General / Off-Topic Gun Nut America

[Minonian]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

Upssiedasy!

Yeah this is pretty much clears out the whole situation. Its not their god given rights to bear arms just because they can.
Its their law given right to bear arms, to defend their home.

 

[lysan]

The thing I've never understood about the second amendment is how people make a big deal about how important it is, whilst utterly ignoring most of the text.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

From that as I understand it you could argue that anyone who wants a gun should produce ID issued by a well regulated militia, the gun should then be sent direct to the militia's armoury and kept there ready for issue in the event of the militia being called up for active service. Any applicants who refuse don't join therefore they can't buy guns and any militia that fails to enforce it is not well regulated and cannot be armed.

No guns in private hands, completely within the letter and spirit of the second ammendment.

For my next trick peace in the middle east.

To me the people is not the military, its the people, aka you and me

 

[Glock_N_Load]

Heavily gun-controlled cities....LOL

The supreme court made it so no municipality could ban guns in any way.

This is true but they can make it real hard to get a gun. What is usually said about this issue is that the states with the most strict gun control laws have the highest gun related crime. Did prohibition stop the sell/manufacturing of alcohol. No, but it did create organize crime. Meth is illegal and you can buy it on almost any street corner in America. Murder is illegal. Name me one thing the government has legislated that has resolved any illegal activity. What it normally does is create a demand and the criminals supply that demand. This government believes our freedoms are the cause of our problems. It believes the citizens do not know what is good for them. What ever happened to "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth". The more we rely on the government the more they think of themselves as our parents instead of our servants.

 

[lysan]

That is one interpretation...see the problem here is we don't have definitions for much of what is said in the 2nd Amendment.

What is a well-regulated militia? Is it able-bodied men in a community who meet once a week for basic training? Is it something as simple as a list of people nearby with guns? Or does it need to be more like a standing army, with leadership positions, units etc...?

From my perspective, a well-regulated militia is one that can mobilize at a moment's notice. Once the call is made, all should know where to go and how to prepare. This requires some minimum of organization and training.

Plusalso, a militia or even a large band of militias will never stand to the Federal army. The US Government, being on home turf, could easily dispose of the opposition without even firing a single bullet. Taking down a tyrannical government would have to be done through more intelligence and social engineering type methods.


Our culture is warped by guns and violence. Desensitized and infatuated (even those who don't have guns) we are incapable of seeing gun ownership the way others do. Look at it this way...if 20 children getting shot dead while in school didn't change anything (except add more guns to the mix) then don't expect the latest tragedy (which most likely won't be worse than 20 tiny children getting murdered) to change a damn thing.

The problem, you can attach whatever you want to this dilemma, cars kill people, a lot of people, alcohol kill people, a lot of people, hammers kill people, don't know how many, but they do! Stupid politicians kill people, a heck of a lot of people, and that is a fact too

 

[Stigbob]

Upssiedasy!

Yeah this is pretty much clears out the whole situation. Its not their god given rights to bear arms just because they can.
Its their law given right to bear arms, to defend their home.

Not their individual home but their homeland, they can carry arms defend their country under a well regulated militia structure such as the territorial army in the UK or the national guard in the US.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

To me the people is not the military, its the people, aka you and me

Comma's not full stops thats one part of a sentence and should be read in context.

 

[Monk]

The problem, you can attach whatever you want to this dilemma, cars kill people, a lot of people, alcohol kill people, a lot of people, hammers kill people, don't know how many, but they do! Stupid politicians kill people, a heck of a lot of people, and that is a fact too

I think the difference is drawn in that the gun is specifically designed for killing.

I can't ride a gun to work, use a gun to hammer a nail...but I can use a gun to make public policy

 

[lysan]

I think the difference is drawn in that the gun is specifically designed for killing.

I can't ride a gun to work, use a gun to hammer a nail...but I can use a gun to make public policy

LOL, I agree with that, heck my guns never walked out of the closet alone, and started a rampage on the street to my knowledge.
The moment they do that, they are grounded

to have fun with a gun LMAO
[video=youtube;pq3afOOHmAs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq3afOOHmAs[/video]

 

[Monk]

LOL, I agree with that, heck my guns never walked out of the closet alone, and started a rampage on the street to my knowledge.
The moment they do that, they are grounded

Well, better start trying to restrain them

OBEY!

 

[Stigbob]

LOL, I agree with that, heck my guns never walked out of the closet alone, and started a rampage on the street to my knowledge.
The moment they do that, they are grounded

to have fun with a gun LMAO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq3afOOHmAs

It's precisely that sort of tomfoolerly that no well regulated militia would allow.

 

[lysan]

Well, better start trying to restrain them

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1e9...1478002779636-MAR-Robot-Control-Challenge.jpg

OBEY!

Well this one doesn't have a gun, buuut you never know!!!

[video=youtube;rVlhMGQgDkY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY[/video]

 

[Minonian]

Not their individual home but their homeland, they can carry arms defend their country under a well regulated militia structure.

