I don't see why the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is so hard.
"Everyone has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall"
Darn. I always thought it had something to do with fashion...
"Bare arms".
LOL.
Serious aside: Anyone trying to put 21st century definitions on 18th century terms WITHOUT taking the greatly differing use and daily reality that existed then into account will soon get lost in their own mistaken definition.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the "militia" being discussed in the 1700's assumed the possession of firearms by virtually every household, and specifically the head of that household, 365 days a year.
Had the Constitution been written in 1996 it might indeed mean something very different, but of course it was not.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
I don't see why the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is so hard.
"Everyone has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall"
That is 100% correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominator
Why is the 2nd Amendment a 'States Rights' issue and not an individual right....JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER AMENDMENT???
If you argue it is the State's right to regulate, you dismiss the whole of the amendments to the Constitution!
Gee, perhaps you should be a Supreme Court Justice then. If every individual were entitled to weapons without any state regulation then any state attempting to make any sort of gun control law would be immediately in violation of Federal Law. The Supreme Court (both liberal and conservative courts) for a very long time has sided with the states being allowed regulate the allocation and use of guns however they please. If a state wants to outlaw guns, they can. If a state wants to allow people to carry weapons in public, they can do that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
If you say something enough it will eventually become true.
The founding father were anti gun.
The people are really the state.
The holocaust never happened.
Hitler, Stalin, Moosealini, what about all the good things they did?
Revisionism can even change the constitution.
I never said the founding fathers were anti gun, how retarded is that statement.... and don't bring up the holocaust right now, that's neither here nor there, and as someone who lost a lot of family in the holocaust I take great offense to that.
What I'm saying here is not crap I'm making up. The Supreme Court Justices are the ones who interpret the Constitution, not the President, and not the Congressmen and Senators. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment for hundreds of years has been that it is a states right. Study the Philadelphia Convention and the pressures the founders were under to obtain ratification and it should start making sense.
If you really believe a state does not have the right to regulate guns then try challenging a gun law in Federal Court... it will most definitely be shot down.
__________________
2005 Mustang GT - ROUSH CAI, FRPP Stingers, Silverhorse Blackout Panel, Brushed "Aluminum" Dash Kit, chrome American Racing ROGUE wheels 20x8.5 with 255/35/20 Yokohama S.Drive tires, ROUSH rear springs
Darn. I always thought it had something to do with fashion...
"Bare arms".
LOL.
Serious aside: Anyone trying to put 21st century definitions on 18th century terms WITHOUT taking the greatly differing use and daily reality that existed then into account will soon get lost in their own mistaken definition.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the "militia" being discussed in the 1700's assumed the possession of firearms by virtually every household, and specifically the head of that household, 365 days a year.
Had the Constitution been written in 1996 it might indeed mean something very different, but of course it was not.
Your right about if the constitution was written today,A lot of todays Americans can not comprehend what it means to be an individual or know what independence is. The are supporting a candidate and a party that hates the word "Liberty" and "Individualism".
As someone else posted in another thread, If the Bill of Rights were written today it would not even get out of committee!!
The reason we are an armed society is so we can protect ourselfs from tyrants and despots like what has taken over the once great Democrat party.
__________________
06' GT Tungsten gray,seq. turn sigs. no spoiler.
XM,
An armed man is called a citizen.A disarmed man is called a subject.
All I have to say is this Candidate is the most anti-gun person running since Clinton. Remember the bans? We have guns to protect ourselves against a tyrannic government. They want to take my guns I give them to them,Bullets first.
__________________
Airraid CAI/BAMA tune,moto blue pullies,3:73`s,LPW girdle;Powerhouse DS,CHE safety loop,CHE LCA`S & Adjustable UCA,Kooks LT`S & O/R X Pipe,prothane MM`s,Steeda CMDP`S,Eibach springs,Tokico D specs,Polished TB(by Me),Steeda radiator support,MT DR`S,Zex kit 100 shot. Taylor Relocation batter kit and cut off switch
11:933 ET, 1.674 60`,111.877 MPH 5600 feet above sea level 6900 D/A
Sam, are you telling us you're "...too sexy for my shirt" ?
Ha, I KNEW it had something to do with high fashion. Of course, back in the 18th century, men wore wigs, too!
Nah, only that my rights to bring out the guns is protected by the Constitution of the United States.
Being sexy has to to with a lot more than just working out or bearing your arms. And that is another conversation all together... and one I was not trying to get into... at this point.
Wigs on the other hand.... um.... no thanks.
__________________
- Sam
The shackles of opression and dependence are most easily slipped on with a smile and kind words of hope.
Nah, only that my rights to bring out the guns is protected by the Constitution of the United States.
Being sexy has to to with a lot more than just working out or bearing your arms. And that is another conversation all together... and one I was not trying to get into... at this point.
Wigs on the other hand.... um.... no thanks.
Just another example of how fashion trends (and the English language) change over the centuries!
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
If a state wants to outlaw guns, they can. If a state wants to allow people to carry weapons in public, they can do that too.
See, the problem is (from my point of view) that you are debating two, entirely different points. The point you raised with which I took exception (and upon which I believe I showed you were in error) was the argument that the Second Amendment did not provide for an individual right to 'keep and bear arms.' This right does, indeed, exist in the Constitution of the United States, meaning that, without a doubt, it exists at the federal level and is referring to an individual right, not to states' rights. However, I am willing to accept that this places a limit on the Federal government (meaning that any Federal legislation that limits individual ownership in any way is unconstitutional, period - including any and all Federal 'assault weapons' bans - especially 'assault weapons' bans as 'assault weapons' are exactly the type of weapon that would be needed, in the modern age, to resist tyranny from the Federal government and which, therefore, would expressly fall under the Second Amendment.)
However, the Founders were also obviously trying to jealously guard the rights of local and state governments. This is evidenced by the fact that Madison had to compose the Federalist No. 46, in the first place - because there were those who were afraid that the Federal government would use a standing army to force their will on states. Of course, the Founders probably never thought that a state would willingly give up the right of it's citizens to bear arms.
Quite honestly, this part of the issue creates a quandary for me. I am strongly in favor of states' rights. I think that the Federal government has far outgrown it's boundaries, both legal and practical. I also believe that the Fed. needs to be greatly reduced in size and scope. Mostly, the Fed. should deal with disputes between states and handle foreign policy while the bulk of domestic issues should be handled at a state level (although there would have to be some exceptions.) This very belief is one reason that Ron Paul struck such a cord with me (and a reason I might still vote for him in November if I can't align myself with the Libertarians or one of the other 'non-big two' parties.)
Problem is, I am also a libertarian (small 'l' as in a general philosophy, not a big 'L' as in the party - I disagree with them on some major issues.) I believe strongly in the rights of the individual (which also means the responsibilities of the individual.) Problem is, even many of those in our society who still believe in individual responsibility want to curb individual rights. Can't have it both ways - one must come with the other. If you want individuals to be responsible, you have to trust them with true liberty and all rights.
Therefore, this is my belief: that states do have the right to regulate what firearms can be bought and sold within their boundaries. States have the right to require certain conditions be met before a civilian can carry a firearm in public. However, 'regulate' and 'ban' are two different things. I believe that a state or local law that bans all firearms - or even bans all handguns, all shotguns, all rifles or any other class of firearms, outright, would be in violation of the Second Amendment and, in such a case, the Federal law would have to take precedent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BKid
All I have to say is this Candidate is the most anti-gun person running since Clinton. Remember the bans?
As I said above, I believe that any federal legislation that limits the ownership of arms in any way, whatsoever, should be found unconstitutional. However, I don't know that Clinton (who, himself, owned guns and seemed to enjoy hunting) was as 'anti-gun' as some folks seem to think. First of all, remember that the Brady Bill had been in the works for some time before Clinton signed it (it was, after all, named after a guy who was shot when John Hinckley, Jr. attempted to assassinate Reagan) and Clinton could only sign legislation that had already made it through both houses of Congress. Again, I do believe that, as it limits ownership at the federal level, this law (now expired) was unconstitutional. That said, I own quite a few firearms. Not as many as some of our fellow AFM members (who, I am convinced, post pics of parts of their collection from time to time just to make me jealous), but quite a few. Aside from my S&W 22A, which is really just fun for plinking/target shooting, any one of the firearms I own would be quite effective in defending my home against an intruder and none of them, not a single one, would be illegal for purchase under the Brady Bill. In fact, unless I am mistaken, Brady pretty much limited what new weapons could be sold here and what modifications could be made to existing weapons - it didn't mandate gathering up and destroying all the pre-ban weapons of the type that would have been covered in the bill. Not saying that I support that legislation in any way - I don't - just saying that it wasn't quite the limitation some folks seemed to believe.
Obama is quite a different matter. Like, well, pretty much every other issue, he has done his song and dance every time this issue has come up, talking of 'reasonable regulations' (what does he consider 'reasonable'?) Personally, he has done nothing to give me cause to trust him on any issue, much less the issue of firearms ownership.
In fact, unless I am mistaken, Brady pretty much limited what new weapons could be sold here and what modifications could be made to existing weapons - it didn't mandate gathering up and destroying all the pre-ban weapons of the type that would have been covered in the bill. Not saying that I support that legislation in any way - I don't - just saying that it wasn't quite the limitation some folks seemed to believe.
Actually the Brady bill only changed the way guns came from the factory. And limited the ammo capacity for handgun magazines. I bought a post ban M4A3, the only difference was it didn't have a flash suppressor or a bayonet lug. Till I bought it, took it to a gun smith and had him put those parts on. The Brady bill was useless and very poorly written, dumbest law we've had in a while.
When guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will have Guns.
When Guns are outlawed, I will be an Outlaw.
__________________
2000 Convertible V6 Oklahoma Sooners Red "Civic Kid Eater" Why is it that only kids in Hondas wanna race?
I believe that a state or local law that bans all firearms - or even bans all handguns, all shotguns, all rifles or any other class of firearms, outright, would be in violation of the Second Amendment and, in such a case, the Federal law would have to take precedent.
So you believe that state laws banning the sale, use, and possession of automatic firearms (like the CA law) should be challenged in a Federal Court?
My point that I have been trying to make, and I think I've made fairly clear, is that when such laws are challenged in the appellate courts, the precedent (as set in the Supreme Court) is to allow states the right under the 2nd Amendment to impose such laws.
There is a case currently in the Supreme Court challenging Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns. Since this is not a state it will be interesting to see how the current court rules. This case will be very influential in future gun rights legislation regardless of its outcome. I think the case is being heard sometime this summer... not sure exactly...
__________________
2005 Mustang GT - ROUSH CAI, FRPP Stingers, Silverhorse Blackout Panel, Brushed "Aluminum" Dash Kit, chrome American Racing ROGUE wheels 20x8.5 with 255/35/20 Yokohama S.Drive tires, ROUSH rear springs
For those who find the worries voiced by the Founding Fathers in setting up strong protections for the rights and powers of the individual States worrisome, this was because the agreement to join the United States was ALWAYS considered to be a free choice made among equals.
The STATES were the primary power, not the weak central government, itself drawing its composition from the States . This was of course later diluted when popular votes were created to elect Senators, and later (though indirectly) the President and Vice President. The final destruction of this wise philosophy occurred when Abraham Lincoln and the Northern States sought to turn the "free choice of equals" into an insurrection of subordinates against their masters. The War Between the States, and the subsequent "clean up" Amendment designed to ex post facto legalize the War, was the end of the idea that States had genuine power within the Union.
Federal law, including laws regarding firearms, now routinely supercede or bracket those of States and Local governments.
OF course, ALL the state Constitutions I have examined contain the Bill of Rights (including 2nd Amendment Rights) in one form or another. JB, I totally agree that the States SHOULD have the power to legislate firearms, but SUBJECT to the broad brush provisions within the Constitution.
Of course, I also believe that any State that CANNOT live with the contents of the Constitution also has the right to withdraw from what should have always been a willing association with the rest of us!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB02GT
However, the Founders were also obviously trying to jealously guard the rights of local and state governments. This is evidenced by the fact that Madison had to compose the Federalist No. 46, in the first place - because there were those who were afraid that the Federal government would use a standing army to force their will on states. Of course, the Founders probably never thought that a state would willingly give up the right of it's citizens to bear arms.
Quite honestly, this part of the issue creates a quandary for me. I am strongly in favor of states' rights. I think that the Federal government has far outgrown it's boundaries, both legal and practical. I also believe that the Fed. needs to be greatly reduced in size and scope. Mostly, the Fed. should deal with disputes between states and handle foreign policy while the bulk of domestic issues should be handled at a state level (although there would have to be some exceptions.) This very belief is one reason that Ron Paul struck such a cord with me (and a reason I might still vote for him in November if I can't align myself with the Libertarians or one of the other 'non-big two' parties.)
