# Constitutional Interpretation Surrounding the Second Amendment



## Cruentus (Jan 20, 2005)

I started this to get a discussion going on the second amendment itself.

Here is the actual language:

"Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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."

First, to clear the air on this, This does not mean that one must be in a militia to own a firearm, as many wrongfully interpret the amendment to support an anti-gun stance. It says that a. the rights for States to have a well regulated militia, and b. the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now that we cleared that one up, lets talk about what the framers intended this amendment for.

I believe that the framers intended for this amendment to protect states, and the people, against a tyranical federal government. The idea of having to defend oneself from ones own government is not an issue that most people like to explore when talking about the second amendment. However, one has to consider the mindset of the time period, and one has to still consider the possability of a government gone tyrannical today. The framers had just seperated from England, and were very afraid of "big government" and government gaining too much power and imposing tyranny on the people. So, just as in the decleration of Independance, we as people were given the right to protect ourselves and our property from a tyrannical government. 

In order to protect ourselves from our Government, the right to bear arms was and is still nessicary. The second amendment specifically illustrates our rights to self-defense; not just from each other, but from our own leadership.

But, the question is, where is the line drawn? We have the rights, and need to be able to reasonably defend ourselves against intruders and criminals, and against tyranny. If we go with this logic, then we have the rights to own what some would consider "military weapons." The question is where and how do we draw the line, or should we draw the line at all.

This seems like a more interesting discussion...so I'd like to hear your opinions...

Paul


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

Like the "shot heard round the world" at Lexington Green, I'm here to fire the opening salvo :mp5:

The second half of the amendment _explains_ what the _first half_ of the amendment initiates:

"_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," _

1) The first half explains that a "*well-regulated" (well-trained and organized)* civilian militia is necessary to the _security of a free state. _This means that without that civilian militia, government has no check against tyranny, and foreign invaders no resistance to deal with once the regular army is defeated. The only way to ensure this is to have a citizenry armed and trained with the same weapons used by the current military. The founders sought to explain this natural G-d given right to defend one's self, and one's country, by writing down this *right* in an amendment. The *right* is inalienable, uninfringeable, in other words the second amendment does not create the *right*, it merely enumerates it as #2 in importance after freedom of speech. All of the 10 amendments were individual *rights*, and the 2nd is no exception, for the second half explains the first half's true intent:

2) _"The *right* of the *people* to *keep* and *bear arms* shall *not be infringed*"_
_Please read this history lesson if you have not yet: http://www.gunowners.org/fs9402.htm_
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_
_This people is the same *people* seen in the other amendments. If the word people is not the *citizenry *then you possess no other rights you treasure, such as the first and fourth amendments. Please note below in blue:_
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_

_Amendment I_

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._

_Amendment II_

_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._

_Amendment III_

_No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law._

_Amendment IV_

_The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._

_Amendment V_

_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation._

_Amendment VI_

_In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence._

_Amendment VII_

_In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law._

_Amendment VIII_

_Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted._

_Amendment IX_

_The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._

_Amendment X_

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


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 21, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I started this to get a discussion going on the second amendment itself.
> 
> Here is the actual language:
> 
> ...





Not to be a jerk Paul, but . . .

Could you please quote the Supreme Court decision that states what you state. Also any others that define the words and how you are interpreting them?

NOTE: 

1) I am for ownership of fire arms by citizens. I am also for firearm safety classes and training.

2) I am also trying to make a point that Paul and others have made to me and others on this site. You cannot discuss certain issues until the Supreme Court puts a definition on the words and how they are to be interpreted. 

So, to get this discussion rolling, are thier actually Supreme Court decisions, none of this lesser or state court decisions. As I was told they do not count.  I would like to read them myself for my own education if they exist.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2005)

Rich, yes, you are a Jerk.

But, so am I. Woohoo! 

Broadly, here are some online references to Supreme Court Decisions regarding the 2nd amendment:

http://www.megalaw.com/top/firearms.php

Here is a better source, though. Although it is a rough copy of a university law journal, this is a well cited document containing 35 cases where the Supreme Court has interpreted the second amendement to fit the individuals rights to bear arms, and not just a right left up to state governments:

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm 

The problem with the issue is that there are other decisions that contradict these, and suggest that the decision on gun control should be left up the States. This is why the issue is not as black and white as I would like it to be. I may personally feel that the 2nd amendment right was intended to apply to individuals and I may have many court cases to back it up, but as of today the Supreme Court is on the fence as to whether to defer the issue for the States to decide or to take a strong stance regarding the 2nd amendment protecting individuals.

This creates a problem for our very conservative judges; most of them are big "states rights" buffs and don't want to give the federal government more power over the states, but on the other hand they don't want people to lose their rights to bear arms either.

