I favour a small efficient government
 

.... one that only spends money on my priorities and passes laws I agree with.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
.... one that only spends money on my priorities and passes laws I agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Although I suspect you are being sracastic whereas I am not. I don't feel the least bit bad about this either. I suspect many people feel this way, it's too bad people can't just say so.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

IMHO one of the biggest problems with our government is they way they try to micromanage our lives.

WHen Clinton ran for reelection one ad I heard was with Bill Clinton in office the feds stoped 250k illegal gun sales. The part they forgot to mention was only 17 people were sent to jail.

Enforce the laws on the books dont make more.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

A small efficient government would ban gun sales except to a properly regulated militia.

Enforce the constitution, dont twist it.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
A small efficient government would ban gun sales except to a properly regulated militia.

Enforce the constitution, dont twist it.

[/ QUOTE ]

A small government would be sending cops all over the country to make sure nobody bought a gun? Please explain how that would be small government? That would require a significant increase in the size/cost/power of government.

The Best Government
 

[ QUOTE ]
.... one that only spends money on my priorities and passes laws I agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's called a family.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
A small efficient government would ban gun sales except to a properly regulated militia.

Enforce the constitution, dont twist it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO.

So, ACPlayer: why didn't the government do just that when it was far smaller and more efficient than it is today, when the Constitution and 2nd Amendment were actually written? Why didn't they follow through and ban gun sales, just as you suggest, way back THEN?

Answer: because that was not what the lawmakers intended when writing those documents. Moreover, they, and the rest of the country, knew it.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

LMAO

I think Andy has pretty much trashed you every time in the discussion of the second amendment.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

I hope you meant "thrashed."

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

I disagree with that assessment, and further observe that you have not even attempted to answer my question as to why the framers and authors of the 2nd didn't selectively ban gun sales back then if that would have been proper interpretation of the Constitution and 2nd Amendment.

You proffered the reasoning that that would have been the proper interpretation of the Constitution and the proper actions of a small and efficient government. So why didn't the authors have done just that, back when government was far smaller and far more efficient?

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

I imagine when the law was written, just about every able-bodied white male was an active member of a militia. Today we don't have other nations claiming as theirs the same territory we claim as ours.

BTW, I would never trash you and I doubt I've ever thrashed you. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, ACPlayer: why didn't the government do just that when it was far smaller and more efficient than it is today, when the Constitution and 2nd Amendment were actually written? Why didn't they follow through and ban gun sales, just as you suggest, way back THEN?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution is a living-breathing document. Plus, what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously. It is what a Justice currently believes as his or her own opinion that really counts. We must recognize the "right to privacy"...which includes the government looking in people's bedrooms to see if they own a gun, aparently.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine when the law was written, just about every able-bodied white male was an active member of a militia. Today we don't have other nations claiming as theirs the same territory we claim as ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is true, but why not amend the Consitution then? If we no longer need people to own guns to keep the British away, wouldn't passing an amendment be the proper way to go, rather than just ignoring the amendment as it was written 200+ years ago?

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
.... one that only spends money on my priorities and passes laws I agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows your personal definition of satisfaction better than YOU! Cut out the middle man! Pay directly for your own security and hand-select how you want your rights enforced!

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is true, but why not amend the Consitution then? If we no longer need people to own guns to keep the British away, wouldn't passing an amendment be the proper way to go, rather than just ignoring the amendment as it was written 200+ years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Amendments are the prescribed and only proper way to effect Constitutional change.

Also, only an armed people can truly be free, or able to defend their liberty.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
.... one that only spends money on my priorities and passes laws I agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows your personal definition of satisfaction better than YOU! Cut out the middle man! Pay directly for your own security and hand-select how you want your rights enforced!

[/ QUOTE ]

That wouldn't work for me because I want other's to live by my laws as well.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

whoa, only an armed people can truely be free???? Ghandi wasnt armed and neither was Martin luther King Jr. The fact of the matter is that many types of guns a designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings. Handguns in particular fall into this category. Rifles to hunt with are one thing, but tech 9 machine pistols are another.

how are special purpose people killers needed when a rifle could defend liberty all the same????

