Outlawing guns in the US ...

[Will E Worm]

This is exactly why we can't look at the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and think that whatever it says should still be applied to life today.

Yes, we can and do. :tongue:

Militias around this country have every gun you mentioned and will not ever give them up.

Because we have to have equal firepower incase the government we to become despotic.

Also, The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution says, in part, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There's no stipulation placed on that phrase. Any and all weapons are legal as long as they are used correctly.

Did you know a Militia can legally have artillery? Look it up.

 

[marquis2]

Yes, we can and do. :tongue:

Militias around this country have every gun you mentioned and will not ever give them up.

Because we have to have equal firepower incase the government we to become despotic.

Also, The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution says, in part, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There's no stipulation placed on that phrase. Any and all weapons are legal as long as they are used correctly.

Did you know a Militia can legally have artillery? Look it up.

If people didn't actually believe this it would be hugely funny.It's the ultimate in self deception that a few hillbillies with guns can take on a well organised state.And it would be a few because even with an immensely unpopular government very few people would take up arms against it.Often the result can be worse than the cause.Take Iran as an example.
There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment which says "to keep and bear any sort of arms" either. If you were restricted to hunting rifles the 2nd Amendment would not be breached as you would all still be keeping and bearing arms.

 

[Dawn]

In the Prof/Chief argumentations (and thanks to some link provided), i have discovered (yes, it was a discovery for me - i didnt had this in-depht historical knowledge) how much the 2nd Amendment formal wording, including discarded ones, was bounded with the idea of a militia.

I think many made valid points regarding the real capacities of a militia to overthrow an abusive government in the World of today.

I just want to raise a comparison - with all the inaccuracies the comparative thinking have.

You remember how Iraq was trashed by the US Army in few days? Aint that can be a good comparison of what a militia could look like against the US Troops nowadays? How does iraqis have been able to fight back? Guerilla warfare (i leave terrorism attacks aside deliberatly here). The Guerilla Warfare tactics relies less on firearms than other means, right?

As far as i can understanding the spirit of the 2nd Amendement, which is not only about the right to bear arms, is no longer possible. The right of citizens to bear arms cannot protect them against the governement if needed be. The spirit of the second Amendment is no longer guaranteed, aside in the formal right to bear and possess firearms, due to the technologies of today. It might even be impossible to guarantee it unless citizens could own nuclear submarines, destroyers and the like... to be, at least, on per with the US Army.

Am i all wrong here?

 

[ChefChiTown]

The word "keep" has a number of meanings. In the case of the 2nd amendment its meaning is to posses, or own, in a broad and general sense, which would of course include via lawful purchase. There was never any intent to restrict gun ownership to only those who already possessed guns.

When the 2nd Amendment was originally written, it was to ensure the people that the government/military couldn't forcibly take away their guns, leaving them defenseless. Not defenseless against eachother (as neighbors), but defenseless against the military.

Back in those times, most men already owned a gun. It was "the way of the land" that each man had a gun, in order to protect his family and his land. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure those men that their guns, that they already had in their possession, wouldn't be taken away.

You are right though, there are many meanings to the word "keep" and I'm glad you brought it up. There is no way to know for sure what intention the word "keep" had behind it when it was used in the 2nd Amendment, because nobody here was alive when it was written.

This is why the 2nd Amendment has no definitive meaning (now-a-days) and has to be loosely translated. Just look at how many different meanings that one word has...