This arguement, though, is entirely different then your arguement behind the bane of your existence, which is your belief that it is unconstitutional to have the word "God" on our money. Your arguement that this is a violation of the first amendment relies on the LEGAL definition of the word "God" to be defined by our courts or government entities as it pertains to our money to fit a particular religion. Since the issue hasn't gone to court, and no legal definition of the word "God" pertaining to currency has been determined by the courts, then one cannot say (yet, anyway) it is unconstitutional for the word to be on our money. Now I could be an even Bigger jerk to ask you to prove this wrong by finding a Supreme Court case on your money issue and post it in a different thread, but I won't because I actually looked myself and I am pretty well convinced that no such case exists. 

The 2nd amendment interpretation issue is entirely different in that it has many court cases behind the arguement, and this issue does not rely on the definition of only one word. So the "God on Money" issue and this one is an apple to orange comparison.

Paul


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 21, 2005)

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



A) The right belongs to the people and was not granted by the Constitution, but recognized it exists.

B) It is not meant that you have to be in the militia.

Banning guns and not issuing licenses to own guns to law-abiding citizens is un-Constitutional and therefor un-American. Like the Quincy, Massachusetts police chief.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 21, 2005)

>>>I am also trying to make a point that Paul and others have made to me and others on this site. You cannot discuss certain issues until the Supreme Court puts a definition on the words and how they are to be interpreted. >>>

If that were the case, 90 or more percent of the laws enacted by the legislature would be per se invalid until the judiciary defined them?  What ever happened to words having plain meaning?   If the framers meant for the right in the second amendment to apply to someone other than individual people, why wouldn't they have endid the amendment with something like the _rights of this militia shall not be infringed_?

It only seems to follow logically that they would use the term people in the same manner in all the amendments.  Bottom line words mean things.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 21, 2005)

When I was younger I was told the "Militia" version of the amendment. Later was told that the people/citizens that were well trained in military warfare were the National Guard. Also came to understand that "we  the people" are the last line of defense against a foreign invasion or <shudders> a tyrannical government. 
But I shudder even more when I think about every day people trying to stand up  to said tyrants and their armies with a 30-06 deer rifle and maybe a .22 pistol versus a M-60 mounted on a Hummer or a squad carrying M-16 rifles (or whatever it is they're using now-a-days). I've seen videos from Iraq of what an apache helicopter can do with it's mini-gun (at night no less) to a group of individuals. 
If we the people were to stand up to a tyrannical U.S. Government, might as well shoot ourselves because we really, honestly wouldn't be able to stand against the might and firepower of the U.S. Military. 
As a favorite line from "Broken Arrow" (1996), one of the pilots of the B-3 bomber says..."yeah, the day we go to war against Utah, we're gonna kick ***."
Now granted, we HOPE that there will be members of said U.S. Military and National Guard who will in effect refuse to bear their weapons on fellow American citizens.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 21, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> If we the people were to stand up to a tyrannical U.S. Government, might as well shoot ourselves because we really, honestly wouldn't be able to stand against the might and firepower of the U.S. Military.



It might be worth noting that guys in sandals with AK's are doing a pretty good job of it.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> >>>I am also trying to make a point that Paul and others have made to me and others on this site. You cannot discuss certain issues until the Supreme Court puts a definition on the words and how they are to be interpreted. >>>
> 
> If that were the case, 90 or more percent of the laws enacted by the legislature would be per se invalid until the judiciary defined them?  What ever happened to words having plain meaning?   If the framers meant for the right in the second amendment to apply to someone other than individual people, why wouldn't they have endid the amendment with something like the _rights of this militia shall not be infringed_?
> 
> It only seems to follow logically that they would use the term people in the same manner in all the amendments.  Bottom line words mean things.



Uh-oh...careful there Brett...your being logical again... 

I agree with you generally speaking. What Rich was trying to compare this to was the issue of "In God We Trust" being on our currency. Rich believes this is a violation of the first amendment. I believe that it is not because the word "God" does not have to be specific to a particular religion or belief. He insists that no, people believe it only refers to the Christian God. Unlike the 1st amendment issue, since this arguement is over the interpretation of 1 word, "God," I am saying that the only way this could be considered a violation of the 1st amendment is if our judiciary were to define the word to be specific to one particular religious belief.

I know it is not the topic of the 2nd amendment, but to put it to rest, what do you think about the above issue?

Paul


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 21, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by *MACaver*
> > If we the people were to stand up to a tyrannical U.S. Government, might as well shoot ourselves because we really, honestly wouldn't be able to stand against the might and firepower of the U.S. Military.
> 
> 
> It might be worth noting that guys in sandals with AK's are doing a pretty good job of it.


