defense.True, the National Guard is a bit different than what the Founders had in mind. But they are a militia, because they have civilian jobs, and are not professional soldiers. If I remember correctly, the officers are appointed by the state governors. I have to double check that one. I once knew a National Guard Captain who told me that if he was ordered to confiscate civilian firearms, he would take his unit into the hills and go to war against the government. The militia is under the command of the President, per the US Constitution. But they can in reality switch sides if they feel the need.


Probably the closest modern equivalent to the militia are the citizen auxiliaries of State and local police and sheriff departments.They are a part of the militia like we are, but they are not in a military organization. Police are organized, they are a part of the militia, but they are not the "well regulated militia", if you follow what I mean. An organized militia is supposed to be a military unit, like the National Guard is.

[Skinview]

You have not said what this well armed militia will ultimately do???? What specific actions will they take and why will they take them????

Yes I did, in post #104:
"...the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, Supress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
From Article. I. Section. 8, US Constitution.

And it is also clear in the Federalist Papers that they were to overthrow the government if it became tyrannical.

[Skinview]

Sure there have been terrible murders on the Appalachian Trail. As they say, sh*t happens. You would have to agree though, that serious stranger-on-stranger crime while hiking is statistically insignificant - something not even worth thinking about.

It just boggles my mind that someone would feel a need to be armed while hiking, for protection against the infinitesimally small likelihood of an attack. I shouldn't play Dr. Freud, but I suspect such a need would be not so much for personal protection, but more for an artificial feeling of superiority and power over others.

Yes, the chances that you would need a gun hiking are very slim. But its far better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. I carry a gun in the woods for protection against bears. I do think carrying a gun gives a feeling of empowermet, but only over the bad guys. I also find that once you start thinking of what circumstances might call for using a gun, it makes you a bit paranoid. But hey, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. ;)

[Sanslines]

Yes I did, in post #104:
"...the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, Supress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
From Article. I. Section. 8, US Constitution.

And it is also clear in the Federalist Papers that they were to overthrow the government if it became tyrannical.

No one else is availible to execute the laws of the Union? They supress insurrections and also create insurrections against the government if the so chose? They repel invasions?

We have so many layers of armed individuals from local police to state police to FBI to National Guard to the regular armed forces. How many more layers of armed individuals do we need? Are none of these forces competent enough to repel invasions?

Also, any attempt to overthrow the government is completely illegal and will be met with the full force of the government. Do you really think that any militia armed with a few rifles and shotguns stands any chance?

We presently live in the age of apathy. No one is going to do anything including taking to the streets to protest! This is NOT the 1960's.

[Skinview]

I thought Scalia was supposed to be a genius, instead he resorts to a comedy routine plagiarized from Dr. Irwin Corey.

Unable to refute the military application of the term "keep and bear arms" he instead breaks it down to the terms "keep arms" and "bear arms" when analyzing the literature. I suppose he could next drill down to the very letters themselves.

Well, as Scalia pointed out, just because it is used in a military context doesn't mean that it was only used that way. All four words are rarely found together in any context, but either "keep" or "bear" retain the same meaning, whether they are used together or not. Nevertheless, Scalia does cite an example where they are all used together:

"Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.”

[Skinview]

No one else is availible to execute the laws of the Union?Police forces came along well after the BoR.


They supress insurrections and also create insurrections against the government if the so chose?You are catching on.. But they don't make the choice themselves. Either the State or the Federal government would do that.


They repel invasions?They did in 1815.


We have so many layers of armed individuals from local police to state police to FBI to National Guard to the regular armed forces. How many more layers of armed individuals do we need? Are none of these forces competent enough to repel invasions?The Army is, the rest are not at the moment. Local police repelling an invading army? Ha Ha.


Also, any attempt to overthrow the government is completely illegal and will be met with the full force of the government.Of course. Just like it was in 1775.


you really think that any militia armed with a few rifles and shotguns stands any chance?No. Thats why they are supposed to have M-16s, artillery, F-15s, etc. See my post #102.


We presently live in the age of apathy. No one is going to do anything including taking to the streets to protest! This is NOT the 1960's.When martial law has been declared, and the Supremes are in a ditch with bullet holes in their heads, the '60s will look like a party.

[Sanslines]

You are catching on.. But they don't make the choice themselves. Either the State or the Federal government would do that.

The State or Federal governments call up the militia asking them to conduct an insurrection against them????

