SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 1412345>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Assualt Weapon Ban would be Unconstitutional, Purpose of the 2nd Amendment< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 7:50 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Among the recent gun control threads was one titled "Madison never meant the 2nd Amendement...." I wanted to respond to it earlier, but didn't have time, and now that thread is closed. I thought I'd start a new 2nd Amendment thread in case anyone still wants to debate the reason the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.

So, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the citizens of the United States would be armed in order to take their freedom back from the federal government in the event that the federal government turned into a dictatorship.

Remember, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because the people at the time did not feel their liberty was secure enough with the body of the Constitution alone.  

The existence of the militia reduced the need for a standing army, which the people worried could be used against them by a president-turned-tyrant, but did not eliminate the need for a regular army in case of all out war; the militia would always be somewhat rag-tag, and a regular army would be a more effective fighting force in defending the country. But even with the control of the regular army, it would be hard for the would-be tyrant to use it against the citizens if the citizens were armed.

So the Second Amendment ensures that "the people"are armed (as opposed to the militia weapons being stored in a state government controlled armory where the people did not have access to them).  

And that's my opinion. So if assault weapons and large capacity magazines are to be banned, the Second Amendment must first be repealed or modified to clear the way.

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 8:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(george of the j @ Dec. 24 2012, 4:50 pm)
QUOTE
So, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the citizens of the United States would be armed in order to take their freedom back from the federal government in the event that the federal government turned into a dictatorship.

Remember, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because the people at the time did not feel their liberty was secure enough with the body of the Constitution alone.  

The existence of the militia reduced the need for a standing army, which the people worried could be used against them by a president-turned-tyrant, but did not eliminate the need for a regular army in case of all out war; the militia would always be somewhat rag-tag, and a regular army would be a more effective fighting force in defending the country. But even with the control of the regular army, it would be hard for the would-be tyrant to use it against the citizens if the citizens were armed.

So the Second Amendment ensures that "the people"are armed (as opposed to the militia weapons being stored in a state government controlled armory where the people did not have access to them).  

And that's my opinion. So if assault weapons and large capacity magazines are to be banned, the Second Amendment must first be repealed or modified to clear the way.

---George

So the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people's right to commit acts that are defined as treason elsewhere in the Constitution?

Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense.

That aside, do you really believe those Wolverine fantasies could actually play out in the real world the way they do in a cheesy movie like Red Dawn?  Seriously?


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 3
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6384
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 8:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The anti-gunners don't care about the 2nd amendment.

They would scream and yell if anyone proposed making alcohol illegal, even though alcohol kills way more people every year.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
davela Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 659
Joined: Dec. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 8:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Assault weapons are not muskets.You can have your 6 shooter to play with or blow your fingers off with just no military style bazookas.Ok?

--------------

Protect Greater Canyonlands!

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 5
hikerjer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10986
Joined: Apr. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 8:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Actually, it doesn't really matter what you guys think.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court - which is where I'm pretty sure, this will end up - will make the decision and it will become the law of the land whether you like their decision or not.

--------------
"Too often I have met men who boast only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen."  -  Louis L'Amour
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4655
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 8:39 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:12 pm)
QUOTE
The anti-gunners don't care about the 2nd amendment.

They would scream and yell if anyone proposed making alcohol illegal, even though alcohol kills way more people every year.

Do you offer lessons in screaming and yelling? Given your expertise...
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 8:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

No sure how many times this can be mentioned. The recent Supreme Court ruling asserted the right to gun ownership, but not unlimited rights to gun ownership. Read what Scalia said.

This is despite the huge reach the conservative court made to interpret the individual right to gun ownership.

It's basically up to society at a given point in time, to decide what are reasonable gun ownership rights. It leaves the court open to consider a ban on assault weapons to deem if restrictions on them.

In a broader context, the ruling stressed that in terms of a militia, they bring what weapons they have at home, not tailor what weapons they have at home to make up an army.

In terms of historical context. The intention of the militia clause was to act in the place of a standing army to support the federal government in terms of defending the US from external threats, basically the return of the British with more force, and to put down insurrections within the states.

