The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 30, 2012, 08:21 PM   #51
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
Specifically in regards to firearms, the COTUS is clear that the issue of firearms is OFF THE TABLE. There should be NO National level prohibition regarding firearms. NONE.
While you are correct in this statement, it does not go far enough...

Nowhere does the 2nd say anything about 'firearms'...

It clearly states "arms"...

Salmoneye is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 08:22 PM   #52
PawPaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stmar
Are you part of a well regulated militia?
I was for over 20 years, and I don't know that I've been released from my oath, simply retired.

However, a current reading of history leads us to ask when the last time a true citizens militia formed to protect life and property? Anyone??? Bueller???

Hurricane Katrina. 2005. Citizens in New Orleans, LA and surrounding areas, faced with loss of power and unable to depend on assistance, formed citizens militias to protect property in neighborhoods. They pooled arms, set up patrol rosters, inventoried ammunition, maintained guards at entrances and roads and maintained those preparations until the civil authorities could resume critical civic functions.

That is what the militia is for, and it's the latest example I know of, where the local population came together as a militia to protect property and lives. It's a classic example of the 2nd Amendment in action, and this happened just a little over seven years ago.
__________________
Dennis Dezendorf

http://pawpawshouse.blogspot.com
PawPaw is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 08:28 PM   #53
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stmar
Brian, that is open to interpretation. It's vague at best. You and I can read it however we see fit, but what matters is how the Supreme Court sees it, and that body is moving left.
Your personal opinion is open to interpretation. The historical, literal, common sense and SCOTUS views are not open to interpretation. They are crystal clear.

The point I made in my first post is also crystal clear from a historical, literal, grammatical, common sense perspective. The COTUS is an agreement between the people and the government that exists at their consent by their creation. The people are to be free from National government interference except for the matters explicitly spelled out in the COTUS. All other regulation is from the various states ONLY.

It's unmistakable. The National government has only specific powers. One power that is SPECIFICALLY denied them is to disarm the people. It is not only NOT an enumerated power, it is not even left open to interpretation. It is specifically denied them. Specifically denied. Not just vaguely "...not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,...", which should be enough on it's own merit, it is further specifically DENIED to the National government by being codified in the 2A.

I don't know how it could be any more clear.

If you were baby sitting my children and I left a note that said "Being that the cookies are purchased for my children, the babysitter may not take them home."

Would you be like, "Well, I know that SOME of those cookies weren't actually bought for the children. The neighbor brought them over for Christmas. I guess THOSE cookies I, the babysitter, can take home."

Of course you wouldn't say that.

They're MY cookies. Just because I gave you ONE reason why I have them, would you demand that it was the ONLY reason? If I decided to give some to friends, would you be like "Hey! You said those were for your children and I couldn't have them!" They're MY cookies. You have no say!

The cookies being used for the nourishment of the children; the babysitter shall not take them home.

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.

No interpretation. Common sense use of grammar and the unwritten implications that we all use every day.

It only gets dicey when we don't like the obvious meaning and WANT to go looking for something we DO like.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 08:31 PM   #54
Buffalo444
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70 View Post
In those states that have not declared such activity illegal.
There is not a single state that has declared it illegal.

sent from the rust monster
Buffalo444 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 08:32 PM   #55
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,482
I don't believe that they had the internet in mind either but I don't believe they would have placed restrictions on speech because of it.

I feel exactly the same way regarding firearms.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 08:38 PM   #56
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,433
Quote:
Yes, according Alexander Hamilton it meant, organizing, training, arming and disciplined. What do you think hey meant?
It doesn't matter what I think they meant. What does matter is that they had to codify it in law which has since been replaced.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 08:46 PM   #57
rellik74
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2000
Location: Trinidad, Co. , USA
Posts: 225
Was the Kentucky long rifle not the best rifle on the battlefield? Our AR's are not the best rifle on the battlefield today, they have regulated the 2nd Amendment to keep them away form us.
__________________
My X representive Fran Coleman told me that if I don't like the laws of Denver I could move, So I Did!
rellik74 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 08:51 PM   #58
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
This article from Red State web site covers the topic well enough. The quote is from the comment section below the article:

