Well you sure had me and others here fooled. So you agree that according to the constitution, people (you and I) should have the right to own arms and congress should not infringe upon that right in anyway?
That's classic, textbook NRA demagoguery.
And that is classic, textbook democrat demagoguery. The NRA was never brought up. We are simply discussing the 2nd ammendment. If you disagree with me, then let's discuss it. No need for childish name calling. We are adults. It wouldn't be the fist time I was wrong, but I think that I am right.
If so, JT, then why the introductory reference to "a well-regulated militia"?
And in re: the militia
"The Congress shall have the power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
For all the vagueness of the Constitution, the Second amendment seems the clearest: Arming for the purpose of forming a militia to fight off the bloody British when they come back and take over, because don't think for one minute they're going to give up all this territory.
I made it a little more colorful. But everyone else reads the amendment and sees what they want to see.
And the "right to bear arms" was clearly meant in the context of organizing a militia. Or else, why specify it in the first half of the Second Amendment?
Buncha upper middle class white guys with what looks like no idea what 21st Century America would look like. Actually, a little more thought and foresight would have saved future generations a lot of heartache or at least one Civil War.
"Rat: I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that's what the amendment implies."
"Jethro: no it doesn't."
Then explain to me why militia was mentioned an not something like a "well regulated society" or a "well regulated population?" Or a "well armed society." Anything like that.
I think the implcation is entirely clear. But the NRA and the rest of the demagogues only cite the second half the sentence. And so i they're putting their own spin on the amendment.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Sep 15, 2005 at 11:38am.]
My reading is that "the people" is a noun referring to the populace, not individuals; the right to bear arms is, to me, clearly for the purposes of forming and maintaining well-regulated militias; the regulation of said militias was intended to be a Congressional responsibility, as quoted above. "The people" in that context refers to the populace, not to each and every individual.
What various Founding Fathers said in speeches and correspondence is interesting, but not binding. What isbinding is what they actually wrote into the Constitution.
You were. You seem to think that only the state militia should have arms."
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that's what the amendment implies.
the statement that a well regulated militia being necessary does not imply that only the state militia should be armed. It is simply saying that this is a good reason not to infringe on the right. There could be many other reasons not addressed in the amendment.
What various Founding Fathers said in speeches and correspondence is interesting, but not binding. What isbinding is what they actually wrote into the Constitution.
But the "strict constructionists" who post here seem to be looking for other meanings. Hidden meanings and intent.
the militant left keep looking for meanings that could never have been the intent of the people who wrote it or the people that ratified it. the left is dishonest and can't handle the debate at the legislative level. Why? because the views of the left have no anchor in common sense.Â
My reading is that "the people" is a noun referring to the populace, not individuals;
Am I not a part of the populace and therefore covered by the 2nd ammendment as you describe it?
In keeping with that definition, does the first ammendment then refer to the "populace, not individuals" right to peacably assemble and "petition the government for a regress of grievances"? Would the 4th ammendment apply to the "populace, not individuals" to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers," etc.?
In reading the 2nd ammendment we see three seperate terms being used - Militia, State and people, yet it only gives this right to the people, ie an individual. Why else would our founding fathers put this right near the beginning of the "Bill of Rights" which are obviously intended for individuals?
"The People" refers to all the INDIVIDUAL people and their rights.
the 2nd Amendment, when referring to "the people", had to mean individual people, since it goes on to explain this is so these individual people can collectively then form and maintain a group known as a militia. I do not believe it meant that only people in a militia can have arms, but that individuals can have them in order for them to be able to form a militia.
the right is the individuals, the reason is so the individuals can maintain a militia.
some want to think that the reason is for individual protection. this is wrong (the 2nd is saying that the protection it seeks to provide is that of a militia), but this does not change the fact the it is an individual right.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on Sep 15, 2005 at 05:32pm.]
if the right was intend as only a group right, the wording would not have included "in order to". If the right was only given to a militia, it would have simply said "A militia may possess arms"
So what is actually said in the amendment, specifically, is meaningless to you?