Yeah well, only because their adversaries are doing the vietnam thing and holding one hand behind their backs, trying not to devastate the cities while fighting the insurgents. If they (U.S. Military) really, rilly wanted to ... there'd be nuthing left and it doan't take a nuke to do it with. Not there anyway.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 21, 2005)

For strict constructionists, opposed to judicial activism, it ought to mean that every American has the right to tote around a muzzle-loading .60 cal musket.

One can only support this concept.

Forty years ago, hunters had no interest in automatic weapons. People who wanted home-defense weapons got a shotgun, far more useful than any handgun for the purpose--as any cop will tell you.

The fact is, a lot of folks out there now think that the Second Amendment guarantees their right to a) own as many lethal and useless toys as they like; b) indulge their self-defense and survivalist fantasies as much as they like.

And they may be right. Problem is, it is utterly foolish to have endless guns with no licensing, training, or supervision out there. Or have folks not noticed what the endless flow of weapons to places like Afghanistan results in.


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 21, 2005)

We should be restricted to* manual hand operated printing presses and no electronic communications* because that's all the colonists had back then for freedom of the press. Rights evolve as technology evolves, and if we stay static and in the past, technologically, our rights *vanish*. Somehow I don't think that will trouble you much..  

As far as the Supreme court, they do not have the right to INTERPRIT anything.. the amendments to the constitution are as clear as a bell to anyone with a basic knowledge of history and eyes to see. The amendments *prohibit *the federal and State government to *infringe* in any way (liscences and permits *are* restrictions!) upon these rights.. if they can infringe on the 2nd, they can infringe on *all*.. how about a state violating the amendment that freed the slaves, and re-authorizing *slavery*? Think about it.. 
The court is there as far as the amendments go, to defend our rights as so enumerated and if they fail those rights do not vanish, they are merely supressed by the sinister machinations of government, that most to be feared hand of evil. So said the founders: 

_"How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. " George Washington_


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 21, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Yeah well, only because their adversaries are doing the vietnam thing and holding one hand behind their backs, trying not to devastate the cities while fighting the insurgents. If they (U.S. Military) really, rilly wanted to ... there'd be nuthing left and it doan't take a nuke to do it with. Not there anyway.



Oh yea, I'm with you on that. If I were running the show, it'd either be a parking lot or a large hole in the ground. But put that same current practice here. Is our military going to destroy our own cities, homes, churches, and economy? Can it legally be used against the citizens? (No - that's why they beefed up the IRS, FBI, BATF and CIA)

1. If our government turned so bad the people had to act in force, I would think the military would see that and not follow orders from such a government anyways.

2. A lot of gun owners are more experienced in small arms than their 18-25 year old military equivalents.

3. How many enlisteds are going to fire on their own citizens?

I don't think it's as clear cut on who would "win."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 21, 2005)

Oh, boy.

1. See, the note made about "strict constructionism," referred to folks who believe that, "judicial activists," have been, "interpreting," the Constitution out of all recognition. Folks like yourself, who want to go back to a) the strict letter of the Constitution, b) strict adherence to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. See, what this would mean is that we can only use the ideas and the tools that they used--everything else is a violation of the timeless truths advanced by the God-fearing Founding Fathers. See, what this would mean is that any and all, "progress," is a form of interpretation. So, the right to bear arms is the right to carry EXACTLY the weapons they had back then, for EXACTLY the purposes--and only the purposes--of the 1770s. One is surprised to have to explain this to someone who apparently believes in  turning back the clock in so many ways.

2. Of course, "strict constructionism," is utter nonsense. a) We don't know exactly what those guys had in mind; b) We DO know that Franklin, Paine, Jefferson and others were a pack of atheists, agnostics and deists (not to mention, like, Freemasons! the Illuminati!) whose ideas sharply conflicted with contemporary conservatism; c) the Constitution has built into it all sorts of carefully-checked means for evolution; d) despite the charming tendency to believe that the likes of Holmes, Brandeis, Marshall, Douglas, Warren and others were all a pack of interpretin' Commies, these sorts of fantasies are completely at odds with both reality and the very best American traditions. You live in a great country, with a considerable amount of proud history--take a bit of time, and actually learn what that history and those traditions are.

3. It is right-wing lunatic survivalist fantasy to believe that an armed American revolution would be anything other than an utter disaster in which millions would die and our culture would be destroyed. What's almost worse, it is very unlikely that we'd end up with anything resembling a liberal democracy--which is what we have now--largely because the gangs of gun-totin' rightists who think this would be a good idea (Tim McVeigh much? The "Turner Diaries?") are basically all scary, scary fascists. In other words, guns won't help in such a situation. Oh, you can shoot back. You can guerrilla fight in every street and house. Sure.

