Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:06 PM
nef nef is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 25
Default Re: NO gun confiscation

[ QUOTE ]
So now what constitues the "militia"? Who is in the "militia"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The US code defines the militia as all able bodied males over 17 that aren't government employees or something along those lines. I'll provide a link after work.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:12 PM
HDPM HDPM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,799
Default Re: NO gun confiscation

[ QUOTE ]
The NRA has been warning about this slippery slope for the better half of a century.

We reap what we sow.



[/ QUOTE ]


The nra for years was a sell out appeasing anti-rights organization that let terms like "sporting use" into the debate. One of the reasons rights have been eroded was that the biggest and richest gun lobby was wimpy. The NRA now sees that individual gun rights are important and not just so some people can go shoot a bunny or a bambi. But they were too late. Where were they in the '30's with the awful class III legislation? Where were they in 1968? Why is it that entire populations in major states are disarmed now? I have belonged in the past and might re-join, because I do think they do some good. but there are better pro-gun lobbies, at least as far as having a consistent philosophy. The NRA is a nice safe moderate group with a lot of members and money.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:18 PM
HDPM HDPM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,799
Default Re: NO gun confiscation

Yes, pretty much everybody is in the militia. But the amendment obviously protects the rights of all the people, not just those defined to be in the militia.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:23 PM
andyfox andyfox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,677
Default Re: NO gun confiscation

Wouldn't the amendmend, in today's language, read:

Being that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

or

Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A militia with its members possessing thermonuclear devices wouldn't qualify as being "well regulated." And it's evident that a well regulated militia can exist without thermonuclear devices. Again, why wouldn't the framers have just said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is they hadn't intended it to be related to the requirements of a well regulated militia?

I agree with you that the framers did indeed intend for each state to have a well regulated militia. It's also likely that the they would have had no objection to a citizen having a cannon. Then again, their ideas of 'cruel and unusual" punishment were probably very different from ours.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:35 PM
jaxmike jaxmike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 636
Default Re: NO gun confiscation

[ QUOTE ]
Again, why wouldn't the framers have just said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is they hadn't intended it to be related to the requirements of a well regulated militia?

[/ QUOTE ]

They did.

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

The part about the militia is NOT a limitation, it's an expansion. It's specifically granting the right for militia's to exist. Basically, you can't have a militia without a right to bear arms. But you can have the right to bear arms without having militias.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:38 PM
andyfox andyfox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,677
Default Re: NO gun confiscation

No, they didn't. It's all one sentence.

"Basically, you can't have a militia without a right to bear arms. But you can have the right to bear arms without having militias."

I agree. Thus if they wanted the right to bear arms without reference to a militia they would have said so. But they didn't.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:43 PM
Peter666 Peter666 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 346
Default Re: NO gun confiscation

If they come to take the guns away, I always thought the logical action would be to shoot them. But I don't think people have the moral balls.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:46 PM
jaxmike jaxmike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 636
Default Re: NO gun confiscation

[ QUOTE ]
No, they didn't. It's all one sentence.

"Basically, you can't have a militia without a right to bear arms. But you can have the right to bear arms without having militias."

I agree. Thus if they wanted the right to bear arms without reference to a militia they would have said so. But they didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try again since you still do not understand.

Ok, if the Constitution read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is there a right to a militia?

No, at least not enumerated.

If the Constitution said "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

Is there a right for the people not in the militia to bear arms enumerated in the Constitution? No.

So, the framers put BOTH in, because BOTH were important.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:47 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NO gun confiscation

[ QUOTE ]
No, they didn't. It's all one sentence.

"Basically, you can't have a militia without a right to bear arms. But you can have the right to bear arms without having militias."

I agree. Thus if they wanted the right to bear arms without reference to a militia they would have said so. But they didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think at the time... it was hard for the framers to separate the two.

Think of the historical context... everyone owned a gun for hunting and they had just come off the most amazing mobilization of a private militia.

I believe they meant both were important (a militia and the right to individaully bear arms), but just assumed the two would normally go hand-and-hand.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:48 PM
etgryphon etgryphon is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 0
Default Re: NO gun confiscation

Now, we will get into the definition of "well-regulated". Does it mean "restricted" or does it mean "well-trained"?

The meat of the amendment is in the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Two things need to be address:
(1) Does the object in question qualify in the category of "arms".
(2) Does a law or action on the part of the government or by another citizen "infringe" on the individuals ability to keep or bear this as now defined "arms".

If you look, Miller v. US puts forth the reasoning or test to prove the definition of (1) above is by finding the presence of the said object in question in the arsenal of the Military.

This would include automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and the like...

It is pretty much settled law but no one wants to enforce it .

-Gryph
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.