What they said in the ammendment is supported by what they said elsewhere, so I do not understand what you are getting at. What they said elsewhere shines some more light on what their intent was when writing the ammendment.
I guess they should have taken a little more time and been more precise about exactly what they meant. That way we wouldn't have to have guys like Ted Nugent telling us what it means.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 15, 2005 at 05:51pm.]
I do not believe it meant that only people in a militia can have arms, but that individuals can have them in order for them to be able to form a militia.
Agreed, but with that in mind, what do you think gives the government the right to restrict what arms I may own when the 2nd ammendment is very clear when it states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."? Isn't the government passing a law stating that I may not own an automatic weapon actually an infringment of my rights? Should I not be able to have such weapons if I feared a Ruby Ridge or Davidian Compound type of attack from the government?
"Isn't the government passing a law stating that I may not own an automatic weapon actually an infringment of my rights? "
No.
"Should I not be able to have such weapons if I feared a Ruby Ridge or Davidian Compound type of attack from the government?"
Obey the law and that could be the furthest thing from you mind. The people at Ruby Ridge and the Davidians had comtempt for the law. Do you have contempt for the law, Dan?
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Sep 15, 2005 at 06:01pm.]
Isn't the government passing a law stating that I may not own an automatic weapon actually an infringment of my rights?
The rights to bear arms only go so far as to where they begin to endanger those beyond the self, at which point the rights of those around you begin to become infringed on.
For instance, you have the right to start a fire, but only if you are not taking an undo chance of setting your neighbor's home ablaze.
"What they said in the ammendment is supported by what they said elsewhere, so I do not understand what you are getting at."
Does this make the Constitution a "living" document, Dan? Open to statements outside the four corners on the sheet of paper on which it is written? Because that's not what I get from coservatives. They tell me that we're a rigid society governed exactly by what's written in the Constitution.
Or should we just be honest, and say everyone plays fast and loose with the Constitution and we try to get as close as we can?
"You were. You seem to think that only the state militia should have arms."
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that's what the amendment implies.
That's classic, textbook NRA demagoguery.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Sep 14, 2005 at 04:07pm.]
So, who's talking about disarming anyone?
You're alluding to it in this post: The Rat 9/14/05 3:15pm
It's no secret that the likes of Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy and the U.N. would love to see individual ownership of firearms abolished.
 I said that's what the amendment implies.
Well you sure had me and others here fooled. So you agree that according to the constitution, people (you and I) should have the right to own arms and congress should not infringe upon that right in anyway?
That's classic, textbook NRA demagoguery.
And that is classic, textbook democrat demagoguery. The NRA was never brought up. We are simply discussing the 2nd ammendment. If you disagree with me, then let's discuss it. No need for childish name calling. We are adults. It wouldn't be the fist time I was wrong, but I think that I am right.
"You're alluding to it in this post."
I'm not alluding to anything.
Are you saying my interpretation of the language of the Second Amendment is inaccurate or ignorant? Fine, have at it.
"No need for childish name calling. We are adults."
Then don't accuse me of calling you a name when I didn't.
You should have been a lawyer.
I'll take that as a compliment.
LOL, just picking on you.
[Edited by on Sep 14, 2005 at 05:49pm.]
I have nothing against lawyers. I'm glad thery're there when you need them.
Are you saying my interpretation of the language of the Second Amendment is inaccurate or ignorant? Fine, have at it.
Yes. I think the amendment fully intended for the average private citizen to arm themselves.
If so, JT, then why the introductory reference to "a well-regulated militia"?
And in re: the militia
"The Congress shall have the power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
For all the vagueness of the Constitution, the Second amendment seems the clearest: Arming for the purpose of forming a militia to fight off the bloody British when they come back and take over, because don't think for one minute they're going to give up all this territory.
