Goodbye 2nd Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by MarkC:
Seriously, what's your interpretation of the Second Amendment, and how much regulation and what type did Hamilton have in mind?
Before you get you hackles up, I'm not being a smartass(right now, at least), I'd just like your thoughts and reasoning.


It says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Here, PEOPLE means you, me and almost every other citizen of the USA, just like it does in every other amendment in the Bill of Rights.

It says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Here, MILITIA basically means every male citizen. This includes you and me. There can be no argument over this, as the term is defined in Title 10 Section 311 of federal law. I quote:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age... who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.

Key points:

The 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms which applies to the people -- e.g. every lawful citizen of the USA.

The militia is not a bunch of wackos in Montana marching around with guns (like the lefties would have us believe), but in fact it is all of us including you and me.

It pertains to "arms" which means firearms.

The distinguishing point of firepower is taken to be whatever is carried by the common soldier. This is because one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment, as described in Federalist #29 (note: not by far the only purpose), is to increase military readiness.

This was reinforced by the supreme court in the famous Miller case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, but denied Miller's right to own a sawed off shotgun because such a weapon had no reasonable military purpose.

How shall this right be appropriate regulated? Regulations should pass the same muster that would be applied to any other right guaranteed in the Constitution. That is, any regulation must establish a compelling improvement in public safety without impairing the lawful exercise of the right in question.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MillerMan:
"You see, that's where you are confused. All the things you mentioned that we don't seem to mind registering are priviledges, gun ownership is a right.

I assume it bothers you to register to vote????
 
You think it's worse to let a guilty man go free, than to punish an innocent? Did I read that correctly?

Maybe not! notice the "a" in front of the word somebody. I too believe it is better to have a guilty man walk the street than to have an innocent man spend one day in jail. But we all know drugs are illegal, if you are in possession you are breaking the law.
 
Also think about this, The NRA has the largest data base of gun owners, even larger than the Governments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where did you get this? I've been a member of the NRA for 20 years, and not once has the NRA asked me for this info.

Who else but gun owners would join?
 
?? Al I didn't say that ?????????????
rolleyes.gif


LOL , 47HO did

[ January 08, 2004, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: MillerMan ]
 
cool.gif
As I've said before, it would be nice if NO ONE had guns but that horse left the barn here 200 years ago and it isn't going back in. I'm just your basic average white guy but if I'm in a Chinese restaurant and some nutcase woke up that day and decides it's his day to kill Chinese people and comes in firing, I want more than a snowball's chance. Don't laugh, that happened here two years ago. Until then I was never much interested in guns, after that I got a permit, lessons, and I practice.
smile.gif
 
Bob, anyone can join.47HO

True!! but do they, I would bet you that 99% of the NRA members are gunowners. Then there are guys like me that own guns but don't join.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Bob Woods:
Bob, anyone can join.47HO

True!! but do they, I would bet you that 99% of the NRA members are gunowners. Then there are guys like me that own guns but don't join.


Bob you just said you have been a NRA member for 20 years?
 
quote:

Originally posted by 47HO:
Al, you assume wrong.

Bob, anyone can join.


And should join if they want to help keep their freedom. NRA is about guns but also stands for all other freedoms. Americans who value freedom even if they don't own a gun should join and make a stand.
 
quote:

This is a scary read! I'm an NRA member and I really wish more gun owners would join up to help us keep the 2nd in tact.

NRA keeping the 2nd intact, Ha! This issue is serious and I could find nothing relating to it at their website during my brief visit there this morning. I let my NRA membership expire in 1999 after more than 15 years of membership.

The NRA has slid a long way. In the last 15 or so years they have compromised our rights and have helped give birth to background checks, gun bans, magazine bans, and ammunition bans. Never mind that none of those compromises have been linked to reduced crime.

One of their most recent efforts in Ohio is yielding a CCW permit that requires training, fingerprints, and a fee. Before the NRA got involved, anyone charged with CCW in Ohio had the opportunity to plead their case if the situation was such that a prudent man would go armed.

