We don’t need no steenking 2nd Amendment

[Legion]

I'm not sure if y'all have read this before, if not it is a good read. It does a good job of explaining the 2nd amendment as well as inherent rights in general.


We don’t need no steenking 2nd Amendment

by John Silveira

I usually get up to the magazine from southern California in plenty of time for the bimonthly deadline. Not this issue. I was late and way behind. But getting up here late doesn’t lessen my workload; it just stretches out the number of hours I have to work each day. There’s less time to relax, visit, or spend with friends. That said, three of us, Dave Duffy, O.E. MacDougal, and I went shooting anyway and depreciated a huge amount of ammunition on a hillside up behind Duffy’s house. Duffy, of course, is the fellow who publishes this magazine.

Mac is Dave’s poker-playing friend from the old days.

After a hard day of knocking down cans and collecting brass, we got back to the office and discovered that Dave’s old college buddy, Bill, had stopped by. Dave and Bill began talking about old times, but the phone rang and took Dave out of the conversation.

I, in the meantime, had disassembled my rifle and there were pieces in my lap and some on my desk. Mac was off in the corner reading a copy of the last issue of BHM.

“What are you doing with that?” Bill asked.

I looked up. He was talking to me.

I looked down in my lap at the gun parts I had there. “I’m cleaning it,” I said.

“What do you need it for?” he asked.

“I don’t usually clean them but...”

“No, not why do you need to clean it, why do you need a gun?”

“Why do I need it?”

“Yes.”

“I want it,” I said.

“But why do you need one?” he persisted.

“Need one?” I asked again, not understanding his question. “I don’t follow you.”

“How many guns do you have?”

“You mean ‘own’ or how many did I bring up with me?”

My question seemed to put him off.

“How many do you own?” he asked in a voice that was tinged with exasperation. “How many guns do you have here, there, and everywhere?”

I thought a minute. “About a dozen.”

He screwed up his face. “What do you need 12 guns for? If you need a gun, one should be enough.”

“Enough for what?”

“What do you need a gun for?”

The meaning of the 2nd Amendment

He was back to that. “I don’t know where this is going. I don’t even understand your question,” I said. “I don’t have to need a gun to own one any more than I need a CD player or a couch to own one of those. The 2nd Amendment says I can have them. It doesn’t say I have to show a need and it doesn’t limit the number I can own.”

Bill shook his head. “So, you’re one of those.”

The whole story here: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html

[Sir Zach of R.]

The stupid arse is argueing with a guy who owns a dozen guns? rofl :cantbeli:

edit: btw, that was a really great article.

[Werewolf01]

The next time somebody asks you that question hit them with this:

1) Why do you need (pick something, a nice sportscar, home entertainment center, whatever)?

When they can't really come up with much of an anwer other than I want it, hit them with this:


2) Hmm.. well, my gun can put food on my table, it protects me and my family, and it protects all of the other rights I have. What does your (sportscar, etc.) do again?

[WARPIG]

The next time somebody asks you that question hit them with this:

1) Why do you need (pick something, a nice sportscar, home entertainment center, whatever)? XBOX I don't need it, but my little boy and I like it.

When they can't really come up with much of an anwer other than I want it, hit them with this:


2) Hmm.. well, my gun can put food on my table, it protects me and my family, and it protects all of the other rights I have. What does your (sportscar, etc.) do again?
I don't have to use a gun to get groceries, I can buy them. If I had to, I can bludgeon an intruder with the XBOX but I would rather use a bat or a shovel or just call 911. As far as I know, my rights are protected with or without a gun. By the way, I am a National Guardsman... the oldest military organization in the US. Our heritage comes from that 2nd Amendment right and the militias that fought for it. I do have several guns exactly 30 meters from where I am sitting right now. I have access to the alarm, the safe and the locks to the weapons and ammo. You don't need a gun to protect your rights. You need me to protect your rights. You only want it, but for other reasons than rights and food. Protection is a stretch.

Not throwing rocks at you bro.. but we don't really need guns in this day and age. Some of us may want them for protection, but there are so many options out there. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see my right to bear arms go away.. but some reality might be in order here.

[Legion]

The next time somebody asks you that question hit them with this:

1) Why do you need (pick something, a nice sportscar, home entertainment center, whatever)? XBOX I don't need it, but my little boy and I like it.

When they can't really come up with much of an anwer other than I want it, hit them with this:


2) Hmm.. well, my gun can put food on my table, it protects me and my family, and it protects all of the other rights I have. What does your (sportscar, etc.) do again?
I don't have to use a gun to get groceries, I can buy them. If I had to, I can bludgeon an intruder with the XBOX but I would rather use a bat or a shovel or just call 911. As far as I know, my rights are protected with or without a gun. By the way, I am a National Guardsman... the oldest military organization in the US. Our heritage comes from that 2nd Amendment right and the militias that fought for it. I do have several guns exactly 30 meters from where I am sitting right now. I have access to the alarm, the safe and the locks to the weapons and ammo. You don't need a gun to protect your rights. You need me to protect your rights. You only want it, but for other reasons than rights and food. Protection is a stretch.