I made it a little more colorful. But everyone else reads the amendment and sees what they want to see.
[Edited by on Sep 15, 2005 at 05:23am.]
It boils down to, a Militia was made up of average Joe's that had a right to defend themselves against their governments.
So that's why you need to take a gun to church?
Never know when the UN jackboots are going to decide to make their move?
[Edited by on Sep 15, 2005 at 05:42am.]
So that's why you need to take a gun to church?
No, I need my gun in case Crack Head Charlie decides he's Jesus and he's going to send some parishioners to heaven.
Never know when the UN jackboots are going to decide to make their move?
No, you never do know.
[Edited by on Sep 15, 2005 at 05:47am.]
Perhaps we should all live in Rick's land of sunshine and happy thoughts.
Right next door to Rick.
[Edited by on Sep 15, 2005 at 05:55am.]
Stop watching local television news and get to know your neighbors you'll find your world view changes.
That and thinking happy thoughts. If you think the opposite you end up like torpedo.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 15, 2005 at 06:14am.]
By that reasoning the Second Amendment applies only to the types of "arms" that were available in the late 18th century.
And the "right to bear arms" was clearly meant in the context of organizing a militia. Or else, why specify it in the first half of the Second Amendment?
Think "that will never happen to me" and you'll end up like Rick.
Buncha upper middle class white guys with what looks like no idea what 21st Century America would look like. Actually, a little more thought and foresight would have saved future generations a lot of heartache or at least one Civil War.
Liberals will never grasp the meaning of militia.
"You were. You seem to think that only the state militia should have arms."
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that's what the amendment implies.
no it doesn't.
You should have been a lawyer.
Stop watching local television news and get to know your neighbors you'll find your world view changes.
what does this mean?
"Rat: I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that's what the amendment implies."
"Jethro: no it doesn't."
Then explain to me why militia was mentioned an not something like a "well regulated society" or a "well regulated population?" Or a "well armed society." Anything like that.
I think the implcation is entirely clear. But the NRA and the rest of the demagogues only cite the second half the sentence. And so i they're putting their own spin on the amendment.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Sep 15, 2005 at 11:38am.]
My reading is that "the people" is a noun referring to the populace, not individuals; the right to bear arms is, to me, clearly for the purposes of forming and maintaining well-regulated militias; the regulation of said militias was intended to be a Congressional responsibility, as quoted above. "The people" in that context refers to the populace, not to each and every individual.
What various Founding Fathers said in speeches and correspondence is interesting, but not binding. What isbinding is what they actually wrote into the Constitution.
[Edited by on Sep 15, 2005 at 01:01pm.]
"What is binding is what they actually wrote into the Constitution."
But the "strict constructionists" who post here seem to be looking for other meanings. Hidden meanings and intent.
You were. You seem to think that only the state militia should have arms."
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that's what the amendment implies.
the statement that a well regulated militia being necessary does not imply that only the state militia should be armed. It is simply saying that this is a good reason not to infringe on the right. There could be many other reasons not addressed in the amendment.
What various Founding Fathers said in speeches and correspondence is interesting, but not binding. What isbinding is what they actually wrote into the Constitution.
But the "strict constructionists" who post here seem to be looking for other meanings. Hidden meanings and intent.
the militant left keep looking for meanings that could never have been the intent of the people who wrote it or the people that ratified it. the left is dishonest and can't handle the debate at the legislative level. Why? because the views of the left have no anchor in common sense.Â
the people who wrote it couldn't have an intent concerning, say, fully automatic weapons.
the people who wrote it don't live in the world we live in today.
"the militant left keep looking for meanings that could never have been the intent of the people who wrote it or the people that ratified it."
What makes you so sure of their intent?
Face it jethro, you fish for meaning, quote snippits of text here and there without context and do the same damn thing.
My reading is that "the people" is a noun referring to the populace, not individuals;
Am I not a part of the populace and therefore covered by the 2nd ammendment as you describe it?