It's obvious the NRA of today considers it a privilege to own certain guns and bear them in certain manners. It's interesting to look at American Rifleman magazines prior to the late eighties. Back then NRA leadership new how to take a stand, and understood where compromise would lead.

[ January 08, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Brian Barnhart ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:
One of their most recent efforts in Ohio is yielding a CCW permit that requires training, fingerprints, and a fee. Before the NRA got involved, anyone charged with CCW in Ohio had the opportunity to plead their case if the situation was such that a prudent man would go armed.

What sane person would rather be criminally charged merely for having a weapon in possession and have to defend himself in court, putting his life, family, job and property at risk, than take a background check and training course and have a CCW permit?

CCW laws are A GOOD THING and I fully support the NRA in pushing these laws. They are good for gun owners, good for public safety, and represent a reasonable and prudent way of guaranteeing our 2nd amendment rights.
 
i believe the nra started out as more of a hunter / sportsmans group, that was more on the educational aspect of things, and actually supported many gun control measures at the time.

man, that's one long sentence.
 
quote:

Originally posted by tweeker43:
i believe the nra started out as more of a hunter / sportsmans group, that was more on the educational aspect of things, and actually supported many gun control measures at the time.

Yup and as an NRA member I have no problem with that. Laws and regulations that increase public safety without infringing upon gun owners serve only to strengthen our 2nd amendment rights.

Some measures, such as CCW laws, do exactly that. But other measures, such as waiting periods, gun ban lists, discretionary issue of CCW permits, etc. serve only to impair gun owners with no public benefit, thus should not be supported. The NRA does not support these kind of laws for good reason.

In short, "gun control" has gotten a bad rep because it is more often used to destroy the 2nd amendment than to regulate it. But "gun control" laws are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. It depends on the particular laws in question.
 
quote:

What sane person would rather be criminally charged merely for having a weapon in possession and have to defend himself in court, putting his life, family, job and property at risk, than take a background check and training course and have a CCW permit?

Perhaps a principled person unwilling to give up a protected right, and exchange it for a extremely limited and non-protected, non-guaranteed privilege.

Besides, it includes fingerprinting and records, not just background check.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:
Besides, it includes fingerprinting and records, not just background check.
I am a gun rights proponent. I fail to understand why providing information to the government, like fingerprinting or identification is a problem. The government is protecting the rights/safety of other citizens by requiring this information(It states in the U.S.Constitution that a pupose [of the Constitution] is to promote the general welfare .

And don't forget in the early days of the Republic a good bit of the defense was Militia. The Militia was organized and had rosters etc. So really today a "Militia" would be regular Army. And I am aware of the definition of the word "Militia" above-but as a practical matter the "Malitia" was organized. With todays technology just thnk about what requirements are required for I.D. and otherwise in the Armed Forces.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MRC01:
Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:
[qb]
CCW laws are A GOOD THING and I fully support the NRA in pushing these laws. They are good for gun owners, good for public safety, and represent a reasonable and prudent way of guaranteeing our 2nd amendment rights.
I would prefer that all states adopt the Vermont laws with respect to CCW. They only restrict felons from carrying. For all others you don't need any permit because carrying conceled is not a crime.
 
Amen. And unlike other states, the Vermont "style" is essentially constutional.

[ January 08, 2004, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Brian Barnhart ]
 
Well, actually, the "right" stated was the right to bear ARMS, it doesn't specifically say GUNS.

There a growing sentiment within legal circles that "ARMS" as used by the founding fathers indeed meant arms.

It will be a sad day in America when all able bodied males subject to duty in defense of the nation have their arms amputated by court order.
 
quote:

Originally posted by wulimaster:
I would prefer that all states adopt the Vermont laws with respect to CCW. They only restrict felons from carrying. For all others you don't need any permit because carrying conceled is not a crime.

I agree the Vermont laws are the ideal. But many other states are far from ideal and in those states CCW laws are a big step in the right direction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top