Yes, this is what i meant. they can carry gun to defend their homeland. but they can't carry guns just because thats makes them someone, or to defend them selfes, their home.

This is a militant right, in case of war, and nothing more, furthermore is certainly as hell not makes possible by law the current gun policy in the USA.
The foundation they are using to maintain the current weapon status quo u is just not exits! It's a fairy tale a dream an illusion. Another big fat lie!

As the citizen of the other nation i did not needed to know this. But the fact whole America don't have one single head to understand what this law is babbling about its absurd beyond absurdity... Makes me laugh. And doubt that any of those gun nut jobs ever read their own constitution.

Edit; In short?

They can only bear weapons for military purposes. But not in the everyday life.

 

[Nagual]

It may be easier to ban people.

 

[ick]

This is a militant right, in case of war, and nothing more, furthermore is certainly as hell not makes possible by law the current gun policy in the USA.
The foundation they are using to maintain the current weapon status quo u is just not exits! It's a fairy tale a dream an illusion. Another big fat lie!

This is absolutely not true. It was not written as a militant right in time of war. I will spare you the details of the the volumes of evidence that the focus was INDIVIDUAL right. Rather I will provide you one example form the time. The State of Pennsylvania has a constitution, it says: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. " Pretty clear. Other states have similar language. THIS, my friend, was the intention at the time. Oh my, how far we have come.

Oh, and as to the supreme court case.....

Heavily gun-controlled cities....LOL
The supreme court made it so no municipality could ban guns in any way.

Unfortunately this is far, far from the truth. The supreme court case SHOULD have caused municipalities and states to revise their gun laws. But alas, the reality is much different. For example, not only did the state of Maryland NOT revise their laws.. they enacted NEW laws in direct conflict with the decision of the supreme court case. So not only did the state of Maryland fail to comply, they defied the court. So no, the supreme court decision has done little to reverse the encroachment on the inalienable rights of the citizens to defend themselves.

Clearly we are no longer a nation of laws.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Here are some of the other state constitutions. Enlightening to see how they differ.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

 

[Monk]

Yes, this is what i meant. they can carry gun to defend their homeland. but they can't carry guns just because thats makes them someone, or to defend them selfes, their home.

This is a militant right, in case of war, and nothing more, furthermore is certainly as hell not makes possible by law the current gun policy in the USA.
The foundation they are using to maintain the current weapon status quo u is just not exits! It's a fairy tale a dream an illusion. Another big fat lie!

As the citizen of the other nation i did not needed to know this. But the fact whole America don't have one single head to understand what this law is babbling about its absurd beyond absurdity... Makes me laugh. And doubt that any of those gun nut jobs ever read their own constitution.

Edit; In short?

They can only bear weapons for military purposes. But not in the everyday life.

Again, yet another interpretation about a vague amendment.

That is our problem...we need another amendment just to define what a militia is or we need another amendment to replace the 2nd.

There is certainly a real need for guns outside of military application. I live in bear/wolf country and when I go out camping, I bring a shotgun and a rifle. The shotgun for protection from bears who think my wood carving constitutes an attack on their cubs and the rifle is for fun. Shooting small targets (no hunting, too much of a softie for that) at range is a challenge and a fun thing to do. I'm no gun nut, but I expect, that as a supposedly free person, I have the right to own weapons. I can't guarantee that the US will remain solvent for my lifetime so I should be able to take on whatever tool I would need to take care of myself (and those I love).

I think the Supreme Court went wrong with banning gun bans. It is that kind of big government nonsense touted as real conservatism that just ticks me off. If the people of a township, city or state want to ban guns and vote to do so, then they better have the damn right to legislate law in their own communities! Not some court or congress full of stuffy old people who have lost touch with what it takes to manage places with vastly varying needs and preferences.

Uhoh...my old-school conservative innards are starting to bleed through my donkey suit.

 

[Minonian]

This is absolutely not true. It was not written as a militant right in time of war. I will spare you the details of the the volumes of evidence that the focus was INDIVIDUAL right. Rather I will provide you one example form the time. The State of Pennsylvania has a constitution, it says: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. " Pretty clear. Other states have similar language. THIS, my friend, was the intention at the time. Oh my, how far we have come.

Yeah this is how you misinterpreting it. but the constitution says you have the right for homeland defense purposes! To carry guns for any other reasons is not your constitutional right.

And you know? there are a hierarchy between laws.

by order, without completeness its looks like this.

1, Constitution, 2, law, 3 (local) decree, 4 contract. and the smaller one is cant go against the bigger. so, although you can have a law what says you can have guns for self defense purposes. thats not a constitutional right!
The constitution as far i know, is chiseled to stone, but the smaller laws? not so much...

Pennsylvania constitution? Its standing lover on the hierarchy, than the constitution of the whole United states of America. If there are any contradiction between the 2 of it? Than the highest counts

 

[Stigbob]

This is absolutely not true. It was not written as a militant right in time of war. I will spare you the details of the the volumes of evidence that the focus was INDIVIDUAL right. Rather I will provide you one example form the time. The State of Pennsylvania has a constitution, it says: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. " Pretty clear. Other states have similar language. THIS, my friend, was the intention at the time. Oh my, how far we have come.