Not throwing rocks at you bro.. but we don't really need guns in this day and age. Some of us may want them for protection, but there are so many options out there. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see my right to bear arms go away.. but some reality might be in order here.

I wonder did you read the entire article?


“The 2nd Amendment isn’t about you guys owning guns,” Bill said. “It’s about the state having guns. It says you’re only allowed guns if you’re part of the militia and I don’t see any of you guys with uniforms. The 2nd Amendment is about the National Guard.”

“I don’t think that’s what it means,” Dave said.

“It says it right in the amendment. It’s for the militia. You can even ask Mac,” he said and pumped his thumb back to the corner where Mac was quietly reading. “I’ll bet even he agrees with me.”

I think Bill was baiting Mac. He and Mac had had a lively discussion about our rights the last time Bill was here about two years ago (Issue No. 44 March/April 1997). But Mac didn’t look up. He just kept reading.

Dave got out of his seat and pulled down the almanac from the bookcase and flipped through the pages.

Then he began to read, “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.”

“See,” Bill said. “It’s about having a well regulated militia. Militia—that’s military. It’s not about you.”

“Well, a whole bunch of people think it’s about individual gun ownership,” Dave said.

“But it’s not. Read the amendment again. It’s about the militia. It’s only you gun nuts who think it’s about you.”

I shrugged. The wording of the 2nd Amendment has always bothered me.

But Dave looked off into the corner to where Mac was still reading. “What do you think?” he asked.

Mac just looked at us and smiled, then went back to his magazine.

“See,” Bill said. “Even he knows it’s about the National Guard, not you guys.”

“The National Guard didn’t exist when the 2nd Amendment was written. It came into existence over a century later,” Mac said without looking up and he continued to read.

“What?” Dave asked.

“I said the 2nd Amendment isn’t about the National Guard. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. The act that created the National Guard wasn’t enacted until 1903.”

[Werewolf01]

The next time somebody asks you that question hit them with this:

1) Why do you need (pick something, a nice sportscar, home entertainment center, whatever)? XBOX I don't need it, but my little boy and I like it.

When they can't really come up with much of an anwer other than I want it, hit them with this:


2) Hmm.. well, my gun can put food on my table, it protects me and my family, and it protects all of the other rights I have. What does your (sportscar, etc.) do again?
I don't have to use a gun to get groceries, I can buy them. If I had to, I can bludgeon an intruder with the XBOX but I would rather use a bat or a shovel or just call 911. As far as I know, my rights are protected with or without a gun. By the way, I am a National Guardsman... the oldest military organization in the US. Our heritage comes from that 2nd Amendment right and the militias that fought for it. I do have several guns exactly 30 meters from where I am sitting right now. I have access to the alarm, the safe and the locks to the weapons and ammo. You don't need a gun to protect your rights. You need me to protect your rights. You only want it, but for other reasons than rights and food. Protection is a stretch.

Not throwing rocks at you bro.. but we don't really need guns in this day and age. Some of us may want them for protection, but there are so many options out there. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see my right to bear arms go away.. but some reality might be in order here.


Reality is also 40 minute emergency response time for police. Reality is also the fact that the only meat I even remotely like to serve in my house is game because I don't have to worry about hormones, mad cow disease, the treatment of the animals before slaughter, and safe handling between the hoof and my plate. Reality is also the fact that this country, like any other is subject to tyrrany if the conditions are right. Reality is that people in North Korea live, and have their needs met (if Kim Jong Il allows it) even though they are not free. Reality is also that the Second Ammendment is the only thing that really guarantees the other nine. In a police state only three groups have guns: the police, the military and criminals. I would not bet my family's saftey on a cop that is God knows how many miles away. Oh and one more point...I don't need you to protect my rights. It is the responsibility of each individual in the US to insure their rights are protected.

[Geezah]

Amazing how this way of thinking hasn't changed in over 200yrs p-)


“And here’s one more. It’s Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria—a Milanese criminologist whom he admired who was also his contemporary—in On Crimes and Punishment:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
“I think it’s pretty clear that Jefferson felt we had the right to keep and bear arms for both personal protection and as a safeguard against tyranny.”

[Sir Zach of R.]