And you know what? You do that, it's the end of America.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 21, 2005)

>>I know it is not the topic of the 2nd amendment, but to put it to rest, what do you think about the above issue?>>

The abstract notion of a god is not in or of itself  establishment of a religion.  I also don't see how the term in god we trust  would  prohibit the free exercise of a religion if one were to choose to exercise a particular set of beliefs.  The language in the constitution goes to great lengths to allow people to make choices with respect to speech and religion.  That being said, it is obvious that our forefathers were from a Christian tradition, so it seems obvious that the framework would draw from those principles.  My take is that the In God we trust language  was used to validate where their values came from.

I agree with Paul that that language does not endorse any particular religion  , so the First Amendment doesn't really apply :asian:


----------



## modarnis (Jan 21, 2005)

>>>1. See, the note made about "strict constructionism," referred to folks who believe that, "judicial activists," have been, "interpreting," the Constitution out of all recognition. Folks like yourself, who want to go back to a) the strict letter of the Constitution, b) strict adherence to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. See, what this would mean is that we can only use the ideas and the tools that they used--everything else is a violation of the timeless truths advanced by the God-fearing Founding Fathers. See, what this would mean is that any and all, "progress," is a form of interpretation. So, the right to bear arms is the right to carry EXACTLY the weapons they had back then, for EXACTLY the purposes--and only the purposes--of the 1770s. One is surprised to have to explain this to someone who apparently believes in turning back the clock in so many ways.

2. Of course, "strict constructionism," is utter nonsense. a) We don't know exactly what those guys had in mind; b) We DO know that Franklin, Paine, Jefferson and others were a pack of atheists, agnostics and deists (not to mention, like, Freemasons! the Illuminati!) whose ideas sharply conflicted with contemporary conservatism; c) the Constitution has built into it all sorts of carefully-checked means for evolution; d) despite the charming tendency to believe that the likes of Holmes, Brandeis, Marshall, Douglas, Warren and others were all a pack of interpretin' Commies, these sorts of fantasies are completely at odds with both reality and the very best American traditions. You live in a great country, with a considerable amount of proud history--take a bit of time, and actually learn what that history and those traditions are.>>>

 I would suggest you read the musings of Justice Souter or any other "Constitutional Literalist"  Most of them would argue that the Constitution as it exists is a living document  that doesn't need to be changed in reaction to minor societal changes.  The system works best when seperation of powers is maintained.  So when activist judges in affect make law or erode laws, they are crossing into a legislative function for which they have no authority.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 21, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> it is obvious that our forefathers were from a Christian tradition,


It may be obvious that the founding fathers were from a European tradition (as opposed to African or Asian), from this we can conclude that many of their moral framework was influenced by the predominant religions of the European continent. As the predominant religious beliefs in Europe were Christian, the founding fathers may have drawn upon many of the influences of that religion.

To draw the conclusion that Christian influences equals a Christian tradition, I believe is incorrect. I believe those who make such statements are projecting their belief systems onto the founding fathers. 

Of course, there are many excellent biographies that can shed insight into what the Founding Fathers actually believed. 

I think some citizens might be surprised to learn that the 'Christian' tradition is not what many of the founding fathers believed of practiced.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2005)

Back to the issue at hand, interpretation of the 2nd amendment depends on ones belief on the individual right to self-defense and defense of the innocents. 

If you believe that the rights of the individual to self-defense is an inherent right as a human being, then you can't prescribe to the idea that we must all be constricted to muzzle loading long guns. If criminals can get a hold of automatic weapons and weapons that utilize modern technoligy, then we should have the right to own what is nessicary to stop that threat. If an intruder comes into my house armed with an AK-47 modified to go full auto, my muzzle loader would be hard pressed to reasonably stop that threat.

Then, there is the issue of self-defense against our government. Citizens will never be able to match the force of our military. However, if citizens are armed enough to make it difficult for a tyrannical government to seize assets and people by essentially being able to "return fire", then this makes self-defense possible even against a tyrannical government.

Then there is the philisophical issue of ownership. Why should any government be able to regulate what I own if it is not jeaprodizing the safety of others? This brings forth the issue of regulation and proper training; for example allowing people to carry concealed firearms without proper permits that require proper training could be problematic, as someone not properly trained could jeaprodize the safety of others. 

But, where is the line drawn? This will sound entirely stupid I realize, but if I want to have my lazer sites and auto-carbines and silencers and whatever, so as long as I am not endangering my fellow citezens, then why is it justified for the government to say I cannot own these things?

