24-03-2002 21:45									#31
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It doesn't say "we" have the right to form a militia. It says: 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.

shut up commie.

Anyone who respects civil liberties respects the right to bear arms.

	24-03-2002 21:47									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Wrong-o Che.


the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Sounds pretty clear to me. Unless you discredit the courts for interpreting it this way?

	24-03-2002 22:03									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Why do nut-jobs always assume what I think?

Commies support the right to keep and bear arms, at least my kind of commies do.

Anyways, as I wrote:

quote: It doesn't say "we" have the right to form a militia.

It's quite clear, depsite how conservatives and liberals would like to interpret it. Since the framers were scared of what a government could do with a standing army, it relied on an armed public. Citizens could form militias only with the permission of the governor or President, and that would only be done during wartime. Hardly a Constitutional right, FG.

Citizens could form their own militias for the purposes of training, but almost as soon as the Red's begain training workers' militias after the Great Labor Uprising of 1877, that right was taken away and the National Guards were formed.

	24-03-2002 22:17									#34
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by faded glory shut up commie. Anyone who respects civil liberties respects the right to bear arms.

Whoops! Improper appeal to practise. Can you come up with a better argument?
I respect civil liberties, but I see the right to bear arms as a needless part in the Constitution. My opinion only.

	24-03-2002 22:24									#35
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: It's quite clear, depsite how conservatives and liberals would like to interpret it. Since the framers were scared of what a government could do with a standing army, it relied on an armed public. Citizens could form militias only with the permission of the governor or President, and that would only be done during wartime. Hardly a Constitutional right, FG.

Strange interpretation. Almost everyone would disagree with you. It makes no mention of war time ; nor does it define militia. Whats important is The citizens have the to keep and bear arms. Obvouisly they didnt mean just militia's. I think the makers of the consitution would have said something to the contrary about this. Not like they died after it was made.....they said what they meant. And it was clear afterwords ; they didnt mean a government regulated militia.

quote: Commies support the right to keep and bear arms, at least my kind of commies do.

quote: Citizens could form their own militias for the purposes of training, but almost as soon as the Red's begain training workers' militias after the Great Labor Uprising of 1877, that right was taken away and the National Guards were formed.

Red's? When did the reds train workers? When did this happen? Exactly ; it NEVER did. Socialism was an abstract concept in America at the time. Hardly anyone knew of it. Your view of history is taken from an odd (and incorrect) textbook

The National Gaurd made up alot of the troops in the Mexican-American War. No wait ; that was 1840's. Years before...where do you learn this ****? And the Concept dated back to the Revolutionary war.


Ng

	24-03-2002 22:27									#36
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by -=Vagrant=- I respect civil liberties, but I see the right to bear arms as a needless part in the Constitution. My opinion only.

Ya if you choose not to exercise your 2nd amendment rights ; then its your choice. But leave the 60 million americans who do alone.

	24-03-2002 22:34									#37
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: shut up commie. Anyone who respects civil liberties respects the right to bear arms.

Juxtaposition of these two sentences is baffling. [Not to mention the word juxtaposition, which is simply too fine a word to be used for such mundane purposes.) After all, anyone who respects civil liberties respects the right of commies to not to shut up.

quote: Originally posted by faded glory quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Commies support the right to keep and bear arms, at least my kind of commies do.

Actually, I've thought it would sort of make sense for commies to support guns. After all, in their view (or at least some of them*), Soviet Union corrputed the principles of Communism, so, theoretically, should something like that happen in their communist utopia, people could just grab their guns and overthrow the tyranny and start their struggle for worker's paradise again, and it would really work this time instead of becoming a brutal dictatorship, honest!

Then again, we have to remember that guns don't overthrow tyrannical dictatorships, people overthrow tyrannical dictatorships.

	24-03-2002 22:41									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Strange interpretation. Almost everyone would disagree with you. It makes no mention of war time ; nor does it define militia. Whats important is The citizens have the to keep and bear arms. Obvouisly they didnt mean just militia's. I think the makers of the consitution would have said something to the contrary about this. Not like they died after it was made.....they said what they meant. And it was clear afterwords ; they didnt mean a government regulated militia.

You are arguing against a strawman, FG. You are arguing that I'm saying we don't have the right to keep and bear arms. That's not at all what I've written. Pay some frikkin' attention!

Furthermore, after reading the US v Miller, the link for which DD was so kind to forward a copy , it is even more clear that the framers meant a government regulated militia.

quote: Red's? When did the reds train workers? When did this happen? Exactly ; it NEVER did. Socialism was an abstract concept in America at the time.