keep

verb, kept, keep⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own: If you like it, keep it. Keep the change.
2. to hold or have the use of for a period of time: You can keep it for the summer.
3. to hold in a given place; store: You can keep your things in here.
4. to maintain (some action), esp. in accordance with specific requirements, a promise, etc.: to keep watch; to keep step.
5. to cause to continue in a given position, state, course, or action: to keep a light burning; to keep a child happy.
6. to maintain in condition or order, as by care and labor: He keeps his car in good condition.
7. to maintain in usable or edible condition; preserve: If you want to keep meat for a long time, freeze it.
8. to hold in custody or under guard, as a prisoner: They kept him in jail.
9. to cause to stay in a particular place; prevent or restrain from departure: The work kept her at the office.
10. to have regularly in stock and for sale: to keep a large supply of machine parts.
11. to maintain in one's service or for one's use or enjoyment: to keep a car and chauffeur.
12. to associate with: She keeps bad company.
13. to have the care, charge, or custody of: She keeps my dog when I travel.
14. to refrain from disclosing; withhold from the knowledge of others: to keep a secret.
15. to withhold from use; reserve; save: I'll keep this toy until you learn to behave. Keep the good wine for company.
16. to hold back or restrain: They kept the child from talking. Nothing can keep him from doing it.
17. to maintain control of; regulate: to keep the peace; to keep your temper.
18. to maintain by writing: to keep a diary.
19. to record (business transactions, daily occurrences, etc.) regularly: to keep records; to keep a list of visitors.
20. to observe; pay obedient regard to (a law, rule, promise, etc.).
21. to conform to; follow; fulfill: to keep one's word.
22. to observe (a season, festival, etc.) with formalities or rites: to keep Christmas.
23. to maintain or carry on, as an establishment, business, etc.; manage.
24. to guard; protect: He kept her from harm.
25. to maintain or support: It costs more each year to keep a house.
26. to support or contribute to the support of in return for sexual or other favors.
27. to take care of; tend: to keep a vegetable garden.
28. to raise (livestock): These farmers keep goats and cattle.
29. to remain in (a place, spot, etc.): Please keep your seats.
30. to maintain one's position in or on: He kept the job.
31. to continue to follow (a path, track, course, etc.).
32. to maintain in active existence, as an assembly, court, or fair.
–verb (used without object) 33. to continue in an action, course, position, state, etc.: to keep in sight; to keep going.
34. to remain, or continue to be, as specified: to keep cool.
35. to remain or stay in a particular place: to keep indoors.
36. to continue unimpaired or without spoiling: The food will keep on ice.
37. to admit of being reserved for a future occasion: I have more to tell you, but it will keep.
38. to keep oneself or itself as specified (fol. by away, back, off, out, etc.): Keep off the grass.
39. to restrain oneself; refrain (usually fol. by from): Try to keep from smiling.
–noun 40. board and lodging; subsistence; support: to work for one's keep.
41. the innermost and strongest structure or central tower of a medieval castle.
42. keeps, (used with a singular verb) a game of marbles in which the players keep the marbles they have won.
—Verb phrases43. keep at, to persist in; be steadfast: You'll never master your French unless you keep at it.
44. keep back, a. to hold in check; restrain: The dikes kept back the floodwaters.
b. to stay away from: The crowds would not keep back from the barrier.
c. to refuse to reveal: The prisoner was keeping back vital information.

45. keep down, a. to hold under control or at a reduced or acceptable level: to keep your voice down.
b. to prevent from going up or increasing: to keep prices down.

46. keep in with, to stay in someone's favor; be on good terms with: They are social climbers who make certain to keep in with all the right people.
47. keep on, to continue; persist: If you keep on singing they'll ask you to leave.
48. keep to, a. to adhere to; conform to: She keeps to the rules.
b. to confine oneself to: to keep to one's bed.

49. keep up, a. to maintain an equal rate of speed, activity, or progress with another or others.
b. to persevere; continue.
c. to maintain the good condition of; keep in repair.
d. Also, keep up on or with. to stay informed: to keep up on current events.
e. to match one's friends, neighbors, business associates, etc., in success, affluence, etc.

—Idioms50. for keeps, Informal. a. under the stipulation that one keeps one's winnings.
b. with serious intent or purpose.
c. finally; permanently: They decided to settle the argument for keeps.

51. keep books, to maintain financial records.
52. keep tab or tabs on. tab 1 (def. 14).
53. keep time. time (def. 50).
54. keep to oneself, a. to remain aloof from the society of others.
b. to hold (something) as secret or confidential: I'll tell you only if you promise to keep it to yourself.

55. keep track of. track (def. 38).

 

[Will E Worm]

If people didn't actually believe this it would be hugely funny.It's the ultimate in self deception that a few hillbillies with guns can take on a well organised state.And it would be a few because even with an immensely unpopular government very few people would take up arms against it.Often the result can be worse than the cause.Take Iran as an example.
There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment which says "to keep and bear any sort of arms" either. If you were restricted to hunting rifles the 2nd Amendment would not be breached as you would all still be keeping and bearing arms.

All weapons are allowed and to keep and bear them, always.

It's a myth that only "hillbillies" have guns.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass".

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

 

[thanksimout]

I could be a rambler from the seven dials
I don't pay taxes 'cause I never file
I don't do business that don't make me smile
I love my aeroplane 'cause she's got style
I'm a treetop flyer

I will fly any cargo you can pay to run
these bush league pilots just can't get the job done
Got to fly down into the canyons, never see the sun
There's no such thing as an easy run
For a treetop flyer

I'm flyin' low, I'm in high demand
Fly fifteen feet off the Rio Grande
I'll blow the mesquite right up off the sand
Seldom seen, especially when I land
I'm a treetop flyer
Born Survivor

People been asking me, "Where'd you learn to fly that way?"
Was over in Vietnam, chasin' NVA
The government taught me, and they taught me right,
Stay under the treeline, and you might be alright
I'm a treetop flyer