[Skinview]

The State or Federal governments call up the militia asking them to conduct an insurrection against them????If the Federal government became tyrannical, the militia would place themselves under the control of the states and overthrow the Federal government. If a state became tyrannical, they wouldn't even have to switch sides. The Federal government would use the militia and the Army to crush the state government. Read Federalist 29 and 46. Of course if any tyranny wanted to hold onto power, it would want to disarm the people, just like Hitler, Castro, etc. did. No civilian guns, no militia. Once the guns have been confiscated, its all over, and tyrants die in bed of old age.

[jon71]

This strikes of paranoia. John Adams did one of the greatest things anyone has ever done in America. He lost an election and peacefully left office. Not once in 232 years has any American president, or for that matter any office holder, used the military or any form of violence to hold onto power. When we don't like someone in office, we don't take up arms against them, we vote. I consider the likelihood of anything remotely justifying armed conflict to be extremely remote and becoming moreso all the time. To base gun laws on the "necessity" of putting together a violent revolution seems to be an incredible stretch.

[Skinview]

This strikes of paranoia. John Adams did one of the greatest things anyone has ever done in America. He lost an election and peacefully left office. Not once in 232 years has any American president, or for that matter any office holder, used the military or any form of violence to hold onto power. When we don't like someone in office, we don't take up arms against them, we vote. I consider the likelihood of anything remotely justifying armed conflict to be extremely remote and becoming moreso all the time. To base gun laws on the "necessity" of putting together a violent revolution seems to be an incredible stretch.

Our government was an experiment that had never been tried before. The founders did not know if it was going to work. Ben Franklin said, when our counrty was new, "you have a republic, if you can keep it." Since then we have seen governments fall into abject tyranny. Germany was a new democracy, and they got Hitler. Russia had democratic reforms, and it got Lenin and soon after that Stalin. Castro turned out to be, suprise!, a communist. France got Napoleon. Today, political opponents of the Russian government have been assasinated. So when you are being herded onto a freight car bound for a concentration camp, are you going to say, "Just wait until the next election!"? Our government works so well because the founders assumed the worst. When you think it can't happen here, and craft your government and laws as if it can't, then it might. At the end of the Revolution, George Washington's generals wanted to make him king. If George Washington had different inclinations, our republic wouldn't be a republic.

[Sanslines]

Our government was an experiment that had never been tried before. The founders did not know if it was going to work. Ben Franklin said, when our counrty was new, "you have a republic, if you can keep it." Since then we have seen governments fall into abject tyranny. Germany was a new democracy, and they got Hitler. Russia had democratic reforms, and it got Lenin and soon after that Stalin. Castro turned out to be, suprise!, a communist. France got Napoleon. Today, political opponents of the Russian government have been assasinated. So when you are being herded onto a freight car bound for a concentration camp, are you going to say, "Just wait until the next election!"? Our government works so well because the founders assumed the worst. When you think it can't happen here, and craft your government and laws as if it can't, then it might. At the end of the Revolution, George Washington's generals wanted to make him king. If George Washington had different inclinations, our republic wouldn't be a republic.

After so many years, we know that government works. We also know that there are much better and more effective ways to create change other then armed insurrections. You don't ever mention about what would occur after an armed insurrection. You must be assuming that a group of geniuses would step forward and instantly form a new government to prevent anarchy. There is no guarantee that the new governement would be any better then the old government for human behavior is human behavior.

[usmc1]

This strikes of paranoia. John Adams did one of the greatest things anyone has ever done in America. He lost an election and peacefully left office. Not once in 232 years has any American president, or for that matter any office holder, used the military or any form of violence to hold onto power. When we don't like someone in office, we don't take up arms against them, we vote. I consider the likelihood of anything remotely justifying armed conflict to be extremely remote and becoming moreso all the time. To base gun laws on the "necessity" of putting together a violent revolution seems to be an incredible stretch.

Well Jon, I used to be in 100% agreement with you. Until Iraq.

The resistance there, armed with AKs, RPGs, and using IEDs, have done a fair-to-middlin' job of withstanding our might.

Who would supply the arms and ammunition? Well the same damned people that now do it all over the world. How'd they get 'em to us? Well the same damned way they get drugs in on a daily basis.

But, you rightfully ask, would American troops fire on Americans? Hell yeah...Ruby Ridge, Waco, Chicago, McArthur and the Bonus Army and Harlan County to name a few instances of brute force applied against citizens by military or police powers.

