The Second Amendment

[logroller]

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

I came upon that source as well; it was the inspiration for much my first post in this thread. However, it failed to provide an alternative meaning for 'well regulated militia'; whereas the enumerated Powers of Congress seemingly includes Congressional authority regarding a militia outside the scope of a militia employed by the government itself. If that's not the case, why discern as much? Why say 'well regulated' at all? It would seem they might also include some expansion or description of what types of regulation are warranted. I believe this where that is done:

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;

[Little-Acorn]

I have a question for you LA.

Meaning you're not going to answer the questions I asked you?

Get back to me when you change your mind.

[logroller]

Meaning you're not going to answer the questions I asked you?

Get back to me when you change your mind.

I answered your question with reference to Enumerated powers of Congress.

[red state]

We could dwell on "what ifs" all we want and I'll get back on that later. With this, I apologize for such a lengthy reply but the topic is so important to our livelihoods and to the heritage of this great Nation.

Firstly, I would like to stress my strong disagreement with ANY and ALL restrictions/regulations to guns (of ANY kind)...if such items would not be a concern for NATIONAL security (such as a nuclear weapon or biological hazard). Capsules/test tubes containing a deadly bacteria or virus was not foreseen by our forefathers and neither the A or H bomb but this is where common sense and safety comes into play. A tank or machine/mini gun is not a danger to our national security and we've even seen tanks being used in crimes (does anyone recall several years ago)? It can be dealt with and although there is dangers locally, none of these weapons are what most of us would identify as a threat to NATIONAL security. If the nut next door has a bigger gun and more guns than I....I may feel a bit uncomfortable BUT as long as I have the right to buy, own, carry and use mine, he feels as bit uncomfortable as well. What I would not like is being disarmed (knowing full well the possibility in this crazy world, that some nut DOES have a weapon and I do not). We walk a fine line when we allow restrictions/regulations/bans. I live in the South and the thoughts of what happened in New Orleans during Katrina still bothers me. It was WRONG and thank Christ for those in our military who refused to follow the lead of local law enforcement by disarming LEGAL/LAW ABIDING citizens while the filth of New Orleans fired upon the unarmed, rescue vehicles and were even left to rob, rape and murder those who had been disarmed. As for the clever comment by our left leaning friend above regarding guns on planes....I sure wish those heroes who went down in 9/11 had been carrying! In fact, I would dare say that it would have been better for everyone to be armed rather than what happened with an unarmed group. On the other hand, I could possibly see a large, potentially international means of travel such as this as being a threat to NATIONAL security. Still, my thoughts go back to "what if".

A "WHAT IF" that is very easy to identify with is an unarmed group of people on a plane and a madman or mu-SLUM group gets up, shows their weapon and makes their demands. We've seen this...it doesn't go well and I'm sure those with any intellect will agree. Next is the "What IF" finds the same group settling down for a nice flight when a threat presents itself. We've seen this before as well. Does anyone recall the lady politician in the GREAT State of Texas? I believe she was dining at a restaurant (legally armed) when a guy with ill intent (also armed) came to call. He was dispatched or silenced fairly quickly and if memory serves me correctly, she's the same politician who proposed that ALL legal citizens arm themselves (by mandate). I believe the crime rate has been proven to go down in such areas BUT even if it is proven otherwise, I would rather be armed than not and I'd feel much better knowing that the guy next to me was armed (visibly armed). I can not only keep an eye out on him but those with ill intent can see that this robbery would be anything but taking candy from a baby. Of course, I'm biased because I'm a RED STATER who has lived in true freedom my entire life. I have no problem with those who rather not arm themselves, hunt, worship Christ in this Christian Nation or rather not speak their mind with boldness and without fear of offending others....just don't try and prevent me from doing so!

In closing, The Second Amendment should actually be the FIRST because after the freedom that it provides, all other freedoms follow.

God bless America and those who fight tooth and nail to preserve Her...I just hope it doesn't come to fighting with only tooth and nail.

[Little-Acorn]

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.

That "right" (I assume you meant "power", since governments don't have rights, only people do) was subsequently modified by the 2nd amendment. Once the 2nd was ratified, the Commerce Clause basically said "Congress shall have to power to regulate commerce between the states except where the right to keep and bear arms is concerned".

Certain government officials I can think of, would do well to take note of this... something they haven't been doing much of recently.

Even if the Federal government lacked the power, (like possible in 2012),

It's more than possible. It's required.

the airlines as private businesses would have the right. I can't see them wanting guns in the cabin.

Absolutely true. The airlines don't have the power to take away your gun. But they do have the right to refuse entrance to their planes to anyone they want to, for any reason. And if the want to refuse you on grounds that you're carrrying a gun, they can. That would be foolish, but not illegal.

And BTW, they have the right to refuse to let you aboard because you're carrying, even if they just let someone else who is also carrying, aboard. Contrary to popular belief, they do NOT have to treat everyone equally when it comes to the airlines' own property (the planes).

