I like the argument of where the comma's are in the 2nd Amendment. The literal review of the Constitution to fit one's argument. Hence, "The Living Document" Argument. Bunch of BS.

Based on the 2nd Amendment, if you are viewing the wording as a collective right given to a body instead of an individual, then how can we as individuals form a body or collective to protect ourselves from tyranny if we have to have an officiating body (local, state, federal government) allow us to form militias etc in the first place? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So we have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government but only if that tyrannical government allows us to keep and bear arms? WTF?

In any given year between 50,000 up to 100,000 people are killed by accident in hospitals or other medical facilities in the United States. Medical mistakes. Far, far more than are killed by guns. Are you in favor of doctor control? Nurse control? Probably not.

Would I be making a stretch by guessing that a lot of people who are in favor of gun control are also the type of people who would like to see the government take over the healthcare industry in this country? If unionized government workers were in charge of everyone's healthcare, you can be rest assured that the amount of deaths by medical mistakes per year would go up drastically. Those deaths would exceed the number of people who die every year by gunshot.

Far more people die every year due to car accidents. What type of of government intervention would you like to implement to reduce that number?

The right to bear arms is a right directly written into the constitution.

Why are people with histories of mental illness still out there buying guns? The answer is because some people have felt they had a right to privacy. A right that is not written into the constitution.

Quote:

So should America deny good folks the right to defend themselves with firearms in order to, hopefully, drive down the unfortunate usage of firearms? Alas, all this is just an academic thought. I cannot see America reforming its gun laws to any significant extent. So I suppose both sides of the argument will continue to shout at one another, never giving an inch.

The United States is large and vast country. Millions of people live in remote areas that are possibly 20 minutes or more from the nearest available police help.

What type of "reform" are you referring to? Is "reform" by your definition creating more restrictions than currently exist or allowing more honest citizens access to guns?

Define your version of "reform"?

I always got a kick out of that argument. :rolleyes:

How about this: "The First Amendment only applies to the what was available in 1776, such as quill & ink and the printing press. Anything newer than that is up for grabs."

I bet these same folks would up in arms (sorry ) if somebody tried to tell 'em TV, radio or the Internet didn't qualify as 'free speech' or tried to pass 'media control' legislation or ban typewriters with certain 'evil' features.

The guns of our founding fathers were flint-locks. Muzzle loaded, no rifling, flint initiated (thats why there is a delay when firing, the spark from the flint has to travel a small "tube" to ignite the powder) before the cap was founded. Typically .62 to .75 inch bore, thats large caliber. Rounds were true balls, didn't even have Minie Balls yet.

No revolvers, pepper box gun wasn't even made yet. Revolvers were just before US Civil War, if I remember correctly. No gatling guns - those were at the end of the Civil War.

Paper cartridges were used - they contained the powder and ball. You bit the end off, preferably at the ball, poured the powder down, ball next, ram-rod to pack. You then primed the flint tray, and if you didn't spill the powder in the tray, good to fire. I believe you could get 3 -4 shots in a minute, but you could only fire at that rate for 4 minutes until you experienced fouling problems.

These were very deadly weapons, not only because of the weapon, but also the lack of modern medicine. Remember, people around this time were still blood-letting to fix colds and illness.

So would our founding fathers shit their pants today? IMO, probably not. Today's weaponry is amazing, but to people who have never been outside their own county in 1776, flintlocks would have been pretty amazing too. You also have to consider the tactics - lines of men two to four deep who were ordered not to fire until "you could see the whites of the enemy's eyes."

Get hit with a round from those old muskets and you lost the limb, say good-bye if it hit you in the torso; today you can be saved from multiple gunshot wounds, some have even survived with rounds to the head. Hell, my great, great, great uncle took 13 rounds at Vicksburg (Civil War), laid on the field for two days before getting to a doc (they thought he was dead), lost an arm but survived. I think the founding fathers would have shit their pants if they had seen that.