It is unrelated in many ways but the combination of Iraq, Katrina and Rita taught me a number of things. Such as the veneer is mighty damned thin and if you resist effectively you can change the make-up and course of a government.

All-in-all, since November 1963, I'd say we've been inching closer and closer!

[alfredr]

The main purpose of the militia and the Second Amendment was to be able to overthrow the government, if necessary, again. We haven't needed to, yet. Jon71 is right that the peaceful turning over of office and power was, and still is, one of the greatest things about America. Many countries still can't manage it. Kenya and Zimbabwe are two current examples.

Usmc1 is also correct that an armed resistance is able to make life difficult for an unwanted oppressor. Besides Iraq, there is Afghanistan, a couple of times. The Palestinians are showing Israel a bit about resistance also. Lessons from Vietnam?

I don't agree that we are close to needing to do the same here, I think our system is working reasonably well yet, but it would be better if more participated in elections, and money played a smaller part in our political system.

Like I said earlier, I think the militia movement more nearly has a grip on the meaning of the Second Amendment, but, they may be right, but they're wrong.

[Skinview]

After so many years, we know that government works. We also know that there are much better and more effective ways to create change other then armed insurrections. You don't ever mention about what would occur after an armed insurrection. You must be assuming that a group of geniuses would step forward and instantly form a new government to prevent anarchy. There is no guarantee that the new governement would be any better then the old government for human behavior is human behavior.

You are not following me. A government would already exist, either state governments, or the Federal government. When the conflict resolves itself, there might be occasion to modify the constitution to prevent whatever went wrong from happening again, or not. As you pointed out, the current government has worked very well so far.

[Skinview]

The resistance there, armed with AKs, RPGs, and using IEDs, have done a fair-to-middlin' job of withstanding our might.Killing one or two soldiers a day is hardly "withstanding our might". But it does take advantage of the US public's pathetic lack of resolve.


Who would supply the arms and ammunition? Well the same damned people that now do it all over the world. How'd they get 'em to us? Well the same damned way they get drugs in on a daily basis.We would not have won the Revolution without the arms supplied by France, Holland and Spain, and French gunpowder.


But, you rightfully ask, would American troops fire on Americans? Hell yeah...Ruby Ridge, Waco, Chicago, McArthur and the Bonus Army and Harlan County to name a few instances of brute force applied against citizens by military or police powers.And Kent State.

[Sanslines]

You are not following me. A government would already exist, either state governments, or the Federal government. When the conflict resolves itself, there might be occasion to modify the constitution to prevent whatever went wrong from happening again, or not. As you pointed out, the current government has worked very well so far.

I don't think that I am following what you are saying. If a government is overthrown, then where does this 'new' replacement government come from? The present size of governments make it impossible to have replacement governments 'waiting in the wings'.

[Skinview]

I don't think that I am following what you are saying. If a government is overthrown, then where does this 'new' replacement government come from? The present size of governments make it impossible to have replacement governments 'waiting in the wings'.

Right now, you live in a state. It has a legislature, a governor, and a judiciary. It has its own police force, tax system, and beurocracy. It is a government. Lets call it government A. There is another government called the Federal government. It has a Congress, President, judiciary, police force, tax system and beurocracy. Call it government B. If either government A or government B disappeared, you would still have a government.

[Mr. Natura]

Indeed, why?

None of those quotes suggests that individuals have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government.

But individuals working together as a militia could.

Remember, this wasn't just theory to the Founders. They had just done it.

-Mark

I never stated that an indivigual has the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. But they did want all people to have the right to be armed. It dosen't take much reading to figure that out. People are saying that the 2nd Admendment is for militias and that simply is not true. As the quotes that I have listed stated they wanted everyone to be armed.

Mr. N

[Mr. Natura]

The present size of governments make it impossible to have replacement governments 'waiting in the wings'.

Why would anyone want to replace this government with one just as big??? It would be just as out of control and would solve nothing.

Mr. N

[alfredr]

I meant to include that the first intifada was conducted largely with rocks and bricks.

[NudeAl]

A little revolution now and then is a good thing at least according to the founding fathers. We seem to be a bit behind the times in this regard.


"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson

Sic semper tyrannis!!

[usmc1]

A little revolution now and then is a good thing at least according to the founding fathers. We seem to be a bit behind the times in this regard.


"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson

Sic semper tyrannis!!

The problem is identifying the oppressor and source of the tyranny. Without agreement on that, you have civil war or factional conflicts.

