Democrats AGAINST Gun Control?

[Goobieman]

They don't occur Separately. THE ENTIRE AMENDMENT IS ONE SENTENCE LONG.

They are attached, and it is a LONG stretch to read the ACTUAL amendment and think they meant individuals.

Well then its up to you to explain exactly how they meant the the 'individual citizens' everywhere they used the term, except for the 2nd, and failed to tell anyone about it.

"The militia" and "the people" are seperate concepts entirely.

 

[millsy]

You have to be kidding me.... you think people should be able to own nuclear weapons too?


You guys are seriously.........

PARANOID!!!


..... Paranoia Paranoia Everybody's comming to get MEEEEEEEEE.........

I absolutely think it's crazy that people should have serious weapons, which is why I think the 2nd amendment is absurd. And you can't have a discussion about gun control without talking about the second amendment. I think people should be able to own guns, but the second needs to be rewritten to fit into todays society. But, that is a debate that gun freaks (not owners, freaks) don't want.

 

[millsy]

Well then its up to you to explain exactly how they meant the the 'individual citizens' everywhere they used the term, except for the 2nd, and failed to tell anyone about it.

"The militia" and "the people" are seperate concepts entirely.

Because other places they say "the people" and that's it.

But in the second they say "because the people will need a well regulated militia to defend the nation from tyranny they have to be able to own weapons"

If they they wanted it to be individuals, there is NO NEED for the militia part. Just right that "the people need weapons to defend the nation from tyranny"

 

[Goobieman]

I absolutely think it's crazy that people should have serious weapons, which is why I think the 2nd amendment is absurd.

US v Miller will solve your problem here.
http://www.hoboes.com/html/Politics/Firearms/miller.html

There's no way to argue that this decision doesnt protect all firearms and exclude the "serious weapons" in your lament.

 

[Goobieman]

Because other places they say "the people" and that's it.

But in the second they say "because the people will need a well regulated militia to defend the nation from tyranny they have to be able to own weapons"

If they they wanted it to be individuals, there is NO NEED for the militia part. Just right that "the people need weapons to defend the nation from tyranny"

The 1st part of the amendment says that the militia is necessary.
The second part protects the right of the people.

How does stating that the militia is necessary secretly change the clear meaning of 'the people'?

Can you cite one, just one, of the people involved in creating the bill of rights that agreed with you?

 

[millsy]

US v Miller will solve your problem here.
http://www.hoboes.com/html/Politics/Firearms/miller.html

There's no way to argue that this decision doesnt protect all firearms and exclude the "serious weapons" in your lament.

Unfortunately I don't have time to read all that. Could you paraphrase it.

I would not be at all suprised if someone else found the 2nd amendment absurd

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

.

You can't, you just can't look at that and say militia and people are separate in that single sentence.


The people need weapons so they can form a militia.........I just can't see it another way.



Again, I think people should be able to own guns, I just think that the 2nd amendment should be rewritten so that it fits into today's society.

 

[millsy]

The 1st part of the amendment says that the militia is necessary.
The second part protects the right of the people.

How does stating that the militia is necessary secretly change the clear meaning of 'the people'?

Can you cite one, just one, of the people involved in creating the bill of rights that agreed with you?

It doesn't change the meaning of "the people".

What it does do, is quantify the purpose. It's not "peoples right to own guns to hunt, to defend their property from their neighbor", it's to form a well regulated militia

 

[Goobieman]

Unfortunately I don't have time to read all that. Could you paraphrase it.
I would not be at all suprised if someone else found the 2nd amendment absurd

Tp be protected by the 2nd, a weapon must have a 'reasonable relationship; to something that would be useful in service of the militia.

Given that miitias, primarily, were small units of irregular light infantry, this creates a reasonable clear limit of what weapons are protected.

Clearly it covers all firearms.

You can't, you just can't look at that and say militia and people are separate in that single sentence.

"You just can't" is not an sound argument.

How does stating that the militia is necessary secretly change the clear meaning of 'the people'?

Can you cite one, just one, of the people involved in creating the bill of rights that agreed with you?

 

[Stace]

Moderator's Warning:

Calm it down, folks. No need for the name calling and histionics.

 

[Goobieman]

It doesn't change the meaning of "the people".

So then you agree - the amendment protects the right of individual citizens.

Note that "right to keep and bear arms" is distinct from "right to from a militia". The former is far more broad than the latter.

Why do you suppose they'd use the broader term if they meant the more restrictive term?

 

[millsy]

Tp be protected by the 2nd, a weapon must have a 'reasonable relationship; to something that would be useful in service of the militia.

Given that miitias, primarily, were small units of irregular light infantry, this creates a reasonable clear limit of what weapons are protected.

Clearly it covers all firearms.

Thank you, that makes sense

"You just can't" is not an sound argument.

of course, you're right.

Can you cite one, just one, of the people involved in creating the bill of rights that agreed with you?

Of course I can't for obvious reasons.

Like in my previous post, I don't think it changes the definition of people, I think it limits the reasons that they can have weapons.