Why do you ever argue with me, FG? You've only been right once.

Okay, after the Great Labor Uprising of 1877, in which workers fought pitched battles with the state militias and the US army, radical workers realized they needed to be trained, so that next time they wouldn't lose. It's an oft overlooked part of US, history, but the US was almost overthrown in 1877. There was a commune running St. Louis; Chicago and Pittsburg were firmly in the hands of the workers, etc. But revolution wasn't their goal, and so it didn't happen.

quote: The National Gaurd made up alot of the troops in the Mexican-American War. No wait ; that was 1840's. Years before...where do you learn this ****? And the Concept dated back to the Revolutionary war. Ng

Actually, your link says it goes back 365 years, but guess what else it says:

quote: In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called).

What does that mean? That until around that time, the NG wasn't the NG, as we know it. They were the militias I've been writing about. Don't you even read your own supporting material!?! Dang FG!

	24-03-2002 22:43									#39
	Support Apolyton

at Stefu.

	24-03-2002 22:51									#40
	Here's SCOTA in The US v Miller, 1939 Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Eat Constitutional ink, Faded Glory (and you, Mr. Fun)
Mad props for DinoDoc.

==============

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out 'that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom' and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.'

'The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England-

	25-03-2002 03:28									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by MrFun To attempt to ban handguns in the United States would be impratical to say the least because too many people in the United States have the misperception that they have the right to bear arms. But according to consistent Supreme Court rulings over the past 65 years or so, individual Americans do not have the right to bear arms. But the misperception is so prevelant, and so deeply-embedded, that the right to bear arms is defacto.

That is not quite correct. SCOTUS hasn't taken a pure Second Amendment case in about 60-70 years. The reason being that a lot of so-called Second Amendment cases are fluff challenges by some guy who got caught with dope, cash, and a concealed fully-automatic weapon after a shoot-out with the cops, and the courts just laugh at the Second Amendment claim.

As a result, there are some inconsistencies at the Federal Circuit level in Second Amendment jurisprudence, and the notion of a "public" right as opposed to an individual right is still controlling law in several judicial circuits. Again, the distinction is pretty irrelevant, because the vast majority of gun related prosecutions are for crimes committed with the weapons, not for ownership or possession in and of itself. (felons in possession is pretty much the main exception)


I used to subscribe to the "collective" model view of the Second Amendment - due to the rather odd and inconsistent phrasing of the language. The best piece of legal scholarship on the intent of the Second Amendment is the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Emerson, 99-10331 After reading that opinion (both the original and the current modification) and the underlying source material, I changed my mind and became convinced that the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct.

	25-03-2002 03:31									#42
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ooops, missed the previous reference and link to the Emerson case.

Frankly, I doubt SCOTUS will take the issue head on, or else they'll duck it on narrow grounds a la Miller.

	25-03-2002 03:36									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Frankly, I doubt SCOTUS will take the issue head on, or else they'll duck it on narrow grounds a la Miller.

I think that they are going to have to tackle the issue at least somewhat. The wide ranging implications of 5th Circuit's ruling on gun control legislation in this case will basically force the Supremes to grant to grant cert. No the question of if they'll try and thread the needle of the issue as they did in Miller is another matter entirely.

	25-03-2002 03:47									#44
	Inflate your Upload Space

Question for the floor: On this thread and the other gun-control thread it has been said by many, even those generally opposed to gun control, that the more powerful firearms (machine guns, for example) should be restricted/outlawed.

The question is, "why"? If you're going to bear arms for the purposes of combating an oppressive government, wouldn't you rather have a machine gun or a combat shotgun than a pistol? On the flipside, how practical is it for a mugger to hold somebody up with a machine gun? If anything, in order to adhere to the original intent of the second amendment as well as the intent of gun control laws, shouldn't we be legalizing machine guns and restricting/licensing/etc. pistols?

	25-03-2002 03:54									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Loinburger -- be careful not to use a strawman argument.

But I did think of a smiliar thought, but it risks being strawman argument.

For instance, shouldn't citizens be given the right to bear nuclear weapons?? This would enable them to better defend their country against an enemy invading.
And with Loinburger's thought on machine gun criminals -- shouldn't citizens be given the right to own machine guns??

Perhaps these are crazy questions but the premise for the right of individual citizens to bear arms, is for personal defense against criminals, and to help defend their country in leiu of an organized militia.

