The Political Party

[quickie1]

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

Kramerguy wrote:
I think it's an honest question / discussion. Why did they choose to put an actual preamble into the amendment? You have to logically conclude that it's there intentionally. And the use of "the people" is also up for discussion, as the terms "we the people" and "all MEN are created equal" are very strong and intentional terms as well.

I've always personally found this aspect of the FF's writing of the bill of rights and declaration of independence to be fascinating and surely worthy of discussion.

---

It may make for a fascinating discussion, but attempting to justify ignoring the law based on what a bunch of dead guys may or may not have intended a couple of hundred years ago is completely irrelevent to the gun debate.  The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Based on legal precedent, that doesn't mean that gun control is out of the question.  There can be legal limitations set but they have to meet stringent guidelines.  Or, the Amendment can be changed if it is outdated and no longer relevent.  But trying to intrepret the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" out of existence is dishonest, and what the founding fathers intended is completely irrelevent to what we should be doing now.

---

Yeah....the constitution....it doesn't matter.

---

I disagree, the Constitution is the law and the law matters.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

---

I was being sarcastic.

[mdwagner73]

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

Kramerguy wrote:
I think it's an honest question / discussion. Why did they choose to put an actual preamble into the amendment? You have to logically conclude that it's there intentionally. And the use of "the people" is also up for discussion, as the terms "we the people" and "all MEN are created equal" are very strong and intentional terms as well.

I've always personally found this aspect of the FF's writing of the bill of rights and declaration of independence to be fascinating and surely worthy of discussion.

---

It may make for a fascinating discussion, but attempting to justify ignoring the law based on what a bunch of dead guys may or may not have intended a couple of hundred years ago is completely irrelevent to the gun debate.  The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Based on legal precedent, that doesn't mean that gun control is out of the question.  There can be legal limitations set but they have to meet stringent guidelines.  Or, the Amendment can be changed if it is outdated and no longer relevent.  But trying to intrepret the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" out of existence is dishonest, and what the founding fathers intended is completely irrelevent to what we should be doing now.

---

Yeah....the constitution....it doesn't matter.

---

I disagree, the Constitution is the law and the law matters.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

---

I was being sarcastic.

---

You were being dishonest by implying that I was saying the Constitution doesn't matter when, in actuality, I said that the Constitution DOES matter while speculations on what the founding fathers may or may not have intended are irrelevent.  I'm calling you on your dishonesty by pointing out that it's you who are ignoring what the Constitution says, in plain english.

[moogerfooger]

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

This American definition of militia is in keeping with the word’s 18th-century meaning. Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary (1755, s.v.) defines militia as “the trainbands; the standing force of a nation” (trainband is a 17th-century term, no longer in use, for a temporary, citizen-army; while standing force refers to a standing or permanent army). Noah Webster defines militia (1828, s.v.) as, The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations. The Oxford English Dictionary confirms this reading of militia with a cite from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776): “[The state] may..oblige either all the citizens of the military age, or a certain number of them, to join in some measure the trade of a soldier to whatever other trade or profession they may happen to carry on... Its military force is [then] said to consist in a militia.” The OED also defines militia in its specifically American context: “In the U.S.: the body of able-bodied citizens eligible by law for military service. Now hist[orical]. . . . The reconstitution of the U.S. militias as the National Guard was substantially complete by the beginning of the 20th cent.”

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/300/300reading/gunsandgrammar.pdf

Interesting link with the different Supreme Court decisions and the way "Judges" interpret the Bill Of Rights.

---

No, it's not everybody.  It's every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, per US Code.

---

So then, the gun enthusiasts are being dishonest....so to speak?

---

 The definition of militia is completely irrelevent to the gun debate.  There is plenty of dishonesty on all sides of the debate.

---

Really? You mean the FACT that the 2nd was meant for only MEN and a military (militia) has nothing to do with private citizens owning weapons?

You are correct....dishonesty.

---

well, actually  militia men are charged with owning and maintaining their own weapons, so.................. :idk:

keeping in mind that in those days -- "All Men" meant all white anglosaxon prodestant landowners so........

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

quickie1 wrote:

So then, the gun enthusiasts are being dishonest....so to speak?

---

No, it's two different things:

1) The right of each State to have it's own militia.

2) The right of the people to be armed.

Again, compare with the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This clearly shows how the writers intended rights and powers that applied to ("respectively" = "applies to") States, and others that applied directly to the people.

