Sam Fisher
Banned
Exactly right, Will. They were smart enough to include the phrase "the right of the PEOPLE"
Second Amendment Question
- Thread starter Jagger69
- Start date
Exactly right, Will. They were smart enough to include the phrase "the right of the PEOPLE"
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I don't feel qualified to answer based on strict Constitutional legality - I just don't see myself as any sort of legal expert. But IMO, no, these (mostly?) already established legal prohibitions do not ******* the Second Amendment. In the case of minors and convicted felons, they have either not reached the age of majority, where they have full rights under the Constitution or Bill of Rights (as minors cannot be held to a legally binding contract) or, in the case of felons and those who have been judged mentally defective, they have lost their constitutional rights by committing a crime or displaying some sort of socially objectionable behavior. As for firearms dealers, they willfully apply for and hold FFLs and must abide by whatever provisions are in the law regarding what they may or may not do. As a sidenote, those who hold FFLs and engage in sales out of their homes also have limits placed on their Fourth Amendment rights. By conducting a (otherwise legal) firearms business out of your home, you give the ATF the right to enter your residence and conduct warrantless searches, as was explained to me by a dealer who had a rather "rude awakening" late one night.
As for the last one (the three day waiting period excluding weekends and legal holidays), I don't really understand what that means. I thought the purpose of the three-day wait was to provide a cooling off period, in case there was some sort of crime of passion in play. I think three days is just an arbitrary number of days that was selected. I'm unaware of any scientific study which confirms that is the appropriate/optimal number of days needed for a person to think twice about going off the rails if they're enraged by something. But whether it's three days or five days, I can't say that I see it as any sort of ********* of the Second Amendment.
Yes but the 2 amendment specifies that the reason why the people have "right to bear arms" is because "a well regulated militia" is "necesary to the security of a free state".
It means that without well regulated militia, there's no reason for the people to have right to bear arms.
You tell me that the militia is every able bodied male. Ok. then, where's the regulation ?
"Regulation" means rules, leaders, organising the militia into batalions or squads or whatever. Where are these things ?
Also, you tell me that the militia is every able bodied male. So I guess women are not allowed in the militia, right ?
If the reason for the people to have the right ot bear arms is the militia and women aren't allowed in the militia, why would women have the right to bear arms ?
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Let's ask someone that was there at the time about the second amendment.
"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.
"It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only ***** which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first ******, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the ***. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your *** therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
As you can see, there was more than one reasoning behind the second amendment.
"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.
"It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only ***** which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first ******, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the ***. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your *** therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
As you can see, there was more than one reasoning behind the second amendment.
"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 wording on this thing has been the problem. Is the point before or after the comma or are they two different thoughts. It doesn't matter of course because selfish interest groups will always spin the lie out of the thing with lawyers anyway.
Not being a a Constitutional scholar, but having been somewhat edjumacated on the English language, I would think the turn of the phrase is from the time period. It is antiquated and should be scrapped and re-written. I agree with you x, "well regulated" certainly indicates controlled. So, I do believe in restricting the same of concealed, automatic, and semiautomati weapon. I believe there should be tight restrictions on who can own these weapons and very good records on them.
The horses are already out of the ****, so there is no quick change, but things can start heading in a more sane direction.
With all of that said, tighter controls will not eliminate *** ********. Outlaws will still have the ******* guns. The ******** numbers have been heading south. Out of the 30,000/year number the majority are self inflicted. So, I believe that the vast majority of *** owners are law abiding people. People who want to shoot other people will still be able to regardless of the laws on the books.
Because I shot for a rifle team since high school and boy scouts I was a member of the NRA. For years I only thought of the NRA as the organization that provided me with training and safety information. I think they did an excellent job with that. When I started paying attention to their politics, I dropped my membership.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
When I was in high school, in a small rural town in East Texas miles away from any large urban population center, I could have bought just about any kind of *** I wanted from a friend of mine that was a gang banger. Owning/possessing/purchasing are all different. Statistics say there's somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million guns in private possession in the United States. I suspect the actual number is closer to half a billion. I support the 2nd Amendment and I don't see any realistic way to take guns out of the hands of people that would use them for ill intent.
All of the background checking, mental health screening, seances, whatever, isn't going to keep a criminal from doing criminal things. My *** always used to say, "A lock only keeps an honest man out." That doesn't give me any comfort knowing that we're not doing anything to at least try to keep high capacity magazines out of the hands of those that would slaughter ********.
I referenced the MMPI in another thread. We could insist that everyone who wanted to buy a *** go through the hours-long battery of questions that make up that test. It would disqualify people that merely have perspectives and beliefs that are outside of the mainstream. I took the MMPI when I was applying to work for the Texas Department of Public Safety. It's an exhausting test. There's a lot of criticism about it's validity, and, even if it is a valid test, it would only work on people that are actually trying to buy a ***. We would have to have mandatory mental testing for everyone for a screening process to work. Talk about a logistical nightmare, not to mention the legalities of such a proposition.
