The Second Amendment

[darin]

Has anyone pointed out to CH the constitution is in place to LIMIT government? Thus 'just because the constitution doesn't SAY govt can't do something' is illogical. The gov't was designed to ONLY do those things permitted.

Sorta like CH saying "Because the constitution doesn't say the gov't can't implant GPS devices into newborn babies, there's no harm there..."

etc...

And CH - bro, you're really dismissing a LOT of points that would tend to invalidate your argument. The first reply to you does a great job of summarizing the case against your point of view but you summarily dismiss it because you probably don't agree.

[ConHog]

Has anyone pointed out to CH the constitution is in place to LIMIT government? Thus 'just because the constitution doesn't SAY govt can't do something' is illogical. The gov't was designed to ONLY do those things permitted.

Sorta like CH saying "Because the constitution doesn't say the gov't can't implant GPS devices into newborn babies, there's no harm there..."

etc...

And CH - bro, you're really dismissing a LOT of points that would tend to invalidate your argument. The first reply to you does a great job of summarizing the case against your point of view but you summarily dismiss it because you probably don't agree.

Negative good buddy, I have in fact said the opposite, that some good points were made even though I disagree with the conclusions.

And you are right, the COTUS does exist to limit the government, but if something isn't in there, you can't just make it up whole cloth. The 2nd says you're right to own arms can not be taken away. Bear arms =/= carry guns on your hip in downtown NYC , or on airplanes, nor does it equal being able to buy any weapon you can afford.

Now obviously common sense should be applied and we can see that the founding fathers never meant to limit us to flint lock rifles only, but that same common sense should tell us that the average citizen shouldn't be able to buy mini guns either.

[darin]

Negative good buddy, I have in fact said the opposite, that some good points were made even though I disagree with the conclusions.

And you are right, the COTUS does exist to limit the government, but if something isn't in there, you can't just make it up whole cloth. The 2nd says you're right to own arms can not be taken away. Bear arms =/= carry guns on your hip in downtown NYC , or on airplanes, nor does it equal being able to buy any weapon you can afford.

Now obviously common sense should be applied and we can see that the founding fathers never meant to limit us to flint lock rifles only, but that same common sense should tell us that the average citizen shouldn't be able to buy mini guns either.

Where the US constitution doesn't clarify, its the responsibility of the states to do so. Yes, maybe states allow carrying on planes on stuff. Maybe they don't. Common sense things you mention are not in the constitution, thus become the responsibility of the states. Period.

What's 'average' citizen? How is that defined? What makes your arguments confusing is your injection of opinion and interpretation around debatable facts.

"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"

See the difference? The way you often inject your opinion can seem to try and invalidate others'. Because if others disagreed with you, they'd 'obviously' be acting outside of common sense.

[ConHog]

Where the US constitution doesn't clarify, its the responsibility of the states to do so. Yes, maybe states allow carrying on planes on stuff. Maybe they don't. Common sense things you mention are not in the constitution, thus become the responsibility of the states. Period.

What's 'average' citizen? How is that defined? What makes your arguments confusing is your injection of opinion and interpretation around debatable facts.

"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"

See the difference? The way you often inject your opinion can seem to try and invalidate others'. Because if others disagreed with you, they'd 'obviously' be acting outside of common sense.

Some states should be able to allow guns on planes? What possible sense does that make? Let's say Georgia were to allow that, nearly every passenger who chose to fly Delta would then potentially be exposed to some nut with a gun on a plane sitting next to them , and worse because once in you're inside security you're not checked again once you get to the airport in say Branson, MO.

That situation so obviously calls for a solution at the federal level that it boggles the mind that you would even suggest that states should be able to do as they please.

"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"


Yes, I see the difference, in one I just flat stated that common sense backs up my opinion, in the other you inferred it. Unless of course you are affirming that you aren't using common sense when you state an opinion?

And yes, it is common sense that a minigun only has one reason to exist and there is no rational reason for wanting one other than that ONE reason. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

Oh, and I NEVER invalidate the opinions of others. NEVER. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and the right to voice that opinion, likewise I have the right to ridicule that opinion. See the difference?

[logroller]

Where the US constitution doesn't clarify, its the responsibility of the states to do so. Yes, maybe states allow carrying on planes on stuff. Maybe they don't. Common sense things you mention are not in the constitution, thus become the responsibility of the states. Period.

What's 'average' citizen? How is that defined? What makes your arguments confusing is your injection of opinion and interpretation around debatable facts.