[guido61]

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

Which doesn't change the fact that the 2nd Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".  Why the right of the people is being protected (ie. because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state), doesn't change the fact that the right of the people is prtotected, not the right of the militia/military/men/etc.  Either you don't understand english, or you are just being dishonest. 

---

Correct.

[quickie1]

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

Kramerguy wrote:
I think it's an honest question / discussion. Why did they choose to put an actual preamble into the amendment? You have to logically conclude that it's there intentionally. And the use of "the people" is also up for discussion, as the terms "we the people" and "all MEN are created equal" are very strong and intentional terms as well.

I've always personally found this aspect of the FF's writing of the bill of rights and declaration of independence to be fascinating and surely worthy of discussion.

---

It may make for a fascinating discussion, but attempting to justify ignoring the law based on what a bunch of dead guys may or may not have intended a couple of hundred years ago is completely irrelevent to the gun debate.  The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Based on legal precedent, that doesn't mean that gun control is out of the question.  There can be legal limitations set but they have to meet stringent guidelines.  Or, the Amendment can be changed if it is outdated and no longer relevent.  But trying to intrepret the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" out of existence is dishonest, and what the founding fathers intended is completely irrelevent to what we should be doing now.

---

Yeah....the constitution....it doesn't matter.

---

I disagree, the Constitution is the law and the law matters.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

---

I was being sarcastic.

---

You were being dishonest by implying that I was saying the Constitution doesn't matter when, in actuality, I said that the Constitution DOES matter while speculations on what the founding fathers may or may not have intended are irrelevent.  I'm calling you on your dishonesty by pointing out that it's you who are ignoring what the Constitution says, in plain english.

---

Christ. Whatever .....

[guido61]

---

DarthElvis wrote:
District of Columbia v. Heller (supreme court)solved this issue. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", suck it up gun grabbers. 

---

This is true.  But if you've read Heller than you ALSO know that it says:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The decision leaves PLENTY of room for "gun grabbing".

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

Bowe wrote:
a good question for those who believe the militia part of the amendment is irrelevant, is why is it there?
what does "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" mean, separated from the second half of the amendment

---

We do still have State militias - they're called "National Guard"

Do I need to remind everybody that "security of A free State" is NOT the security of the UNITED States?  It's the security of the individual States that was being protected here.

Again, think of the EU.  Each country is allowed to have its own army.  The army of the US, in this illustration, would be roughly equivalent to UN forces.  The United States is structured as a union of States.  That may not seem to have much practical meaning today, but that is the legal structure of the US, much as a company is either privately owned or a corporation, and different rules apply to the two situations.

[quickie1]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

DarthElvis wrote:
District of Columbia v. Heller (supreme court)solved this issue. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", suck it up gun grabbers. 

---

This is true.  But if you've read Heller than you ALSO know that it says:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The decision leaves PLENTY of room for "gun grabbing".

---

Try telling that to a gun enthusiast. He/she will twist every writing...even go so far as to say..."Militias are irrelevant".

Being that they were what was being addressed in the constitution....well...

[Bowe]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

We do still have State militias - they're called "National Guard"

Do I need to remind everybody that "security of A free State" is NOT the security of the UNITED States?  It's the security of the individual States that was being protected here.

Again, think of the EU.  Each country is allowed to have its own army.  The army of the US, in this illustration, would be roughly equivalent to UN forces.  The United States is structured as a union of States.  That may not seem to have much practical meaning today, but that is the legal structure of the US, much as a company is either privately owned or a corporation, and different rules apply to the two situations.

---

the first half of the second ammendment is simply a statement, it neither talks about a right, or limits the power of the government

so why do you think its there?

[guido61]

---

DarthElvis wrote:
 It could be argued that the mention of a militia could mean the people have a right to the same type of weapons the State has..

---

Many people DO argue that, but Scalia dismissed that argument in Heller:

 It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

[mdwagner73]

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

DarthElvis wrote:
District of Columbia v. Heller (supreme court)solved this issue. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", suck it up gun grabbers. 

---

This is true.  But if you've read Heller than you ALSO know that it says:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The decision leaves PLENTY of room for "gun grabbing".

---

Try telling that to a gun enthusiast. He/she will twist every writing...even go so far as to say..."Militias are irrelevant".

Being that they were what was being addressed in the constitution....well...

---

You and Used2BMarkoh have a lot in common. 