Paul


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 21, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> >>>I am also trying to make a point that Paul and others have made to me and others on this site. You cannot discuss certain issues until the Supreme Court puts a definition on the words and how they are to be interpreted. >>>
> 
> If that were the case, 90 or more percent of the laws enacted by the legislature would be per se invalid until the judiciary defined them?  What ever happened to words having plain meaning?   If the framers meant for the right in the second amendment to apply to someone other than individual people, why wouldn't they have endid the amendment with something like the _rights of this militia shall not be infringed_?
> 
> It only seems to follow logically that they would use the term people in the same manner in all the amendments.  Bottom line words mean things.



I agree.

I quote dictionaries. People get upset and state I am not using the common understood definition of (* Insert smaller population of people here *). I try to present logical statments that will show a valid point at the end of those statments and then make a conclusion to my proof. Now some insist that there is no proof unless people see an actual rulling or writ from the supreme court. I think this goes into the materialists. If they cannot touch something it does not exists. How do I know that I exist, other than as some figment from Paul's subconscious to tourment him. And to this type of person who argues this way you cannot prove anything.

I have made staments before. People got upset and thought I was attackin them personally because they made assumptions it was about their religion. I never attack religions, only discussed when certain things were put into place and who certain admendments of the Bill of Rights combined with the timing of the events, then I can prove my point. Yet, others insisted I had no arguement because there was no legel definition by the Supreme Court.

For example:

Amendment II

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.

The first half got us the Oklahoma Bombing as there was a well regulated Militia of people, who believed they were acting in the right. Personally I disagree with them, and sorry it did happen. Yet this is how they interpreted the admendment. 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Hmmm, this also could mean that no one is allowed to cut off my arms as other countries do for certain crimes. It also could mean I am allowed to go around with a sleaveless shirt on without getting into trouble. Or does it mean on my Right Arm could be sleaveless? Not sure, unless you look at the context, and how it was intended by the framers of the Constitution and then also by those who interpretate it. i.e. The Supreme Court.

Now does arms mean Fire Arms? It does not say explicitly Fire Arms. It says Arms. So if you look at weapons, then I should be allowed to have and carry swords or knives on me. I can bear them right? Hmmm Wow I used Right to mean Priviledge (* but stronger *), and also to be Correct and also a side of my body. 

Yet looking at the following:
Amendment X

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


This empowers the states to make laws about the size of the blade I may carry. This empowers the states to also makes laws about when, where, and how I can carry a pistle or fire arm.

This is how California argued that it had the right to remove "Under God" from the Pledge in public schools. This later may have been over turn in a higher court or federal court, but is was the basis for the State to say they have the right to decide what is right or wrong.

So, my point was, is that until you get a 100% decision out of the Supreme Court, all this discussion is for nothing. No matter how sound your arguement is with data, you cannot decide anything here. I still content that I can prove something, and not have the Supreme Court Rule on it or issue a Writ, with the arguement still being sound and logical, and thereby proving my initial statement or premise for an arguement. Yet some people do not like the word Prove as I mentioned above. No hard feeling, and I was just trying to make a point here that data would be nice for the arguements.

For you see, even though it may look like I was being petty, it made Paul go out and provide links for people to read. He did mention there were others so hopefully people will read the other side as well. 

As to wear I stand I believe "The People" have the right to own and operate guns in a safe manner. That manner being defined by the local and state laws as well as common sense. 

So there are no hard feelings, just making Paul provide some evidence and also hopefully people will take the time to read it and not just argue from their personal emotional point of view and instead take an abstract look at it, and try to be logical with the words and their meanings and the intent from the context of those words.

Peace
 :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 21, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> >>I know it is not the topic of the 2nd amendment, but to put it to rest, what do you think about the above issue?>>
> 
> The abstract notion of a god is not in or of itself  establishment of a religion.  I also don't see how the term in god we trust  would  prohibit the free exercise of a religion if one were to choose to exercise a particular set of beliefs.  The language in the constitution goes to great lengths to allow people to make choices with respect to speech and religion.  That being said, it is obvious that our forefathers were from a Christian tradition, so it seems obvious that the framework would draw from those principles.  My take is that the In God we trust language  was used to validate where their values came from.
> 
> I agree with Paul that that language does not endorse any particular religion  , so the First Amendment doesn't really apply :asian:



I disagree.

I showed that the terms were added in first right after the Civil War, in strong reformation era. I also see it as a restriction of my beliefs, for it assumes there is a god and everyone assumes it must be the Christian one.  I cannot go places without being told I am wrong for not believing as they do. So, I do contend that it does affect me. 

I also showed that the the term God does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. It deos appear in the Declaration and the Preamble. Yet as the Declaration only declared independance from England and put into motion a Confederacy that ran this government with a President that was not George Washington, from 1776 to 1791. The U.S. Constitution is what our current form of republic governement is based upon. This document does not mention God, and yes it does define what can and more explicit what cannot be done by the federal government. Therefore, looking at the separation from the past, and the intent of religious freedom they inacted the first admentment. So, if the money at the creation of our country either 1776 or 1791, had this phrase then I would not see as much evidence against having it on the money. It occured in a time of conservatism just like the Under God in the Pledge was added in iin a time of Conservatism.

