2nd Ammendment

[jayleew]

Without a doubt in my mind, the Second Amendement protects individual gun ownership. U.S. v Miller stated that a sawed off shotgun below legal limits had no militia use, and therefore he wasn't protected under the Constitution. I cannot think of any other amendment which protects the right as a group and not an individual. First amendment doesn't only protect a group right to speech or a church's right to exist, it protects individual right to speech and individual's rights of religion. To say that the Second only applies to the National Guard, an entity officially created a century and then some years after the acceptance of the Constitution is hard to believe.

And beyond that, there is always the self-defense view of the importance of the right of gun ownership. It must be acknowledged that criminals will not obey the laws -- hence why they are "criminals". To deny the law abiding citizen parity of protection in means that the criminals are using for aggression, to me, is absurd.

Very good. Regardless of the 2nd ammendment's true interpretation, you make a good point: It is absurd to expect citizens to rely on local law enforcement to protect them 24/7. Even if the response time is 10 seconds, it could be too late with certain criminals.

Good point about the true interpretation: becase the other ammendment's are focused on the individual, it gives credence to the interpretation that the 2nd ammendment is also focused on the individual's right. You also make a good point about the founding date of the national guard.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Hi,

Without a doubt in my mind, the Second Amendement protects individual un ownership. U.S. v Miller stated that a sawed off shotgun below legal limits had no militia use, and therefore he wasn't protected under the Constitution. I cannot think of any other amendment which protects the right as a group and not an individual.

indie, group, indie? your point doesn't make sense, its either or

To say that the Second only applies to the National Guard, an entity officially created a century and then some years after the acceptance of the Constitution is hard to believe.

the US "militia" evolved into the NG, otherwise explain "well regulated", must mean "gun control", yes?

BTW, welcome to SciForums

 

[WildBlueYonder]

No, it is a right of the people. Unless you believe that the other ammendments spelling out the "right of the people to" applies only to the militia? Only the militia has the right to petition the government for redress of grievances? Only the militia has the right to be secure in their persons or papers? I don't think so.

You prove my point, where in the 2nd Amendment does it say "people" only? I see the pronouns; 'people', 'militia' & 'state' referenced here

the 'people' are not alone, they are in a 'militia' protecting the 'state'

most gun advocates have selective reading

 

[mars13]

ok,how about we have the anti gunners fight the pro gunners and we will see who is better.

or we could take away everything thats dangerous.


which ever is the dumbest .

 

[Asguard]

God you are all a pack of idiots. Australia has WAY less crime per capiter and i feel much safer BECAUSE guns are restricted. Have any of you ever wondered why even when ambo's go into armed sieges they are NEVER armed???????

for exactly this reason, while they are UNARMED they are safer. I worked with an ex ambo and he was telling me about a situation where he was atending an armed brawl between 2 bikey gans and he was compleatly SAFE because the bikys knew he was no threat to them.

 

[Baron Max]

God you are all a pack of idiots. Australia has WAY less crime per capiter and i feel much safer BECAUSE guns are restricted.

But can you prove/show that the reason for the reduced crime IS because the guns are restricted? Or is it because Aussieland doesn't have the same make-up of population? I.e., does Sydney or Melbourne has the same/similar ghettos as Detroit and Los Angeles? Does Sydney or Melbourne have the same racial mix as, say, Detroit or Los Angeles?

Unless everything is basically the same, making any comparison and drawing that conclusion is nothing but ignorant statistical analysis. And you call us a pack of idiots?

What the fuck is an "ambo"? And what do they/it have to do with gun statistics?

Baron Max

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You think the USA is the only country with a mixed population? Ever walked the streets of a major Dutch city?

 

[Baron Max]

You think the USA is the only country with a mixed population?

Of course not. But to make the comparison that Asquard did, one must begin with similar conditions or the comparison is ignorant and stupid and pointless and no good and......well, all those things.

So, once again, is the racial/cultural mix in Aussieland the same/simlar as the mix in the USA? If so, then the comparison is somewhat valid. If not, then the comparison sucks giant donkey dicks!

Baron Max

 

[WildBlueYonder]

ok,how about we have the anti gunners fight the pro gunners and we will see who is better

that reminds me of an old joke; whose punchline is, "never take a knife to a gunfight".

 

[mars13]

pretty much.

guns beat no guns any day of the week.

this is why the anti gunners will lose.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

God you are all a pack of idiots. Australia has WAY less crime per capiter and i feel much safer BECAUSE guns are restricted.