"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"

See the difference? The way you often inject your opinion can seem to try and invalidate others'. Because if others disagreed with you, they'd 'obviously' be acting outside of common sense.

I had a post that got lost at the end of page 2; but in it I brought forth th congressional authorities on the militia and clearly limits th states' respectiv roles in disciplining the militia 'as prescribed by Congress' , not in lieu of Congress not doing so. So the states can, for example, make sure that a mini gun is properly kept and borne only as Congress has so provided for, but a state cannot ban them; common sense or not, it must be prescribed by Congress

[darin]

Some states should be able to allow guns on planes? What possible sense does that make? Let's say Georgia were to allow that, nearly every passenger who chose to fly Delta would then potentially be exposed to some nut with a gun on a plane sitting next to them , and worse because once in you're inside security you're not checked again once you get to the airport in say Branson, MO.

Your specific example is beyond the scope of my point.

That situation so obviously calls for a solution at the federal level that it boggles the mind that you would even suggest that states should be able to do as they please.

...except the constitution doesn't provide the powers of the Feds to do so. Your opinion/evaluation of the situation nothwitstanding.

"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"

Yes, I see the difference, in one I just flat stated that common sense backs up my opinion, in the other you inferred it. Unless of course you are affirming that you aren't using common sense when you state an opinion?

No - your idea of common sense backs up your opinion. Frankly, every opinion you have is irrefutably correct so it makes honest debate difficult.

And yes, it is common sense that a minigun only has one reason to exist and there is no rational reason for wanting one other than that ONE reason. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

Oh, and I NEVER invalidate the opinions of others. NEVER. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and the right to voice that opinion, likewise I have the right to ridicule that opinion. See the difference?

Funny you telling others what they need. What if somebody proclaimed You don't NEED your claimed 100? acres and all that livestock. You don't NEED the truck you drive or the guns you have. What else do you not NEED?

It's not about sharing opinions, its about your percieved demand to dominate others' opinions as a form of Machismo? maybe? I'm saying you may wanna consider your approach.

[logroller]

...except the constitution doesn't provide the powers of the Feds to do so. Your opinion/evaluation of the situation nothwitstanding.

Doesnt it though?

.To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I'm thinking this confers the Congressional power to provide for a 'well regulated militia'

[darin]

Doesnt it though?

I'm thinking this confers the Congressional power to provide for a 'well regulated militia'

I read that as the states maintain it. I'll read it closer and reply back after a bit.

[logroller]

I read that as the states maintain it. I'll read it closer and reply back after a bit.

I think you're right; but the beginning seems to give federal authority over significant aspects of how militias are regulated.

[ConHog]

I think you're right; but the beginning seems to give federal authority over significant aspects of how militias are regulated.

My feeling as well. I doubt the federal government would likely kindly upon Texas deciding to build and man an aircraft carrier , for instance - and IMO they would have the authority to stop it.

[Kathianne]

Once again, it seems germane to go to the intent of framers. Lots of things to follow up here:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

... As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.


Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State." ...

[Kathianne]

I think you're right; but the beginning seems to give federal authority over significant aspects of how militias are regulated.

I don't see the Federal government having zip to do with this. However, I'll concede the right of federal government to regulate what will and will not be allowed on mass transit across state lines, which includes obviously, air travel.

Even if the Federal government lacked the power, (like possible in 2012), the airlines as private businesses would have the right. I can't see them wanting guns in the cabin.

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd says you're right to own arms can not be taken away. Bear arms =/= carry guns on your hip in downtown NYC , or on airplanes, nor does it equal being able to buy any weapon you can afford.

Negative in turn, and in the strongest terms. That is EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment means.

Some trembling ninnies being afraid of guns, or even some police forces being afraid that armed citizens will be too hard to control, does not change its meaning, nor its intent that ALL people be allowed to own ANY weapon they want.

The motivation behind this all-inclusive permission finds its roots in the question I have already asked here more than once: If government has the power to forbid some weapons, how does it not have the power to (eventually) forbid all weapons?

Even back when the Constitution and the 2nd amendment was written, small arms (long guns, pistols, swords, spears etc.) weren't the only weapons around. There were huge cannons that could batter down a castle wall with one shot; cannons firing large explosive shells; gunpowder bombs that could blow up an entire building full of people; Greek-fire type incendiary weapons that could blast flaming substances over a large area (George Washington's version of napalm), etc. And many of them were privately owned. The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment could easily have included exceptions for these horrifying WMDs... but they deliberately did not.

