BS: The Second Amendment

Subject: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Taconicus
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:13 PM

Someone asked me to respond about this topic, but I'm posting this in a new thread because the conversation about the Second Amendmentwas taking place in some old thread about rabbis and Glenn Beck.

I studied constitutional law, but the issue is too complex for me to want to go into an argument about it, which I know would never end on this forum. I'll give you the nutshell version and then I'll shut up about it.

1. The answer first: the Second Amendment was understood, when written, to be a guarantee of the preservation of the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), commenting on the Second Amendment, wrote, "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
2. The definition of the militia at the time was essentially the entire free, adult male population. But in any case, according to the rules of construction, which were well understood at the time, the preamble, while giving a reason for what came afterward, did not in any way define or limit what came afterward. So the bit about the "well regulated militia" doesn't have to be interpreted, because it doesn't affect the main body of the amendment.

3. In 1789 the incorporation doctrine did not exist because the post-Civil War amendments did not exist. Accordingly, at the time it was written the Second Amendment prohibited only the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The states, which under the Constitution were considered sovereign nations, still had the general police power and could prohibit or regulate arms if they wanted to. However, practically all of them had in their state constitutions provisions almost identical to the Second Amendment guaranteeing the individual right of the population to keep and bear arms.

Will what I wrote change anyone's mind? Of course not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:29 PM

Yes, I read all of this in my wife's book on Con Law when she was in Law School. But in 1789 there was great antipathy towards a standing Army, the feeling being that the State Militias would be sufficient (given a cadre of professional soldiers to guide them) for the defense of the country -- which is what happened at the beginning of the US Civil War, and which the US Civil War showed would no longer work. Nonetheless, Congress continued with the idea and it still continues as the National Guard (which has been pretty much usurped by the Federal government from its State roles since the end of the draft).

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:31 PM

Let me also hasten to point out what others here already know: I own and shoot firearms. My wife owns those left to her by her late father, who was both a lawyer and a retired Colonel.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: EBarnacle
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:36 PM

Actually the rationale for the militia was brought into large disrepute during the War of 1812 when the militia's defense of Washington was termed a race after they ran away in great disarray from the well regulated and disciplined British army.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:40 PM

Yes, the Bladensburg Races. Nearly as much fun as the Battle of Stillman's Run.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:51 PM

It is true that that 'answer', by itself, will not change many opinions, but it is at least a clarification of certain aspects of history...although I rather doubt the part about... "the Second Amendment was understood, when written, to be a guarantee of the preservation of the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms."

PRE-existing right? Perhaps some understood it that way...perhaps some did not. I'd have to read more.


It is obvious (to me, anyway) that the Constitution needs to be updated and clarified in this matter. In 1780, everyone KNEW what a militia was and what 'bearing arms' to defend the country meant. But those who wrote the document and the amendment had no concept of either the state of the world in 250 years or the advancements in firearms.
   I sincerely doubt they would have been so brief and vague had they known.

No one is arguing whether the Constitution says "right", or that some of it was directly inspired by the attitude of English kings, or that some uses of firearms have been beneficial.....

I AM saying that the **USE** of 'right' in the 2nd amendment to refer to "bearing arms" is a different sense than that of the right to 'freedom', and that it OUGHT to be understood as a 'privilege'.
Now...if I am going to make such a claim, I ought to back it with something more than a 'feeling'....right?
   Ok...when the Bill of Rights was written, everyone knew what a 'militia' was, and that in times of crisis, men might be called on to defend their state or country against something like....well, England deciding to re-take the 'colonies. If they WERE called, they would have been expected to bring with them the weapon(s) they commonly used for hunting and self-protection against various dangers. You know what these weapons consisted of: mostly non-standardized rifles with various firing mechanisms. This continued up about time of the Civil War, during which many changes in firearms were occurring.

   Fast forward a couple hundred years....if the country is threatened or needs to go to the aid of allies, the 'militia'...now known as the Armed Forces, would NOT expected to bring their own weapons. In fact, I doubt they would be allowed to...for various reasons. (standardization...etc..) Also, by this time, the country, most states & even down to many small towns had codified and instituted a trained and paid set of officials and/or soldiers so that it was not necessary to issue general calls to the citizens when help was needed! In special times, a draft was put in place, and the resultant 'militia' was ISSUED arms BY the government....for very good reasons.