Blaming society, video games, lack of a mental health database, or any other factor is just as disingenuous as blaming guns. At the end of the day, the only person to blame for pulling the trigger is the person doing it. Who cares why? Tell it to the parents of the victims at Sandy Hook, or wherever that Adam Lanza or whoever had mental problems exacerbated by playing first-person shooters. No one gives a ****, they just want something done. This isn't a left-right issue, as so many are trying to frame it, it's an issue that can only be addressed at the federal level, and even then, options are limited, if non-existent.
All of the background checking, mental health screening, seances, whatever, isn't going to keep a criminal from doing criminal things. My *** always used to say, "A lock only keeps an honest man out." That doesn't give me any comfort knowing that we're not doing anything to at least try to keep high capacity magazines out of the hands of those that would slaughter ********.
I referenced the MMPI in another thread. We could insist that everyone who wanted to buy a *** go through the hours-long battery of questions that make up that test. It would disqualify people that merely have perspectives and beliefs that are outside of the mainstream. I took the MMPI when I was applying to work for the Texas Department of Public Safety. It's an exhausting test. There's a lot of criticism about it's validity, and, even if it is a valid test, it would only work on people that are actually trying to buy a ***. We would have to have mandatory mental testing for everyone for a screening process to work. Talk about a logistical nightmare, not to mention the legalities of such a proposition.
Blaming society, video games, lack of a mental health database, or any other factor is just as disingenuous as blaming guns. At the end of the day, the only person to blame for pulling the trigger is the person doing it. Who cares why? Tell it to the parents of the victims at Sandy Hook, or wherever that Adam Lanza or whoever had mental problems exacerbated by playing first-person shooters. No one gives a ****, they just want something done. This isn't a left-right issue, as so many are trying to frame it, it's an issue that can only be addressed at the federal level, and even then, options are limited, if non-existent.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
It is indeed a confusing statement. However, since the militia is being referred to in this sense as a "citizen army" (the common meaning of the term as it was implied in those days), it is only logical to take it to mean that the necessity of a "well-regulated militia" is the justification for guaranteeing that the rights of the people to bear arms will not be infringed. The militia itself can be regulated, but the right to bear arms cannot. A landmark decision by the SCOTUS in 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570), ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.
If this is the true interpretation of the amendment, correspondingly all laws that would seek to limit access to arms (not just "firearms" but all arms) would therefore be unconstitutional, most definitely including the one I cited in the OP (it's the Florida *** law BTW). The only way this amendment can be superseded is by a subsequent constitutional amendment that would repeal it (ala the 21st amendment that repealed prohibition).
Now that this is clear to me, I must do a reversal on any prior stance that I stated here regarding ***-control....it's simply unconstitutional. If ***-control proponents seek to invoke certain restrictions on *** ownership they should begin a process to add an amendment to the constitution that would change or repeal the second amendment in some way.
Yes? Show me where I am wrong in this line of thinking if you disagree. :dunno:
Mayhem
Banned
There's something I've always had on my mind. Maybe you've seen the very first Dracula movie. Silent movie era, black-and-white, etc. That movie scared the **** out of the audience. Same thing can be said of course, with the full evolution of horror genre movies through the 20th and now 21st centuries. Getting back to the first Dracula, now it's a snooze-fest. Today's horror/slasher/combat/thriller movies are supremely graphic. Hell, I lost all enthusiasm for Saving Private Ryan during the first (beach landing) scene because it was so graphic and, unlike Sci-Fi (like Starship Troopers), I was identifying with the characters. Thoroughly bummed me out.
My point is, they make these flicks so incredibly real (and take pride in it) that I don't feel that it can be helped that people become desensitized. And this takes away the revulsion that someone might otherwise feel for these acts happening in real life. Add video games to the mix......yes, I'm comfortable giving them some share of the blame.
Sam Fisher
Banned
You're 100% spot on. Good post, Jagger.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
While I see your point, I have to disagree on the "Saving Private Ryan" issue. If it were a made up slasher flick, I wouldn't disagree, but it's a VERY real portrayal, of a very important part of history. I used to live next to a really cool old guy, that was on Normandy, he would never talk about it, but he would get this far away look, a very haunting look. He was so incensed that they stopped showing it, after the whole Janet Jackson fiasco, because he felt people needed to see the true horrors of war, and what our boys went through.