The fear was an external threat and the fact that the US couldn't maintain a standing army to the level of the superpowers of the day.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 8:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:12 pm)
QUOTE
The anti-gunners don't care about the 2nd amendment.

They would scream and yell if anyone proposed making alcohol illegal, even though alcohol kills way more people every year.

* Adding alcohol to the list of pathetic unrelated comparisons and excuses.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
hikerjer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10986
Joined: Apr. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 10:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:53 pm)
QUOTE
In terms of historical context. The intention of the militia clause was to act in the place of a standing army to support the federal government in terms of defending the US from external threats, basically the return of the British with more force, and to put down insurrections within the states.

Exactly.  But then,  I suppose the British could rise again and try to regain the empire.  Then we'll be thankful for the NRA.


--------------
"Too often I have met men who boast only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen."  -  Louis L'Amour
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 10:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:05 pm)
QUOTE
So the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people's right to commit acts that are defined as treason elsewhere in the Constitution?

The amendment's pupose was to protect the ability of the people to retake their freedom if the federal government commited acts of tyranny.

Madison wrote about this scenario "Federalist 46."
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 10:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:05 pm)
QUOTE
That aside, do you really believe those Wolverine fantasies could actually play out in the real world the way they do in a cheesy movie like Red Dawn?  Seriously?

As you know there have been many real-world cases of dictators seizing power. Human nature.

But here in the U.S. the chances seem remote. Still, I'm arguing that this is the purpose for the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment still stands. Why don't gun control advocates first push to repeal it and then push for the legislation they want?

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 11:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(davela @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:22 pm)
QUOTE
Assault weapons are not muskets.

The Second Amendment does not read that the people are allowed "muskets"; it reads "arms." "Arms" are weapons for combat; in the 18th century muskets were state-of-art, while today assault rifles are state-of-the art. The Second Amendment did not restrict the people of the time to less than state-of-the-art weapons, such as swords and bows, while a regular army under very direct federal control would have state-of-the-art muskets.

Again, read Federalist 46 to see Madison's thinking on armed citizens overthrowing a despot.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Chuck D Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7952
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 11:28 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(george of the j @ Dec. 24 2012, 11:11 pm)
QUOTE

(davela @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:22 pm)
QUOTE
Assault weapons are not muskets.

The Second Amendment does not read that the people are allowed "muskets"; it reads "arms." "Arms" are weapons for combat; in the 18th century muskets were state-of-art, while today assault rifles are state-of-the art. The Second Amendment did not restrict the people of the time to less than state-of-the-art weapons, such as swords and bows, while a regular army under very direct federal control would have state-of-the-art muskets.

Again, read Federalist 46 to see Madison's thinking on armed citizens overthrowing a despot.

So my 2nd Amendment rights allow me to purchase a fully armed M1A2 Abrams main battle tank?

I wonder what Walmart will charge for HEAT and Sabot rounds?


--------------
Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 11:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hikerjer @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:23 pm)
QUOTE
Actually, it doesn't really matter what you guys think.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court - which is where I'm pretty sure, this will end up - will make the decision and it will become the law of the land whether you like their decision or not.

True. And there have been decisions I didn't like, such as the Eminent Domain decision a few years ago.

There are unpopular decisions, many 5-4 decisions, and the occasional overturned decision. So if the Sumpreme Court ruled against assault weapons, I would think that they were wrong.

Still, it would be the law of the land and the ban would stand.

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
hikerjer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10986
Joined: Apr. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 11:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(george of the j @ Dec. 24 2012, 11:34 pm)
QUOTE
Still, it would be the law of the land and the ban would stan

---George

Ah, a voice of reason

--------------
"Too often I have met men who boast only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen."  -  Louis L'Amour
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 24 2012, 11:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:53 pm)
QUOTE
In terms of historical context. The intention of the militia clause was to act in the place of a standing army to support the federal government in terms of defending the US from external threats, basically the return of the British with more force, and to put down insurrections within the states.

The fear was an external threat and the fact that the US couldn't maintain a standing army to the level of the superpowers of the day.

I disagree.