Nice. Have you ever noticed that those who are staunchly for the 1st Amendment are almost always opposed to the 2nd.

Its also funny that the Bill of Rights are accepted as individual rights except the 2nd is somehow relegated to this new class of 'collective' rights.

Does that mean that the 1st only applies to 'official' media like newspapers & reporters?

Does the 3rd only apply if you own your home outright, not the bank or landlord for renters?

When you put things in the proper context this whole concept of collective rights falls right on its face.

Believe it or not, there was oral communication back then.

"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".

This is the Amendment. The way I have always heard this interpreted is the "people", being individuals, had the right to keep and bear arms. It was the "people" after all, that made up the militia of the time.

There is another passage that has always been a curiosity to me related to the 2nd Amendment and what was the Founding Fathers intent. This passage is from the Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security"

How would the "people" do this without the ability of keeping and bearing arms?

For the record, I am a gun owner and advocate. I have shotguns, rifles, an AR 15, and a .22 pistol. All of my brothers and father CCW. I choose not to, because I have two small children, and just as things "could" happen in attack, accidents also happen, even to the best prepared.

I would like to CCW at some point, but its just not time as 4-6 year old kids can hear instructions, but can also be curious. I teach my kids about firearm safety, and the thing they know most right now, is not to touch daddy's guns!

Anyway, as for the SCOTUS, I think they will either kick it back to the lower court or come down somewhere in the middle, that individuals can keep and bear arms, but reasonable regulations will also be somehow defined.

My best friend is quite the firearm enthusiast. It's a hobby for him. I understand that just fine. It's the guys that feel they must own a gun with the expectation that they will have some need to use it against another person at some point that freak me out.

Um...I've never seen an M-4 reduce a Mazda 323 to confetti. That would take a lot of rounds. Hell, I've never seen an M-2 do that, and I've seen one of those shoot a VW Passat that was held together with wire. Even a 60mm mortar wouldn't do it. I love it when people base their experience on Hollywood. Modern weapons aren't the high power things everyone thinks they are. A properly motivated and inventive individual can do more damage with basic tools than a squad of bored paratroopers with their organic weapons. I've seen the results of a 120mm HE mortar landing 5 feet from an aluminum building - a little denting and a starry wall, but the boss still lived in it, after some silicone to keep out the flies.

Oh yeah, as far as not having rifles back then, look up the Battle of Saratoga. Rifles have been around since the mid 15th century.

I prefer not to debate the wisdom of guns vs. no guns, CCW, and so on. I have my own view (reluctantly pro-gun) and others have theirs, and agree or disagree, nobody here is likely to change their mind.

What I'm interested in is the context and true meaning of the words used in the Second Amendment. The challenge is to read it objectively, letting go of your own position in order to determine the truth of what was intended by these words:

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.

I'm no expert on colonial times but my impression is that for the most part, every able-bodied male would have been expected to maintain a weapon and serve when called. That was the only way then to maintain a ready militia. Obviously that's no longer true today. IMO then, it's crystal clear that the SA in the context of the time applied to those who would serve in a "well-regulated militia." For those who disagree, answer this: why is a militia mentioned at all if that's not the meaning?

In modern times, state militias are most similar to the National Guard, though Georgia for one has its own modern version of a state militia . The idea that the SA applies to state militia members is further supported by Section 8 of Article I:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(skip to)

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That says the state government is responsible for providing weapons to militia members. The SA says the people may keep and bear arms - not buy or otherwise obtain them. This means they did not intend for people to be able to buy or obtain weapons as individuals, but to keep arms provided by the state and bear them when called forth for duty. Again this would be similar to the National Guard today.

So like it or not, that's one man's opinion of what the words mean in the context of the time. But it's pointless to debate the original meaning because the situation is so different now. Like the criminal justice system, the SA hasn't evolved with the times. We should be debating what laws make the most sense now.

Yes it is.

I've been shot at twice but have never had to use my homeowners insurance. Ive been in one accident. Moby hits the nail on the head, they aren't even remotely close.

