US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Martin Blank » Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:30 pm

Did you read my follow-up post to the original at all, where it defines the militia?
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

lordsith
Redshirt
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 6:32 am
Location: right behind you

Post by lordsith » Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:55 pm

well written, i always have a tough time arguing with these guys (mainly because i agree)

http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.html

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Post by Deacon » Thu Nov 20, 2003 11:11 pm

Heh, today's "Quigmans" was funny because, whether it was intentional or not, it lampooned the views of those who wish to nullify the Second Ammendment.

Image
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Bjarni Herjolfsson
Redshirt
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 11:12 pm
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, U.S.A.

Post by Bjarni Herjolfsson » Thu Nov 20, 2003 11:14 pm

But today's malitia is the national guard.
"Do not follow anyone blindly in those matters of which you have no
knowledge, surely the use of your ears and eyes and heart - all of these,
shall be questioned on the Day of Judgement." -The Holy Quran, 17:36:

Image

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Martin Blank » Fri Nov 21, 2003 2:12 am

As I have stated before in this same thread:

The militia is described in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311:
  1. The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
  2. The classes of the militia are -
    1. the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    2. the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Post by Deacon » Fri Nov 21, 2003 2:25 am

If I understand that quote correctly, MB, that means that I am part of the "unorganized militia" described in section two of paragraph B of that portion of Federal Law. Did I understand correctly?
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Martin Blank » Fri Nov 21, 2003 2:27 am

So long as you are not one of the exceptions (which I have quoted in the second post of this thread), that is correct.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Post by Deacon » Fri Nov 21, 2003 2:46 am

I am not one of the exceptions. Therefore the Constitution guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms.

To me, that's case closed. Is further discussion even necessary? The only way I could think so is if changing the Ammendment was to be discussed.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Martin Blank » Fri Nov 21, 2003 2:54 am

Changing the statute to eliminate the unregulated militia would remove you as a member of the militia.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
TDINTBL
Redshirt
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:18 am
Location: In search... of the lost chord...

Post by TDINTBL » Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:00 am

Lately it seems, "they" have given up on ripping away the right to keep and bear arms, using the excuse that it's only for the Army. Instead, now they are chipping away at it by labeling any sort of thing they can think of that something could not construed as an "Arm," probably the eventually goal of banning anything except ones own hands. This attempt seems to be much more succesful, because no one is quite sure what exactly, is "Arms." Thus, let me attempt to accurately describe arms.

Arms being any manner of weapon that, does not explode, like a grenade, and that is able to be used completely in one's hand.

Thus, guns, knives, swords, nun-chucks, blow darts, hand cross-bows, bows, hammers (you can kill someone with a carpenter's hammer can't you?) and about anything else you can think of are protected under our constitution, which is SUPPOSED to be protected against everything EXCEPT the vast vast majority rulings of the people.

By the same definition, hand grenades, rocket launchers, cannons, nuclear weapons, and others are not protected, doesn't mean we can't have them, unless some law passes that bans them, and last I checked nuclear weapons were illegal for the private citizen to own and use, unless you're in Chico, CA, where only a $500 fine results from the detonation of one in city limits...

Now, that is the right as it stands, because our rights can not be infringed means that the government as of now has no right telling any citizen that they can not own, for example, an AK-47. Does the average citizen need, or even, should have an AK-47, probably not. But the point is, as of now, if we really followed our Constitution like we are supposed to, all those laws banning Uzis, SKSs, Armalites, etc., are totally null and void. This does not mean they shouldn't be there, I agree that the average citizen should not be toting around an M-60 Machine Gun. What it does mean is that we need to *first* amend our constitution, gasp, how hard was that to figure out. What that therefore means, if the vast majority of society itself deems some weapons currently protected, should no longer be protected, then the amendment will pass, and we'll then be able to legally ban those weapons. However, if society at large deems such an amendment a bad idea, then the amendment will not pass and, yes, you still have no right to ban such weapons. Common sense people, it's what we're founded upon.

A few last thoughts. Just because you ban something doesn't mean it still wont happen. Murder is illegal, and bears the death penalty in many states, people still kill. If someone is willing to kill, what makes you think they'll not want to break a gun-ban law. All you do is strip the average citizen naked.

Second thought, the criminal breaks into your house, and wants to rape your daughter and then kill you. Guns are illegal, but he has one, and you don't... "Excuse me Mr. Criminal, would you mind waiting while I call the police and get them over here, so it's more of even odds whether or not you can commit your crime?" What do you think will happen?
The Adventures of Hamster Man
Just because I'm paranoid means they really are out to get me.

User avatar
captainktainer
Redshirt
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:00 am

Post by captainktainer » Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:05 am

God save us all from the necros!

As to your post, on sheer principle I won't apply complex analysis to it. Necros get me mad. However, I will say that just as the government has the practical duty to prevent people from shouting "fire" in a public theater, so does it have the practical duty to prevent people from having easy access to weapons that can lay waste a crowded theater in a short period of time.

I would point out that ammunition shells could be banned under your definition, as it explodes when used properly.
dmpotter wrote: There was all this stuff about memories and tomatos but it never really seemed to be put together.

User avatar
TDINTBL
Redshirt
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:18 am
Location: In search... of the lost chord...