So I'm comin' home, I'm runnin' low and fast
I promised my woman this is gonna be my last
I get the ship down, I tie her fast
then some old boy walks up, says "Hey son, you wanna make some fast cash?"
I'm a treetop flyer

Well there's things I am, and there's things I'm not
I am a smuggler and a good dead shot
Aint going to die, I ain't goin' to get caught,
'Cause I'm a flyin' fool and my aeroplane is just too hot
I'm a treetop flyer
Born survivor

Usually work alone








Stephen Stills

 

[Member2019]

When the 2nd Amendment was originally written, it was to ensure the people that the government/military couldn't forcibly take away their guns, leaving them defenseless. Not defenseless against eachother (as neighbors), but defenseless against the military.

Back in those times, most men already owned a gun. It was "the way of the land" that each man had a gun, in order to protect his family and his land. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure those men that their guns, that they already had in their possession, wouldn't be taken away.

You are right though, there are many meanings to the word "keep" and I'm glad you brought it up. There is no way to know for sure what intention the word "keep" had behind it when it was used in the 2nd Amendment, because nobody here was alive when it was written.

This is why the 2nd Amendment has no definitive meaning (now-a-days) and has to be loosely translated. Just look at how many different meanings that one word has...

Instead of any of us trying to "translate," the various opinions of various Supreme Court justices are available for reading. You can find one that "agrees" with some things you said, as well as most others that "disagree" with most things you said. Now this most recent ruling over the DC Gun Ban didn't answer everything, only where the DC Gun Ban over-stepped it's boundaries. But there are still a number of historical references, and they are a great read.

To say it's "loosely translated" is to undermine each and every US Constitutional Amendment. One could easily do that with "Freedom of Speech" as well, because -- historically -- the First Amendment had far more to do with "Freedom of Assembly," "Freedom of Religion," and to a lesser extent, "Freedom of the Press," than individual "Freedom of Speech."

But by their very definition, despite some people who originally tried to say these were "group" rights as well, they are "individual rights" as that is how people "individual choose" to assemble, practice religion and engage as the press.

 

[Philbert]

And there is no question that the phrase "to keep" means to have, as in I keep fish as a hobby. Not that I get to keep what I already have (thanks, Government! ), but I get to maintain and increase if I so choose, my stock of fish.
To keep firearms means just that, to have, and continue to have, firepower as we choose.
Duh...

 

[ChefChiTown]

To say it's "loosely translated" is to undermine each and every US Constitutional Amendment. One could easily do that with "Freedom of Speech" as well, because -- historically -- the First Amendment had far more to do with "Freedom of Assembly," "Freedom of Religion," and to a lesser extent, "Freedom of the Press," than individual "Freedom of Speech."

Most of our laws and rights (here in the US) are loosely translated. Just look at the 6th Amendment, for example...

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am6

"...the right to a SPEEDY and public trial..."

Hmm, what is the defintion of "speedy"...??? One week? One month? One year? :dunno: The truth is, nobody knows. Why? Because there is no definite answer, which forces this Amendment to be loosely translated.

You can find this in most of (not all) our country's laws and rights.

 

[Will E Worm]

Hmm, what is the defintion of "speedy"...??? One week? One month? One year? :dunno: The truth is, nobody knows. Why? Because there is no definite answer, which forces this Amendment to be loosely translated.

Speedy would not be a year or month. So, the accusers could think of lies and falsify documents.

Maybe a week or two at the most.

 

[Member2019]

Sigh ...

MHmm, what is the defintion of "speedy"...??? One week? One month? One year? :dunno: The truth is, nobody knows. Why? Because there is no definite answer, which forces this Amendment to be loosely translated.
You can find this in most of (not all) our country's laws and rights.

Argumentative. Now you're going in circles.

The right to a "speedy" trial has been ruled upon by both state and federal courts. Typically years, unless otherwise prolonged by the lawyer of the accused (which is very common), is too long. In many cases, court dates are moved up at the right of the accused. Months, based on the court load, is typical -- although weeks are typical, and days not uncommon, at the right of the accused.

Understand the purpose of this Supreme Law is for many reasons. One big one that people forget is actually related to "due process." In other words, a law cannot exist to merely jam the court with lawsuits so they are never resolved.