	25-03-2002 03:56									#46
	Tired of ads?

Machine guns should be - and Constitutionally are - totally legal.

	25-03-2002 03:57									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Loinburger -- be careful not to use a strawman argument.

It isn't a bloody strawman argument, it's a legitimate question. Why outlaw machine guns and not pistols, if the intent of gun control laws are to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire weapons?

	25-03-2002 04:04									#48
	Freedom cose of guns? Got spare money?

If u want to see important freedom rights, compare what the Netherlands have, to what the US have, and the other way round.

The only one in favor of the US is the right to bear guns.
While the Netherlands have a lot of Freedom rights superior to the ones in the USA.

I dont see why the right to bear guns is any good. It doesnt prevent crime, it rather produces more of it. When everyone is armed its wise for the criminal to be more though with the violence he uses. Resulting in bigger crimes, which would be smaller ones without this right.
The fear to get shoot, when in the wrong neighbourhood, is not Freedom.

The Netherlands with its set of Freedom rights are a much safer place than the US is with theirs.

For more Freedom and security in America adopt Holland laws and get rid of your Firearms.

	25-03-2002 04:05									#49
	Tired of ads?

It's not strawman, Mr. Fun, it's reducto ad absurdum, which is perfectly legit.

	25-03-2002 04:10									#50
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

So then let me reiterate on my question then.

The purpose of citizens to have the right to bear arms is so that they can contribute to the defense of their country against an intruder.

If we give citizens the right to own nuclear weapons, this would make citizens more capable of contributing to the nation's defense.

	25-03-2002 04:15									#51
	Support Apolyton

quote: If we give citizens the right...

See, right there is most of y'all's problem You people seem to think that rights can be granted or given. You are mixing up rights (right to property, for example) with entitlements (such as health care and welfare). Rights cannot be given or granted - they just ARE, and all governments can do is choose whether or not to recognize and guarantee these rights, or ignore and violate them. Gun control is obviously the latter option, because 2nd Amendment aside, guns are private property, which is a fundamental human right.

	25-03-2002 04:18									#52
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd See, right there is most of y'all's problem You people seem to think that rights can be granted or given. You are mixing up rights (right to property, for example) with entitlements (such as health care and welfare). Rights cannot be given or granted - they just ARE, and all governments can do is choose whether or not to recognize and guarantee these rights, or ignore and violate them. Gun control is obviously the latter option, because 2nd Amendment aside, guns are private property, which is a fundamental human right.

Is government property the same as saying that it's private property??

If so, then nuclear weapons are private property, and that means that citizens have the right to own nuclear weapons.

	25-03-2002 04:19									#53
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not for the people to protect themselves from each other, nor to protect themselves from the government, but rather, to protect their country from foreign agressors. Our founding father's were extremely wary of a standing military, as it could be used to set up a tyranny, so we set up as small a military as we could. Instead, in times of need, we would rely on the body politic to maintain their own weapons for the purpose of forming a civilian militia in times of need.

Since we now have a standing military, the 2nd Amernendment is no longer needed.

Personally, I think we should get rid of the military and keep the 2nd Amemndment. Sure, we couldn't kick the world's *ss, but that's a good thing.

Last edited by chegitz guevara on 25-03-2002 at 04:25

	25-03-2002 04:21									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Is government property the same as saying that it's private property??

Eh?

quote: The prupose of the 2nd Amendment is not for the people to protect themsevles from each other, nor to protect tehmselves from the government,

Not according to many statements by the Founders, to which Wraith probably has better access than I.

quote: Personally, I think we should get rid of the military and keep the 2nd Amemndment. Sure, we couldn't kick the world's *ss, but that's a good thing.

I agree.

	25-03-2002 04:24									#55
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

--"I think that they are going to have to tackle the issue at least somewhat"

I hope so. However, Emerson has already been pretty much permanently slow-tracked, so I wouldn't count on seeing anything soon.

--"Question for the floor:"

Is there anyone in particular you're addressing this to? I've always argued that there's no reason to restrict the machine guns and so on, so I can't really address it.

--"if the intent of gun control laws are to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire weapons?"

Why assume that's the actual intent? The Brady Bill went after a class of weapons that are almost never used in crimes (less than 1% of firearm related crimes). There's absolutely no reason to assume that it was for the purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It was more likely because it was an easy political win, so Clinton could look tough on crime and appease some of the more radical in his party.

--"It doesnt prevent crime, it rather produces more of it"

Bah. This has already been addressed.