In keeping with that definition, does the first ammendment then refer to the "populace, not individuals" right to peacably assemble and "petition the government for a regress of grievances"? Would the 4th ammendment apply to the "populace, not individuals" to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers," etc.?
In reading the 2nd ammendment we see three seperate terms being used - Militia, State and people, yet it only gives this right to the people, ie an individual. Why else would our founding fathers put this right near the beginning of the "Bill of Rights" which are obviously intended for individuals?
What makes you so sure of their intent?
The placing of it in the "Bill of Rights" for one and the speeches they gave as well as their writings as another example of what they intended.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 15, 2005 at 05:18pm.]
"The People" refers to all the INDIVIDUAL people and their rights.
the 2nd Amendment, when referring to "the people", had to mean individual people, since it goes on to explain this is so these individual people can collectively then form and maintain a group known as a militia. I do not believe it meant that only people in a militia can have arms, but that individuals can have them in order for them to be able to form a militia.
the right is the individuals, the reason is so the individuals can maintain a militia.
some want to think that the reason is for individual protection. this is wrong (the 2nd is saying that the protection it seeks to provide is that of a militia), but this does not change the fact the it is an individual right.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on Sep 15, 2005 at 05:32pm.]
"..the speeches they gave as well as their writings as another example of what they intended."
So what is actually said in the amendment, specifically, is meaningless to you?
Does this make the Constitution a "living" document, Dan? Open to statements outside the four corners on the sheet of paper on which it is written?
I just want you to make it clear of where you stand.
if the right was intend as only a group right, the wording would not have included "in order to". If the right was only given to a militia, it would have simply said "A militia may possess arms"
So what is actually said in the amendment, specifically, is meaningless to you?
What they said in the ammendment is supported by what they said elsewhere, so I do not understand what you are getting at. What they said elsewhere shines some more light on what their intent was when writing the ammendment.
Â
I guess they should have taken a little more time and been more precise about exactly what they meant. That way we wouldn't have to have guys like Ted Nugent telling us what it means.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 15, 2005 at 05:51pm.]
It's pretty straightforward the way it is.
I do not believe it meant that only people in a militia can have arms, but that individuals can have them in order for them to be able to form a militia.
Agreed, but with that in mind, what do you think gives the government the right to restrict what arms I may own when the 2nd ammendment is very clear when it states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."? Isn't the government passing a law stating that I may not own an automatic weapon actually an infringment of my rights? Should I not be able to have such weapons if I feared a Ruby Ridge or Davidian Compound type of attack from the government?
Ted Nugent Pork Slam 2005
"Isn't the government passing a law stating that I may not own an automatic weapon actually an infringment of my rights? "
No.
"Should I not be able to have such weapons if I feared a Ruby Ridge or Davidian Compound type of attack from the government?"
Obey the law and that could be the furthest thing from you mind. The people at Ruby Ridge and the Davidians had comtempt for the law. Do you have contempt for the law, Dan?
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Sep 15, 2005 at 06:01pm.]
The rights to bear arms only go so far as to where they begin to endanger those beyond the self, at which point the rights of those around you begin to become infringed on.
For instance, you have the right to start a fire, but only if you are not taking an undo chance of setting your neighbor's home ablaze.
but that's not always the case.
and besides, when our government passes unjust laws, we are SUPPOSED to disobey them.
"when our government passes unjust laws, we are SUPPOSED to disobey them."
And you are supposed to pay the consequences.
"What they said in the ammendment is supported by what they said elsewhere, so I do not understand what you are getting at."
Does this make the Constitution a "living" document, Dan? Open to statements outside the four corners on the sheet of paper on which it is written? Because that's not what I get from coservatives. They tell me that we're a rigid society governed exactly by what's written in the Constitution.
Or should we just be honest, and say everyone plays fast and loose with the Constitution and we try to get as close as we can?