E.g., Several cities, along with Lockheed-Martin, were guilty of instigating automated citations for running red lights at the point where it was impossible to even get a hearing because the court system was so jammed with appeals. It utterly failed due process. The matter was even made worse by the "special interest" involved, whereby Lockheed-Martin -- who sold the idea to the city as a "revenue stream," was not merely paid a percentage of each citation. But LM was guilty of reducing the yellow light time with the city's approval, often below the state mandated minimums for the speed limit zone. To make matters worse, the Institution for Highway Safety -- the organization known for the off-set collision test -- also failed to disclose that while intersection collisions have been reduced by almost 30% by automated, red light camera enforced systems, rear-end collisions have gone up by over 700% (in their own, "test case")!

The Sixth Amendment exists for many reasons, including preventing a law from existing that denies the right to a speedy trial. It's been continually applicable today, centuries after those "old, wig wearing guys" -- actually not them, but the states and, largely, the people of them -- wrote them. Why? Individual rights are pretty much not just common sense, but at their foundation, timeless.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: Sigh ...

Argumentative. Now you're going in circles.

I'm "going in circles" because I used an example, while maintaining the same exact stance in my argument, that our laws and rights are consistently being loosely translated?

:dunno:

 

[thanksimout]

Kind of a moot point isn't it ? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the second amendment to the constitution as a personal right. They also over turned the DC gun ban as unconstitutional and in violation of the " castle doctrine".
At this point you guys are just having an exercise in semantics. The bottom line is that guns are currently, have been, and will remain legal for law abiding citizens to own.
If you don't like guns, don't buy one. If you really don't like guns move out of the U.S. but please stop going on about how destructive guns are and that they should banned.
As one who hunts for food that feeds my family I find this highly offensive.

This is me.... getting off my soap box.

 

[Will E Worm]

Kind of a moot point isn't it ? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the second amendment to the constitution as a personal right. They also over turned the DC gun ban as unconstitutional and in violation of the " castle doctrine".
At this point you guys are just having an exercise in semantics. The bottom line is that guns are currently, have been, and will remain legal for law abiding citizens to own.
If you don't like guns, don't buy one. If you really don't like guns move out of the U.S. but please stop going on about how destructive guns are and that they should banned.
As one who hunts for food that feeds my family I find this highly offensive.

This is me.... getting off my soap box.

I agree, guns will remain legal and if people don't like that fact they can move to another country.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Kind of a moot point isn't it ? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the second amendment to the constitution as a personal right. They also over turned the DC gun ban as unconstitutional and in violation of the " castle doctrine".
At this point you guys are just having an exercise in semantics. The bottom line is that guns are currently, have been, and will remain legal for law abiding citizens to own.
If you don't like guns, don't buy one. If you really don't like guns move out of the U.S. but please stop going on about how destructive guns are and that they should banned.
As one who hunts for food that feeds my family I find this highly offensive.

This is me.... getting off my soap box.

I wish I would have thought of that.

 

[LBP 76]

If you really don't like guns move out of the U.S. but please stop going on about how destructive guns are and that they should banned.
As one who hunts for food that feeds my family I find this highly offensive.

You find it 'highly offensive' when people calmly and legally express their thoughts on a subject that they have an interest in? Then I suggest you don't read these threads if they upset you SO much.

 

[hedgehogbigun]

You find it 'highly offensive' when people calmly and legally express their thoughts on a subject that they have an interest in? Then I suggest you don't read these threads if they upset you SO much.

Let me ask one question. Do any of you who propose "loosely translating" the Constitution based on 18th Century verbage and technology really believe that the same logic could not be applied to the 1st Amendment? I don't think the Founding Fathers had the "right" for us to view Double Penetrations on-line when they drafted it.

If Amendments are changed, you may not be able to "legally" express your opinion.

 

[marquis2]

Let me ask one question. Do any of you who propose "loosely translating" the Constitution based on 18th Century verbage and technology really believe that the same logic could not be applied to the 1st Amendment? I don't think the Founding Fathers had the "right" for us to view Double Penetrations on-line when they drafted it.

If Amendments are changed, you may not be able to "legally" express your opinion.

In the 1790s a ship was a four masted sailing vessel, nothing else.So any reference to a ship would be irrelevant now unless you accept a loose interpretation.Just an example of course.

 

[Member2019]

In the 1790s a ship was a four masted sailing vessel, nothing else.

Huh? Or were you making a joke.

So any reference to a ship would be irrelevant now unless you accept a loose interpretation.Just an example of course.

Again, I hope you were making a joke. A ship was far more than a four masted sailing vessel in the 1790s.

Just like firearms were more than just a musket then as well.

 

[jakeballs77]

I'm sure you don't value the opinion of a brit, but the gun problem ( and weapons in general) is getting worse over here too. If nobody had them, other than the authorities and armed forces then you wouldn't see people getting killed every single day. It happens so often that nobody even pays attetion anymore, apart from the families and friends that have lost someone.
Stop the guns, stop making excuses