"To a person in the 18th century,"regulate" meant "to bring order, method, or uniformity to" - see definition 2 in Webster's: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... It's the same meaning used in phrases like "regular infantry", and has everything to do with training, discipline, and practice. In fact, if our founding fathers were writing the 2nd amendment today, they might very well have written "well-trained". It's the difference between having a mob running around barely knowing which end of a gun is the dangerous one, and a group knowing how to aim and shoot accurately, care for their weapons, and coordinate together with others. Every time you see the word "regulated" in the writings of our founding fathers about guns, try substituting the word "trained", and I believe a lot of their writings make a whole lot more sense. For example, the connection between a "well-regulated" militia and the security of a free state makes a lot more sense if you understand "well-regulated" to mean "well-trained"."
http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/26/g...-part-i-of-ii/
jmortimer is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 09:27 PM   #59
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
They mentioned arms because guns weren't the only weapons. Partisan's and pikes may have still been seen on the battlefield. The sabre was widespread especially among cavalry which brings me to the point of mass killing.

A cavalry man had a horse which could carry a little more than the average foot soldier. They could be armed with at least two pistols and than a sabre. Usually cavalry were used at that time when an enemy force was either fleeing or wavering on the point of breaking. So a cavalry man would be able to discharge at least two pistols and than bring out the sabre. Other cavalry still used the lance followed up by a sabre.

I am sure some of the kill numbers a few of these cavalrymen racked up running down a beaten foe would definitely qualify as a mass killing.

load outs varied over the eons. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't times you would have found one armed with a blunderbuss backed up by four pistols.

My history is probably not precise but the point is that mass killings were nothing new at the time the 2nd amendment was written. That the technology of the time certianly enabled a person to kill a lot of unarmed people.
Come and take it. is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 09:28 PM   #60
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Buffalo444: Militia groups across the nation continue to do this voluntarily.
gc70: In those states that have not declared such activity illegal.
Buffalo444: There is not a single state that has declared it illegal.
Here is the North Carolina law; you can look up the other 40 or so states that have laws against private militias and/or paramilitary training.
gc70 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 09:31 PM   #61
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,638
Well said,Peetza man!

Actually,prior to the GCA 68,we had the Service Armament catalogue,and for more vintage stuff,Bannermans.

I,general public,had I been older at the time,could have bought a 20mm semi-auto Lahti,a 55 Boyes,a 60 mm mortar,stens,grease guns,even a tank or armored car.They may have even had 37 mm anti-tank rifles,etc in there.

We could buy them.I recall 20 mm ammo was $1.25 a round.

And,we had no problem.No crimes I ever heard of.

Shooting sports were mainstream,we had B+W TV with Bonanza,Red Skelton,I Love Lucy, Paladin,Combat!no video games...comic books,Jeb Stuart,Sgt Rock..

I do not advocate restricting the First Ammendment,but,maybe,just maybe,for some people who have issues,mind altering substances whether prescribed,(some common factors in the mass shootings are prescribed)or just to "escape reality" People can go over the edge and blur the lines between reality and a movie or video game...not all people,but some.
We have had several years of crap economy,high unemployment,high stress ,hopeless times that drive people over the edge.
What is the news?The financial cliff?Mayan calender?

Regardless of political party,one of the responsibilties of government (defined by the Constitution) is a budget.Simple,yes?

The chaos?People can deal with winter because they trust in spring.What can we trust in?A talking head?The words of any politician?
Our currency suggests God.

The root cause of incidents of violence is not the instrument of violence.

Changing a fanbelt will not fix a flat tire.

We have a corrupt and incompetent government looking for scapegoat issues.

How would our founding fathers deal with the fact we are producing "human beings" that can kill classmates,or little children,or teachers,or mother?

BTW,I have held a wonderful,beautiful woman in my arms who was beaten to death with a fireplace poker by her own tweaker son.
Weren't they always using fireplace pokers as murder instruments on Perry Mason?We need a law!!

Or is that an incredibly stupid idea?