So...MY basic feeling is that those who cling to the most literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment are simply ignoring history in order to not upset their personal habits and obsessions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:52 PM

"National Guard (which has been pretty much USURPED [caps mine] by the Federal government from its State roles since the end of the draft)."

Interesting choice of verb.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:59 PM

One can study Constitutional Law until the cows come home, Tac...

I mean, lets get real here... Obama taught Constitutional Law and the Tea Partiers "shellacked" him in the midterms because they convinced the people who voted that they knew more than the Constitutional Law than the professor???

Okee dokee???

In the words of Sarah Palin, "WTF???"...

But here's the real deal here... There are 27 words in the 2nd amendment and it ain't a menu of several sentences to choose from like at the local Jeri's Ice Cream so ya' get to pick 'cause it is a long ramblin' sentence... That means only one period so if I have my grammar hat on I say, ahhhhhh, this stuff is inter-realted... Basic grammar...

So I have two problems here... No, actually three...

First: Why is it that gun-rights people do not have an inkling that they are cherry-pickin' the 2nd amendment??? I would bet my farm that if you were to set up a foldin' chair at any of the Virginia gun shows and ask people if they could recite the 2nd amendment that you wouldn't find one single correct answwer... Not one!!!

Second: The "BIG LIE" that is spreading thru *Redneck Nation* that "Obama is gonna ' take yer guns"!!! What a crock of shit... I mean, anyone who believes this is on the IQ south side of a box of animal crackers... OPbama has his hand full, folk, in case ya'll hadn't noticed...

Third: I'd like to see any definition in any dictionary that defines militia as one man...

Okay, thems is jus' fir starters....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 11:12 PM

Actually, Bill, far from being standardized the weapons of the US Civil War were anything but. Both Union and Confederate soldiers used the .58 caliber Springfield, the two-band Enfield, the three-band Enfield, the musketoon, and worse. Neither, at the beginning of the Late Unpleasantness, had enough arms on hand and spent several millions of dollars buying whatever they could get from Great Britain and across Europe.

At the time of the Spanish War in 1898 the US military had standardized on the .30-40 Krag Jorgensen rifle, but it was found to be far, far inferior to the Mauser-actioned rifles the Spanish used. In fact, the soldiers often preferred the .45-70 "trapdoor Springfields" used by the militia units. The reasons for this are complex and I shan't go into them here.

Suffice to say that the Krag gave way to the .30-03, which was quickly euthanized and the .30-06 (03 for 1903, 06 for 1906, the year the cartridge was introduced) became "standard" until about 1956, when the .308 Winchester (7.62 x 51 NATO) became the "standard" rifle. Unfortunately, as late as 1970 the US Rifle, Caliber .30, Model of 1903 and Model of 1917, not to mention the venerable M-1, were still in use even though the Army had switched to the US Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M-16 (and its variants in that caliber).

And if you think the rifles were bad, peek at the US military's pistols from the USCW to the present....

Let me give you a simple illustration. In 1968, my National Guard unit was ordered to federal active duty. At the time we were armed with the US Carbine, Caliber .30, M-1 (which is NOT the same weapon OR cartridge as the M-1 rifle). Since we entrained (literally!) "under arms" our carbines were taken from us and we were issued US Rifle, Caliber .30, M-1 (the M-1 rifle of WW2, etc.). Then THESE were taken from us and we were issued US Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M-16A1. When I got to Korea I was issued an M-16A1, which I never saw, and then it was taken and I was issued a US Rifle, Caliber 7.62, M-14 (which I never saw). The ammunition of each of these were ONLY usable by the weapons within the same group. The reason that I didn't see or fire my weapons in Korea was because I was carrying an unauthorized .45 pistol (M1911A1) or a Colt's revolver in .38 Special (a caliber the US Army retired from general issue in 1911, except where it didn't).

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:53 AM

As already noted, we are not going to change anyone's mind by rehashing this topic here yet again. To me, the position taken by some (and I don't want to use a label) that the Constitution is locked in concrete forever, and we are forever bound by the attitudes of people who were writing 220 years ago, is simply wrong. By that, I mean that the interpretation of what is written should be in the context of contemporary (i.e., right now) society - I'm not forgetting about the amendment process.

