Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by DHard3006

Here is a link to a web site with a article on gun hater catch phrases.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/10/15/...e_jfreeman.htm

In this article it addresses the issue of what people claiming to be pro right to bear arms then they turn around and say things like but some guns need to be banned.

Originally Posted by foundit66

And then you persist on assuming the "extreme" even after the other person has explicitly stated that they are not taking that "extreme" position.

Originally Posted by foundit66

“All gun owners should be properly trained and licensed. “
Again, agree with the underline statement, but the italic statement is going way too far.

Originally Posted by foundit66

I agree with both of these statements, with the caveat that I don't believe all semi-automatic rifles should be banned or that firearms quantity restrictions should be imposed.

Originally Posted by foundit66

I support the rights of hunters.
Again, agree with underline. The italic statement is a gross exaggeration of the underline statement which I do not agree with.

Originally Posted by foundit66

None of my ideals would impinge upon them.

Originally Posted by foundit66

I want to close the gun-show loophole.
Again, agree with the underline statement.

Originally Posted by foundit66

I support a waiting period, although ten days may be a bit much.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Schools should be gun-free zones.
Children should be left completely unprotected while at school.
Agree with the first statement, with the obvious exceptions of police and other employed personnel who would have to be licensed and authorized by the government.

Originally Posted by foundit66

But I felt that since it was new and semi-civil, it should be acknowledged as such.

Originally Posted by foundit66

I see in your reply you have abandoned any civility, and you have done precisely what I thought you would.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Take MY statements about MY opinions on gun control and turn around

Originally Posted by foundit66

You don't want a debate.

Originally Posted by foundit66

As such, we have different goals in our purposes for discussing, and there is no need to continue an attempt at a civil and intelligent discussion on gun control when you have no interest in either civility or intelligent discussion.

Originally Posted by hevusa

The right of the people in the militia in which the sentence is pertaining to. Once again I highlight what the sentence is pertaining to for you:

"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."

Not a well regulated citizen, a militia. You don't get to pick and choose. This isn't the bible after all. You Christian troll.

Originally Posted by tadpole256

It also says "the right of the people", the day we willfully surrender our right to bear arms will be a grave day for all American citizens. You can rest assured I for one will never relinquish this RIGHT which is GRANTED to me in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by hevusa

Can you Tadpole, or anyone, please explain this:

If it is referring to an individual right, how can this individual form and encompass a militia by themselves? And why mention militia at all if it would only confuse an individual right?

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

It seems that this debate has not amounted to much of anything, except name-calling, and a whole bunch of nothing else. So lets take a breath, and discuss the issue. One the one hand we have those that are interpreting the Second Amendment to mean that the only individuals that can own weapons are members of the militia, which in this day and age mean members of the National Guard.

There are a couple of reasons why this is incorrect. The Second Amendment reads as follows:

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.

Upon the initial reading of this one may assume that the amendment discusses the needs of the State and the Militia. However, the powers that are given to the state are delegated to the states in Article IV, while the powers denied the state are outline in Article I Section 10. Quite interestingly, Article I Section 10 (3) denies the State to keep Troops unless authorized by Congress. If this is the case, then the States cannot have a Militia, without approval of Congress, to wit, then amendment to protect the right of the State's Militia to bear arms is not necessary. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are those that all citizens have that government cannot restrict, therefore, since the State's cannot have Troops without consent of the government, and the Bill of Rights guarantee the rights that the government cannot restrict, the only correct intrepretation of the Second Amendment would be that this is a right guaranteed to the people and not the State.

Why the Miller decision has been accurately quoted in reference to the opinion issued by Justice McReynolds, there are some missing elements. Miller was arrested for transporting a weapon interstate under the National Firearms Act of 1934. A district court overturned said conviction based on the assumption that the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. In the Supreme Court ruling McReynolds held that the act did not violate the Second Amendment because a "sawed-off" shotgun was not a weapon routinely used by the militia. It is interesting to note that in arguing to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling of the district court the United States argues that the Second Amendment does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear arms, but merely recognizes the prior existence of that right and prohibits its infringement by Congress.
Which is exactly what the Court had held in 1876 in United States v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.

Since the Court did not address the issue of the right to bear arms, but rather whether the weapon in question met the definition of arms in the amendment, Miller does not address the individual right to keep and bear arms, but rather whether the government can restrict certain types of weapons without infringing on the rights of the people.

It is also interesting to note, that the Constitution did not recognize the keeping of the standing armies. Instead it wished to rely upon the Militia. Even today, the United States has a Militia. It is provide for in 10 U.S. Code Section 13.

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 even if the assertion that it only the militia can keep and bear arms, it would seem that all men ages 17 - 45 can keep arms. Furthermore, one could argue that the Assault Weapons Ban was unconsitutional because this act bans the very weapons that individuals would need to be a well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free State. I believe that someone had earlier argued this point.

Considering what the Miller decision did rule, the Cruikshank, and the U.S. Code, it would seem that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is not in question.

So it would seem the right the individual to keep and bear arms is not guaranteed by the Constitution as many of you have argued. It is in fact a right that was guaranteed prior to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights prohibits its infringement.

Since gun control was mentioned I believe that it is interesting to not that the city with the most restrictive gun laws, Washington D.C., has now been named the Murder Capital of the Country on more than one occassion. The District of Columbia and the 17 States that do not have right to carry laws have an 81% higher violent crime rate. If the mere presence of guns equates to more violence, then explain how someplace like Modoc County in California where 1 in 29 people owns a gun has only had 1 gun death per year from 1993 - 2002. Shouldn't the opposite be true???

The argument has been made that the violence in DC is due to the readily availability of guns in Maryland and Virginia. Well that just goes to prove a point. While the law-abiding citizens do not own guns, those who break the law get them in Maryland and Virginia. They have a name for people who break the law, it is criminal. Gun control does not keep the guns from the people who commit crimes, but rather from those who wish to protect themselves and follow the laws.

A Pew Center poll found that on average, 3.6 million crimes per year are prevented by private citizens who own firearms. Many times these incidents are not reported because a shot was never fired, and the criminal withdrew only upon seeing the weapon. Guns save lives. Month after month one can read in newspapers how someone foiled a robbery, mugging or other crime by having possessed a weapon.

While I grant that the government does have the right to restrict the ownership of certain weapons, it does not have the right to prevent the people from protecting their most important right, that is the right to life.

dmk