FYI I don't own a gun but want to. NJ makes it so difficult.

I see it as two separate points of the same issue. There should be a well regulated (by the government) militia, and the people should be able to be armed. If for anything, to protect themselves from the militia (government) at certain times. When they talk about the right to bear arms they are not talking about the militia.

It is the same as the 1st amendment. Make no law establishing a religion. Make no law restricting free exercise of religion. etc. Two DIFFERENT points in the same amendment on the same issue.

Just my opinion, I'm not saying anyone else is wrong or right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fwmG2tQPUs

Shooting is a hobby, just like off roading. It happens that this hobby has potential benefits as well, but mostly I like to shoot because it is fun. I make a point of taking people who have never shot before to show them that guns are not bad. We have a little training session before we start and everyone I have ever taken has had a blast and wanted to go again.

Some people like burn down Hummer dealerships to save the environment, others like to shoot guns.

Or just read my post on page four. That was a pretty good summary of weapons avaliable to the common man at the time of the revolution. I can go more in depth if anyone would like me to.

I've got a replica of an 1853 Enfield rifled musket (I call it the shoulder cannon, .58 caliber) if anyone wants to shoot it. Lots of fun...

Hmmm..., I think your analogies with health care and socialized medicine are a bit of stretch. To be clear, the gravity of the situation presented by the prevalence of guns in the wrong hands or are misused accidentally is a serious issue. This is why many countries have outlawed/restricted gun ownership. Is it of value for America to pursue a similar path? My answer is yes. Your answer is obviously no. And like I said, this topic rarely receives polite debate.

As for what reform I am might be suggesting, .. I am not suggesting anything in particular. There are people out there who can make proposals based on research and, hopefully, common sense. I'd rather hear what they have to say than suggest something inappropriate.

But as I said in my original posting, I think folks like yourself will continue to have your way ... more rather than less.

_Lazza

If we are going to re-evaluate the SA, then we need to re-evaluate the entire constitution, something the politicians would love to do anyway, and the biggest reason why the SA exists in the first place is to prevent things like that from happening.

You can organize a citizen militia that isn't government sponsored, it's completely legal and allowed for in the Constitution specifically for the purpose of the "people" to protect themselves from tyranny. Many non-sponsored civilian militia's exist today. The term "militia" is used in my opinion because that is specifically how you describe any collection of people assembled to protect or defend something. I mean what else are you going to call it?

Answer me this, if we as "free" men have to wait for an "officiating" entity to allow us the exercise of our rights, then how do we protect ourselves from those entities when they decide to take our rights away? I repeat this often and nobody ever replies to the question.

Blue, you let them take our guns and override the SA and the 1st Amendment will be next and so on, till one day you childrens children will wake up and live in "Tyrannical" government and not even know it, I.E. North Korea for example.

It's already happening because more and more people have no problem giving up one liberty as long as the liberties they agree with are not touched. Basically the "if it doesn't effect me" mentality that is propagated via the government and media continues to take root as it has been for years, we'll sell our SA and FA rights right down the river for the next version of American Idol and the rest will soon follow.

The Constitution was specifically designed and its sole reason for existence is so that the people could cut the head off the snake if it became too hungry and then grow a new one. The SA is critical to that function.

That's a fair position, though we obviously disagree on the meaning of the words . Your point about people who are ok as long as their favorite rights remain untouched is a good one, and applies also IMO to those who condone torture. It's ok as long as you think the person being tortured deserves it or it serves the "national interest", and somehow we trust that the government - not really known for competence - will always make the right decision about who gets tortured and why. If we knew they would, hey, I'd be for it too, but I just don't trust the government to wisely administer anything.

What is so much of a stretch about it? A lot of your argument in favor of gun control seems to be that people are killed accidentally by firearms. Far more people are killed accidentally by other means. If you are concerned about accidental deaths, firearms should be far lower on your list of priorities.