The militia clause states that a militia is preferable to a standing army, and this is because a standing army was seen as a threat, the potential tool of a tyrant.

The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is part, was of course not in the original text of the Constitution. Many people did not want to adopt the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, because they thought the it gave the federal government too much power; they wanted a bill of rights to restrain it. The Constitution was adopted with the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added.

The Second Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights to defend against the British; it was to defend against oppression from our own government.

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 1:27 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Chuck D @ Dec. 24 2012, 11:28 pm)
QUOTE
So my 2nd Amendment rights allow me to purchase a fully armed M1A2 Abrams main battle tank?

I doubt the Second Amendment covers tanks. But it's a good question: where to draw the line? I don't know exactly.

Scalia said something about cannons not being covered, but shoulder-fired weapons were covered. Maybe he's right.

Assualt weapons with high capacity magazines are certainly covered in my opinion because they are among the lightest weapons normally carried into battle by soldiers, and are the bare minimum needed to mount any kind of resistance to a tyrant who gained control.

At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified there was no Mormon Church, yet freedom of religion applies to its members today. There was no TV, but freedom of speech has been expanded to include it. There were no phones, yet wire taping has been deemed unconstitutional. Assault weapons were not yet the common shoulder arm carried by infantry worldwide, but are surely the least protected by the Second Amendment.

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7205
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 8:44 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Chuck D @ Dec. 24 2012, 9:28 pm)
QUOTE
So my 2nd Amendment rights allow me to purchase a fully armed M1A2 Abrams main battle tank?

With the proper numerous and very expensive federal permits, one could be acquired.

--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Chuck D Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7952
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 10:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Dec. 25 2012, 8:44 am)
QUOTE

(Chuck D @ Dec. 24 2012, 9:28 pm)
QUOTE
So my 2nd Amendment rights allow me to purchase a fully armed M1A2 Abrams main battle tank?

With the proper numerous and very expensive federal permits, one could be acquired.

My BBQ team considered buying a T-34 and converting to a pit

--------------
Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6762
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 2:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Nice to hear some logic in your arguments, george, thank you.

I disagree with your conclusions but I understand your reasoning and that is a good step forward.

So, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the citizens of the United States would be armed in order to take their freedom back from the federal government in the event that the federal government turned into a dictatorship.

Do you have anything, other than your own personal opinon, to indicate that the intent was ever anything to do with fomenting revolution or anarchy against the federal government.  As mentioned above, such a purpose would be in direct opposition Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html

I don't see any indication at all that the Framers were intending to arm US citizens to take on the Federal Government, and furthermore, I thought the Civil War pretty well settled that approach to problem solving.

You mention Federalist 46, but I have never seen the intent there that you are claiming.  Please give us some quote and background to enhance further discussion.

Looking forward to your input.


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6384
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 2:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:54 pm)
QUOTE

(nogods @ Dec. 24 2012, 8:12 pm)
QUOTE
The anti-gunners don't care about the 2nd amendment.

They would scream and yell if anyone proposed making alcohol illegal, even though alcohol kills way more people every year.

* Adding alcohol to the list of pathetic unrelated comparisons and excuses.

The CDC attributes about 40,000 deaths per year to the misuse of alcohol.  That's more than the number of deaths from firearms.

Just yesterday, the local news had a NYS Police public announcement stating that in NYS alone over 8,000 accidents per year are determined to be related to alcohol consumption.

There is no benefit whatsoever to consumption of alcohol, unless you count the births that come from inebriation as some sort of benefit to society.

According to your analysis both should be illegal because neither one has a social benefit.

And the same is true of crack cocaine.  

Planting an apple hoping it will grow into a tree with dollar bills for leaves is no different from planting an orange hoping it will grow into a tree with dollar bills for leaves.

One would have to be very intellectually challenged not to be able to perceive the analogy and instead just keep repeating the "apples with oranges" mantra.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6762
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 7:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

no gods, the differences have been pointed out to you, over and over, but you refuse to acknowledge that there are critical differences.

You got any examples of drunk drivers luring out and executing firefighters?  How about a drunk driving into a school and killing 26 students and teachers?