So let me ask you and others, would you tolerate it if it said "Kali" a Hindu Goddess, or in Trees we trust? Just because the largest population is Christian in the country does not mean I have to be Christian and follow their beliefs. 

Now how does this pertain to the subject at hand. I believe in the U.S. Constitution, and what it states. Therefore I will have my arms ready though they may only be swords, when they come to my house and tell me I can no longer practice my religion in my front yard. I can no longer practice a non Christian religion in public at all. 

I believe it is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. It infringes upon my rights. Take a minute and talk to people at work and find out who is Jewish or Islam or what have you, and many are afraid of this country, even though they may have been born here as were their parents before them. I say watch the line, for as it slips it gets harder and harder to pull it back, until the momentum does not allow you to maintain and you are dragged away.

I do apologize if you think this is too off topic.

Peace
 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Jan 21, 2005)

Instead of debating what the founders intended when they wrote 2 sentences, maybe we should read what they wrote in other sources regarding firearm ownership. I believe the Federalist Papers have some interesting points.....

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/federalist.html


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 21, 2005)

With all due respect your latest comments are _silly_  :idunno:  and are to be dismissed out of hand in this discussion as irrational fears. The historical facts are undisputed as to what the founders intended.. that the citizenry at large were to be armed as well as the government at large was at any given juncture. They clearly wrote down in many comments/documents what the amendment was all about... The Oklahoma City bombing had _nothing _to do with the *militia* in fact the *Montana Militia* _refused_ to allow Timothy McVeigh to join them, as he was decided to be whacky...peace, bro.


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 22, 2005)

Of gun owners at large by the actions of a few people who happened to own guns. This would be like saying that a drunk driver who killed someone in a Saturn is prime evidence that Saturns should be banned. *Socialists* like Robert never blame the *individual*, they want to blame *society*. 

This same false logic is used by those who _hate_ G-d. There are certainly many _false _"christians" out there (the Inquisition and the various Crusades are proof of that) and Christ warned of them, but those who hate G-d want to put us *all* in the same  nice neat box as "religious whackos". It's OK, we're used to this ignorant, vile, lie and smear, it goes with the territory. We serve G-d in peace (if possible) and truth (always) and what men say in opposition is irrelevant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A perfect example of the goodness of firearms ownership an armed citizen stopping a potential *serial killer*. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050122/D87P5OKO0.html I think we would be safe to say we won't find Robert in any such hero mode.. nor would the founders of this country have *any* fellowship with him. His ancestors, of whom many were very likely to be bible believers, would no doubt disavow him as progeny.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 22, 2005)

*MOD NOTE:*

*Thread Split to Keep it on Topic*

*-TECHNOPUNK*
*-MT MODERATOR*


----------



## Bester (Jan 22, 2005)

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

The Right - This does not define it, it states it already exists.

Of the people - same people as in "We The People", that is us, the general population

To Keep and Bear - Means to own, train with and use

arms - means weapons.  That is knives, guns, swords, spears, etc. If they meant 'guns only' they would have said it.

shall not be infringed - means just that. You cannot tell me I can't do this. You can however define limitations on where/when/how I can do it.  You must allow me to do this within reason.


It's all pretty straight forward there.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 22, 2005)

Me, If asked, I think the statement "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." tends to sound more like they are saying "Because we need the ability to form a militia to protect the people, we need to allow them to be armed should we need to create one again"... this theory is supportable by the fact it was our cobbled-together Militia of armed "Commoners" who overthrew British Rule and secured our liberty. But Many people see that and say "It says that A well regulated Militia should be allowed to bear arms." 

Personally, I am of the Opinion I should be allowed to Keep and Arm Bears.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 22, 2005)

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight, Travels in New England)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved." [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

" 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Bester, T'gace and Technopunk said it all. The research from T'gace is something I intend to keep. I feel pretty sure I'll get a chance to use it. Thanks.


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 22, 2005)

TGace.. thank you very much for that post.. I have previously read each of these quotes but never seen them all in one place before.. if anyone even cared to read them all it should instantly silence opposition as far as defining the second's intent.. and what our rights are. 

