Constitutional Interpretation Surrounding the Second Amendment

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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]

MOD NOTE:

Thread Split to Keep it on Topic

-TECHNOPUNK
-MT MODERATOR

 

[Bester]

""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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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