And if you see an airline that refuses to let anyone on board who is carrying, you can find an airline that does let you board with your gun. Preferably one that simultaneously refuses entry to a sweating, nervous-looking, shifty-eyed person, even one who is not obviously carrying. And if they wind up refusing an inordinate number of suspicious-appearing Middle-eastern looking persons, that's too damned bad. They should publicize that fact, and see if a whole lot of other people DO want to fly with them as a result.

[red state]

Bottom line, and with NO "what ifs", had King George banned firearms, it is likely that we could not have won our Independence (much less defend ourselves from other threats). I'm glad that folks around the countrysides (rich as well as poor) had the means to not only protect one another but the means by which they became a threat to tyranny such as the leadership of King George 9or the threat we currently face in limitations of free speech, openly expressed faith and our right to protect our own.

[Little-Acorn]

Bottom line, and with NO "what ifs", had King George banned firearms, it is likely that we could not have won our Independence (much less defend ourselves from other threats).

He basically did exactly that, giving his troops permission to confiscate any colonists' weapons they thought might cause them trouble.

And that's exactly what his troops were trying to do when a bunch of silly-looking chicken farmers lined up in a field in rural Massachusetts and refused to comply. Shots were fired (nobody knows who shot first), and the war was "officially" on. Though the British troops prevailed, they changed their mind about confiscating those particular guns and powder, and headed to another town where pretty much the same thing happened. They then marched back to Boston, with the farmers sniping at them all the way.

The main motivation behind the Revolutionary War was "Taxation without representation is tyranny"... but the first actual shots were fired as a direct result of GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS AT GUN CONTROL. And they were fired in a confrontation between a bunch of ill-armed "extremist" civilian rabble (which is what those early militias mostly were), taking on the largest, finest, best-trained-and-equipped army the world had ever seen.

And look at the result.

That's something else that today's governments should keep in mind.

[logroller]

Bottom line, and with NO "what ifs", had King George banned firearms, it is likely that we could not have won our Independence (much less defend ourselves from other threats). I'm glad that folks around the countrysides (rich as well as poor) had the means to not only protect one another but the means by which they became a threat to tyranny such as the leadership of King George 9or the threat we currently face in limitations of free speech, openly expressed faith and our right to protect our own.

Bottom line, a hypothetical proposition is a 'what if'.

[ConHog]

Meaning you're not going to answer the questions I asked you?

Get back to me when you change your mind.

I answered your question friend.

No right is "absolute" regardless of what the COTUS says. You don't have the absolute right to yell "bomb" in an airplane regardless of what the first says, likewise you don't have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon regardless of what the second says.

[DragonStryk72]

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.

Here's one I have a beef with SOME conservatives about. Nowhere in that does it say the government can't outlaw certain types of weapons. It merely says that they can't keep us from owning weapons in general. Do I believe that means the government can outlaw ownership of everything but revolvers and lever rod rifles? No of course not; but where the line should be drawn is a separate issue from "can the government in fact draw a line?"

On a related note, I also don't believe the 2nd means the government can't restrict where we can carry guns. In the time frame the COTUS was written Bear Arms meant own weapons, and in fact in many colonial cities of the era it was illegal to carry a gun in town. That's why duels were legal but always took place outside city limits. It wasn't until the wild west where we seen gunfights happening on main street, and that was actually much less common than the movies would have you believe.

As opposed to the mass murders occurring in "gun-free" areas? The only thing that declaring an area off limits to guns does is provide a simple way for criminals to determine the best places to hit. The matter of where guns aren't allowed isn't really a government issue, in so much as a common sense issue.

[ConHog]

As opposed to the mass murders occurring in "gun-free" areas? The only thing that declaring an area off limits to guns does is provide a simple way for criminals to determine the best places to hit. The matter of where guns aren't allowed isn't really a government issue, in so much as a common sense issue.

I would tend to agree with you. My only argument is that the government CAN limit where and what you may own. I do NOT argue that they SHOULD do so.

[DragonStryk72]

I would tend to agree with you. My only argument is that the government CAN limit where and what you may own. I do NOT argue that they SHOULD do so.

State government can, the Fed cannot, as it is not amongst the enumerated powers.

[Little-Acorn]

State government can, the Fed cannot, as it is not amongst the enumerated powers.

State and local governments are also forbidden by the 2nd, from restricting or banning people's guns. Its language is very clear, and does not restrict itself to only the Fed, as I explained here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...158#post553158

Some state and local governments obviously don't know that. But since when is ignorance of the law, an acceptable excuse to violate the law?

[logroller]

State government can, the Fed cannot, as it is not amongst the enumerated powers.

Nobody seems to refute this being an enumerated power.

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;

[ConHog]

State government can, the Fed cannot, as it is not amongst the enumerated powers.

You're wrong IMO.