Post by TDINTBL » Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:36 pm

Okay, obviously my deffinition needs work. I am not a lawyer, I don't intend to be one. I do agree people shouldn't be allowed to shout FIRE in a theater, they're not allowed to as it is. I do agree that the average citizen doesn't need to have an arsenal of every high powered fully auto machine gun they can think of. But, the problem here is that before we can ban those, we must first amend our constitution, because as it stands right now, the highest law of the land says we can not TOUCH that right. If you amend the constitution to allow, whatever needs to be done, without fundementally weakening the right of the citizen to protect himself against the odds, then I am all for it.
The Adventures of Hamster Man
Just because I'm paranoid means they really are out to get me.

User avatar
Pudduh
Redshirt
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Harlow, Essex

Post by Pudduh » Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:46 pm

The founding fathers (including Franklin) believed bearing arms was "an essential liberty", so much so that they drafted an entire amendment dedicated to securing this right for any and all persons who fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States of America. Why this isn't self-evident is beyond me.
Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin (who was originally British remember) who talked disparingly of dueling with pistols and the use of firearms in petty concepts other than in warfare and hunting?

The Right to bear arms was passed probabbly only grudgingly by some Founding Fathers like Franklin not on the basis of "hey I loves my gun, LOVES MAH GUN!" but more on the nesscitiy that there would be quite soon a sizable British force sitting just across the border in Canada after America was granted independence. Parliament and Pitt the Younger (Prime Minister) neither had any interest in the whole War of Independence (and the run up to it) other than restricting the Colonists to the original colonies and preventing them from expanding into Indian land westwards and thus after George III so badly lost the American Colonies Parliament wrote the whole fiasco off and focused on Canada instead.

Still there was a very real danger that one spark would be needed and REAL British troops this time (not German Mercinaries and dodgy Scottish Lowlanders as with the War of Independence, the Scots actually never got to America in numbers to affect the outcome) would be spilling southwards.

So the best thing to do? Arm the populance. So preceisely what Saddam did in Iraq recently, let the regieme arm anyone and everyone who wanted a gun and wanted to shoot a Yank. The American Government did exactly the same with the Right to bear arms. Allow the people to own a gun and then when the British Invade watch them get bogged down against the massed popular resistance.

After 1812 however and after the British had burnt down Washington DC (much to the US Administration's suprise I might add, they didn't exactly expect the British to suddenly appear *there* after all) and then proimised not to invade again if America didn't try and invade Canada again (which was a complete fiasco for the Yanks) then the Right to Bear arms wasn't really needed..
Image

User avatar
TDINTBL
Redshirt
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:18 am
Location: In search... of the lost chord...

Post by TDINTBL » Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:51 pm

So when the murderer comes to your home, and you can no longer own weapons, and yet he has one (my god how could that be) what are you going to defend yourself and your family?

If things go bad, revolution, armageddeon, whatever, how are you going to survive without a weapon.

But yes, control control, and gun banning does work MARVELOUSLY, just go ask the experts, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin... you know...
The Adventures of Hamster Man
Just because I'm paranoid means they really are out to get me.

User avatar
Pudduh
Redshirt
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Harlow, Essex

Post by Pudduh » Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:38 pm

Right first off for a random murderer to come into your home (who I presume has a gun) he must have a motive for comming to murder you and your family..did you sack him the other week? Or did he find out you were having an affair with his wife. The chances of some random schmuck comming into your home and doing a clockwork orange are more impossible than being hit by an airliner (which I might add despite 9/11 are still like several million to one).

If "things go bad" as you put it with say a revolution, armageddon, etc then you would probabbly come into contact with a firearm anyway. Maybe you're so fed up with the federal governemtn that when the Communist Revolutionaries try to overthrow the Government you might join them and get a gun through there or maybe you hate those reds and join the National guard or army and get a gun through there.

With Armageddon, society and the USA as a sovereign nation would be gone to dust anyway and most probabbly you would be too so whether you die with a gun or without a gun is a moot point because you're going to die anyway.

And yes I do agree with you gun control does work. If we relaxed controls on guns here in the UK, gun crime would go up one hundred fold. The best way to combat guns is to control them strictly, not have them in the home and have a well equipped Police Service which responds to gun crime with a tough and targeted response.

There wasn't really much gun control in Weimar Germany when Adolf Hitler WON the election to bring him to power. Yes he won TWO elections. So what are you saying? If all the Communists and Social Democrats (who lost) had guns they could storm the bloody Reichstag and take power?

And Russia didn't have anything in the way of Gun control when the October Revolution came about in 1917. And when Stalin took power after Lenin died nobody really couldn't say no. To equip all 100 million Russians with guns after all would have deprived America's Gangsters of all their tommy guns after all in the 1920s :roll:

I mean really, come up with something decent instead of repeating the tired old NRA lines....say, you wern't that chap in holding the "Gun Control works, just ask these guys.." sign in Bowling for Columbine were you? :lol:

Posted Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:41 pm:

And anyway just because you have a gun, whats wrong with rushing him with a bloody baseball bat or a kitchen knife?

Thats what we do in the UK. We're not lazy gits like you yanks where it seems that if you don't have a gun or something which you can just point and shoot and avoid the dirty hand-to-hand business when theres a breakin then you just don't bother and go back to bed!

I mean common! My freind when his house was broken into, clocked the burglar round the back of the head with a cricket bat and sent him down the stairs. Did he need a bloody gun? NO! Did the fact that the Burglar have a converted airgun alter the outcome? NO!

I mean common lads, sort it out.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research), Google [Bot] and 0 guests