Yes, there may be "good reasons" why regular people should not own miniguns etc.... but have you stopped to consider the possible effects of their being FORBIDDEN BY GOVERNMENT to own a minigun? Or an AR-15 with a flash hider? What will government forbid next?

Trusting government with the power to make and enforce such decisions, is foolish in the extreme... as our forebears found repeatedly throughout history, often to their sorrow, and tried to protect us from by writing the 2nd amendment exactly as they did. I submit those effect will be much worse for society that even the effects of an occasional whacko getting hold of a gun you don't like.

And I believe the Framers agreed with me. And that's why they wrote the Constitution with NO power for the Federal government to take away ANYONE's right to keep and bear arms... and then added the 2nd amendment shortly afterward, to make sure that no other government (state, local) in the U.S. could do it either.

They didn't have to include the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. But they did... and they wrote NO exceptions into it for guns that might scare someone or make the populace "hard to control".

And in case you've forgotten, the 2nd amendment isn't a suggestion or a guideline. It is the LAW. If you try to take away my minigun, or the 1911 I am wearing on my hip (or under my jacket) in the middle of New York City, YOU are the one to be thrown into jail, not me.

Because the Supreme Law of the Land says so. For very good reason.

The fact that a few of those trembling ninnies have made laws saying otherwise, doesn't change that. Kathianne is right in this sense: Clearly some people have been able to make unconstitutional laws that illegally infringe our rights. But that doesn't make them any less unconstitutional... nor does it do away with the day of reckoning when those unconstitutional laws will be reviewed and struck down. It just delays it a little.

[logroller]

Hey LA. In respond to your question, Congress is to provide for the Militia, and not just the Militia employed by the government; so were they to ban all guns, I believe that would fail to provide for the arming of the militia.

[ConHog]

Negative in turn, and in the strongest terms. That is EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment means.

Some trembling ninnies being afraid of guns, or even some police forces being afraid that armed citizens will be too hard to control, does not change its meaning, nor its intent that ALL people be allowed to own ANY weapon they want.

The motivation behind this all-inclusive permission finds its roots in the question I have already asked here more than once: If government has the power to forbid some weapons, how does it not have the power to (eventually) forbid all weapons?

Even back when the Constitution and the 2nd amendment was written, small arms (long guns, pistols, swords, spears etc.) weren't the only weapons around. There were huge cannons that could batter down a castle wall with one shot; cannons firing large explosive shells; gunpowder bombs that could blow up an entire building full of people; Greek-fire type incendiary weapons that could blast flaming substances over a large area (George Washington's version of napalm), etc. And many of them were privately owned. The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment could easily have included exceptions for these horrifying WMDs... but they deliberately did not.

Yes, there may be "good reasons" why regular people should not own miniguns etc.... but have you stopped to consider the possible effects of their being FORBIDDEN BY GOVERNMENT to own a minigun? Or an AR-15 with a flash hider? What will government forbid next?

Trusting government with the power to make and enforce such decisions, is foolish in the extreme... as our forebears found repeatedly throughout history, often to their sorrow, and tried to protect us from by writing the 2nd amendment exactly as they did. I submit those effect will be much worse for society that even the effects of an occasional whacko getting hold of a gun you don't like.

And I believe the Framers agreed with me. And that's why they wrote the Constitution with NO power for the Federal government to take away ANYONE's right to keep and bear arms... and then added the 2nd amendment shortly afterward, to make sure that no other government (state, local) in the U.S. could do it either.

They didn't have to include the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. But they did... and they wrote NO exceptions into it for guns that might scare someone or make the populace "hard to control".

And in case you've forgotten, the 2nd amendment isn't a suggestion or a guideline. It is the LAW. If you try to take away my minigun, or the 1911 I am wearing on my hip (or under my jacket) in the middle of New York City, YOU are the one to be thrown into jail, not me.

Because the Supreme Law of the Land says so. For very good reason.

The fact that a few of those trembling ninnies have made laws saying otherwise, doesn't change that. Kathianne is right in this sense: Clearly some people have been able to make unconstitutional laws that illegally infringe our rights. But that doesn't make them any less unconstitutional... nor does it do away with the day of reckoning when those unconstitutional laws will be reviewed and struck down. It just delays it a little.

I have a question for you LA.

Do you have a first Amendment right to yell "bomb" on an airplane? "fire" in a crowded theater? Why not? I mean if the government can ban THAT free speech, what can't they ban?