Support gun control?

hevusa · 04-28-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

See there you go again. You get through the portion of of the amendment about a well-regulated militia and your brain just short circuits and either you quit reading or comprehending the little innoculous statement that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. What part of that sentence are you failing to absorb?????

dmk

It is only the right to bear arms to support a militia. In this modern era it is useless.

Then it was defense. Now it is an offense.

duncanmac · 04-28-2005, 08:57 PM

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
This is the conclusion of a DOJ panel.Here is the link to the entire opinion.Backs up alot of what sgtdmski wrote.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

hevusa · 04-28-2005, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncanmac

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
This is the conclusion of a DOJ panel.Here is the link to the entire opinion.Backs up alot of what sgtdmski wrote.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Yes, an individual right if you are part of a militia. Which is useless against modern day military.

duncanmac · 04-28-2005, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncanmac

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
This is the conclusion of a DOJ panel.Here is the link to the entire opinion.Backs up alot of what sgtdmski wrote.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Yes, an individual right if you are part of a militia. Which is useless against modern day military.

Not true.It(in the opinion)applies to individuals not the state nor the federal govt. nor just to a militia.The Bill of Rights applies to individuals NOT the state or fed.govt.

hevusa · 04-28-2005, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncanmac

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncanmac

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
This is the conclusion of a DOJ panel.Here is the link to the entire opinion.Backs up alot of what sgtdmski wrote.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Yes, an individual right if you are part of a militia. Which is useless against modern day military.

Not true.It(in the opinion)applies to individuals not the state nor the federal govt. nor just to a militia.The Bill of Rights applies to individuals NOT the state or fed.govt.

"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."

When you have militia in the SAME SENTENCE how can you argue. And you call liberals whiners. It doesn't get much more clear than that.

sgtdmski · 04-28-2005, 11:03 PM

Look at the history of the original 12 amendments submitted to the Congress for ratification as the Bill or Rights, they were known as the Rights of Citiizens, again are we to believe that when framing these amendments that the fourth one in the original list was the only one meant to apply to the states.

Here is an often little forgotten fact, the Bill of Rights has a preamble, and it states:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

This means that the Bill of Rights supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of that Constitution.

If there is any doubt about the intention of the framers, one need only to look at the federalists and anti-federalists debates. The Bill of Rights was amended into the Constitution to protect the liberties of the individuals, not of the the states or the government.

Your argument over the 2nd Amendment applying only to the state is therefore historically inaccurate.

dmk

hevusa · 04-29-2005, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Look at the history of the original 12 amendments submitted to the Congress for ratification as the Bill or Rights, they were known as the Rights of Citiizens, again are we to believe that when framing these amendments that the fourth one in the original list was the only one meant to apply to the states.

Here is an often little forgotten fact, the Bill of Rights has a preamble, and it states:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

This means that the Bill of Rights supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of that Constitution.

If there is any doubt about the intention of the framers, one need only to look at the federalists and anti-federalists debates. The Bill of Rights was amended into the Constitution to protect the liberties of the individuals, not of the the states or the government.

Your argument over the 2nd Amendment applying only to the state is therefore historically inaccurate.

dmk

I'm not arguing that it is not meant for the individual's rights. But I am saying that individual was meant to be a part of Militia to protect our country. A Militia could do nothing against a modern military which is why I think people should not be allowed to possess weapons.

I think people should only be allowed to own hunting riffles and under the strictest control possible.

FAndy · 04-29-2005, 01:37 PM

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.

See that right there separating the two clauses?? Thats called a SEMICOLON.

Semicolon- A mark of punctuation used to connect independent clauses ... often used in place of "and".

I think this proves they were not refering to the militia.

Now officialy.. you can't.
-Argue the original intention of the Amendment
- or.. argue that its refering to the militia.

hevusa · 04-29-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAndy

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.

See that right there separating the two clauses?? Thats called a SEMICOLON.

Semicolon- A mark of punctuation used to connect independent clauses ... often used in place of "and".

I think this proves they were not refering to the militia.

Now officialy.. you can't.
-Argue the original intention of the Amendment
- or.. argue that its refering to the militia.

Nice addition of the semi-colon after the fact.

"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."

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

That is a government link.

Now to quote yourself:
Now officialy.. you can't.
-Argue the original intention of the Amendment
- or.. argue that it isn't refering to the militia

FAndy · 04-29-2005, 02:18 PM

Ok.. I looked it up and saw you were right... I got it from a faulty source...
STILL :

Comma - It is used to mark off separate elements in a sentence: introductory clauses, words in a series, parenthetical phrases, or interjections.

I still don't see how your statement proves that you are still write about the original intention of the amendment -- stating that it needs to be amended.. If it needed to be "amended" or was an "archaic law" wouldn't that be saying..that there is a problem with the true law in the first place?

Semicolon or not they are still independent clauses.