Problem is, I am also a libertarian (small 'l' as in a general philosophy, not a big 'L' as in the party - I disagree with them on some major issues.) I believe strongly in the rights of the individual (which also means the responsibilities of the individual.) Problem is, even many of those in our society who still believe in individual responsibility want to curb individual rights. Can't have it both ways - one must come with the other. If you want individuals to be responsible, you have to trust them with true liberty and all rights.
Therefore, this is my belief: that states do have the right to regulate what firearms can be bought and sold within their boundaries. States have the right to require certain conditions be met before a civilian can carry a firearm in public. However, 'regulate' and 'ban' are two different things. I believe that a state or local law that bans all firearms - or even bans all handguns, all shotguns, all rifles or any other class of firearms, outright, would be in violation of the Second Amendment and, in such a case, the Federal law would have to take precedent.
As I said above, I believe that any federal legislation that limits the ownership of arms in any way, whatsoever, should be found unconstitutional. However, I don't know that Clinton (who, himself, owned guns and seemed to enjoy hunting) was as 'anti-gun' as some folks seem to think. First of all, remember that the Brady Bill had been in the works for some time before Clinton signed it (it was, after all, named after a guy who was shot when John Hinckley, Jr. attempted to assassinate Reagan) and Clinton could only sign legislation that had already made it through both houses of Congress. Again, I do believe that, as it limits ownership at the federal level, this law (now expired) was unconstitutional. That said, I own quite a few firearms. Not as many as some of our fellow AFM members (who, I am convinced, post pics of parts of their collection from time to time just to make me jealous), but quite a few. Aside from my S&W 22A, which is really just fun for plinking/target shooting, any one of the firearms I own would be quite effective in defending my home against an intruder and none of them, not a single one, would be illegal for purchase under the Brady Bill. In fact, unless I am mistaken, Brady pretty much limited what new weapons could be sold here and what modifications could be made to existing weapons - it didn't mandate gathering up and destroying all the pre-ban weapons of the type that would have been covered in the bill. Not saying that I support that legislation in any way - I don't - just saying that it wasn't quite the limitation some folks seemed to believe.
Obama is quite a different matter. Like, well, pretty much every other issue, he has done his song and dance every time this issue has come up, talking of 'reasonable regulations' (what does he consider 'reasonable'?) Personally, he has done nothing to give me cause to trust him on any issue, much less the issue of firearms ownership.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
The final destruction of this wise philosophy occurred when Abraham Lincoln and the Northern States sought to turn the "free choice of equals" into an insurrection of subordinates against their masters. The War Between the States, and the subsequent "clean up" Amendment designed to ex post facto legalize the War, was the end of the idea that States had genuine power within the Union.
I actually started to mention this very thing - and how it changed States rights relative to Federal law - in my post. The only reason I didn't was because I feared it would take us on a tangent.
For those who find the worries voiced by the Founding Fathers in setting up strong protections for the rights and powers of the individual States worrisome, this was because the agreement to join the United States was ALWAYS considered to be a free choice made among equals.
The STATES were the primary power, not the weak central government, itself drawing its composition from the States . This was of course later diluted when popular votes were created to elect Senators, and later (though indirectly) the President and Vice President. The final destruction of this wise philosophy occurred when Abraham Lincoln and the Northern States sought to turn the "free choice of equals" into an insurrection of subordinates against their masters. The War Between the States, and the subsequent "clean up" Amendment designed to ex post facto legalize the War, was the end of the idea that States had genuine power within the Union.
Federal law, including laws regarding firearms, now routinely supercede or bracket those of States and Local governments.
OF course, ALL the state Constitutions I have examined contain the Bill of Rights (including 2nd Amendment Rights) in one form or another. JB, I totally agree that the States SHOULD have the power to legislate firearms, but SUBJECT to the broad brush provisions within the Constitution.
Of course, I also believe that any State that CANNOT live with the contents of the Constitution also has the right to withdraw from what should have always been a willing association with the rest of us!
And that's why most politicians in DC hate and ignore the 10th Amendment!
__________________
06' GT Tungsten gray,seq. turn sigs. no spoiler.
XM,
An armed man is called a citizen.A disarmed man is called a subject.
Arms 