What I've always found interesting about 2nd Amendment discussions is that people get all wrapped around the axle about subordinate and independent clauses, which are entirely modern grammatical concepts. This discussion is always based upon where the commas were placed in this very brief sentence. However, it is well known that multiple copies of the proposed Bill of Rights were circulated to the states for ratification in 1791...and they were hand-written and not identical. Various versions of that one simple sentence had anywhere from one to three commas in it. (More here, from a pro-gun site.) Some people cite The Federalist Papers (generally assumed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton) in order to derive the "proper" understanding of the statement. Again IMHO, since the Federalists were a political party, anything written by them can only clarify the party's position and can not be used for grammatical clarification.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:09 AM

>>2. The definition of the militia at the time was essentially the entire free, adult male population. But in any case, according to the rules of construction, which were well understood at the time, the preamble, while giving a reason for what came afterward, did not in any way define or limit what came afterward. So the bit about the "well regulated militia" doesn't have to be interpreted, because it doesn't affect the main body of the amendment.<<

We have your say so about having "studied constitutional law."

What you have written make it very difficult to believe that your study was at an institute of higher learning. Was it at an NRA seminar?

Lets look at the second amendments.

As passed by the Congress:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Obviously for one who is able to read English, the "well regulated militia" is the reason given in the amendment for the necessity of enshrining the right to bear arms.

It is, as Bobert pointed out, ONE sentence with two clauses, That 'bit about the "well regulated militia"' is literally half of the amendment, there is no "main body" separate from that part.

If it doesn't have to be interpreted why is it there?

There are obviously at least to current versions of the second amendment in circulation the one that is part of the actual constitution and the one seen by those wearing Tea Party blinders. The one that simply says.

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Of course you won't change any minds with that kind of bull crap. I also don't expect you to change your mind once your bull crap has been pointed out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:15 AM

Well, one thing that the NRAers don't want, art, is ***any discussion*** about guns!!! Zero!!! Zippo!!! Nada!!! None...

End of conversation...

This is the problem I have with the people on the right... They simply do not want to discuss anything that might either require them to think or, horrors, to compromise... They act like spoiled crybabies and they own the media and have enough $$$$ behind them to have it their way...

The problem with that is you can only oppress people but so long and then you have what we are seeing in Tunisia, Egypt and other middle easter countries...

The left was severely silenced in the 60's and and been given occasional reminders that the right is heavily armed and perfectly willing to kill progressives... I mean, we had the Greensboro Massacre in '79 which was a major reminder... Then every couple years someone who works at a women's clinic is gunned down... Now a congresswoman...

So, we here in Mudville can have this conversation because most of us, if not all of us, are not shills for the NRA or Boss Hog, Inc. but having an adult conversation in the real world not only is not possible but one that the NRA won't permit...

That is the sad reality...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:20 AM

Bobert, how can you have a rational discussion who tells you he believes this..

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

is actually this..

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:17 AM

... The Federalist Papers (generally assumed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton)

Assumed by the ignorant, perhaps.

The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written under the pen name of Publius by James Madison, and John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:21 AM

Like I said, Jack... You can't... But, fortunately, that is out there in Boss Hog's mean world and, for the most part, not here... Yeah, we get some very dogmatic people here now and then that are absolutely unwilling to discuss issues in a reasonable manner but they are a tiny minority...

BTW, when I was a member of the NRA and on one of the NRA shoot teams it was a much different time... Back then the NRA was into gun safety... Now they couldn't care less... All they want is sales, sales and more sales for their dealers... Gun safety is no longer of any importance to them or they would be all over 30 round magazines for 9mm Glocks...

I mean, I have a long history using guns and still keep up my skills but I have fired a 9mm semiautomatic and after the first round, if it is being fired rapidly then unless you are very highly skilled the target seems to be the safest place to be... I mean, this gun cannot be used safely by someone with average skills in a rapid fire situation, which BTW, these things like happened in Tucson was... Throw in the adrenalin and the 9mm becomes more of hand*grenade* than a hand*gun*...