Alcoholism is bad, and it ends up killing a lot of people, nearly all of them through killing themselves.  Cancer is bad, it kills millions, heart disease is bad, it kills even more millions.  
We are all going to die, you can't get off this mortal coil alive, ever.

But that does not mean that you need to make mass killing tools readily available for psychopaths so they can kill dozens at a time rather than one or two.

If you cannot tell the difference between a self destructive behavior that sometimes ends up hurting others, and the widespread distribution of tools for mass killing, then I guess there is no hope for you to understand.

Just remain in the irrational minority and let the controls come to force you into compliance.  If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

And there is no need that you should be.  You are defending a childish myth, when you could be helping to create a sensible structure that would preserve the proper use of firearms, and deny the mass killers access to them.  

When was the last time you needed a high capacity, semi auto weapon??

We have solved much bigger problems than this one, and we will solve the gun problem in America.  I just hope that we do it sooner, rather than later.


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 7:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(george of the j @ Dec. 25 2012, 1:27 am)
QUOTE

(Chuck D @ Dec. 24 2012, 11:28 pm)
QUOTE
So my 2nd Amendment rights allow me to purchase a fully armed M1A2 Abrams main battle tank?

I doubt the Second Amendment covers tanks. But it's a good question: where to draw the line? I don't know exactly.

Scalia said something about cannons not being covered, but shoulder-fired weapons were covered. Maybe he's right.

Assualt weapons with high capacity magazines are certainly covered in my opinion because they are among the lightest weapons normally carried into battle by soldiers, and are the bare minimum needed to mount any kind of resistance to a tyrant who gained control.

At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified there was no Mormon Church, yet freedom of religion applies to its members today. There was no TV, but freedom of speech has been expanded to include it. There were no phones, yet wire taping has been deemed unconstitutional. Assault weapons were not yet the common shoulder arm carried by infantry worldwide, but are surely the least protected by the Second Amendment.

---George

But the point behind the ruling was not that they guns at home equip you to form an army, but that you bring what is suitable from home.

Can't believe I'm quoting that idiot, but still.

As for the Fereralist appears. You can read into it what you like. There's basically too much material there. What appears to be unequivocal support for you to equip yourself to go to war in one paragraph can the balanced by a dozen others saying it doesn't mean that.

But I think many people lose sight of what the constitution is and should be. It's a document that can and should be updated as needs permit. People look and try to interpret things to justify extremism as they do the bible or the Koran.

The constitution was compiled by people of their time and is an amazing document, but I'm not sure we should be treating it as the world of god or other supreme being.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
orygawn Search for posts by this member.
Sleeping Bag Man!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6034
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 8:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(george of the j @ Dec. 24 2012, 4:50 pm)
QUOTE
The existence of the militia reduced the need for a standing army, which the people worried could be used against them by a president-turned-tyrant, but did not eliminate the need for a regular army in case of all out war;

By this logic, gun advocates should also be lobbying for a reduction in the size of our standing army.  That ain't exactly happenin, so I don't really buy this.

Or does the Dirty Harry gun fantasy also include taking on F16s, nuclear aircraft carriers, and armored battalions with your big bad 44 magnums and Bushmasters?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7205
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 9:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

[
QUOTE
If you cannot tell the difference between a self destructive behavior that sometimes ends up hurting others, and the widespread distribution of tools for mass killing, then I guess there is no hope for you to understand.

If you can't comprehend the irrationality of penalizing 10's of millions of responsible gun owners for the irresponsible and destructive actions of a few whackjobs, then there is no hope for you to understand.

More innocent people are killed by DUI/DWI drivers every year than are killed illegally with guns.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 9:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Dec. 25 2012, 9:07 pm)
QUOTE
[
QUOTE
If you cannot tell the difference between a self destructive behavior that sometimes ends up hurting others, and the widespread distribution of tools for mass killing, then I guess there is no hope for you to understand.

If you can't comprehend the irrationality of penalizing 10's of millions of responsible gun owners for the irresponsible and destructive actions of a few whackjobs, then there is no hope for you to understand.