Oh, and as to the supreme court case.....


Unfortunately this is far, far from the truth. The supreme court case SHOULD have caused municipalities and states to revise their gun laws. But alas, the reality is much different. For example, not only did the state of Maryland NOT revise their laws.. they enacted NEW laws in direct conflict with the decision of the supreme court case. So not only did the state of Maryland fail to comply, they defied the court. So no, the supreme court decision has done little to reverse the encroachment on the inalienable rights of the citizens to defend themselves.

Clearly we are no longer a nation of laws.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Here are some of the other state constitutions. Enlightening to see how they differ.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Minonian was talking about the second amendment and it's clear reference to a well regulated militia. Minor state legistlation written in wartime has no real relevance to that. There are all kinds of minor no longer relevant laws all over the world, they generally just fall out of use and get forgotten rather than having to be formally repealed.

There are laws in england about every able bodied man practicing with his longbow every sunday for at least one hour on pain of a charge of treason, in case of a french invasion. Nobody takes it seriously, uses it to try and take a longbow out in public or pushes for the punishment of traitors, because it's just an amusing part of history. Not even me as a member of a bow-shooting club who shoot on a sunday (so I'm safe from treason).

 

[Monk]

Yeah this is how you misinterpreting it. but the constitution says you have the right for homeland defense purposes! To carry guns for any other reasons is not your constitutional right.

And you know? there are a hierarchy between laws.

by order, without completeness its looks like this.

1, Constitution, 2, law, 3 (local) decree, 4 contract. and the smaller one is cant go against the bigger. so, although you can have a law what says you can have guns for self defense purposes. thats not a constitutional right!
The constitution as far i know, is chiseled to stone, but the smaller laws? not so much...

The constitution is not meant to be chiseled in stone but meant to be changed by 'The People' if and when that is needed and must be done by consensus.

IMO, if the majority of Americans would rather fly in the face of the concrete definition of an amendment then it is time that amendment be changed.

As far as the order of law, I agree that is correct. However, we live in a time where the Federal part of that order is growing more and more influential and final. Gradually, since the Civil War, the ability for citizens to govern themselves has been eroded by both corrupt parties. They go beyond basic rights and well into social issues that the Federal Government, IMO, has no business in dealing with.

In my view, the US Constitution should only be concerned about the granting of freedom/rights and the protection of those freedoms. Putting gun bans in the constitution would violate the spirit of the document as it would constitute a reduction in freedom...just like prohibition was a reduction in freedom.

However, there is nothing against stringent regulation. Guns are dangerous and should be regulated as such.

 

[Minonian]

There are laws in england about every able bodied man practicing with his longbow every sunday for at least one hour on pain of a charge of treason, in case of a french invasion. Nobody takes it seriously, uses it to try and take a longbow out in public or pushes for the punishment of traitors, because it's just an amusing part of history. Not even me as a member of a bow-shooting club who shoot on a sunday (so I'm safe from treason).

Yeah, after a while this kind of laws are became history, and no one cares about it.

But if you ask me? It's better to clean them out of the system, before someone digs them out just to abuse to his own purposes.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The constitution is not meant to be chiseled in stone but meant to be changed by 'The People' if and when that is needed and must be done by consensus.

Yeah but how much majority you need to do that? 2/3 4/5 and by referendum, or government / senate whatever? In a such big and diverse country like the states? To get the necessary majority, is near to impossible. what means is really really hard. And this is why i saying is chiseled into stone.

However, there is nothing against stringent regulation. Guns are dangerous and should be regulated as such.

Yup, that's necessary.

 

[Minonian]

Edit;

In my view, the US Constitution should only be concerned about the granting of freedom/rights and the protection of those freedoms. Putting gun bans in the constitution would violate the spirit of the document as it would constitute a reduction in freedom...just like prohibition was a reduction in freedom.

No bans, but neither allowance. It must be regulated on smaller scale, where is more easier to deal with the matters in hand.
The constitution is more about the society, and state guild lines than the concrete rights and laws. That's the idea behind America, and the laws are the blueprints.

 

[ick]

Two things on that.

1. Clearly the constitutions of the states, many of which pre-date the adoption of the federal constitution, shed light on the intentions of the drafters of the constitution. Clearly my writing is not to delineate the sequence of laws as to which is superior. My point is as it relates to intention. CLEARLY they intended an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is interesting to note that at the time of the drafting individuals had superior weaponry to the army, especially the British army. Perhaps that is a discussion for another time.

2. Furthermore, the second amendment when read correctly does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to well regulated militias, it simply states that this right is necessary for a free state. A well regulated militia is not doorway to regulate and limit arms to militia in the sense of the word as we use it now. We could talk about this comma for hours... but I will tell you what is really revealing about the comma argument. It is this..... Even the dissenters on the Supreme Court Heller decision did not make the "well regulated miltia" argument because it requires a mis-reading of the sentence.