[MissionNudists]

Our government was an experiment that had never been tried before. The founders did not know if it was going to work. Ben Franklin said, when our counrty was new, "you have a republic, if you can keep it." Since then we have seen governments fall into abject tyranny. Germany was a new democracy, and they got Hitler. Russia had democratic reforms, and it got Lenin and soon after that Stalin. Castro turned out to be, suprise!, a communist. France got Napoleon. Today, political opponents of the Russian government have been assasinated. So when you are being herded onto a freight car bound for a concentration camp, are you going to say, "Just wait until the next election!"? Our government works so well because the founders assumed the worst. When you think it can't happen here, and craft your government and laws as if it can't, then it might. At the end of the Revolution, George Washington's generals wanted to make him king. If George Washington had different inclinations, our republic wouldn't be a republic.

Excuse me. I have been following this thread with interest, trying to remain an observer but...

Hitler came to power because his militia, the SS, terrorized the nation, Castro was a socialist, until he privatized the sugar industry, and the USA cut him off, forcing him to seek help else were, Napoleon has the head of the revolutionary militia. Rome and Greece lost there republics to military leaders.

The USA was just lucky that George Washington didn't want to be king. Will the USA be that lucky, if there is a next time? History shows that armed revolution usually leads to dictatorships, peaceful evolution can lead to democracies too; UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.

As an observer, it appears the the USA is more concerned with the 2nd amendment than the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, or the Child Labor Amendment. I know that most of the rights in the proposed amendments have been covered by laws, but they are not enshrined the Constitution.

[jon71]

Amen to that missionnudists.

[Mr. Natura]

As an observer, it appears the the USA is more concerned with the 2nd amendment than the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, or the Child Labor Amendment.

Yes what you have said is true. But with the right to bear arms comes the means in which to preserve all other rights. ;)

Mr. N

[MissionNudists]

Yes what you have said is true. But with the right to bear arms comes the means in which to preserve all other rights. ;)

Mr. N

Or lose all rights to someone with more or bigger arms.

[Fitz1980]

But with the right to bear arms comes the means in which to preserve all other rights. ;)

Mr. N

As a film major and journalism minor lets also not forget about my favorite amendment, the first one. Freedom of speech and of the press. That is also how we preserve the other rights, by speaking out against the government and our elected officials.

[jon71]

I was about to say that the right to vote is what preserves all others.

[brazhunter]

Freedom of speech and the right to vote are both critical to freedom.

But what do you do when one or both of them are denied to the citizens? Look at the recent Zimbabwe elections.

[jon71]

As has been already pointed out who's to say that those gun weilding citizens would be any better that the despots they overthrow. Look at Iran. The Shaw was an abusive leader who didn't listen to the people. They took up arms to overthrow him and now they have an Ayatollah and the worst theocracy in the world today. Although a poor leader they were better off with the Shaw. By most accounts Mugabe was alright at first. Over time he's gotten more violent and more consumed with staying in power at all costs. I have zero confidence that armed revolutionaries will be better that who they replace, it's a roll of the dice.

[brazhunter]

As has been already pointed out who's to say that those gun weilding citizens would be any better that the despots they overthrow. Look at Iran. The Shaw was an abusive leader who didn't listen to the people. They took up arms to overthrow him and now they have an Ayatollah and the worst theocracy in the world today. Although a poor leader they were better off with the Shaw. By most accounts Mugabe was alright at first. Over time he's gotten more violent and more consumed with staying in power at all costs. I have zero confidence that armed revolutionaries will be better that who they replace, it's a roll of the dice.

So you'd be fine taking your chances under a Pol Pot, Stalin, etc?

Says a lot that you have less faith in your fellow countrymen than a tyrannical government. Why do you even trust them to vote?

[alfredr]

Can you say, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

This is the reason for the whole bill of rights, to keep absolute power out of the hands of the government, let alone any one branch of it, and to make it clear that absolute power was not being granted, but reserved to the people, collectively and individually.

[Naturist Mark]

As has been already pointed out who's to say that those gun weilding citizens would be any better that the despots they overthrow. Look at Iran. The Shaw was an abusive leader who didn't listen to the people. They took up arms to overthrow him and now they have an Ayatollah and the worst theocracy in the world today. Although a poor leader they were better off with the Shaw. By most accounts Mugabe was alright at first. Over time he's gotten more violent and more consumed with staying in power at all costs. I have zero confidence that armed revolutionaries will be better that who they replace, it's a roll of the dice.

