Defending the Truth

Gun haters have a problem with people making money.

The Bill or Rights was presented for ratification to the states as the rights of the individual citizens of this country. For the contention to hold that the second amendment only applies to the members of the National Guard means that the second amendment is not individual right, and that the right of the people does not exist. Furthermore, this reading of the amendment in this manner is ridiculous. If this were the case the amendment would not have been included.

To argue this contention I provide the following two facts.

In 1876 in United States v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 the court held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right that existed prior to the Constitution when it declared that the "right is not a right granted by the Constitution...neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Since it is the Supreme Court that determines what the law means and therefore what the law of the land is, it would seem that this interpretation of the Second Amendment is inaccurate and not upheld by precedence.

Furthermore, 10 U.S Code Section 13 states

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

So in other words, all men age 17 - 45 and all women who are members of the National Guard are members of the U.S. Militia. So it would seem that anyone classification would therefore be allowed under your reading of the Second Amendment to own a gun. What a sexist interpretation of the Constitution if you ask me.


dmk

Bringing up a 1876 case hardly strengthens the fact the 2nd amendment is clearly not referring to an individual, since an individual alone could not form a militia.

While a few rogue states might define what a militia is in an untraditional manner, how does the federal government define it?

Excuse me, bringing up an 1876 case shows that there is a long tradition in which this interpretation has been used in defining the law. Is that not what a precedent is supposed to do??? Do we not hear about how Roe v Wade a case that is 32 years old is so entrenched in the fabric of the law that it would take extraordinary circumstances to overturn it. Well considering that this precedent is 128 years old I believe that is is relevant.

As to your second contention. Hello McFly words have meaning what part of "Furthermore, 10 U.S Code Section 13 states" did you not understand. U.S. stands for United States. This is what the federal government defines a militia. Read and comprehend. You have just proven that your passion for wanting law-abiding citizens to own guns outweighs your ability to understand simple sentences.

dmk

I misunderstood, I apologize.

I feel like a 1876 stance to guns is more than a bit dated. How does this translate to the modern epidemic of gun related violence?

If the federal government truly interprets the definition of a regulated militia in that manner I have to say I feel a bit confused. Seems outright Stone Age and it feels like a huge revision is due. Just look at the age range given as a clue. 45! Sure that was retirement age when it was written!! Shows how overdue a change of the law is needed.

To me it shows just how out of touch our laws are in regards to how the relationhip between humans and guns in society have changed.

I think the largest violent crimes related to increased homicide rates, etc can primarily be linked to hand guns. This is true in the Statistics that I have read. I don't know if stricter gun control laws will correct that, seeing that if a person wants a gun they can probably just get it on the street. None the less innocent law obiding citizens have no reason to carry around a weapon unless they are using it for hunting or target practice. Do you know how many innocent people kill each other with their own guns?

Well gun hater the 2nd amend is not about hunting or target practice. The 2nd amend is about the right to bear arms.
Sure do gun hater less then killed by cars, or die from doctors mistakes.

Yeah so you can "off" someone that steps on your property, because they gave you a dirty look (it's not really guns that kill people, it's people that kill people with guns). I "bear arms" all of the time you should see my Hawii'an shirt collection come spring/summer time.

Tell you what I will go find some Statistics and if the numbers are there I can make a claim, if not than I shall go quitely. Tell me something though you are so "pro-gun" what do you use your gun for? shooting "gun haters". The reason I ask is, because if you used it a legitmate purpose you would have argument not just, because you can carry it around. If you said I use it for "hunting" then you would be fair game. A gangster can carry around a gun in terms of that argument. It doesn't appear you are from a city so I am sure you wouldn't understand that case.


"Every hour in America, four people are killed by firearms. (Centers for Disease Control)

A gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993)

Gun violence is the second-leading cause of injury-related fatalities in the US after car accidents. In Alaska, Maryland and Nevada as well as D.C., firearm death rates in 1998 exceeded those for car accidents. (CDC & Natnl. Vital Statistics Report, 1999)

One million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings since 1962. (Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States 1962-1994. Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3, 1997; Deaths: Final Data for 1995- 1997, National Vital Statistics Report)"

I also just found out that MA has the strictest gun control laws, but we are the second leading manufacturer of guns in the U.S. That's pretty hypocritical if you ask me. Maybe we should just make this a "states right" issue anyway. In fact, I think the second amendment is very broad in a sense and should be decided upon the case at hand.

Yeah, well many many more Americans die each year from choking on ball point pens than by terrorist attacks. And when I turn on the news I don't hear about the evil ball point pen killers, or the government issuing a 'code red' warning level because the number of ball point pen sales went up.

And I see you complaining about terrorists all the time. Yet you complain when people talk about the many deaths each year due to guns.

Just because it doesn't kill as much as something else, doesn't mean it can't be debated and prevented.

Gun hater attempt to make it a gun issue. The fact is the gun haters are attacking the “right” to bear arms, not guns.
It is a right, I do not need a reason to exercise a right.
Gun hater gangster? Here is the definition of gangster:
“member of criminal gang: a member of an organized gang of criminals, especially a racketeer”
So gun hater to earn this title a person must be active in a criminal activity. That means they have been arrested and convicted of crimes. So the question gun hater you should be asking yourself is if this person is to dangerous to be trusted with a weapon why do you want them out of prison?
WOW gun hater, the same crimes that happen in the city happen in the country.
Well gun hater do you mean like the very same way the southern states attempted to make the rights of Blank Americas a state right issue?
Gun hater what is wrong with this argument is city folk like you gun hater blame other cities with less gun control for your city crime problem.