But socialists and others who would see us helpless, and utterly change our way of life, care *little *for original intent. They are, indeed, *revolutionaries* intent on a "brave new world" of absolute *state control *of our families and personal lives. Indeed they are traitors intent on harm and I for one will not stand for it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

Given that our so-called Founding Fathers were a collection of atheists, agnostics, radicals, liberals, nut-bar Christians, slave-owners and recent immigrants who toted muzzle-loading muskets, one would submit that the guys who think that everybody has to be a fundamentalist Bible-thumper toting an automatic weapon are the contemporary radicals, undercutting the hope that the Constitution represents at every turn.

History also suggests strongly that if push ever did come to shove, it is the smugly religious and the gun-wavers who would be first to collaborate with the dictatorship.

After all, aren't these the folks who support current attacks on civil liberties, the launching of unnecessary wars, and the "security," for the current Inauguration, all on the theory that this sort of nonsense will bring God back into America...hadn't known He left.

Oh, and let's not forget that these are the folks who--like Timothy McVeigh, reader early of "The Turner Diaries," and espouser of all of the "militia movement's," ideas--have no problem threatening, and in some cases carrying out, attacks upon their fellow Americans.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 22, 2005)

That last post by Bob, wow. Emotional to be sure. But on topic or on point? Not even close.

Maybe a thread titled " Left Wing Conspiracy Rants " should be started as an offshoot of this one. There'd be at least one post to start with.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

Well, beyond noting the typical attempt to claim that everybody who disagrees with you is "emotional," (whyn't you just write..."You're, you're like A GIRL!")--let's just note that you're right.

What could mentioning the historical reality of the "Founding Fathers," indicting fundamentalist ideas about guns, noting the recent infringements on civil liberties, and citing the "militia movement," possibly have to do with a thread in which, a) the interpretation of the "original intent," of the Constitution's framers with regard to the right to bear arms, b) the need to have private guns against Government interference with religious and other liberties, and c) Timothy McVeigh are central topics of conversation?

Oh yeah...huh.

Funny how the ridiculous attempt at dismissing ideas by calling people..oh, never mind. We just think differently. It's too bad that one doesn't feel permitted to attack other people's psychological, intellectual and moral character quite so freely as some.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 22, 2005)

Out of all of them. This one is probably my favorite.



> "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 22, 2005)

Robert.. you are slandering and pidgeonholing every gun owner in this country and your statement is utterly ignorant.. you need to get out more :whip: 


I am against the Iraq war, Bush, the kooky inauguration and the impending police State. The founders you slander would be also. 

In fact I am a paleo-Libertarian-constitutionalist. I own many weapons you no doubt would find "scary" and I am 44 and have never mis-used them, as 99% of guns in this country are not mis-used.

I don't expect the facts to confuse you however.. you seem to be in your own little world there :idunno:

What we would do if we were like Robert is start listing all the left wing whackos (and they are legion) and blame him and his way of life for what they have done. Maybe we could start with the Unibomber? opcorn:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

Sparky, left-wing wackos in this country haven't blown anything much up since about 1975. We're too disorganized. It's the "Turner Diary," readers and the right-wing, hyperconservative Muslims, etc.--you know, the guys who take the legitimation for their violence and hate from bizarre, esoteric reading of the Text, and who think the Prophet or Jesus will be returning soon and killing the unrighteous?--that you gotta watch out for. 

You also have no idea whether one owns guns or not--trust me; have fired stuff you've barely even seen. And one's friends! holy yikes.

One finds the Unabomber an interesting example of just how badly theory can lead you astray, if you're a leftie. Would explain, but doubt you've ever read Baudrillard's stuff on the hyperreal in advanced capitalism--interestingly, one of his books appears in "Matrix," and the Cornel West mentioned as a church deacon and professor of religious studies who has a take you might find interesting on social issues appears as, "Councillor West." Too bad you'll never go look the stuff up--especially given that "Matrix," is all about reading the occult text behind the everyday surface. (Oh yeah...try Frank Kermode, "Genesis of Secrecy," a Straussian analysis of the different levels of Biblical interpretation...thoght from the little one knows about Biblical scholarship, Mieke bal and the so-called Jesus seminar of clerics are far better sources.)

One wonders, though--Jesus, the Son of God? waddya think..a 9mm guy, or has He stepped up to the .40 yet? Assuredly the Lamb remains concerned about stopping power...

Sincerely,
Richard Crashaw


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 22, 2005)

AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> With all due respect your latest comments are _silly_  :idunno:  and are to be dismissed out of hand in this discussion as irrational fears. The historical facts are undisputed as to what the founders intended.. that the citizenry at large were to be armed as well as the government at large was at any given juncture. They clearly wrote down in many comments/documents what the amendment was all about... The Oklahoma City bombing had _nothing _to do with the *militia* in fact the *Montana Militia* _refused_ to allow Timothy McVeigh to join them, as he was decided to be whacky...peace, bro.




The Conenctions were to a splinter group of the MICHIGAN Militia. Which happens to be my home state.