Again, I think people should be able to own guns, I just think that the 2nd amendment became obsolete a long time ago, and should be rewritten.

 

[millsy]

So then you agree - the amendment protects the right of individual citizens.

Note that "right to keep and bear arms" is distinct from "right to from a militia". The former is far more broad than the latter.

Why do you suppose they'd use the broader term if they meant the more restrictive term?

I agree that the amendment protects individuals rights to weapons if, and only if they are part of a well regulated militia.

Again it's not separate.

Because a militia is necessary, the people can have weapons.

It's not separate. Hunting isn't protected, self defense isn't protected, it's only people who are a part of a well regulated militia.

It's tough to separate the two when they are in the same sentence.

 

[Goobieman]

I agree that the amendment protects individuals rights to weapons if, and only if they are part of a well regulated militia.

This position is untenable.

Citing that the militia is necessary in no way, in and of itself, creates a limitation on the right of the people.

It DOES say:
The militia is necessary, and so the right is protected.

It does NOT say:
the militia is protected, and so the right of just the people in the militia is protected.

For your argument to hold any water, you have to show that your interpretation is what was intended - and that's something you cannot do.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

There is talk in this thread about an "individual's" right, and self defense and the second amendment. The second amendment is nothing about individuals, self defense or even guns. I think one would agree that the "arms" spoken of to insure a "free state" would have to be more than simply guns.

Every time the phrase "the people" is used in the Constitution, it refers to all citizens.

Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"The People" aren't just the men met to write the Constitution, it referred to the citizens of the country who were expected to direct their state legislators to ratify the Constitution

Art 1 Sect 2:
he House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

You know, "the people", that mob that elected the Congressthings that have been stripping "the people" of their freedom and their money.

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

You know, "the people" that were gathered together recently to wave Mexican flags and demand US citizenship, for example. The next week they were ordered to wave US flags because most of "the people" that can vote aren't very bright and will fall for such tricks all the time. But "the people" still refers to the common mob.

Amendment II -
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"The people" here refers also to the mob. That makes the use of the phrase perfectly consistent throughout the document. After all, if they'd wanted the ownership of firearms to remain in the control of government, they would not have left the ambiguity so many of spineless branch of "the people" to grasp at. And that "shall not be infringed" is pretty damn plain, too.

Not to mention that it couldn't mean anything else but that the mob could retain it's guns. The mob at the time would have lynched anyone thinking to confiscate them. That's the reality of the time, and reinforces the correct view that the Second Amendment guarantees the freedom to own guns too all persons.

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

The use of the phrase "the people" here ONLY makes sense if it references the indivdual.

Amendment IX -
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Again, only makes sense when referring to the individual. Groups don't have rights.

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

Amendment XVII -
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

The mob, again.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Sawed off Shotgun? Can the housewife not operate a normal shotgun without a stock? Which IS legal, since federal law restricts the length of a long barreled weapon to no shorter than 24" inches, I believe, and that is plenty small enough.

Sawed off work better in close quarters with a partially dispersed group of attackers, and they do one hell of a lot more damage to an individual at close range, increasing the likelihood of a kill. Wouldn't want the SOB invading my home to live and sue me.

Problem with the sawed off? As a law enforcement officer I don't really feel really comfortable with someone hiding a shotgun under a jacket, It makes crime a little more easy, and it makes it harder for Police Officers to know what type of threat they could be facing.

Tough. Your job as a cop is to protect the freedoms of the citizen. It is not to restrict those freedoms to make your job easier. If you don't like your job, get a broom.

Machine Guns? Can I ask why you need a machine gun to defend your home? What could you possibly do with a machine gun in your home that you couldn't do with a semi auto shotgun or a semi auto handgun? The only other reason you could possibly want a fully auto machine gun is for competition shooting or something, and yes, I believe there should be licensing restrictions for competition shooting with a fully auto weapon.

Fend off a horde of invading ATF agents attempting to enter my home on false pretenses. Oh, gee. That's happened, hasn't it? And those poor Branch Davidians had to rely on their Second Amendment freedoms to defend their First Amendment freedom of religion.

What a shock! What do you think the Second Amendment is for? It's for curbing the government. At the first pass, it means placing a limit on what the cops can get away with.

Rocket Launchers? What the hell does someone need a rocket launcher for? Are you going to fire it? Where? Where do you plan on getting ammo for it. Crap like that would EASILY get into the hands of some thugs and then cause law enforcement and the entire community a large deal of trouble.

An RPG would have been helpful in fending off the Army's tanks that were used to murder the Branch Davidians in their own home, in direct violation of posse comitatus.

Again, it's not the job of the cop to limit the freedom of the individual to make his job easier. If you don't like living in a free country, go to Cuba, or France.

Basically stated, Anyone who thinks you should be able to walk down to the corner gun shop and pick up a rocket launcher and some grenades, as well as a 249 SAW, is crazy. These things weren't even around back in the day when the 2nd amendment was made.

Typewriters weren't invented in 1789, either, but they're still covered under the First Amendment. Looking at the intent of the founders in writing the Second Amendment, and it's perfectly clear that their vision expected the citizen to have sufficient parity with currently used military arms to enable them to fend off intrusions by their own government.

