NO gun confiscation

[MMMMMM]

[ 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 ]

Why couldn't they establish the right and offer a rationale; the rationale offered being perhaps only the most important or obvious amongst several existent rationales? Why do you presume that the rationale offered is the only rationale they had, or that naming one rationale compels them to name all rationales?

Another matter: even if your point is granted at face value for the sake of argument, it would then be incumbent on you (or upon the courts, heh;-) to show that a militia IS NO LONGER NECESSARY for the security of a free state--and I don't believe that can be shown. Hence the right to keep and bear shall *still* not be infringed because the original rationale has not been demonstrably obviated.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

Another matter: even if your point is granted at face value for the sake of argument, it would then be incumbent on you (or upon the courts, heh;-) to show that a militia IS NO LONGER NECESSARY for the security of a free state--and I don't believe that can be shown. Hence the right to keep and bear shall *still* not be infringed because the original rationale has not been demonstrably obviated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...

-Gryph

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow... you are one deep dude.

I think the well-regulated part actually referred to "well-disciplined" (something that was lacking in our original militia)... well defined in the book "1776"

P.S. On the statement about Nukes being part of Well Armed... I think 'well armed' should only include weapons with a blast radius sufficient to kill no more than 10 individuals (just my opinion of course).

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]


Wow... you are one deep dude.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what my wife says...Bu-Dump - Teee!
[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]

I think the well-regulated part actually referred to "well-disciplined" (something that was lacking in our original militia)... well defined in the book "1776"


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... That is another definition and is well regarded.

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. On the statement about Nukes being part of Well Armed... I think 'well armed' should only include weapons with a blast radius sufficient to kill no more than 10 individuals (just my opinion of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

The safeguard for the correct use of arms is in the legality of its use. Can the use of a privately held nuke be reasonably limited in it scope as to not create the loss of innocent life? I have nothing to fear from a law-abiding person owning arms only criminals.

-Gryph

The problem is that there is no way to regulate whether or not weapons will be used for the original intent... i.e. to protect the state.

It's kind of a catch-22... as is so much of the Constitutional / Bill of rights verbage.

The Framers made the mistake of thinking average Americans were smart enough to self regulate. Which, let's be honest, a lot of us aren't.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


A militia with its members possessing thermonuclear devices wouldn't qualify as being "well regulated."

[/ QUOTE ]

The meaning and intent of every word in that amendment has been discussed and argued within an inch of its life. Many argue, and I agree, that "regulated" here, and at the time of the framing, did not refer to government control. It particularly did not refer to federal control. The very purpose of all this was to keep power away from the federal government.

In the online dictionary I just checked, there are two definitions of regulated. The 1st, the most common usage today, is: controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law.

The second, which many if not most constitutional scholars take to be the original intent, is

[ QUOTE ]
regulated - marked by system or regularity or discipline; "a quiet ordered house"; "an orderly universe"; "a well regulated life"


ordered, orderly


organized - methodical and efficient in arrangement or function; "how well organized she is"; "his life was almost too organized"

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is to say, orderly and efficient.

In addition, the 2nd Amendment must be considered in context. It was one of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, which are ALL individual rights. And the intent of the Bill of Rights is to acknowledge these rights as human rights, not as privileges granted by the Constitution or the government.

That said, the "militia" language in the 2nd Amendment is not and was not meant to be a condition on the rest of the wording. Some of the most liberal, most anti-gun Harvard law professors have, grudgingly and with great reluctance, come to view the 2nd Amendment as recognizing an individual right:

[ QUOTE ]
Another major figure in modern constitutional law is Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe who is anti-gun and a liberal. Earlier versions of his famous text endorsed the states'-right view, but, having examined the historical evidence for himself, he now reluctantly admits the Amendment guarantees "a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes." [Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Vol. 1, pp. 901-902 (2000)].

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Famed constitutional lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who defended O.J. Simpson and Claus von Bulow, is a former ACLU national board member who admits he "hates" guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed. Yet, says Dershowitz: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

[/ QUOTE ]

The thermonuclear issue is specious. The courts have already ruled that the government can put reasonable limits on gun ownership, including special licensing for automatic weapons.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

The Framers made the mistake of thinking average Americans were smart enough to self regulate. Which, let's be honest, a lot of us aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely true...The framers didn't trust citizens to vote if they weren't land owners, female etc. And those that that did vote didn't really vote for the president or the senate...representatives did that.

They still trusted people with the ability to keep and bear arms.

I am unwilling to limit the rights of the majority of people who are law abiding because there is a *chance* that someone will not use their right correctly.

Preserve the right...Punish the law breaker...

-Gryph

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Why couldn't they establish the right and offer a rationale

[/ QUOTE ]

They could have, but that wasn't the way they approached the document. I can't think of any other place off the top of my head where they outline a right along with the rationale. It would seem odd that they decided to do that in just this one place.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why couldn't they establish the right and offer a rationale




[/ QUOTE ]
They could have, but that wasn't the way they approached the document. I can't think of any other place off the top of my head where they outline a right along with the rationale. It would seem odd that they decided to do that in just this one place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it seems perhaps odd, but that does not disprove it. Also, as another poster has pointed out, every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights deals with individual rights. So wouldn't it also be odd if the 2nd Amendment did not? So "oddness" in and of itself is merely somewhat suggestive, not conclusive.

[Cyrus]

This is actually quite a vindication. There was a heated discussion some months ago about whether or not the armed citizens in the United States could pose any serious threat to a government tyranny. I was claiming that guns are mainly for self-protection; the "protection of the free state" part has become an impossiblity, in the modern, powerful state. I said, either form militias or fortget about it.

And I recall, not without amusement, the long and passionate denials by the various strains of pro-gun posters here. No, no, no, they were saying, if or when the time comes, the people will form militias and resist any kind of gun confication, any form of tyranny.

Well, life ain't the movies, kids. Turn on the TV sets and see for yourselves.