Reality is also 40 minute emergency response time for police. Reality is also the fact that the only meat I even remotely like to serve in my house is game because I don't have to worry about hormones, mad cow disease, the treatment of the animals before slaughter, and safe handling between the hoof and my plate. Reality is also the fact that this country, like any other is subject to tyrrany if the conditions are right. Reality is that people in North Korea live, and have their needs met (if Kim Jong Il allows it) even though they are not free. Reality is also that the Second Ammendment is the only thing that really guarantees the other nine. In a police state only three groups have guns: the police, the military and criminals. I would not bet my family's saftey on a cop that is God knows how many miles away. Oh and one more point...I don't need you to protect my rights. It is the responsibility of each individual in the US to insure their rights are protected.

x2

[formerLT]

Thats a great article. The ignorance and absolute cluelessness some people have towards the 2nd amendment and the importance of citizens owning firearms amazes me.

The 2nd DOES protect the rest!

[Virus]

This article really opened up my eyes on the issue, I didn't know some of the information from the article, best article of the month imho :D Really informative and reasonable.

[HooyahCQB]

I think my avatar sums it up well

[Eat a bullet]

:D

[joe mama]

I think my avatar sums it up well

Don't you realize that if you make it illegal for people to have guns, criminals, who already have guns illegally, will immediately give up their guns since it will now be illegal for them to have them? Sure, it was already illegal, but with gun control it will be illegal! And criminals don't do illegal things, especially if they already do illegal things!

(great avatar, by the way)

[HooyahCQB]

Hehe, you can never tell what some people may believe. :lol:

[Pandy]

I've always throught a well regulated Militia was made up of civilians, not National Guard units.

In the National Guard, you have to go through basic training and can be called up for Fed services, in militas, you can do that, but it'll be a bitch to get us together and do something like that, lol.

[Eat a bullet]

It is hard, but with the internet and sites like http://www.awrm.org/ it gets a little easier. :)

[Geezah]

“The National Guard didn’t exist when the 2nd Amendment was written. It came into existence over a century later,” Mac said without looking up and he continued to read.

“What?” Dave asked.

“I said the 2nd Amendment isn’t about the National Guard. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. The act that created the National Guard wasn’t enacted until 1903.”

[Buckeye67]

I've always throught a well regulated Militia was made up of civilians, not National Guard units.

In the National Guard, you have to go through basic training and can be called up for Fed services, in militas, you can do that, but it'll be a bitch to get us together and do something like that, lol.

You're absolutely correct. In fact, the law recognizes two categories of militia - "organized" and "unorganized":


TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

Release date: 2004-03-18

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

From: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

So yes, we're all members of the militia - both from a historical standpoint as well as a modern legal one.

In addition there are other "organized militias" such as The Ohio Military Reserve (http://ohmr.ohio.gov/) which are all-volunteer organizations. Each state has provisions in their respective state constitutions for a "state militia", the OMR being Ohio's. Some are active (such as the OMR and the Virginia Defense Force) others aren't. OMR members provide all of their own equipment and weapons... and yes - these are official state militias sanctioned by the government (the OMR has actually been activated to provide security at National Guard armories).


Everyone, whether you're pro or anti-gun, should go out and grab a copy of Stephen Halbrook's book That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. It's very informative. I have an old copy that's seen better days that I could loan out to some of the local guys. I'll bring it along to the Creek.

[Sir Zach of R.]

We totally pwned that Minardiu guy. woot woot woot

[Durandal]

I've always throught a well regulated Militia was made up of civilians, not National Guard units.

Determined by a Supreme Court hearing (one of the VERY few 2nd Amendment hearings)...

Thus, regulating the militia...

National Guard
Naval Reserve
Unorganized Militia (as determined by each State).

As I have said in the past. Like most of the Bill of Rights, with the exception of the 3rd Amendment, the 2nd is a multi part declaration. The first half deals with the regulation of the militia and the second part deals with the RIGHT of ownership of firearms BY the people.

There is no other way to interpret it for if you ignore the wording in the 2nd Amendment then you can ignore wording in other Amendments. Which is NOT wise at all.

[Minardiau]

We totally pwned that Minardiu guy. woot woot woot

I don't think so. So Neeeeeeeeeeer :)

I done a a bit of reading the 2nd Amendment and similar various state laws.

Withought arguing wether it's right or wrong upside down or right way up.

The 2nd Amendment does sound ambigious. Then combined with carious state amendments which some state that unless a state of war exists that standing army's should not be kept.

It does sound ambigious. I'll be the 1st to admit that there is a line in the 2nd amendment that states people have the right to arms. But when you read the 2nd Amendment fully, the context of the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted very much differently.

[Buckeye67]

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendent is not ambiguous unless you actively seek it to be so. Don't believe me? Have a read:

http://hematite.com/dragon/embarassing_2nd.html

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

http://www.guncite.com/hci2nd.html

Better yet, just order the book I mentioned in my previous post. Oi vey.

[faithless]

I'm fifteen i have a gun not to hunt or to commit a crime but to enjoy my time at the range shooting.At school i'm a goth and i'm a loner and the range is were i have friends.So you can guess that i agree with the 2nd amendent and if that right is ever taken away i would go after every retard who had sopmething to do with.Just becuse they dont like.Maybe they should mind their own buisness.

About the militia thing i believe they are important but they should be state run or other wise they will end up like the militias i know witch are a bunch of racist with guns who hate blacks,jews and just about anyonr who isnt white or catholic.

[Minardiau]

I'm fifteen i have a gun not to hunt or to commit a crime but to enjoy my time at the range shooting.At school i'm a goth and i'm a lone

Lock him up!

[faithless]

It's my dads but he got it for me i'm in jrotc and love guns
i was the best on the rifle team.

[Minardiau]

Goth+guns=Columbine

:|

[Durandal]

About the militia thing i believe they are important but they should be state run or other wise they will end up like the militias i know witch are a bunch of racist with guns who hate blacks,jews and just about anyonr who isnt white or catholic.

You are misunderstanding the term militia. Militia has become a catch phrase for loons, racists, super-anti federalists, and nazis. This all came about after the massive crack down on them during the early and mid-90s.

Some militias still exist and a few are all right...a few.

With that said, the term "militia" is the historical use of the word. A community of armed citizens protecting the rest of their society. Militias back in the day..say 1740...were good and served a purpose.

Today, in modern times, we have come to understand the dangers of relying on a militia as our sole military resource (in fact this was put to bed in the late 1700s). The economic impact alone makes militias impossible. So we adopted a regular standing army. This makes sense, but it was understood that the army was to be small, made of volunteers from across the country..(18 States at the time)? We still had militias, but they were a last resort OR used for ONLY local defense (indians, gangs, and marauders). You can see a fair amount of their use in the 1790s and early 1800s in Ohio.

Today, the milita, as defined by the Federal Government (via the courts) consists of three elements: The National Guard (which can be federalized and used within or outside the United States, the Naval Reserve (almost non-existent to some degree), and the unorganized militia as determined by the State which (having not been updated recently) probably is the whole male body, ages 18 to 56 (or something along those lines).

In this discussion, the term militia should not be confused with the label associated with the nut jobs in Montana as liberal used by the media.

I perfect example of use of the unorganized militia is the use of citizens to watch the American-Mexican border. All of them have volunteered and are being used with quite explicit rules (an example of regulation if you will).

[faithless]

I'm not columbine i'm irish hence the nane ira,finish and lithuanian
i'm not spanish dont just draw conclusions.

No i did not understand but i'm tauking about modern ones their are acouble inthe north that seem to be alright they even have a chain of commmand logistics communications and tell you what supplies to use
thei require that you use a mini ruger for a standard firearm

[Minardiau]

Still goths with guns to bad things.

[faithless]

No their not if they come from a military family.

[Minardiau]

Dude in Minnosota listened to Manson and he's grandfather was a cop.

[faithless]

And your point is

[Minardiau]

You said your a goth. Goths with guns do bad things.

Point is you should be liked up.

rofl

[faithless]

just because i'm a goth with a gun means anything i was raise d to only killwhen absolutly necssary.

[Minardiau]

Don't worry dude, i'm taking the piss. I'm probably the biggest freak around these parts.

[faithless]

oh theres alot where i live and lots of them are fake.

[hank]

The 2nd Amendment does sound ambigious. Then combined with carious state amendments which some state that unless a state of war exists that standing army's should not be kept.

It does sound ambigious. I'll be the 1st to admit that there is a line in the 2nd amendment that states people have the right to arms. But when you read the 2nd Amendment fully, the context of the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted very much differently.

Don't try to construe teh Federal Constitution's 2A with any state amendments. once the Federal Govt acts in an area (meaning protects the right to keep and bear arms) a state may not constitutionally limit that right more than the Federal Govt could. So, the 2A stands alone as does the rest of the body of the Con and the amendments.

For the person who cited to the US Code. I commend you for that. Keep one thing in mind - the militia referred to in that statute isn't necessarily the same as militia in the 2A. At least I don't think so - if you can cite to something different feel free.

Durandal as usual nailed it. 2 parts, interdependent and related. The Federal Govt as envisioned by the framers couldn't of its own accord defended the colonies. It relied on the citizens ot mobilize and defend it. Thus the militia. Of course the states couldn't afford to arm the militia and neither could the Fed'l Govt. Thus you had to bring your own gun. Ergo, the two parts. Be in the militia (basically a white male citizen to the framers) and have an instrument of war to use if needed.

At least that's how ol' hank reads. But I wouldn't be against me.

hank

[Minardiau]

That last para of yours is basically how I see the 2nd amendment.

But since then, the state now has the ability to defend itself thus voiding the right for people to bare arms.

See how ambigious this is.

[hank]

That last para of yours is basically how I see the 2nd amendment.

But since then, the state now has the ability to defend itself thus voiding the right for people to bare arms.

See how ambigious this is.

I don't follow. If the state has the right to defend itself how does that effect the 2A? The framers were anarchists who fought and defeated the strongest arm/navy in the world with a ragtag army of farmers and silversmiths. They would say the fact that the Fed'l Govt now has a standing army independent of State funding is the very reason everyone should have a gun. They had a little experience with standing armies, you know?

The 2A is not ambiguous. You might not like it or think its necessry but that doesn't change the plain meaing of the words. Can't abridge my right to "keep and bear arms". What is ambiguous about that?

hank

[Buckeye67]

That last para of yours is basically how I see the 2nd amendment.

But since then, the state now has the ability to defend itself thus voiding the right for people to bare arms.

See how ambigious this is.

It's only "ambiguous" because you can't admit that you're ****ing wrong. You trot out the same circular arguments to back up your personal feelings about what people should or shouldn't be allowed to own, and then attempt to prop them up by your own muddled "interpretation" of constitutional law that you know little to nothing about.

Funny though, by agreeing with Hank's last paragraph (which isn't entirely correct in regards to the Framers' ideas on the importance and utility of the "militia") you have, for all intents and purposes defeated yourself.

Edit: You can argue the virtue of having unregulatd gun ownership and it's benefit, or lack thereof, to the general public (you're still wrong there though) - but there's no way in Hades that anyone with any modicum of reading comprehension ability can arrive at the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. You can lobby that the amendment be repealed - but you can't deny what it means.

To Hank, there isn't any other militia that it could be referring to. It falls under Title 10 of the US Code: "Armed Forces"; Section A: "General Military Law"; Part 1 - Organization and General Military Powers; Chapter 13: The Militia.

It's how the United States government legally defines the "militia". So even if someone wants to play the "collective right" BS with the 2nd Amdt and say that the right applies only to "militias" - then by definition of US law - we're all in the militia and therefore the right cannot be infringed.

[hank]

That last para of yours is basically how I see the 2nd amendment.

But since then, the state now has the ability to defend itself thus voiding the right for people to bare arms.

See how ambigious this is.

It's only "ambiguous" because you can't admit that you're f*** wrong. You trot out the same circular arguments to back up your personal feelings about what people should or shouldn't be allowed to own, and then attempt to prop them up by your own muddled "interpretation" of constitutional law that you know little to nothing about.

Funny though, by agreeing with Hank's last paragraph (which isn't entirely correct in regards to the Framers' ideas on the importance and utility of the "militia") you have, for all intents and purposes defeated yourself.

To Hank, there isn't any other militia that it could be referring to. It falls under Title 10 of the US Code: "Armed Forces"; Section A: "General Military Law"; Part 1 - Organization and General Military Powers; Chapter 13: The Militia.

It's how the United States government legally defines the "militia". So even if someone wants to play the "collective right" BS with the 2nd Amdt and say that the right applies only to "militias" - then by definition of US law - we're all in the militia and therefore the right cannot be infringed.

There is only one problem with what you've said. The 2A was drafted in the late 1700s and the first version of the modern US code you cite to didn't exist until the middle part of hte 20th Century. All I'm saying is this. Whatever militia means in the constitution - it is not a product of the modern US Code. In fact it would be quite the opposite. The reality is, militia in the 2A is whatever nine wise people tell us it is in October (i.e. the Supreme Court). They have never seen fit to do that, so defining militia from the 2A is a guess at best. I assure you that the wise 9 won't base their definition on a 20th Century statute when teh 2A is from 1780's.

What is incorrect about my assessment of the relationship between the militia that existed in the 1780's and the right to bear arms? I'm curious because in all honesty I didn't come up with that one on my own.

hank

[Minardiau]

On this issue I never said I was right at all. I was just point out that the working of the 2nd amendment sounds ambigious. Hence the confusion, legal ramblings over what it means etc.

I'm smart enough to know full well that you do have a right to bare arms (disagree with people having that right though) I'm just saying that it could be argued that it's not a "automatic right"

And as you would probably agree, any legal document is open to many different interpretations. It happens all the time.

Take for example a judge makes a ruling on lets say "Freedome of Speech" yet there is obscenity laws in place which prevent the sale of certain forms of media and and public demonstrations. The 1st judge upholds the obscenity laws despite being against "freedome of speech" yet on appeal a 2nd judge orders that the right "Freedome of Speech" is infact above the obscenity laws and enables publication of said material.

There is no right and wrong answer when it comes to legal documenents. LAW is open to interpretation. Thankfully we live democracy's that enables us to interprete law to suit what the people want.

[hank]

Well you added stuff whil I was typing. Threre is a big problem with what you wrote.

First, Congress makes statutes. Supreme Court interprets them and the Constitution. The very definition of separation of powers dictates that the definition of militia is whatever the judiciary interprets it to be. Thus a 2-th century statute cannot dictate the meaning of militia in the constitution.

The landscape now under this code section is totally different than 1780. the Fed't Govt was dependent on the states for revenue in 1780 - not income tax until much later. There was really no standing Fed'l US army at the time teh 2A got written. The federal amry was much more analogous to teh Army around the Civil war. State raised units that fit loosley under Fed' command. Thus the Fed' govt couldn't have made much use of a militia that wasn't armed. And that's what they would have had if individuals weren't expressly given the right to possess firearms. That was the utilitarian side of 2A

The idealistic side was their belief that an armed populace would never suffer a "crown" or a powerful Fed' Govt again. Guess they missed that.

We are really not disagreeing because the point is that (as Durandal first pointed out) the 2A has two meanings. Protect the "militia" whatever that was in 1780's and protect the individual's right to possess firearms.

Just be careful in thinking that your US Code section defines the word "militia" as used in the 2A because that's not accurate.

hank

[hank]

On this issue I never said I was right at all. I was just point out that the working of the 2nd amendment sounds ambigious. Hence the confusion, legal ramblings over what it means etc.

I'm smart enough to know full well that you do have a right to bare arms (disagree with people having that right though) I'm just saying that it could be argued that it's not a "automatic right"

And as you would probably agree, any legal document is open to many different interpretations. It happens all the time.

Take for example a judge makes a ruling on lets say "Freedome of Speech" yet there is obscenity laws in place which prevent the sale of certain forms of media and and public demonstrations. The 1st judge upholds the obscenity laws despite being against "freedome of speech" yet on appeal a 2nd judge orders that the right "Freedome of Speech" is infact above the obscenity laws and enables publication of said material.

There is no right and wrong answer when it comes to legal documenents. LAW is open to interpretation. Thankfully we live democracy's that enables us to interprete law to suit what the people want.

Man you keep adding on me. Let's be clear. Only one body in the US definitively interprets the constitution. The Supreme Court. The first judge doens't make law. teh second judge doesn't make law - they simply decide a case. When it gets to the 9 in DC they make law. So a trial court interpretation is theoretically an interpretation of free speech that is only enforceable against the litigants. The SC interpretation is LAW and enforceable agaisnt everybody.

As for obscenity. There is no right to make obscene speech. How do I know? The SC tells me so.

I think you're view is a little simplistic of how the judiciary works, but understandable. Its hard to understand that a trial court interpretation isn't binding elsewhere but a SC decision is. Of course anything reduced to writing is open to interpretation - just rememebr that the only interpretation of the constitution that matters is the SC's and you'll be on the right track.

hank

[Minardiau]

No.

There has been quite a few cases go to the SC because of obscenity laws going against the "freedom of Speech" right.

I'm fooking Australian and I know a fair bit about the American system enough to have an opinion on it. Don't ya just love modern schooling and the internet?

[hank]

No.

There has been quite a few cases go to the SC because of obscenity laws going against the "freedom of Speech" right.

I'm fooking Australian and I know a fair bit about the American system enough to have an opinion on it. Don't ya just love modern schooling and the internet?

Well maybe, but I prefer a law degree and a license to practice law. Labor on with that view if you want.

I didn't say only one case had been to the SC on this issue. I said there is not right to utter obscenities. I can provide a cite to the case that determined that if you need it. The name escapes me at the moment.

Continue to view the 2A as you see fit. As you say, you've got the internet and schooling. It does not change the language of the amendment and the fact that hte right to possess firearms has never been infringed. Limited, yes. Not because of ambiguity in the 2A but because there is a little dandy in the body called the commerce clause.

As you say, the internet and schooling go a long way. Not all the way, but a long way.

hank

[Sir Zach of R.]

Hank, where does the SC get the right to make law? Makes me a bit queezy knowing that a judge picked by the president (or former president) is deciding what's best for me. :|

[Minardiau]

It happens here in Australia to. Not so much to make law but to enforce it, interprete the meaning. Hell here in Australia our High Court (equal to your SC) can even block government legislation

[hank]

Hank, where does the SC get the right to make law? Makes me a bit queezy knowing that a judge picked by the president (or former president) is deciding what's best for me. :|

They don't make it. They interpret the Code or Constitution. We say "make law" because until the SC interprets a statute there may be more than one lower court interpretation floating around.

Ever heard the term "resolve a circuit split?" That means that the 11 Federal appellate courts don't agree on how to apply a law and thus it gets applied differently depending on whether you are in NY and LA. Well sometimes the SC will hear a case just to end this. They really aren't making law, they are just giving a definitive intepretation. Its a poor word choice on my part, sorry.

Incidentally, judges can make law only when the legislature had not acted in the matter. For example back in the day there was not Codified Admiralty law and the SC used to actually make that law when it heard those cases. Now there is a statute and this no more non-codified(also called Common) law anymore at the federal level.

Also, remember it takes at least 5 usually to write a binding opinion so there is some protection from the Ginsburg's of the world in that.

hank

[hank]

It happens here in Australia to. Not so much to make law but to enforce it, interprete the meaning. Hell here in Australia our High Court (equal to your SC) can even block government legislation

Same is true here, but only when the legislation violates the constitution. Very few laws are ambiguous if you know the context in which and the purpose for which they were drafted. Some are contrary to the constitution and those laws (like all of FDRs early reforms before the switch in time that saved nine) got struck down as violative of the commerce clause. Hell, now the CC gets interpreted so that the US congress can effectively legislate anything they want. Its not ambiguous, however, its just not being read in context as it should be.

That's why I say the 2A is not, and never has been ambiguous. If you understand the "evil" the framers were trying to protect us from (read big government, the crown, all the injustice they had suffered at the hands of George) then the meaning is very clear. If you read it a 21st Century worldvewi vacuum then it might be. But that's not how it should, and is, interpreted. A court's job is to put effect to the concept the words of the statute try to memorialize. Thus, the 2A is simple, concise, and clear as a bell. Keep guns in our hands so we can protect ourselves from our, and other govts that try to take our "self-evident" freedoms.

hank

[TacoDelRio]

I get into arguements like this everyday.

"Why do you need a battle rifle?"

I usually respond with "Why do you need a fast car? Can't go above 60mph most places anyway, right" And all that.

Or more logically, I remind them of the civil war, and the American Revolutionary war. Being a soldier, stuck in a country at war with itself, would be a poor decision on my part. If it happens again (when not if obviously), I don't want to be a moron.

[Pandy]

I can't wait for another civil war to rip across this country of ours over guns, because that's were we seem to be going... saddy.

[Sir Zach of R.]

I can't wait for another civil war to rip across this country of ours over guns, because that's were we seem to be going... saddy.

I've always thought that too. But if it happens it's gonna be the biggest one sided battle ever.

[TacoDelRio]

I can't wait for another civil war to rip across this country of ours over guns, because that's were we seem to be going... saddy.

I've always thought that too. But if it happens it's gonna be the biggest one sided battle ever.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

True dat...


I personally don't think the next civil war would be over guns, but more over **** the government could impose upon "its'" people AFTER they have been effectively disarmed. No resistance, right?

[Durandal]

ira, I know you are 15, but I have a question for you.

Where you born in the United States? Is English your first language?

[faithless]

Yes i was born in the usa and english is my first language.

If your to say i cant spell well first im not good at typing and am not very good in language arts at school and have ADD so give me a break.

[Geezah]

I'm fifteen i have a gun not to hunt or to commit a crime but to enjoy my time at the range shooting.At school i'm a goth and i'm a lone

Lock him up!

I agree, especially after this statement! :cantbeli:


So you can guess that i agree with the 2nd amendent and if that right is ever taken away i would go after every retard who had sopmething to do with.Just becuse they dont like.

This is exactly what we don't need in the new breed of young firearm owners :(

[faithless]

I mean that if my right were taken away i would fight to have it back i may have said it the wrong way.

[Geezah]

Minardiau, did you click on the link and read the whole article?

[Minardiau]

Yeah man. If your referring to the 1st link posted. Found it amusing.

[Minardiau]

I'm fifteen i have a gun not to hunt or to commit a crime but to enjoy my time at the range shooting.At school i'm a goth and i'm a lone

Lock him up!

I agree, especially after this statement! :cantbeli:


So you can guess that i agree with the 2nd amendent and if that right is ever taken away i would go after every retard who had sopmething to do with.Just becuse they dont like.

This is exactly what we don't need in the new breed of young firearm owners :(

Thats alright Geezah I wont use this. He is 15 afterall.

That being said though. What would happen if a President was elected that was for gun-control and had the power in the senate to change the constitution to basically take away the right to firearms?

[faithless]

I'm not say'in i would but their be another jfk type shooting

[Maine Finn]

Yes i was born in the usa and english is my first language.

If your to say i cant spell well first im not good at typing and am not very good in language arts at school and have ADD so give me a break.

Gotta say, I was not outstanding in English/Language Arts, and I have ADD myself, and yet still I can make a coherent sentence that gets my point across.

In this case, I don't think that your point was made at all. Maybe I missed it. I'll re-read your posts to be sure, but I doubt that I'll understand you any better.

[Geezah]

I'm fifteen i have a gun not to hunt or to commit a crime but to enjoy my time at the range shooting.At school i'm a goth and i'm a lone

Lock him up!

I agree, especially after this statement! :cantbeli:


So you can guess that i agree with the 2nd amendent and if that right is ever taken away i would go after every retard who had sopmething to do with.Just becuse they dont like.

This is exactly what we don't need in the new breed of young firearm owners :(

Thats alright Geezah I wont use this. He is 15 afterall.

I wonder if they said the same thing about that Weise guy in Mn?
Amazing, a gun control nut taking it easy on a youngster with a firearm :cantbeli:




That being said though. What would happen if a President was elected that was for gun-control and had the power in the senate to change the constitution to basically take away the right to firearms?


We had one, he was called President Clinton, luckily we gained some of our rights back after the expiration of the AWB.
























I know, Reagan and Bush SR also impossed restrictions on our 2nd Am rights :cantbeli:

[faithless]

OOOPs

I see what your taking about now.

[Minardiau]

Amazing, a gun control nut taking it easy on a youngster with a firearm

Well you know. being 15. It's not as if he can fully grasp the issue at hand is it. Plus he did say he enjoys shooting at the range with his old man. I have no problem with range shooting with ANY type of weapon. They are a safe environment.

[faithless]

Hay i may be fifteen but i'm not an idiot.

[Commie]

Interesting and a good read. But what i find most striking with the article is the reference to the so called "Natural Rights". That somehow man has automatic rights within it's own nature.
This poses a philosopical dilemma. Who is to say what constitues these Natural Rights?

Is it only the founding fathers that has a say in these Natural Rights?
Isn't that somewhat tyrannical?
Shouldn't every individual be allowed to say what's their born natural rights. But if every man and woman would be allowed to constitute their own right we would have no judicial system and it would ultimately lead to anarchy.

In a democratic society bills, regulations and acts is a necessity to form a common sense of what is right, an etic of which a state can build it's foundation upon. The founding forefathers wrote this in their constitution and i feel it's wrong for Mac to refer from quotes of the founding forefathers and play them like legislative bills.

The founding forefathers did create Americas Constitution but what they left behind in the should be considered as their opinion.
The founding forefathers were not a deity and i don't think they wanted to perceived as a deity either.

What the constitution says should stay as the basis for a the arms debate and the foundation on which America was created.

[Durandal]

Yes i was born in the usa and english is my first language.

If your to say i cant spell well first im not good at typing and am not very good in language arts at school and have ADD so give me a break.

Relax, I was just curious. Hey, I sucked at typing too, probably still do. My good friend from high school, he had A.D.D. (part of which is dyslexia), still does to this very day. He has earned three degrees, graduated law school, pass both the New York, Indiana, and Illinois bar exams and worked with three of the larger law firms in the nation.

The reason I asked is that I wanted to know why your posts were an absolute butchery of the English language.

So give the "I am lazy and disabled" argument a rest. Make an effort.

[Pandy]

Amazing, a gun control nut taking it easy on a youngster with a firearm

Well you know. being 15. It's not as if he can fully grasp the issue at hand is it. Plus he did say he enjoys shooting at the range with his old man. I have no problem with range shooting with ANY type of weapon. They are a safe environment.

And that is why I like Minardiau. No problem with firearms unless they're used in a crime or something, and his gothic.... and I love those goths because they play some of the best games and have some of the best parties...

woot woot woot woot woot

[Minardiau]

Haha WTF are you on about?

[faithless]

I dont know why i'm bad in enlgish its the only i have trouble in.

Other than that i'm a A or B student.

[11F5S]

Hay i may be fifteen but i'm not an idiot.

You're not an idiot, but unless you take the bull by the horns and work at improving your communication skills you may well be looked at one for the rest of your life.

Hey not "hay".




If your to say i cant spell well first im not good at typing and am not very good in language arts at school and have ADD so give me a break.

Quit making excuses and do something about it. I have a grandson who has ADD, is number one in his high school class (a school with very high academic standards) and is under consideration for foolball scholarships from Harvard and other Ivy League schools.

Give you a break....do you think employers are going to give you a break when they see your extremely poor communication skills?

Do something about it before it's too late....it's your life.

[faithless]

I didn't mean it to sound as i was disabled.

But it has been a problem all my life and you think i haven't tryed to overcome it.

[Maine Finn]

I didn't mean it to sound as i was disabled.

But it has been a problem all my life and you think i haven't tryed to overcome it.

Not necessarily.


Gotta say, I was not outstanding in English/Language Arts, and I have ADD myself, and yet still I can make a coherent sentence that gets my point across.

It certainly is not easy, but it can be done.

[faithless]

it can but it can take along time. I'm a lot better than i used to be.

Can we just drop this and get back on topic.

[Durandal]

it can but it can take along time. I'm a lot better than i used to be.

Can we just drop this and get back on topic.

Sorry I brought it up, but I am TRYING to steer you in the right direction.

Especially if you like guns and want to be able to properly defend yourself and your hobby in a forum such as this.

Gun owners need good representation online and in real life.

You either help the cause...hurt it...or simply be quiet.

I think you WANT to help the cause...thus my advice to you.

Take it in stride and work with it.

[faithless]

It's ok that you brought it up and I didnt think that you were comig from that point.

[Legion]

I have ADD also...now what were we talking about? :P