The problems with crime and gangs wasn't a factor, militias were used to defend our cities and such, now we have law enforcement and an all volunteer military with several different branches, there is no reason for you to create your own little neighborhood militia.

Sure there is. First off, it's a free country, and in addition to the freedom to own and carry firearms, we have the freedom to peaceably assemble with anyone we choose to. And secondly, the cops are NEVER around when you need them. That's why the Koreans during the Los Angeles riots got on their roofs with their guns to protect their business. Mostly cops come by later to fill out the paperwork after the excitement is over.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The second amendment isn't about defending your home. It's about defending your nation from a tyrannous government.

If there is no need for a militia then there is no need for the second amendment.

Regulated militias keep all their party favors in one spot, making it easy for the government to confiscate them if it wishes to.

 

[Stace]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's keep this on topic, folks. Caine asked about gun control laws, NOT the Second Amendment and what it means.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The Federalist Papers #28

f the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

That's what we gots a written guarantee of freedom to keep and bear arms, and it's also why the freedom didn't stop at muzzle-loaders, but moved forward with technology to keep parity with the guns of the politicians.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's keep this on topic, folks. Caine asked about gun control laws, NOT the Second Amendment and what it means.

I AM keeping it on topic. Gun Control laws descend directly from flawed interpretations of the Second Amendment. After all, the Constitution is the highest law in the land.

 

[Stace]

I AM keeping it on topic. Gun Control laws descend directly from flawed interpretations of the Second Amendment. After all, the Constitution is the highest law in the land.

Well, Caine has specifically stated that he's not interested in debating the Second Amendment. From my understanding, the intent of the thread was to discuss with other Dems their views on gun control, or more specifically, why some of them are AGAINST stricter gun control.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

US v Miller will solve your problem here.
http://www.hoboes.com/html/Politics/Firearms/miller.html

There's no way to argue that this decision doesnt protect all firearms and exclude the "serious weapons" in your lament.

Actually, what Miller would mean, when the courts said that a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18 inches long has no function in protecting the nation against invasion, is that modern fully automatic weapons do have such a function and that thus laws restricting public access to them are in violation of the Second Amendment.

Also, BTW, the Miller decision was wrong. Sawed off shotguns were very effective in preventing the invasion of the trenches in WWI, and hence would have had a real value in national defense given the technology of the 1930's (and today, too).

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well, Caine has specifically stated that he's not interested in debating the Second Amendment. From my understanding, the intent of the thread was to discuss with other Dems their views on gun control, or more specifically, why some of them are AGAINST stricter gun control.

I don't see how one can discuss gun control law in general without references the Second Amendment, and I don't see any specific gun control law on the table here to dissect, and I don't see any Democrats identifying themselves in opposition to gun control laws yet. I did say in an earlier post that they needed to show up.

That being said, what I've seen posted is grossly inaccurate interpretations, logically flawed scenarios, and false presumptions of the role of law enforcement. So I've been fixing things.

Actually, compared to some of the threads I've seen, this one isn't far off topic. I think it's just waiting for someone to identify a specific law to discuss.

Basically, I was done and waiting for some specific law to arise. I could register as a Democrat, would that make me more suitable for this thread? I don't mind, so long as I don't have to vote as a Democrat

 

[Stace]

I don't see how one can discuss gun control law in general without references the Second Amendment, and I don't see any specific gun control law on the table here to dissect, and I don't see any Democrats identifying themselves in opposition to gun control laws yet. I did say in an earlier post that they needed to show up.

That being said, what I've seen posted is grossly inaccurate interpretations, logically flawed scenarios, and false presumptions of the role of law enforcement. So I've been fixing things.

Actually, compared to some of the threads I've seen, this one isn't far off topic. I think it's just waiting for someone to identify a specific law to discuss.

Basically, I was done and waiting for some specific law to arise. I could register as a Democrat, would that make me more suitable for this thread? I don't mind, so long as I don't have to vote as a Democrat

Well, I can't speak for Caine, but there's obviously no forum rule saying you can't offer your opinion as well. :mrgreen:

I have no idea what the gun laws in my state are....I own a 9 mil, and I know I can't conceal it, but I have it for home protection anyway, so it doesn't often travel with me.....so, since I'm clueless, and too lazy to look stuff up right now, what are your local gun laws, and how do you feel about them?

 

[Thorgasm]

After all, the Constitution is the highest law in the land.

It was also the first document to have spin in it. :lol:

 

[Goobieman]

Well, Caine has specifically stated that he's not interested in debating the Second Amendment. From my understanding, the intent of the thread was to discuss with other Dems their views on gun control, or more specifically, why some of them are AGAINST stricter gun control.

With all due respect -- I wasn't aware that Mods were here to keep topics limited to what the original poster wanted to talk about.

If he doesnt want to talk about the 2nd, he can choose to ignore this topic.

In any case, its utterly unreasonable to expect a discussion about gun control to NOT wander into the the 2nd amendment.