Asguard, this is what the whole thing is about:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/...on/amendment02/

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
"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."

my contension is, that the amendment was meant to be understood as a whole, not separated into 2 clauses for the convienace of gunlovers & that no clause can stand by itself, see below:
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.

So, as a fellow reader of English, how would you interpret that? To me, just reading the words says, in "plain English", that 'people' with guns are considered to be the 'militia', & that they are subject to being called up for drills to be 'well regulated' & it follows, that if you are not subject to being "called up", you do not have a 'right' to a gun, 'militia' duty has evolved into the present-day National Guard, unless old Charlton Heston thinks it means him, in which case is he going to stand post at some remote guardpost or walk the perimeter? What do you think?

 

[Kunax]

ok,how about we have the anti gunners fight the pro gunners and we will see who is better

forthently this is not some 2 bit pub brawl, pro guns loses by self KO, go figure

 

[mars13]

guns are a tool,its no more sane to outlaw guns for saftey then to outlaw pointy sticks and rocks.

how many people have been killed by sticks and rocks?millions?

the idea that you can make people obey the law by making MORE laws is asinine and insane.

 

[fess]

Asguard, this is what the whole thing is about:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/...on/amendment02/

my contension is, that the amendment was meant to be understood as a whole, not separated into 2 clauses for the convienace of gunlovers & that no clause can stand by itself, see below:
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.

So, as a fellow reader of English, how would you interpret that? To me, just reading the words says, in "plain English", that 'people' with guns are considered to be the 'militia', & that they are subject to being called up for drills to be 'well regulated' & it follows, that if you are not subject to being "called up", you do not have a 'right' to a gun, 'militia' duty has evolved into the present-day National Guard, unless old Charlton Heston thinks it means him, in which case is he going to stand post at some remote guardpost or walk the perimeter? What do you think?

It seems to me, what they are saying is
1. We need a militia
2. therefore we should be able to keep and bear arms.

They clearly didn't want all the arms stored in the same place, as it would be too easy for the the 'enemy' to sieze them, so each person should carry his own.

That need is probably not applicable today, but, the wording is still there, and it's meaning seems clear.
The ammendment should be repealed if that is what the majority wants, but as of now it says the people should be able to own & carry arms, whether or not the reason is still considered valid or not.

 

[Neildo]

So, as a fellow reader of English, how would you interpret that? To me, just reading the words says, in "plain English", that 'people' with guns are considered to be the 'militia', & that they are subject to being called up for drills to be 'well regulated' & it follows, that if you are not subject to being "called up", you do not have a 'right' to a gun, 'militia' duty has evolved into the present-day National Guard, unless old Charlton Heston thinks it means him, in which case is he going to stand post at some remote guardpost or walk the perimeter? What do you think?

Oh.. my.. god.. do you still not know what a MILITIA is? Do you still not understand that there are two types of militia; an organized and an unorganized militia? Yes, a milia is called up when the time comes, however, it doesn't mean they're going to be trained by the government every weekend like the National Guard. The National Guard is an organized militia, not an unorganized one. An unorganized one is a civilian militia.

A militia is a militia. Every able bodied person is able to be a part of it which basically means every single person is entitled to bear arms to be part of that militia when the time comes. Luckily, we haven't been invaded so our unorganized (civilian militia) hasn't had to have been put to use. Only the National Guard has been put to use because they are part of the government. They aren't really a militia, they're more of a true armed force because they're deployed in other countries rather than just homeland security as originally intended.

And as I said earlier, ARMS is what makes a militia well-regulated. If it weren't for that, there would be no point in mentioning the people's rights to bear arms not being infringed since militaries already come equipped with arms so it'd be a redundant thing to say, let alone make a whole ammendment out of it. Civilians TRAIN all the time with their firearms. They regulate themselves. Again, they're unorganized, not as well organized as a true army because that's the whole definition of what a militia is for heavens sake, lol!

The whole Federalist Papers "well regulation" merely talk about organizing a militia for when the time comes for them to defend their homeland where they receive short training to be most effective by working together as a whole. It's no different than a draft in a major war where people get drafted and have little training before being shipped off into combat. The majority of a person's regulation comes from their own training or their own civilian militia group if they happen to be a part of one, NOT the government. Now take away a civilians ability to bear arms, and they will NOT be well regulated when the time comes to actually do some fighting if you're going to wait till the last second to train them. God, I cannot believe you don't know the difference between governments, civilians, armies, and militias.