You can argue about whether Iranians would have been better off under the Shah. He was very unpopular for a reason, but so is the current regime. Oddly enough the current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is now a voice of moderation - he has issued a fatwa forbidding the development of nuclear weapons, and although he vigorously opposed previous President's attempts to liberalize Iranian democracy and achieve better relations with the West and the US in particular, since President Ahmadinejad took office it has been Khamenei who has blunted the president's reckless ambitions for confrontation (if only someone had such an influence over OUR president!).

Daily life in Iran is not nearly as controlled or onerous as life was under the Taliban, or in much of the Pakistani hinterlands, nor in the world's real worst theocracy - Saudi Arabia. Indeed much of Iran's population is well educated, modern, and very eager to live a western lifestyle just as soon as they can send the mullahs back into the mosques.

Our government's backing of Al Qaeda terrorists in Iran (yes, the USA is funding Al Qaeda terrorists in Iran) will not in any way help the Iranian people become more free - that is only going to bring them to the defense of their government - no matter how repressive it is. But when the Iranian people feel secure enough in the world, no longer under threat from without, I think they will work to make a real democracy out from under the rule of the mullahs and build a closer relationship with the west.

That came close to happening under former President Khatami who attempted to form an alliance with the USA after 9/11 that would have opened up their weapons and nuclear programs to the US, normalized trade, cooperated on oil policy, and team up to hunt down Al Qaeda. That overture was rejected by President Cheney (it is not clear that Bush was even briefed on the proposal). The backlash in Iran for that failed rapprochement probably had a lot to do with the fall of the pragmatists and the ascent of Ahmadinejad’s hard liners.

-Mark

[jon71]

Actually Brazhunter you further made my point for me. Stalin was another one brought into power by armed revolution. The Czars were hit (Peter the great, Katherine the great) and miss (Ivan the terrible) but Stalin was one of the worst ever. Off the top of my head the only examples I can think of where a revolution improved things is the American revolution and the French revolution. I'm kind of reluctant to go with something that had it's last success two hundred years ago. Voting is better. Most of the former U.S.S.R. countries are now democracies, with varying degrees of freedom and success. Let's look at the Baltan republics like Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. They have since the end of the soviet union broke up put communists in office. If/when the public is dissatisfied with them they vote them out again. If the replacements don't do a better job they replace them as well. Communists have democratically come and gone several times in the last almost 20 years. Those counries are arguably impatient and fickle but they remain free. That's (approximately) how it's supposed to be done. Also don't forget that the U.S.S.R. was destroyed without armed revolution. There was no taking up arms, there was no civil war, there was just a resolute decision to form a new democratic government.

[brazhunter]

Voting is better.
Stalin killed somewhere between 50 and 100 million of his own people before he died off and left a legacy of dictators who killed fewer and fewer people over about 50 years until the people finally got a meaningful vote.

And you actually think that's a measure of success?

I can't imagine what you think failure is. Oh yeah, your next door neighbor owning a gun. :rolleyes:

[jon71]

Stalin's murderous reign is why people like you are WRONG. Pay attention. Your armed revolution gave us Stalin. My voting gave us Yeltsin.

[alfredr]

Jon71, look at post 142, the quote from Thomas Jefferson. He seems to have fully expected us to get a tyrant out of the revolution and that we would have to try again, and again. The armed populace is the counter-balance to the tyrant in office. Tyrants tend not to allow free and fair elections.

Off topic: In Discworld, by Terry Pratchett, the tyrant is an elected office in Ephebe (one of the countries) I think he is then largely ignored.

[brazhunter]

Your armed revolution gave us Stalin. My voting gave us Yeltsin.

It wasn't MY armed revolution.

I am profoundly grateful for the patriots who gave their lives to give me the freedom the United States has afforded me.

Tell me again why you think it was okay for the Soviets to kill tens of millions people before they got bored with exterminating their own citizens before you finally got a chance to vote for Yeltsin?

Your unarmed populace endured 3/4 of a century of slaughter, the likes of which the world had never seen before. In the end, would have it been any bloodier if the people had the means and the will to rise up and oppose Lenin, Stalin, Krushev, et. al.? Are you really trying to make me believe that you'd rather passively accept the executions of your family and yourself because of some perceived threat to the state than to fight back?

[jon71]

Your armed revolution is what gave us that slaughter in the first place. That is far more likely to be the problem rather than the solution. No thanks.