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

I'm not advocating ignoring the amendment. I'm advocating adhering to it as it was written.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
whoa, only an armed people can truely be free???? Ghandi wasnt armed and neither was Martin luther King Jr.

[/ QUOTE ]

"people" / "person"...there is a subtle difference.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that many types of guns a designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings. Handguns in particular fall into this category. Rifles to hunt with are one thing, but tech 9 machine pistols are another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and guns designed to kill people are especially in keeping with the rationale of 2nd Amendment. Defending your self, country or liberty, is best done with weapons designed for killing people not woodchucks.

[ QUOTE ]
how are special purpose people killers needed when a rifle could defend liberty all the same????

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is a steak knife better than a butter knife for certain purposes? The purpose of a weapon with which one defends liberty, is to thwart those who would usurp that liberty by force. Hence an "anti-person" gun is a much better tool for the purpose. Moreover, if they have the better anti-personnel guns, and you have only light hunting arms, you are at a severe disadvantage.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we arrived at an agreement last time on this;-)...?

While we did differ on whether or not the militia clause is the most important or hinging part of the amendment (I hold that it is merely supportive rather than pivotal, whereas you hold that it is more or less the hinging focal point)...I thought we reached an agreement that even under your interpretation, the Amendment forbade the infringement of bearing rights, specifically BECAUSE of the militia clause. Since we are all considered to be part of the militia, our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--exactly as per Andy Fox's interpretation of the rationale for the Amendment.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

1. Though some of our civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are recognized in the Bill of Rights, they nevertheless exist independently and may not properly be infringed, even if the entire Bill of Rights were repealed.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3. In any case, the militia clause in the second amendment was added to emphasize that the RKBA is a paticularly important right for the people to retain to enable them to resist not only foreign agression, but also tyranny in their own government. Thus, it makes zero sense to suppose it authorizes the government to form a government controlled standing army. This interpretation is apparent by reading Federalist #29, authored by Hamilton: [Added emphasis mine]

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
whoa, only an armed people can truely be free???? Ghandi wasnt armed and neither was Martin luther King Jr.

[/ QUOTE ]

We posses certain inalienable rights, which include the right to keep and bear arms. A free society is defined by whether those rights are recognized by the government. That those particular individuals you mention did not exercise certain particular rights could not be more irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that many types of guns a designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be specific about which features of which types of guns makes them more lethal.

And even if that's true -- so what? Increased lethality means they are better served for self-defense. The guns I own are indeed designed to kill human beings (though not any more so than all other guns), and I do not hunt. That's what makes them useful to me, and why I own them.

[ QUOTE ]
Handguns in particular fall into this category. Rifles to hunt with are one thing, but tech 9 machine pistols are another.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly, is a "machine pistol?" Methinks you have no idea what you are talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
how are special purpose people killers needed when a rifle could defend liberty all the same????

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, please be specific about which features of which guns make them "special purpose people killers."

I ask partly because if you are correct that certain guns are particularly lethal, I'm going to add them to my collection. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

There, It Looks Like That Should Settle It
 

Excellent post, bluebassman.

I greatly doubt that even the great Andy Fox can find a way to refute the points you have just made.

And to those others who may disagree with the sentiment or conclusion: can you actually rebut this line of reasoning? These points seem to make crystal clear what was intended--and stated--by the 2nd Amendment (and the Ninth).

Even if Andy were STILL to argue contrary to Hamilton's clear words in Federalist 29, Andy still wouldn't be able to get around the 9th Amendment, as such: the enumeration of the right of the people to keep and bear arms *for the purpose of having a militia only* (according to Andy), SHALL NOT be construed to deny or disparage the right of the people to keep and bear arms for other purposes as well.

As far as I'm concerned this definitely looks like a "Q.E.D.". Can anyone show why it isn't?

[ QUOTE ]
1. Though some of our civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are recognized in the Bill of Rights, they nevertheless exist independently and may not properly be infringed, even if the entire Bill of Rights were repealed.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3. In any case, the militia clause in the second amendment was added to emphasize that the RKBA is a paticularly important right for the people to retain to enable them to resist not only foreign agression, but also tyranny in their own government. Thus, it makes zero sense to suppose it authorizes the government to form a government controlled standing army. This interpretation is apparent by reading Federalist #29, authored by Hamilton: [Added emphasis mine]

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
.... one that only spends money on my priorities and passes laws I agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows your personal definition of satisfaction better than YOU! Cut out the middle man! Pay directly for your own security and hand-select how you want your rights enforced!

[/ QUOTE ]

That wouldn't work for me because I want other's to live by my laws as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least you're honest about your desire to tell other people what to do instead of dressing it up in some "greater good" BS.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
whoa, only an armed people can truely be free???? Ghandi wasnt armed and neither was Martin luther King Jr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gandhi may not have packed heat himself (or maybe he did, I don't really know) but he knew the importance of *having that right*, whether it was exercised or not:

[ QUOTE ]
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

1. Though some of our civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are recognized in the Bill of Rights, they nevertheless exist independently and may not properly be infringed, even if the entire Bill of Rights were repealed.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3. In any case, the militia clause in the second amendment was added to emphasize that the RKBA is a paticularly important right for the people to retain to enable them to resist not only foreign agression, but also tyranny in their own government. Thus, it makes zero sense to suppose it authorizes the government to form a government controlled standing army. This interpretation is apparent by reading Federalist #29, authored by Hamilton: [Added emphasis mine]

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

You post goot!

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

1. Though some of our civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are recognized in the Bill of Rights, they nevertheless exist independently and may not properly be infringed, even if the entire Bill of Rights were repealed.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3. In any case, the militia clause in the second amendment was added to emphasize that the RKBA is a paticularly important right for the people to retain to enable them to resist not only foreign agression, but also tyranny in their own government. Thus, it makes zero sense to suppose it authorizes the government to form a government controlled standing army. This interpretation is apparent by reading Federalist #29, authored by Hamilton: [Added emphasis mine]

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.

I don't think Andy is far off the mark though. I just believe the militia extents to all people who are not disinfranchised of their rights (felons). The right to bear arms has been eroded over the last 60 years or so because people were "willing" to trample their rights in order to solve a problem.

Remember when the Constitution was passed there were no:

1. Standing Armies
2. National Guard
3. Organized Police

There was just you and your ability to take care of youself as a law-abiding citizen.

And based on the following cases:

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989)

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)

Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990)

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

The courts have repeatedly ruled that the police\government\NG\Army has no obligation to protect you or to save you. So now we are left with the thought of how to protect myself and my family.

So I own and carry a farearm everywhere that I can for the express purpose of defending myself and my family.

This is the last word if people want to be honest with themselves. There is a battle raging in the federal courts at the moment. It will definately make it to the Supreme Court. Hopefully the justices will have the fortitude to rule in favor of law abiding citizens.

I think that it is very interesting when disasters happen (9/11, Katrina) that gun sales go through the roof. People's eyes are opened to how dangerous the world is and how weak the governement is at its ability to protect "individuals". I don't fault the government because it is a n impossible task, I just am angry that they limit my ability to care for myself so that they can look like they are "doing something". I do believe that gun grabbers are for the most part well-intentioned, but vastly ignorant or unwilling to face the facts. Gun Controllers are the real extremist.

-Gryph

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

If I recall correctly the SCOTUS has always avoided ruling on the specific meaning of the 2nd amendment, or have outright refused to hear them. Many speculate this is because the liberal courts of the past didn’t want to have to affirm the RTKABA.. But now, if the next nominee is a good solid non-activist choice…… honey where’s the BAR?

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

Good post.

1. (and 2.) I agree that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing rights. That was the reason for the Bill of Rights to begin with, to assuage fears of anti-federalists that the Constitution would denigrate too many rights. Indeed, the language of the 9th amendment confirms this.

3. The militia clause to the 2nd amendment was not added.
The amendment's purpose was to allow the states to keep their militias and to protect them against the possibility that the new national government would use its power to establish a powerful standing army and eliminate the state militias. It's purpose was the protection of militia rights.