But the NRA doesn't care...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:42 AM

The real issue about the 2nd amendment is that current 'interpretation' is in favor of those who don't want the status quo changed, and we can all imagine how difficult it would be to repeal or revise that amendment. Getting it thru Congress would be 'almost' impossible, and getting enough states to ratify any changes would be totally impossible.

The only possible changes to gun laws are in small details like clip size and registration & sales rules.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:59 AM

we kinda beat this topic pretty good, but for me, when I find the need to, I carry my .40 Glock and a .380 Colt government model as backup. I am licensed to do so and will but those times that I do are pretty rare cause like I said before, carrying a vintage pocket watch is a heck of a lot more fun then slugging around with a handgun.

I like others that are trained and licensed know we have plenty of gun laws that are nearly impossible to enforce because of things like the gun shows that vary from state to state. Some consistency would be welcomed law wise but I don't want any new laws that will be ignored as I have seen way too often. NYS has the toughest gun laws in the country and it doesn't do anything to stop the crime in our largest cities. That keeps going up .. mostly because of states like Bob's where they go buy an arsenal and illegally transport back to NY. There isn't enough ATF agents on earth to police that.   But I think we can all agree that training training and more training is necessary if one chooses to make the decision to carry a legal weapon.
And required checks to make sure they are not criminals or mentally disturbed people getting a CCP. The problem does not arise from trained licensed people, it arises from criminals and making it harder for them to bring back an arsenal from another state would have my support anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stu
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:00 AM

A written constitution is an albatross around the neck of a modern, progressive society.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:03 AM

I'm not American and maybe it's none of my business, but I thought I'd throw in my opinion (for what it's worth.)

Just because the constitution gives citizens a particular right doesn't mean that right can't be limited. Most laws are a limitation on people's rights (often rights guaranteed in a constitution), but they help keep society in one piece so they're accepted.

I'd compare guns to cars to be honest. They are things that can be useful and can be dangerous. (There are plenty of people who would argue that guns are more dangerous and less useful than cars, but I can't see that washing in America.) Some people just want them to show off, and that's not a problem except when those people show off by endangering themselves and other people.

It strikes me that anyone who wants to own a gun should be able to show that they know how to use it and store it safely. If they are caught using it in a reckless way, it should be taken away from them in much the way people's driving licences are taken away if they drink and drive etc...

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:13 AM

All reasonable posts... So far...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:17 AM

I'm also not American, so GUEST,Bardan's caveats apply to me as well. But I'd like to stress that as an outsider I find this an interesting thread, so don't assume that because US-pro and US-anti gun lobbies know each other's arguments by heart it is not worth repeating them once again.

My comment to Bardan, though, would be that because people drive frequently the opportunity to observe and penalise drunk or dangerous driving is common and in itself goes a long way to stopping fatalities. Anyone waving a gun about recklessly (in a crowd, for example) should be stopped as well - I reckon both lobbies would concur on that one - but it's very much harder for the police to observe reckless gun handling in general and so as a way of prevent accidents is not really like the driving example.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:22 AM

In the United States, you do not have to register a car or get a license to drive it. It is perfectly normal for, say, a ranch owner to let his teenage son drive the family jeep without training, without the vehicle being licensed or the son having a drivers license. The situation changes when the driver exits private property and goes onto a publically-owned road where he might be a danger to others. The public roads belong to everybody which is why restrictions are required.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:33 AM

a reasonable assessment PDQ. I along with a zillion other licensed gun toting people agree with that. As long as those restrictions are reasonable you are right on. If for instance someone said, no one can drive because some drive drunk and kill people, that would be unreasonable. Or is Blond people cannot drive cause they are blond. As long as the laws make sense sure thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

I get the impression sometimes with the gun debate that the more vociferous people on both sides don't really know just what it is that they're actually arguing about, because they are both dealing in vague emotional impressions and overreactions to some kind of imagined extreme that they fantasize about in regards to the people on the other side of the debate.

Americans are not unique in owning guns or in having "a right to bear arms". Plenty of people, for example, own guns in Canada, and always have, and this is true in many other countries as well. It's been customary ever since frontier times, after all, when pretty much every rural citizen had a long gun for hunting purposes and for self-defence against dangerous animals or other dangers that might come up. You will still find that rural people are much more likely to own a gun (usually a rifle) than urban people are, and that has happened because of a long tradition going right back to the first settlement of North America by Europeans.

So what are people actually debating about? It isn't a question of people having guns that's really at issue...millions of people have guns. It's a question of responsible handling of those guns, licensing of guns, training courses in safe use of guns, what places you should be allowed to carry a gun in (either openly or concealed), what animals you should be allowed to hunt, etc.

In other words, it's a lot like licensing and regulating the driving of motor vehicles...another device which can kill people, and very often does kill people....or airplanes...another potentially dangerous device which requires licensing and much training before you are allowed to fly one around in public airspace.

Now, if you look back at the early days of both automobiles and airplanes, there were no regulations at all about them at first. As the number of automobiles and airplanes increased and the population density increased, a great many regulations and laws proliferated regarding their use...up till today when we have a mountain of paperwork to wade through before driving a car (on public roads) or flying an airplane.

The same thing has happened with guns. There were once no regulations about owning guns, there are now some regulations about owning guns. Why should this surprise anyone??? It's happened with pretty much everything else that is at all comparable, so why wouldn't it happen with guns?

Official regulations and paperwork always annoy people, because most people wish to be left alone to make their own decisions. They trust themselves to make the right decisions, don't they? ;-) When society (via the government) decides to make the decision for them, they get annoyed about it! I do. You do. Everyone does. That's life...

And I do personally thing we now live in an over-regulated society...for what it's worth.

But the funny thing is, people don't get that annoyed when the government decides that the other guy should or should not do something, do they? Maybe the people on both sides of the gun debate should start trying to understand and relate to the people on the other side instead of just seeing them as some kind of extreme stereotype. It might help...

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 12:33 PM

Well, I for, one know what I am arguing, LH...

1st of all, I am arguing that it is wrong for the NRA to have the power that they have...

2nd (pun intended) it is wrong for them to use that power to stifle any discussion related to gun laws...

3rd, I am arguing, as Ol-ster has pointed out, that we need uniformity in the laws...

and lastly, we need gun owners to complete gun safety training before they can purchase a gun (which will not only be registered but have ballistic fingerprints on file...

Ain't all that complicated...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 12:49 PM

I take it you mean the NRA's political power, Bobert? What I think is really occurring is that one party (the Republicans) is pandering to the fears of people on the Right to get votes....and the other party (the Democrats) is pandering to the fears of people on the Left to get votes.

And that, in a nutshell, is both what gives the NRA its political clout and what causes people to reduce each other to crude stereotypes. The 2 big parties are doing their usual divide-and-conquer thing to score points and get votes. That is what perverts the situation and drives the debate to ridiculous extremes.

It's wrong for anyone to stifle discussion regarding gun laws, whether he's on the Right or the Left.

I'm not so sure about uniformity in the laws. (?) Do you mean from state to state? How would you achieve that? What I think is that there should probably be different rules for rural gun owners, depending on their occupations, etc...than for urban gun owners...but that gets complicated.

I do agree that gun owners should be required to pass a gun safety training course prior to being allowed to purchase a gun. That is so in Canada. I'm not so sure they should be required to register the gun, however. I would be much more inclined to simply require them to retain proof of purchase of the gun by hanging on to their receipt.

Gun registries are cumbersome and expensive, and I don't see that having a gun registry in Canada has done anything to improve the situation. It has just created a lot of paperwork and administration.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 01:01 PM

"What I think is that there should probably be different rules for rural gun owners, depending on their occupations, etc...than for urban gun owners..." ~ LH

Totally un-Constitutional.

What's next, different rules for men and women? Different rules for different races of people?

We have he concept of "equal protection" for all citizens unless you stand convicted of serious crime or you are legally declared mentally ill.

People should just get used to it. Some people can handle freedom, some can't. That's the way it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:15 PM

Bobert... "1st of all, I am arguing that it is wrong for the NRA to have the power that they have..."

Ahhh, whoa up buddy. I think that's called democracy? Am I missin sommat?

Fuck the 2nd... let's get some common sense. Regulate gun owners and punish, SEVERELY, those who break the law... you know, CRIMINALS... and NOT law abiding CITIZENS. It ain't fuckin rocket science.

Punishing Peter to pay Paul is just stunned as me arse. Why can't the anti-gunners get that into their brains and realize that as long as they profer such absurd bullshit and do not hold their government to enforcing strict laws regarding criminal behaviour and gun ownership that they are actually screwing their own agenda over?

Seriously, are they that stunned? If they want to "solve" this issue, they should step up to the plate, understand the real problems and FORCE their elected reps to get the job done instead of shooting themselves in the foot. Yes, pun most definitely intended.

To recap my main postulate... it doesn't matter two shits from Sunday what the 2nd says.. EVERY human has THE RIGHT of self defense. It's common sense. Anyone or any law that says otherwise is... yup... you got it.. stunned as me arse.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:32 PM

I would like to see our Reps also have some understanding of firearms. There is the absurd proposal to laser etch the bullets so they can track a bullet after it has been fired. First of all bullets fragment and distort when they hit anything. Second of all most serious shooters like myself make our own (called swagging) or Cast our own out of the lead weights used for tire balance. But I see these types of laws and just scream, they serve no purpose and other reps say .. wow good idea. At least understand something about why you are trying to regulate.

Good Grief !!

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:53 PM

I think the Canadian restriction are reasonable, limitations on the size of handguns, the size of magazines (number of rounds before reloading), banning sawed off shot guns and rifles, banning all full automatic weapons for civilian use.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:54 PM

Is a Constitution written in stone, like a holy relic, pdq? Or is it something that can evolve and change to suit changing conditions?

I would hope it is the latter. What I was implying in the phrase you seem to be objecting to is that rural people such as farmers, ranchers, and people who make a living hunting and trapping, for example....as people do in wilderness areas...should probably not have their use and ownership of guns regulated as stringently as people living on Fifth Avenue in New York City...because they may need guns for their ordinary working activities, whereas the man living in New York City does not.

I am suggesting common sense, in other words, rather than a rigid adherence to the letter of some law which may not fit a particular situation very well at all. Imagination, pdq, imagination!

And as for your Constitution, it has grown archaic in a number of respects and it should probably have been reconvened and re-written at a new Constitutional Convention about every 20 years ever since it was first created.

In other words, your society is WAY behind the 8-ball on its Constitution and is attempting, unsuccessfully, to live in the past...merely because you are apparently more interested in worshipping the document than in understanding where it came from or what its real purpose is.

Many other societies have made the same kind of mistake, and so have many religions. They worship their ancient forms and repeat them thoughtlessly rather than being intelligently flexible and creative to meet changing social conditions.

Remember, your Constitution was written by ordinary men! It didn't descend in perfection from the throne of God. Men are fallible. They do the best they can at the time. Each new generation of men must try to improve upon the past...not just slavishly imitate it as if bowing down before an idol.

I don't care if what I'm suggesting is "Unconstitutional". Who cares? I'm suggesting possible ideas that could be implemented, and constitutions CAN be changed. If they cannot be changed, then they shouldn't exist in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 04:04 PM

Democracy, my butt, pdq...

It's called corruption of democracy using the profits made from the proliferation of handguns which are responsible for 30,000 deaths a year to silence voices of reason... That is not what democracy looks like, pdq... That is was fascism looks like...

And, LH, you are also mistaken... The Dems aren't saying squat about gun control because each one of them fully understands that tyhe NRA can take any one of them out of office it is so chooses...

That is the point here... The NRA is more powerful than any Senator or congressman in this country, bar none...

Nuthin' democratic about that... That's the kind of stuff that the Mob (Mafia, Costa Nostra) does... It is anti-democratic, bullying and the kind of stuff that is about to bring down the Egyptian government...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 04:34 PM

I'm saying, Bobert, that the most virulent purveyors of rhetoric on behalf of either the Republicans or the Democrats are the people who are driving the debate on gun ownership to extremes and that that is happening because of the usual partisan divisions. People aren't thinking, they're engaging in stereotyping. People on both sides are guilty of that.

On the conservative side the "liberals" are stereotyped in ways I'm sure you're quite familiar with....limp-wristed, bleeding hearts, soft on crime, favoring the rights of criminals over the rights of victims, effeminate lesbo/gay latte drinking, tree-hugging, Ivy League Evian mineral water sippers...etc...most of which is nonsense.