Quote:

To be clear, the gravity of the situation presented by the prevalence of guns in the wrong hands or are misused accidentally is a serious issue. This is why many countries have outlawed/restricted gun ownership. Is it of value for America to pursue a similar path?

No, it is not a value for America to pursue similar paths of other countries. There is no reason to believe that those other countries are right or correct.

It also makes a huge false assumption on your part that other countries are similar to America.

Owning firearms is also a right codified into the founding document of this country.

Quote:

As for what reform I am might be suggesting, .. I am not suggesting anything in particular. There are people out there who can make proposals based on research and, hopefully, common sense. I'd rather hear what they have to say than suggest something inappropriate.

You did use the word reform in your previous post. Yet you seem reluctant to indicate exactly what type of reform you would like to see instituted. You wouldn't have used the word reform if you didn't think there should be changes.

Now you are using the expression "common sense" in relation to gun laws. What is "common sense" gun legislation in your mind? Is common sense restricting guns for honest citizens and leaving criminals the only armed segment of the population?

Criminals don't give a damn about any law. Gun control does nothing but restrict honest citizens from obtaining access to firearms.

We live in a very large and free country. One of the tradeoffs of living in a free society is that the criminal class also has a lot freedom.... and opportunity to ply their trades.

Quote:

But as I said in my original posting, I think folks like yourself will continue to have your way ... more rather than less.

Folks like myself should continue to have our way. First and foremost is because the constitution says that people have a right to bear arms. The people have a right to own guns.

I myself am in favor of certain restrictions, but I am in no way in favor of broad gun control.

You really never indicated very clearly what "your way" is regarding the issue.

You have your answer right there in the Second Amendment...

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

It says "the people". If the founders meant "the state" they would have said "the state".

You can also look for the intent of the founders in the Federalist Papers and the numerous writings and debates regarding the constitution. It is clear the intent is for the people to own firearms.

George Mason once said very correctly I might add... "to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

There was a lot of people camping out in front of the Supreme Court building for the last couple of days in hopes of getting in and listening to today's oral arguments in the case....

Although facts rarely influence debate, here are the statistics for leading killers (besides abortion) in the U.S. for 2004 from the National Center for Health Statistics (a division of the CDC).

1 Diseases of heart 652,486
2 Malignant neoplasms 553,888
3 Cerebrovascular diseases 150,074
4 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 121,987
5 Accidents (unintentional injuries) 112,012
6 Diabetes mellitus 73,138
7 Alzheimer's disease 65,965
8 Influenza and pneumonia 59,664
9 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome 42,480
10 Septicemia 33,373
11 Intentional self-harm (suicide) 32,439
12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 27,013
13 Essential hypertension 23,076
14 Parkinson's disease 17,989
15 Assault (homicide) 17,357

Items 1,4,5,6,11,12,13, and 15 are all largely preventable causes of death by changing the way we live. We should ban monosaturated fats in the US because they cause heart disease. We should ban smoking, cars (and probably skydiving), and soda because they cause emphysema, accidents, and diabetes respectively. We should ban girlfriends, beer, and cholesterol because they suicide, liver disease, and high blood pressure. At least none of the above mentioned are protected by our Constitution.

I note that #15 is homicide in general, not just homicide by guns (handgun or rifle). The rate for gun homicide is between 10,000 and 12,000 people. I'm not saying that murder by gun is excusable, but if we are going to ban guns because they kill a lot of people every year, we should ban a lot of other more dangerous common items like potato chips because they kill way more people annually.

If we are concerned about saving lives here, why then should we ban guns and allow abortion? Abortion prevents more lives each year than any one of the above 15 killers. 839,226 abortions were performed in the US in 2004, not including California or New York--the two most populous states. Just my 2 cents.

Nice post X and Halo. I like the Bobby Lee quote as well; and from Utah? I got to meet this guy/gal.

So why did they even mention the militia? Why doesn't it simply say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? That's the part no one is able to explain.