[guido61]

---

DarthElvis wrote:


The bit about "shall not be infringed" means any legislation banning guns is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Introduction of such legislation is treasonous.

---

100%, unequivocally wrong.

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

quickie1 wrote:

Try telling that to a gun enthusiast. He/she will twist every writing...even go so far as to say..."Militias are irrelevant".

Being that they were what was being addressed in the constitution....well...

---

Gun rights people can be confused as well.  But look, you're just wrong about this - the constitution lays out an individual right to keep and bear arms.  Disagree with that concept if you like, but at least be intellectually honest about it.

In many (most, by geography) parts of America, guns are a normal part of American life.  All your average American knows is that it's stupid and wrong for him to be harassed because some people are lunatics.

[mdwagner73]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

DarthElvis wrote:
District of Columbia v. Heller (supreme court)solved this issue. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", suck it up gun grabbers. 

---

This is true.  But if you've read Heller than you ALSO know that it says:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The decision leaves PLENTY of room for "gun grabbing".

---

Absolutely. 

[quickie1]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

Try telling that to a gun enthusiast. He/she will twist every writing...even go so far as to say..."Militias are irrelevant".

Being that they were what was being addressed in the constitution....well...

---

Gun rights people can be confused as well.  But look, you're just wrong about this - the constitution lays out an individual right to keep and bear arms.  Disagree with that concept if you like, but at least be intellectually honest about it.

In many (most, by geography) parts of America, guns are a normal part of American life.  All your average American knows is that it's stupid and wrong for him to be harassed because some people are lunatics.

---

So is murder.

[Bowe]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

Try telling that to a gun enthusiast. He/she will twist every writing...even go so far as to say..."Militias are irrelevant".

Being that they were what was being addressed in the constitution....well...

---

Gun rights people can be confused as well.  But look, you're just wrong about this - the constitution lays out an individual right to keep and bear arms.  Disagree with that concept if you like, but at least be intellectually honest about it.

In many (most, by geography) parts of America, guns are a normal part of American life.  All your average American knows is that it's stupid and wrong for him to be harassed because some people are lunatics.

---

wasn't the individual right to own guns only decided in a 2008 supreme court decision?

I thought you believed that supreme court didn't have the ability to decide such things about the constitution?

[guido61]

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

---

Try telling that to a gun enthusiast. He/she will twist every writing...even go so far as to say..."Militias are irrelevant".

Being that they were what was being addressed in the constitution....well...

---

"Heller" does make militias pretty much irrelevant.  

Scalia did 3 important things with "Heller", all of which when taken together seem to **bleep** off people on both side. 

1)  He confirmed the INDIVIDUAL right bear arms for things like self-protection and hunting.

2)  By doing so, he divorced the right from the idea that you can only bear arms if you're in a militia.

3)  He confirmed there are numerous restrictions and regulations availble to the government that can be imposed on guns and gun ownership that do not conflict with the right to bear arms.

That's where we are with the 2nd amendment today.  People on both sides are free to argue that Scalia got it wrong and that the 2nd amendment "actually"
means something else, but it isn't likely we're going to see any great changes to this legal interpretation any time soon.

[quickie1]

---

Bowe wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

Try telling that to a gun enthusiast. He/she will twist every writing...even go so far as to say..."Militias are irrelevant".

Being that they were what was being addressed in the constitution....well...

---

Gun rights people can be confused as well.  But look, you're just wrong about this - the constitution lays out an individual right to keep and bear arms.  Disagree with that concept if you like, but at least be intellectually honest about it.

In many (most, by geography) parts of America, guns are a normal part of American life.  All your average American knows is that it's stupid and wrong for him to be harassed because some people are lunatics.

---

wasn't the individual right to own guns only decided in a 2008 supreme court decision?

I thought you believed that supreme court didn't have the ability to decide such things about the constitution?

---

"English common law had long acknowledged the importance of effective arms
control, and the meaning of the Second Amendment seemed clear to the framers and their
contemporaries: that the people have a right to possess arms when serving in the militia."

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/300/300reading/gunsandgrammar.pdf

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

quickie1 wrote:

---

So is murder.

---

Ah, no, actually I'd say that's quite wrong.  And I would venture that there is an inverse correlation between the number of legal gun owners and murder.  People in rural areas tend to have legal guns, but it's the people in Chicago and DC who shoot each other nightly.

You should know this if you really were a LEO.  You're schtick is pretty suspect, you know.