On the liberal side the "conservatives" are stereotyped in ways that we should all be very familiar with by now: ignorant, redneck, Nascar-watching, simple-minded, fascist, dumbass Bible-thumping, mouth-breathing, kuckle-dragging idiots named Bubba who drive pickup trucks with gun racks in the back and whose biggest dream is to attend Wrestlemania 22. ;-D

Yup, it's easy to just reduce people who don't share your opinions to some sort of gross stereotype like that, and it's fun! I see it done here all the time, and I see the glee (and the malice) with which it is done, because most people here are on the "liberal" side, so they feel quite safe doing it.

It's sort of equally pointless on either side of the debate, because it doesn't touch on any real issues or ideas, it's just emotional bloodletting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 04:40 PM

Other than here, LH, there isn't this big debate going on over gun control... Might of fact, it is being avoided like a radiation pit by both the Dems and Repubs... They have enough other wedge issues in the hopper...

I agree that our government is broken but I disagree that it's becasue of two party rule... It's because of the stangle hold the Boss Hog has on our government... We are not all that different than Egypt...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:10 PM

pdq: "In the United States, you do not have to register a car or get a license to drive it. . . ."

I don't know what state you live in, pdq, but that sure as blazes doesn't apply in the state where I live. Or in ANY state where I've lived. I had to pass a fairly stringent driving test before I was issued my driver's license. And I had to register my newly purchase automobile and keep an official copy of the registration certificate in the glove compartment. Not to mention the obvious: license plates, complete with number, clean and plainly visible front and back. In addition, I have to renew the car's license every year. And every four years, at the state's option, I have to take another driving test.

There are a number of other restrictions. I can be fined if I'm caught driving without my seat belt—and/or the seat belts of any passengers—fastened. And a law is currently pending a vote of the state legislature to levy a heavy fine, up to loss of license, for texting or talking on a hand-held cell phone while driving .

These laws are for the protection both of me AND of the public at large.

Okay, if a thirteen-year-old is allowed by his parents to drive the pick-up truck around the ranch and do chores or just go joy-riding, I'd say that's the option of his parents. BUT—If he takes the truck or any other vehicle out on the public streets and highways, he—AND his parents—can be busted for it! In this state, a kid can't get a driver's license until he or she is sixteen years old. And if they (or anyone of any age) does not have a driver's license and is at the wheel of an automobile with someone instructing them, they are required by law to have a learner's permit.

Legal restrictions like these, as applied to the handling of firearms, including the passing of a test to establish a person's ability to handle a firearm knowledgeably and safely is not only common sense, it is stupid to do otherwise.

And yes, I own a few handguns (target shooting mostly), and although I was never required to demonstrate my ability to handle them safely, I did receive instruction from someone knowledgeable.

The purpose of a motor vehicle is to transport people and things between point A to point B. The purpose of a firearm, apart from such recreation as popping at empty cans or poking holes in paper, is--let's face it--to kill things.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:20 PM

Pass a test in order to know how to use a gun??? Why - that's Un-American. Next thing you know you'll be suggesting that people NOT use guns to celibrate New Years Eve!

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:30 PM

This is drifting WAY off of remarks about the 2nd amendment and how to interpret it and what to do with it....if anything.
I suppose that's to be expected since there are so many interconnected concerns, but it IS a different issue than how to adjust current gun laws or who should be allowed to have one.

   The point has been made by artbrooks, who usually identifies the points pretty clearly, that it is not at all clear, due to punctuation, exactly what the 'intent' was. I suspect that, since this was an AMENDMENT, they left it open knowing that it could be amended as situations change. And I personally would love to see a few constitutional challenges based on my ideas about the definition of 'militia' and 'well-ordered'.
Challenges would probably fail 1st time out, but we need a wider discussion than just arm waving each time there's another headline grabbing tragedy.....and we KNOW there will be some. Police have been shot in the last couple weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:53 PM

Some people do use guns for recreation, and to relive a historical tradition. This was why, for example, I very much wanted a BB gun when I was a boy. I didn't want to kill anything with it. I wanted to symbolically relive some of the heroic adventures I'd seen on TV about Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Wyatt Earp, and a thousand other such figures out of history. How? By shooting my BB gun at tin cans, toys soldiers, and other impromptu targets like that. Pretty much every other boy I knew felt the same way, and the society of the time didn't lay a guilt trip on us for wanting to do that, although our mothers, of course, worried that "you'll shoot out your eye!" ;-) Yeah, there were some boys who shot at birds or other animals or who were silly enough to shoot at each other while playing "guns", but there will always be a few like that. The boys I knew all managed to get through childhood and adolescence without shooting out somebody's eye, though such things do happen now and then. You can try to make life totally "safe", but you'll never succeed.