--"The purpose of citizens to have the right to bear arms"

That is one of the purposes, yes. It is not the only purpose.
In any case, yes, we should allow citizens, those who can afford to and want to, to own nukes. As I've said in the other thread (and many times before), there's no real reason to restrict ownership of a class of property based on the property rather than the owner.

--"Is government property the same as saying that it's private property??"

Huh? I'm sorry, but I don't see where this came from.

--"The prupose of the 2nd Amendment is not for the people to protect themsevles from each other, nor to protect tehmselves from the government, but rather, to protect their country from foreign agressors."

It was all of the above, actually.
And, again, the right was not "granted" to the citizens, but acknowledge as existing.

Wraith
"Madness has no purpose, or reason...but it may have a goal."
-- Mr. Spock

	25-03-2002 04:24									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Rights cannot be given or granted - they just ARE, and all governments can do is choose whether or not to recognize and guarantee these rights, or ignore and violate them.

Rights ARE what? Inherent in being human? How? Are they endowed by a creator? Are they coded in our genes? No.

We all recognize that a convicted criminal has much more limited rights. Children have less rights than adults. Therefore, rights are social constructs, agreements among people. Thus, rights can be granted and rights can be taken away. Rights exist only if and when people claim they exist, and only when they enforce that claim. If, as a people, we agree that no one has a right to a machine gun, then you don't have a right to a machine gun. And you don't.

	25-03-2002 04:27									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

--"Therefore, rights are social constructs, agreements among people"

Damnit, do we have to do this again? The US was founded on the principle of natural origin, not social origin. I don't care what your personal opinions are, US law is not based on the social origin theory, so you cannot argue US law from it.

Wraith
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."
-- Justice Brewer ("State of Southern Caroline vs. US" - Majority Opinion)

	25-03-2002 04:35									#58
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Rights ARE what? Inherent in being human? How? Are they endowed by a creator? Are they coded in our genes? No. We all recognize that a convicted criminal has much more limited rights. Children have less rights than adults. Therefore, rights are social constructs, agreements among people. Thus, rights can be granted and rights can be taken away. Rights exist only if and when people claim they exist, and only when they enforce that claim. If, as a people, we agree that no one has a right to a machine gun, then you don't have a right to a machine gun. And you don't.

I'll second what Wraith said, not to mention that you are opening the can of worms leading to you admitting the Holocaust was OK because of relativism and the fact that Germany decided Jews, Gypsies, etc, didn't have rights. Wanna go down that road?

	25-03-2002 04:53									#59
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It doesn't matter that the US was founded on the principal of natural origin. Israel was founded on the principal that YHWH gave that land to the Jews for all time. We all know that's a crock of sh*t. So's natural origin.

Look, we can all agree that what happened during the Holocaust was absolute evil and horrible, because it happened during a period during which people agreeed that those rights were being violated. We accept, as a civilization, that what the Nazis did violated human rights. But if we lived 500 years ago, we wouldn't have batted an eye at the extermination of the Jews or Roma. We wouldn't even have considered that rights existed.

How does this relate to the 2nd Amendment discussion? Despite what the Justice from South Carolina would have us believe, in fact the meaning of the Constitution is not fixed, but it reinterpreted by each generation. We, ultimately, decide what the 2nd Amendment means. Now, we currently have a court system filled with strict Constitutionalists. Eventually the pendulum will swing back in the other direction, and then again, and so on, as long as the United States exists.

	25-03-2002 04:56									#60
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Look, we can all agree that what happened during the Holocaust was absolute evil and horrible, because it happened during a period during which people agreeed that those rights were being violated. We accept, as a civilization, that what the Nazis did violated human rights. But if we lived 500 years ago, we wouldn't have batted an eye at the extermination of the Jews or Roma. We wouldn't even have considered that rights existed.

So now if the rest of the world thinks we should ban guns, we have to?

quote: How does this relate to the 2nd Amendment discussion? Despite what the Justice from South Carolina would have us believe, in fact the meaning of the Constitution is not fixed, but it reinterpreted by each generation. We, ultimately, decide what the 2nd Amendment means. Now, we currently have a court system filled with strict Constitutionalists. Eventually the pendulum will swing back in the other direction, and then again, and so on, as long as the United States exists.

Nothing in the Constitution implies that it can be redefined as times change - oh, wait, except for that little thing known as amending the Constitution. You wanna reinterpret or change the Constitution? Fine - amend it.