[brazhunter]

Your armed revolution is what gave us that slaughter in the first place. That is far more likely to be the problem rather than the solution. No thanks.

Yeah... :rolleyes:

[NudeAl]

Your armed revolution is what gave us that slaughter in the first place. That is far more likely to be the problem rather than the solution. No thanks.

Not my revolution.

My revolution gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and a system of government that has been copied around the world. If you look at the course of human history you will see that democracies are relatively rare. In fact the normal state of human history dictatorships, of one kind or another, are the normal form of government. The crumbling of the Iron Curtain was preceded by the Cold War which lasted nearly 50 years. There were dozens of armed conflicts during that time. It was only after Communism failed utterly and the system collapsed due to economic factors that freedom emerged there. Quite a few peaceful uprisings were crushed by the Soviets and who can forget Tienemen (SP) Square in communist China?

[Skinview]

Excuse me. I have been following this thread with interest, trying to remain an observer but...

Hitler came to power because his militia, the SS, terrorized the nation,My understanding was that Hitler won a plurality in an election. This did not get him in, but he was later appointed to office by people who thought they could control him. I don't imagine the SS terrorized the German Army into giving Hitler power. Now AFTER Hitler came to power is something else.


Castro was a socialist, until he privatized the sugar industry, and the USA cut him off, forcing him to seek help else were,"Privatized"??? You mean nationalized maybe?


Napoleon has the head of the revolutionary militia. Rome and Greece lost there republics to military leaders.A military coup is one thing the militia is supposed to guard against.


The USA was just lucky that George Washington didn't want to be king.Damn lucky. Some of his generals wanted him to be king.


Will the USA be that lucky, if there is a next time? History shows that armed revolution usually leads to dictatorships, peaceful evolution can lead to democracies too; UK,I seem to remember something about an English civil war, and a King losing his head... And then there was the Glorious Revolution that came later. Armies faced each other, and one didn't want to fight.

"The Swiss are free because the Swiss are armed"
-Machiavelli


Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.Yeah, and you still don't have all the civil liberties that we have. I always wanted to ask you subjects, how long did you pay that tea tax to the King?


As an observer, it appears the the USA is more concerned with the 2nd amendment than the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, or the Child Labor Amendment.Thats about right. We get particularly POed when the rights we already have in the Constitution are being violated. Whats the point in putting new ones in if they are just ignored there?

[Skinview]

As has been already pointed out who's to say that those gun weilding citizens would be any better that the despots they overthrow.Those "gun weilding citizens" are almost the exact same set of people as the electorate. You know, "the people".


Look at Iran. The Shaw was an abusive leader who didn't listen to the people. They took up arms to overthrow himTell us more about that war. I don't recall it.

"The revolution was unique for the surprise it created throughout the world:[13] it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution — defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military;[14] produced profound change at great speed;[15] overthrew a regime thought to be heavily protected by a lavishly financed army and security services;[16][17] and replaced an ancient monarchy with a theocracy..."
-wikipedia


By most accounts Mugabe was alright at first. Over time he's gotten more violent and more consumed with staying in power at all costs. I have zero confidence that armed revolutionaries will be better that who they replace, it's a roll of the dice.
Opposition leaders had a habit of dying from early on. One had a "car crash" in a bullet riddled car. Mugabe was voted into office. Zimbabwe has the kind of disfunctional democracy that our founders wanted an armed people to overthrow.

[Skinview]

Our government's backing of Al Qaeda terrorists in Iran (yes, the USA is funding Al Qaeda terrorists in Iran)

You have GOT to tell us more about this. I can't wait...

[Skinview]

Actually Brazhunter you further made my point for me. Stalin was another one brought into power by armed revolution. The Czars were hit (Peter the great, Katherine the great) and miss (Ivan the terrible) but Stalin was one of the worst ever.A far worse result to be sure, but it was a revolution against a CZAR. There was a problem that needed to be fixed. It got fixed. Then they had a bigger problem. And nobody had any guns.


Off the top of my head the only examples I can think of where a revolution improved things is the American revolution and the French revolution.The French revolution didn't work out too well either.


I'm kind of reluctant to go with something that had it's last success two hundred years ago. Voting is better.
Of course voting is better. If you could vote, there would be no need to have a revolution.

[Skinview]

Stalin's murderous reign is why people like you are WRONG. Pay attention. Your armed revolution gave us Stalin. My voting gave us Yeltsin.
There was a coup, remember?

[MissionNudists]

Yeah, and you still don't have all the civil liberties that we have. I always wanted to ask you subjects, how long did you pay that tea tax to the King?


Other than not having the right to bear arms, what are we missing?

But we do have equal rights, including women; the freedom of belief not just the freedom of religion. That freedom may one day give rights to nudists.

We also have a parliamentary system that does not invest power in a single person. There is not much the Prime Minister can do without at least the support of the cabinet. If majority of the House of Commons does not support the current government they can force an election. The Prime Minister's party can pick a new leader, no impeachment required. With our multi-party system evolution of parties occurs at the ballot box, and there is more choice, not just two. For more information on the Canadian government see http://www.canada.ca And by the way, we've been self-governed for 141 years.

To clarify Hitler's raise to power see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler and for the SA that becomes the SS see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung.

And you're correct, nationalize the sugar industry.

[brazhunter]

Other than not having the right to bear arms, what are we missing?
Warm water beaches!

[alfredr]

Hypothetical situation: What if somewhat later this year, maybe after the election, there is another major terrorist attack on the U. S. on the order of September 11th. (I don't like the custom of calling it 9/11) And suppose that George Bush acts decisively and effectively and we all rally behind him. But then along comes January 20 when we are supposed to swear in the new President who was just elected, but Bush feels that it would be a bad time for a change of leadership, so he suspends the turnover. Who is going to do something about it if he has the support of the military? And what would be done? Anyone who questions him is, of course, labeled unpatriotic.

[MissionNudists]

Hypothetical situation: What if somewhat later this year, maybe after the election, there is another major terrorist attack on the U. S. on the order of September 11th. (I don't like the custom of calling it 9/11) And suppose that George Bush acts decisively and effectively and we all rally behind him. But then along comes January 20 when we are supposed to swear in the new President who was just elected, but Bush feels that it would be a bad time for a change of leadership, so he suspends the turnover. Who is going to do something about it if he has the support of the military? And what would be done? Anyone who questions him is, of course, labeled unpatriotic.

And what could you do with personal fire arms against the US military?

[Skinview]

And what could you do with personal fire arms against the US military?

The same thing every army in the world does with its personal firearms: shoot them. Then call in an airstrike and artillery bombardment if you need more firepower. You skipped the earlier posts on this.
http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=201059&postcount=102
http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=201131&postcount=127

[alfredr]

I just said a little while ago that I didn't think we were close to a situation that might require over-throwing the gov't, but a president not turning over the office and power to an elected successor, because of some crisis, would certainly make me wonder. After hearing some of today's headlines, we could add, or choose from, several scenarios where the Pres. might feel obligated to not turn over the office. Iran tests a nuclear device. Economic collapse or stock market crash. North Korea admitting they sold nuclear technology or bombs to some group, not a country. Domestic terrorists not associated with al-qaeda or Islam in any way, giving us another group to be suspicious of, say, Puerto Rican nationalists, or some one of some other foreign descent. What if the Cuban missile crisis had happened during such a transition time?

Could we wait and see if this Pres. would turn over power after the crisis subsided? Would he yield if the courts invalidated such a move? Would a governor mobilize the National Guard against the gov't?

Are we writing a movie script or a novel? Not me, but it sounds like there could be one here.

[hm0504]

In theory, the idea of a country having a monarchy is absurd to me. In practice, it (referring specifically to constitutional monarchies such as Canada's and the UK's) actually seems to work out not too badly.

As much as I greatly admire the American system of government, I note that there is an unfortunate tendency (more so than in constitutional monarchies) to treat the President like a Monarch. So, as much as I find the idea of monarchy absurd at one level, it seems to work out well to have a separation between Monarch and the Head of Government (as one has in a constitutional monarchy) than to end up with a President who is more and more treated like a Monarch. If there is some kind of need for people to have a monarch, better it be someone distinct from the President.

Ultimately though, whether a country is a constitutional monarchy or a republic is irrelevant to how democratic it is -- that depends on how much the people demand responsibility, sensibility, and accountability from their government -- and both our countries (Canada and the U.S.) need to do a lot more in this regard.



Other than not having the right to bear arms, what are we missing?

But we do have equal rights, including women; the freedom of belief not just the freedom of religion. That freedom may one day give rights to nudists.