I miss the society of that time. It wasn't so completely bound up in reaction and counterreaction to every damned thing under the sun.

I know we can't go back there, and I know that we've also gone significantly ahead in some ways, but I still miss it.

I've taken the gun handling course here in Canada, found it interesting and useful, and I can't see why the heck anyone would object to being required to pass such a course in order to purchase a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:05 PM

That's the point, LH...

I mean, the right screams "Obama want's to take yer guns away!!!" with all the conviction of any conspiracy theorists when sensible thing like that are suggested...

See, that's how powerful the NRA... You can't say what you said here and get away with it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:09 PM

Yeah, well...that's why I'm glad I'm in Canada! ;-) I do understand you are dealing with a different situation in the USA, Bobert, and it's a lot more polarized than it is here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:34 PM

America more polarized than Canada? Nonsense - youse guys are a lot closer to the North Pole than we are. Just look at a map.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 07:31 PM

I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the Constitution should be rewritten each generation - it's too damn bad that wasn't in the Constitution!

The last time (before the 2008 decision) that the Supreme Court looked at a case directly involving the 2nd Amendment was US v. Miller in 1939, and that case was decided entirely on the militia clause that the current Court seems to believe is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 07:48 PM

Seems to me that the key issue is not who should be able to have a gun, but whether or not they are responsible for its ownership. Back in 19 ought something, if you wanted a Stanley Steamer or a Bugatti, you laid down the cash and drove it home. They had no plates, and no licenses were required, and they had no Department of Motor Vehicles anymore than we have a Department of Kitchen Utensils.

But, too many people got wild with 'em, too many folks got scared, damaged or done in in whie using or abusing or being abused by them, so the law built up a carapace of regulations. Primarily to pin down responsibility. You can still go out and buy a Bugatti if you have the cash but ya gots to answer up.

With guns now, you can get one at a gun show that has been through sixteen owners, and slip it in your glove box and go on home. No driver's test, optical check, registration, liability insurance, test on laws, or sobriety check!

Seems odd, now, dunnit?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:18 PM

But Amos, you KNOW that Obama and the rest of those Commie-loving, tree-hugging, socialist Democrats don't want to confiscate your Bugatti! BTW, can I have a ride in it the next time I see you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:21 PM

Why stop there, Amos??? Why not buy a hundred AK-47s and one book on how to make them fully automatic... Now you have an army and all you need is the money... No better yet, if yer busy, get yer ex-convict psycho murderer neighbor to do it for you... Hey you can do that in Virginia... Come on down to Richmond town with the dough and a U-Haul truck and we'll help load ya' up... We call that $outhern Ho$pitality...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:27 PM

Sadly what Bobart describes ain't too far from the truth in that state. Again gun show laws do vary state to state, some states a full background check is required. Other states like yours Bob, well sometimes we do but most of the time who cares ... and that is the root of the problem. The Chief of police in NY City said nearly every confiscated illegal firearm they get comes from a purchase at a Virginia gun show. Like I said NYS has the toughest gun laws in the nation but it ain't going to do any good if the bad guys just go down to Virginia and pick up a few hundred and carry them back

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:57 PM

Yes, I see what the problem is, guys. Well, you clearly need to enact Canadian gun laws across the USA, eh? ;-) (even if we are too damn near to the North Pole!)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:09 PM

Or...you could build a sort of Berlin Wall all around Virginia and seal 'em all in there for good with their danged gun shows... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 01:01 AM

Since all reasonable debate about gun ownership and rights and responsibilities ended with the second post I really have to know one thing. Does Amos really own a Bugatti?

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 01:12 AM

Sure. He takes the whole family out for a spin now and agin.