As Federalist 29 states, "It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union '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'."

The original language of the amendment was:

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

It is not clear why the first two clauses were reversed, or why the third clause was left out. But it is clear that the amendment is talking about arms necessary for militia

The amendment's actual language is an embarrassment. That we are arguing over what it says, shows why. If it were written clearly it would say, "So long as [or inasmuch as] a well-regulated militia of the whole people stands as our preferred military protection in a free society, the Congress shall make no law disarming those citizens of the weapons necessary for their military duties." But let's disregard that for the moment.

The Second Amendment was a vitally important provision to the founders, expressing distrust of the professional standing army (which was the handmaiden of the European tyrants), and providing that, whatever was said in the body of the Constitution about the military arm of the new government, the people still relied on local units, comprising all eligible citizens, trained and regulated, armed with their own weapons. And further, the Amendment served notice that no jealous organ of the central government should ever try to weaken the people's army by making laws depriving the eligible citizenry of their weapons necessary for such people's armies.

There are no militias now that are like the militias at the time of the founding. It is not unusual that things that were important in the eighteenth century are not important now. One thinks of the third amendment, forbidding the quartering of troops in private residences during peacetime. Or the 7th that guarantees a trial by jury for all civil cases where the amount in dipute exceeds $20.

I do not think the Second Amendment has any bearing on the question of whether guns should be freely available or sharply controlled. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue (as important as that issue is).

That leaves the matter completely in the hands of the political branch. Which is, I think, how it should be. The people decide, by legislative choice, many important aspects of their lives together in society. The wisdom, effectiveness, configuration, and moral virtue of gun control is an appropriate matter for the expression of popular sovereignty rather than constitutional control. Indeed, the 9th amendment supports this viewpoint. The right of the people to decide what they want to do with guns is not prohibited or prescribed by the constitution.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

Here's a rather long article shedding some light on why SCOTUS has shied away from the 2nd amendment:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html

Re: There, It Looks Like That Should Settle It
 

"the great Andy Fox"

Surely you jest, sir.

Anyway, see my response to bluebassman below.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

Interesting site.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a rather long article shedding some light on why SCOTUS has shied away from the 2nd amendment:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Andy...Good article.

On a side note, given the fact that the courts have rule that the government is not on the hook to protect you.

What redress do individuals have to protect themselves?

Second, given you believe in the ability to carry arms in the context of a militia. Could a group of citizen form a "militia" for the protection of themselves and their families and thus by extention maintain a Free State. Would you have any objection to that?

-Gryph

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

The defining characteristics of the militia as originally understood were compulsory service by all eligible men, training and organization, occasional service as required, and strong responsibility to local command. I don't think there can be a private militia. I don't consider small groups of self-styled militiamen, taking target practice in the woods while sporting battle fatigues, and spouting their own brand of libertarian patriotism, a militia, except in the minds of those pariticipating.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

Excellent article -- thanks!

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
The defining characteristics of the militia as originally understood were compulsory service by all eligible men, training and organization, occasional service as required, and strong responsibility to local command. I don't think there can be a private militia. I don't consider small groups of self-styled militiamen, taking target practice in the woods while sporting battle fatigues, and spouting their own brand of libertarian patriotism, a militia, except in the minds of those pariticipating.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is the difference between your definition of a "militia" and standing army controlled by the government?

Would you be willing to allow the states the ability to define what a "militia" is as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment?

I say this because the VA Constitution(where I live) and other states allow for "unorganized militia" which fall under loose groups of citizens who swear to uphold the State constitution and the laws of the land.

-Gryph

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
So why didn't the authors have done just that, back when government was far smaller and far more efficient?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps they wanted a bigger government. The question is not relevant either to the OP or to the question of the second amendment. Why someone did not do something could be for so many reasons and I certainly have no way of divining it. Any answer would be speculation.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

trashed and/or thrashed.

6M's arguments, not him personally. I suspect you two would get along in peson.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
but why not amend the Consitution then

[/ QUOTE ]
Does not need it. Just needs to be interpreted properly. Though amending it would of course clarify a particularly obscure clause in the document.