More innocent people are killed by DUI/DWI drivers every year than are killed illegally with guns.

So it's all right for you to penalize the safety of all Americans for a few million who must have assault weapons or assault weapon wannabes?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 10:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wwwest @ Dec. 25 2012, 2:09 pm)
QUOTE
Do you have anything, other than your own personal opinon, to indicate that the intent was ever anything to do with fomenting revolution or anarchy against the federal government.  As mentioned above, such a purpose would be in direct opposition Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution:

From the last paragraph of this webpage link:

"The [supreme] court . . noted . . . the importance of the right [to keep and bear arms] to the American colonies, the drafters of the Constitution, and the states as a bulwark against an overreaching federal authority".

This was recent, after the Heller case.

------------------------------------------------------------------

In Federalist 46, Madison wrote that the combination of the citizens being armed,  the officers of the militia being selected by their own states, and the fact that the militia would far outnumber any regular army that the federal government could raise meant that the militia could beat the regular federal army if it came down to the need for it. Was this "treason" from Madison? Of course he wrote this before the Constitution was adopted, but it shows the thinking of the day; he had to strike a chord with his audience.

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 25 2012, 11:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(george of the j @ Dec. 25 2012, 10:48 pm)
QUOTE

(wwwest @ Dec. 25 2012, 2:09 pm)
QUOTE
Do you have anything, other than your own personal opinon, to indicate that the intent was ever anything to do with fomenting revolution or anarchy against the federal government.  As mentioned above, such a purpose would be in direct opposition Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution:

From the last paragraph of this webpage link:

"The [supreme] court . . noted . . . the importance of the right [to keep and bear arms] to the American colonies, the drafters of the Constitution, and the states as a bulwark against an overreaching federal authority".

This was recent, after the Heller case.

------------------------------------------------------------------

In Federalist 46, Madison wrote that the combination of the citizens being armed,  the officers of the militia being selected by their own states, and the fact that the militia would far outnumber any regular army that the federal government could raise meant that the militia could beat the regular federal army if it came down to the need for it. Was this "treason" from Madison? Of course he wrote this before the Constitution was adopted, but it shows the thinking of the day; he had to strike a chord with his audience.

---George

But George - look at who wrote that decision, we have one of the most extremist supreme courts in history that most people think made a huge overreach in this decision, going beyond the realms of the case before them and interpreting the constitution like no others before them.

Even then they recognized that there is provision for appropriate limits on gun ownership to be set.

Not sure I would like to wish ill, but it would be good if one of the four staunch conservatives and even Kennedy these days would retire before this comes to bear. Scalia, Alito and Thomas are an insult to the court,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7205
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 26 2012, 12:23 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Dec. 25 2012, 7:33 pm)
QUOTE

(Montanalonewolf @ Dec. 25 2012, 9:07 pm)
QUOTE
[
QUOTE
If you cannot tell the difference between a self destructive behavior that sometimes ends up hurting others, and the widespread distribution of tools for mass killing, then I guess there is no hope for you to understand.

If you can't comprehend the irrationality of penalizing 10's of millions of responsible gun owners for the irresponsible and destructive actions of a few whackjobs, then there is no hope for you to understand.

More innocent people are killed by DUI/DWI drivers every year than are killed illegally with guns.

So it's all right for you to penalize the safety of all Americans for a few million who must have assault weapons or assault weapon wannabes?

So it's alright with you to penalize the safety of not only every driver but all pedestrians and bicyclists so that millions of drinkers can have their alcohol?

--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 26 2012, 2:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Dec. 25 2012, 7:48 pm)
QUOTE
As for the Fereralist appears. You can read into it what you like. There's basically too much material there. What appears to be unequivocal support for you to equip yourself to go to war in one paragraph can the balanced by a dozen others saying it doesn't mean that.

Many of the Federalist Papers show that the people were worried about standing armies. Another example of a discussion of the militia battling the federal government's army--and winning-- is in Federalist 28.

You say that some of the Federalist Papers counter this? Which?

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
393 replies since Dec. 24 2012, 7:50 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 1412345>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Assualt Weapon Ban would be Unconstitutional
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions