Right to Own Guns

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by 1inthechamber, Mar 18, 2008.

  1. Good link! Thanks
     

  2. GrOuNd_ZeRo

    GrOuNd_ZeRo Gun Fanatic Member

    what I was wondering too...

    what I want to know now: is this a good or bad thing?
     
  3. Sniper 995

    Sniper 995 Guest

    Final decision not expected till June.
     
  4. 69burbon

    69burbon Well-Known Member

    1,409
    0
    I saw part of it earlier but missed most of what was said. Overall what has come out so far sounds positive. The whole anti gun argument doesn't hold water and DC is getting Pi**ed on by the leaking bucket. Looks like maybe the leak is going to get fixed.
     
  5. AndrewST

    AndrewST Guest

    I have been following it for awhile. I think it is crap it is going to take them until June to have an answer. I know where they can find an answer right now.

    Its called the Second Amendment, and its damn clear with the answer.
     
  6. browwiw

    browwiw Member

    Actually, it's not and that's why it's being taken to court. Both sides are bringing in historical linguist to dissect the contemporary usage. It's the fact that the framers of the amendment used both the words "militia" (which is collective) and "people" (which is individual).

    "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."

    You'll notice that most people who have a bumper sticker or some such purposely leave out the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part. It's kind of sticky.

    Don't get me wrong, I am very much for the individual right to own and bear arms. I just refuse to be intellectually dishonest about interpreting and discussing the wording the 2nd Amendment also. Hopefully, bringing this to the Supreme Court will finally get some real academic and reasoned debate and actually get a definitive answer. And once get that answer (hopefully the one we like...as much as I dislike their other politics the current SP Judges are pro 2nd Amendment) we can use it as a precedent for other cases.

    Here's a pretty indepth discussion about the Supreme Court case: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88491744
     
  7. AndrewST

    AndrewST Guest




    "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."


    Here is how I have always taken the 2A, and how I feel it was meant to be taken. But it is just my opinion...
    .
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

    We have the right to form a Militia should the occasion arise to protect and defend our freedoms as a people against our government or enemies. An example of this would be if the government tried to take over and turn into a military/dictatorship state.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    That we the people, who are the militia, have the right to keep and bear our arms, in the event we need to protect ourselves. That this right shall not be altered, or changed in any way for any reason.

    The 2A doesn't say "to keep and bear arms, only in certain areas, some restrictions apply, see local authorities for details. Excludes license, title, and tax. Offer only valid on rifles, and shotguns. Offer does not apply to hand guns, may not be combined with any other offers or incentives. Not Valid in Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, South Dakota*.

    *Nothing against these states.

    My .02
     
  8. +1 Andrew, though I do understand what browwiw is saying. My question is this, how much has the crime rate really gone down in D.C. since the ban? From my understanding, it still is one of the most crime ridden places in the nation. Did they ever stop to think that maybe it's not the guns that are causing crime, but something else? Maybe the extream poverty that ALWAYS leads to crime?

    Someone is welcome to post data to correct me if I'm wrong
     
  9. AndrewST

    AndrewST Guest

    I thought DC had the highest crime rate in the country, and the most strict gun laws....funny how that works isn't it?


    But I could be wrong.
     
  10. squeak_D

    squeak_D Guest

    Here's what I don't get, and why is it not being talked about in these court rooms regarding the 2nd amendment. If the 2nd amendment (does not) allow an individual to own a firearm "outside of militias", then if that's true then WHY did people OWN firearms after the 2nd amendment was written into law???? Private citizens have legally owned weapons (both pistols and rifles) since the 2nd amendment went into place. If it was never intended for personal ownership, then why was it not challenged then, and why were the citizens NOT disarmed by the government...?

    This is the logic I go by. If the 2nd amendment wasn't intended for private ownership outside militias, then HISTORY would have proven this, and we would have documentation of citizens being stripped of firearm ownership due to the government taking them. Am I missing something here, anyone else notice this?

    I feel the "main purpose" of the 2nd amendment is for the forming of "well organzied militias", BUT the other part simply states due to the militia.., citizens have the right to bear arms.., should the need arise for a militia. How much time do you think would be wasted if the government had to arm the militias if militia fighters were needed? The 2nd amendment is there for us TO ALREADY be armed should the need be there. People too often look way too deep into the meaning of something, and so often the most basic logic and reasoning is all that's needed. The writers of our Constitution must be rolling over and laughing their asses off in their graves at what our government has done thoughout history with this document.
     
  11. Silicon Wolverine

    Silicon Wolverine Well-Known Member

    19,446
    5
    Its going to come down to (in the judges view) of can they take away one right, the 2nd, without jepardizing the remiander? It would be awful easy for someone to say that that if the 2nd doesnt apply to individuals then why should the first, third or fourth apply to individuals?

    SW
     
  12. Carbin8r

    Carbin8r Member

    I saw this post and thought it to be one of the best written explanations of the Second Amendment I have ever read:

    Article II of the Bill of Rights is a Ciceronian model of a periodic sentence. The framers of the Bill of Rights were Classically trained scholars and rhetoricians, and in crafting the Second Amendment created a rhetorical metaphor that structurally and grammatically mirrors the rights of the people it sets out:

    Article II is constructed of two dependent clauses which are mediated by a final independent clause. As a Ciceronian rhetorical model, it is elaborately ornate (as compared to the more spare Senecan rhetorical style).

    As periodic sentence, Article II structures its first two clauses to depend upon the independent grammatical structure of its final clause.

    Other examples of Ciceronian, periodic construction are contained in the first sentences of the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the US Constitution.

    “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.â€

    Not only is Article II structurally elaborate, and rhetorically ornate, it is poetically metaphorical.

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state†is NOT about “state’s rights†but rather signifies “a free state†of liberty.

    “A well regulated militia†is discussed in Hamilton’s “Federalist†No. 29 “Concerning The Militia.†Hamilton and the framers of the US Constitution were conflicted about the potential for a government militia becoming the armed oppressive mechanism of a tyrannical government.

    The framers of the Constitution held, as noted in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.â€

    Accordingly, the government’s militia would be “well regulated†because holding the government’s military power in check by the consent of the governed is “necessary to the security of a free state.†Liberty requires that the army of the government be regulated by the people.

    The necessity of a well regulated militia requires that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed†because the regulation of the militia by the people is necessary to the security of liberty.

    Grammatically, rhetorically, and in an elegant metaphor the framers of the Bill of Rights tell us that the security of liberty requires that the government militia be well regulated, and that “regulation†depends – grammatically, rhetorically, and politically — upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense against a tyrannical government.

    It’s not about “states rights,†not about the establishment of a “state militia,†and it’s not about duck hunting.

    It’s about the people’s right to hold the government in check though the mechanism of armed defense.

    Comment by G. Alan Bergerson — November 20, 2007 @ 11:51 pm

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/
     
  13. Strangerous

    Strangerous Member

    4,752
    0
    Carbin8r, if that isn't the truth, i don't know what is.

    Our founding fathers gave us the 2A so that we can fight if our government becomes "Too big for their britches". If you take away our 2A, you will kill the spirit of America, and our country will quickly become a police state... where there is no justice, there is no liberty, there sure as heck won't be any freedom.
     
  14. squeak_D

    squeak_D Guest

    Carbin8r,
    EXCELLENT POST! Man, if that doesn't sum it up.., then I don't know what else will. After reading that, it just makes so much more sense now. It makes pefectly good sense, as stated "the people" can keep their government "in check". When the people don't keep their government in check we're left with well..., "The Bush Administration" :) Sorry had to say that-couldn't resist :lol:

    So much can get lost in translation over the years too, and what the government has to keep in mind is that back when the US Constitution was drafted..., we had a better use of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE then, and not 500 different variations of english that we have today. We don't speak, nor write as people did in the those days. Plus many at the time still spoke with different accents than we have today as the founders were decendents of imigrants themselves.

    Squeak
     
  15. griff30

    griff30 Member

    903
    0
    Carbin8r
    You get the cigar.
    The text is impossible to explain to a liberal gun hater unless they take into account, not the content of the article but the ATMOSPHERE of the time.
    We just Declared Independence from a tyrannical ruler, who would rather we not be armed. It was DAMN brave of our forefathers to even mention independence from England, let alone make a contract to form our own government that would ENSURE NO MORE TYRANT LEADERS.
    The ONLY was to do so would be to arm EVERYONE and make the government leaders walk on eggshells. They remembered the "off with thier heads" orders from the monarchy government we had. The idea to put the shoe on the other foot was forward thinking. THEY work for US not the other way around.
     
  16. 69burbon

    69burbon Well-Known Member

    1,409
    0
    Great Post Carbin8r. I was just thinking, when I was in high school, what you posted is what we were taught (it was only 20 some years ago....yikes!) The Bill of Rights was established to guarantee our freedoms. The founding fathers had first hand experience with what would happen if the people did not have means to rise up and stop the Government. One of the first things the British would do is try to round small arms. As I recall my American History class, the "militia" as it were was the local citizens. We now have a more organized version called the National Guard but that does not take away from what is GUARANTEED by the 2nd Amendment.
     
  17. Ridge

    Ridge Member

    The good news in all this is that the majority of the judges sounded very PRO-2A during the hearings and it is likely that they will pass judgement in our favor...
     
  18. browwiw

    browwiw Member