- N

 

[James R]

But can you prove/show that the reason for the reduced crime IS because the guns are restricted? Or is it because Aussieland doesn't have the same make-up of population? I.e., does Sydney or Melbourne has the same/similar ghettos as Detroit and Los Angeles? Does Sydney or Melbourne have the same racial mix as, say, Detroit or Los Angeles?

Sydney and Melbourne are more multi-cultural than Detroit or Los Angeles. They don't have ghettos. Australia is a more egalitarian society than the United States, and has a much better welfare system. But maybe it's just coincidence that Sydney and Melbourne are less violent than Detroit...

 

[Baron Max]

Sydney and Melbourne are more multi-cultural than Detroit or Los Angeles. They don't have ghettos. Australia is a more egalitarian society than the United States, and has a much better welfare system. But maybe it's just coincidence that Sydney and Melbourne are less violent than Detroit...

So with all of that wondrousness, even if every Aussie carried two or three guns, they probably wouldn't have any gun problems, huh? So ....if Aussieland is so wonderful and great and multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, why do they even need to control guns?

So, James, you see ...it's not the same conditions, situation or environment. So any comparison is just so much hot air, and means nothing.

Baron Max

 

[Neildo]

There's not much human to human violence in Austalia cause they get to take out all their frusteration boxing kangaroos and kickin dingos.

* The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.
* In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per 100,000 people - the highest recorded since 1995.
* The rate of sexual assault was 86 per 100,000 people, which is higher than any previous year.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig02.html (Australian Institute of Criminology)

Canada violent crime now double US - Let's blame US!

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23041,filter.all/pub_detail.asp (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research)

Add Gun Control to Litany of Misbegotten Government Plans

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.20876/pub_detail.asp (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research)

Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570 (Frasier Institute)

So with all of that wondrousness, even if every Aussie carried two or three guns, they probably wouldn't have any gun problems, huh? So ....if Aussieland is so wonderful and great and multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, why do they even need to control guns?

Excellent point. I wonder how that'll be refuted.

- N

 

[anytime]

indie, group, indie? your point doesn't make sense, its either or

Indeed. What I meant to get across was that all the other amendments protect the rights of the individual -- why is the exception laid out to the 2nd? This is where my qualms lay, and the citation of the U.S. vs Miller is that it's a case whose interpretation by the justices I disagree with.

 

[fess]

Oh.. my.. god.. do you still not know what a MILITIA is? Do you still not understand that there are two types of militia; an organized and an unorganized militia? Yes, a milia is called up when the time comes, however, it doesn't mean they're going to be trained by the government every weekend like the National Guard. The National Guard is an organized militia, not an unorganized one. An unorganized one is a civilian militia.

A militia is a militia. Every able bodied person is able to be a part of it which basically means every single person is entitled to bear arms to be part of that militia when the time comes. Luckily, we haven't been invaded so our unorganized (civilian militia) hasn't had to have been put to use. Only the National Guard has been put to use because they are part of the government. They aren't really a militia, they're more of a true armed force because they're deployed in other countries rather than just homeland security as originally intended.

And as I said earlier, ARMS is what makes a militia well-regulated. If it weren't for that, there would be no point in mentioning the people's rights to bear arms not being infringed since militaries already come equipped with arms so it'd be a redundant thing to say, let alone make a whole ammendment out of it. Civilians TRAIN all the time with their firearms. They regulate themselves. Again, they're unorganized, not as well organized as a true army because that's the whole definition of what a militia is for heavens sake, lol!

The whole Federalist Papers "well regulation" merely talk about organizing a militia for when the time comes for them to defend their homeland where they receive short training to be most effective by working together as a whole. It's no different than a draft in a major war where people get drafted and have little training before being shipped off into combat. The majority of a person's regulation comes from their own training or their own civilian militia group if they happen to be a part of one, NOT the government. Now take away a civilians ability to bear arms, and they will NOT be well regulated when the time comes to actually do some fighting if you're going to wait till the last second to train them. God, I cannot believe you don't know the difference between governments, civilians, armies, and militias.

- N

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary






militia
One entry found for militia.


Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Kinda sounds like some sort of organization is necessary for a militia. At least you have to be part of a designated group.