The general Population cannot be armed as well as the Governement.

1) It is cost prohibitive except for the ultra rich

2) I would not like to smart missiles and M1A2 tanks and Stealth Figthers in teh hands of the general population. That sacres me more than the Koreans having Nuclear Bombs does.

3) The general population should not have Nuclear weapons.



Also, those fears of mine may seem silly to you.

May I ask you a question being the reasonable man you are?

When is the last time you had someone you were escorted out of town by the police?

When was the last time some got in your face and told you to go back home?
NOTE: Fathers family been in North American since 1621. Yes before this palce was a country. Also there is some Amreican Indian, but not enough to be legal for claiming rights.

When as the last time you were beaten by police officers? Yes this happened to me. And to the officers here. I hold no ill will towards the police for I honestly believe they serve a mandatory function. Some of my very close friends are police officers. And those involved did not receive any actions for my inquiry, but they were not long for the department.  So, I believe in the right to have an armed populace as regualted by the local and state laws. Meaning I agree with not being able to take a CPL and carry a hand gun into a school. I agree that if there is a waiting period that is reasonable, this is fine as well. I agree with not selling ammunition and fire arms at the same time as some local laws state. I do not like the limitation on the size of a knife I can carry, yet I agree that it is the law, and it is justified by the U.S. Constitution and the specifically the 10th admendment. So, while I agree gun ownership should be allowed I think there should be limitations as I stated above. 

I cry to think that the local VFW's have cement in the barrels of those old tanks. Yet to stop bad guys in the general populace from using them, and or restoring firing control, they disable the functionality of the piece. Iwish it was other wise.

So, silly I might be, but I have my experiences that guide me in my statements. 

Peace


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 23, 2005)

O.K...I am not sure where most of this conversation is going, but I'll try to steer things back a little...

Tgace provided some really good research as to how the founding fathers felt about gun ownership. I have provided some evidence on interpreting the 2nd amendment.

I think it is pretty clear that all law abiding citizens should have the right to bear arms.

Where I am stuck is where the line should, or should not, be drawn on weapon ownership. I know that my personal belief is that people shouldn't be restricted from buying what would enable them defend themselves against what criminals have access to carry. I know that I personally believe that the right to carry weapons, concealed and in public, for protection of oneself and the innocence should not be infringed; although I am not against permits for this.

Where I am not sure is how I feel the line should be drawn. Should the line be drawn at fully automatic weapons? Rocket Launchers? Shermin tanks? How do we preserve the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense, without creating an arms race in the streets? I really don't know the answer to this, and philisophically I am torn on the issue, so I was hoping for some logical discourse here...

Paul


----------



## Tgace (Jan 23, 2005)

IMHO, I believe the founding fathers were talking about small arms. The rifle (could add shotgun today I guess) and pistol are quoted directly.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 23, 2005)

Mod Note:

As inflammatory a topic as we a know this to be, please keep the discussion
civil, polite, and on topic.

Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 23, 2005)

"Given that our so-called Founding Fathers were a collection of atheists, agnostics, radicals, liberals, nut-bar Christians, slave-owners and recent immigrants who toted muzzle-loading muskets,"  posted by rmcrobertson


"Funny how the ridiculous attempt at dismissing ideas by calling people..oh, never mind. We just think differently. It's too bad that one doesn't feel permitted to attack other people's psychological, intellectual and moral character quite so freely as some." also posted by rmcrobertson
                         *            *           *          *
  A little late to take the High Road, wouldn't you say? 

    After attacking the "psychological, moral and intellectual character" of the framers of the Constitution, not here to defend themselves, you imagine that such an attack on you has occurred and go on the defensive. Poor form.

  No one has called you girlish. At least not yet. But why is the Constitution a sacred text when discussing, say, Gay Rights, or the "right" of an athiest not to be " offended " by prayer ( both "rights" found by interpretation ), but becomes an anachronism, hard to understand, when gun ownership is at stake?

Liberals praise the wisdom of the Founding Fathers when they can wiggle their language around to mean what they want it to. Then, unkindly, dismiss those same gentlemen as " nut-bars" when the plain language of that same document bothers their pacifist world view.

Just a thought.


















Funny how the ridiculous attempt at dismissing ideas by calling people..oh, never mind. We just think differently. It's too bad that one doesn't feel permitted to attack other people's psychological, intellectual and moral character quite so freely as some.Yesterday 07:58 PM


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 23, 2005)

Yeah, them liberals--always attacking Jefferson and Adams...huh? What? Did Rush do a special this afternoon?

"And if your hands were made out of metal, that would mean something."--Crow T. Robot

So, waddya think--the King of Kings--has he stepped up to the .40 yet, like the FBI?


----------