We also have a parliamentary system that does not invest power in a single person. There is not much the Prime Minister can do without at least the support of the cabinet. If majority of the House of Commons does not support the current government they can force an election. The Prime Minister's party can pick a new leader, no impeachment required. With our multi-party system evolution of parties occurs at the ballot box, and there is more choice, not just two. For more information on the Canadian government see http://www.canada.ca And by the way, we've been self-governed for 141 years.

To clarify Hitler's raise to power see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler and for the SA that becomes the SS see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung.

And you're correct, nationalize the sugar industry.

[hm0504]

Just thought I'd add a little background music to this conversation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfBbR6L0M

;-)

[nuovonudo]

I just said a little while ago that I didn't think we were close to a situation that might require over-throwing the gov't, but a president not turning over the office and power to an elected successor, because of some crisis, would certainly make me wonder.

it's an interesting hypothetical situation. a sitting president would have to be a lot more megalomaniacal than any current or sitting prez's i can think of to try to pull something like that off.

this reminds me of a funny "saturday night live" sketch in which ex prez richard nixon was at his desk in san clemente firing off letter after letter to important personages advocating for the repeal of the two-term limit for presidents. yuk yuk.

seriously though, i don't see something like that happening in the u.s.a.; we haven't reached quite that level of depravity in our society, even tho' we may be getting there. assuming the kind of crisis you envision were to take place, history has shown that the election process and the inauguration of the next president (or second inaugural, if the crisis develops during the sitting prez's first term) will go on as usual, albeit perhaps with less of the pomp and circumstance.

i take it you do not consider the 9/11/2001 attack on america to constitute a serious-enough crisis to fit your proposed hypothetical?

[l2ltlarry]

I think this letter writer, who is a candidate for Ohio Attorney General, makes some good points. It appeared in The Columbus Dispatch (www.dispatch.com) last Friday.


Supreme Court's gun decision flawed

Friday, August 1, 2008 3:09 AM

The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down a gun ban and affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and use firearms is an individual right. While this seems gun-rights friendly, the opinion contains serious flaws. It is contradictory by first acknowledging a pre-existing right and later claiming that it is the Second Amendment that confers a right to gun ownership. This claim is at odds with the clear intent of the Founding Fathers and leaves the door open for untold infringements to a citizen's right to self-defense.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states that our rights are inalienable and are derived from our Creator. To secure these rights, the people have instituted government. Our Founding Fathers knew that the best form of government was one strictly limited to specific enumerated powers. The Bill of Rights did not create any rights at all; it simply acknowledged our God-given rights that existed before government.

George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights, reminded us that "to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Many well-intentioned people claim that our modern society is no longer in need of such safeguards. Recent history destroys this argument.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership published a study of the five largest genocides of the 20th century. In each case, a government murdered millions of its citizens. In each case, strict gun-control laws preceded the genocide. None of these atrocities would have been possible but for civilian disarmament. Most Americans would be surprised to know that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 is almost identical to the Nazi civilian disarmament laws of 1938.

The Second Amendment is truly the "teeth of liberty" and serves as the enforcement arm for the First Amendment. It ensures that our rights are guaranteed.

ROBERT M. OWENS
Candidate, Ohio attorney general

Delaware

[alfredr]

nuovonudo: No, the September 11th, 2001 doesn't meet the hypothetical situation because of the timing. Possibly could have triggered something if it had happened in my time frame, i.e., approaching a turn over of power. But I kind of think we need to have that in our background for another new incident to happen.

And also, yes, we haven't had any presidents that would overstep the Constitution to that degree. But just because we have a long tradition of peacefully turning over power (and as someone else pointed out, John Adams losing an election and turning over power peacefully was a kind of new occurrence) that doesn't mean it will always happen. It's not a common occurrence in much of the world yet.

The crisis would be a President not turning over power and having popular support and the rest of the government supporting him also. How long would we wait for the 'temporary' suspension of the Constitution? I assume someone would take it to the Supreme Court quickly, and what if they supported him also?

[Skinview]

The crisis would be a President not turning over power and having popular support and the rest of the government supporting him also. How long would we wait for the 'temporary' suspension of the Constitution? I assume someone would take it to the Supreme Court quickly, and what if they supported him also?

If five of the justices, say, died under mysterious circumstances, the President would appoint five replacements and then he could do whatever he wants.

[Naturist Mark]

If five of the justices, say, died under mysterious circumstances, the President would appoint five replacements and then he could do whatever he wants.

The current president would only have to knock off one justice. He already has 4 rubber stamps.

-Mark

[alfredr]

With the consent of the Senate.