Mayhem
Banned
Saving Private Ryan wasn't really part of my argument. The upcomming Texas Chainsaw installment, the Saw movies, and others like them are the point I'm trying to make. Combine them with the video games that have been out for all this time, and it's easy for me to see a problem.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
I don't watch slasher/horror movies or play video games. But, I do watch a lot of hardcore porn. I like the same sort of porn that I've always liked. I'm not into anal, DP, ***********, BDSM, or any of the other extreme **** that's readily available. Perhaps, people that become desensitized suffer from some sort of mental health issue. Mandatory mental health screenings might be a viable alternative, not just for *** screenings, but for preventing a whole host of societal ills. Is it feasible to implement mental healthcare as part of formative education?
Sam Fisher
Banned
Edited by Op. Wrong Thread
I agree. So the U.S is the only country in the world with violent video games and movies? the Canadians, Australians, the Brits, etc don't have those same movies and video games?
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Fair enough, I misunderstood. I just feel REAL history should not be sugar coated, and lets face it, Normandy was pretty ******, and pretty important.
I don't go in for horror flicks myself, and as far as video games, only the Call Of Duty thing, maybe Command & Conquer. All of the GTA **** doesn't do it for me.
We may or may not have the same opinion of "how things should be", but we're saying the same thing. Tough for me to disagree (especially with myself!).
Not an easy one.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
You're right, Mike, it's not an easy one. I don't think I have the intestinal fortitude to put much effort behind a constitutional amendment to change the second amendment but I don't think our forefathers envisioned an era when weapons of mass destruction would be readily available. I would support the amendment if presented. However, what puzzles me is, if what I stated is true, why doesn't the SCOTUS strike down all *** laws everywhere. Why do any restrictions to *** ownership exist at all if they are, in fact, unconstitutional??? I am a strict constitutionalist so they should not be allowed to exist period. If people want to change the law, it needs to be done through a constitutional amendment.
Sam Fisher
Banned
How far will liberals push their hostility to our Second Amendment liberties? As far as we let them. If they don’t get sufficient resistance to their ****** on “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines, the next step could look something like this actual proposed bill from Connecticut:
Connecticut Bill to Limit Firearms to One Round
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and *************** personnel and certain *** clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any *** except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a *** containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a *** made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round.
Imagine if Melinda Herman, who was chased into her attic crawlspace with her ******** by a home invader who finally left under his own power after taking five rounds from her .38, had been limited by some sanctimonious bureaucrat to a single bullet.
Next after this comes the ban on muskets.
Connecticut Bill to Limit Firearms to One Round
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and *************** personnel and certain *** clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any *** except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a *** containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a *** made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round.
Imagine if Melinda Herman, who was chased into her attic crawlspace with her ******** by a home invader who finally left under his own power after taking five rounds from her .38, had been limited by some sanctimonious bureaucrat to a single bullet.
Next after this comes the ban on muskets.
bahodeme
Closed Account
According to The National Alliance of Mental Illness, 1 in 17 Americans have serious mental health issues (bipoloar, etc). http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_Mental_Illness&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=53155
There have been estimates that 1 in 4 Americans own firearms.
Why then, if those with mental illness are the cause of all the mass shootings, are there not more shootings?
The people of are doing these shotings are not the captain of the football or basketball team, or on the Honor Society or student govt. These people, for whatever reason, are in a status they feel they should be and blame others. The example I give is the thought process as those who **** themselves by jumping in the path of a subway train during rush hour. They can't make their mark in life, so they make sure everyone will remember them in their final moments of life.
One way we might help lessen the numbers is by not giving the shooters what they what, by not mentioning their name everyday. Besides mentioning who they are initially, during the beginning of the trial, and sentencing, don't mention them by name. We know the name of Adam Lanza, John Lee Muhammed (D.C. Sniper), etc. Who can name their victims? Maybe if we give them the airtime instead of the shooter, maybe at least the copycats will see there is nothing gain because there will be no noteriety.
There have been estimates that 1 in 4 Americans own firearms.
Why then, if those with mental illness are the cause of all the mass shootings, are there not more shootings?
The people of are doing these shotings are not the captain of the football or basketball team, or on the Honor Society or student govt. These people, for whatever reason, are in a status they feel they should be and blame others. The example I give is the thought process as those who **** themselves by jumping in the path of a subway train during rush hour. They can't make their mark in life, so they make sure everyone will remember them in their final moments of life.
One way we might help lessen the numbers is by not giving the shooters what they what, by not mentioning their name everyday. Besides mentioning who they are initially, during the beginning of the trial, and sentencing, don't mention them by name. We know the name of Adam Lanza, John Lee Muhammed (D.C. Sniper), etc. Who can name their victims? Maybe if we give them the airtime instead of the shooter, maybe at least the copycats will see there is nothing gain because there will be no noteriety.
Similar threads