Giving up individual liberty will not help.It is exactly the wrong thing to do.
HiBC is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 09:36 PM   #62
darwins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 18, 2008
Posts: 100
The founding fathers were pretty clear in their writings what they intended. They meant for the people to have what they needed to ensure they could preserve their rights and liberties from any threat, be it foreign or domestic.
darwins is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 09:41 PM   #63
1stmar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,198
Brian, it's not what I want, I'm not looking for anything other then where the risk is relative to the second amendment. If its so clear cut then I guess there is nothing to be concerned about? So why all the threads? ALL laws arebsubject to interpretation, that's why we have a Supreme Court, to adjudicate rulings of lower courts because laws and rulings are subject to interpretation, not just mine but judges and justices.
1stmar is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 09:41 PM   #64
Buffalo444
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70 View Post
Here is the North Carolina law; you can look up the other 40 or so states that have laws against private militias and/or paramilitary training.
"Except under miltia laws"


The exception is right in it. The SPLC has a list of thousands of groups.

sent from the rust monster
Buffalo444 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 09:41 PM   #65
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Come and take it.
My history is probably not precise but the point is that mass killings were nothing new at the time the 2nd amendment was written.
Not only were mass killings not new, but the weapons used were not even always "arms." Before the Revolution, the British and colonists engaged in biological warfare against the Indians during the French and Indian War. The Indians were given blankets from a smallpox hospital in hopes of spreading the disease widely through the Indian population.
gc70 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 09:54 PM   #66
Buffalo444
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70 View Post
Not only were mass killings not new, but the weapons used were not even always "arms." Before the Revolution, the British and colonists engaged in biological warfare against the Indians during the French and Indian War. The Indians were given blankets from a smallpox hospital in hopes of spreading the disease widely through the Indian population.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Later, but still a non firearms related mass killing. Unless you count the rifle he blew up his truck with.

sent from the rust monster
Buffalo444 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 10:16 PM   #67
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,638
This will take you to R J Rummel's "Death by Government"

It will tell you why the second ammendment is important.It is a scholarly study of what unarmed people suffer at the hands of their own governments.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
HiBC is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 10:48 PM   #68
drail
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2008
Posts: 3,150
Government is a like a huge, hungry rabid pit bull. The Bill of Rights is the heavy chain that keeps him from eating you alive. Anytime the Govt. demands that you take that chain off or even just loosen it a little really bad things WILL happen. We really need that chain and it needs to be very strong. We must not believe ANY of the "necessary" reasons they claim to loosen it. As for "now one person can kill 30 people before anyone can get close to to him", that is not very likely if people are permitted to CCW anywhere (and are intelligent enough to do so). But that is what they want us to believe.

Last edited by drail; December 30, 2012 at 10:58 PM.
drail is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 11:00 PM   #69
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
One fella who tried to debate me against "assault rifles" told me he felt these rifles were not what was meant in the writing of the 2nd...

I told him that "State of the art" weapons were to be included in the right that shall not be infringed....

He looked at me stupid and said that these rifles were not around back then...

I told him that "state of the art" weapons won the war that defeated the British and it was state of the art weapons they intended to be in the hands of citizens for all uses including the ability to defeat a tyrannical government...

The Framers of the nation would never expect us to use muzzle loaders against a government armed with machine guns and tanks...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 11:04 PM   #70
drail
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2008
Posts: 3,150
I think they would expect us to use whatever means are possible.
drail is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 11:54 PM   #71
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,186
In the USSC case U.S. v Miller, the government never contested that Miller was a member of the irregular militia, the case hinged on whether his shotgun was a military weapon. If anyone had shown up to defend the case and present evidence that short-barreled shotguns were used in battle, Miller would have prevailed and perhaps the entire NFA 1934 would have been overturned.

The Miller decision still establishes that military weapons (so called "assault weapons" and 30-round magazines) are the most constitutionally protected. I'm not sure the current Supreme Court is honest enough to rule that way. On the bright side, they tend to hold their previous decisions in VERY high regard (perhaps higher than the Constitution itself)
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 12:18 AM   #72
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
The average American voter will not listen to folks talking about needing to defend against a tyrannical U.S. government. To them, who's that, are we talking about those dear troops we support, that we all stand and clap for when they enter the airport?

These arguments seem to hit home with us, but will probably come off as kooky to the average Joe and Flo voter.

I say we tailor our arguments for other than "us".

Last edited by Carry_24/7; December 31, 2012 at 12:23 AM.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 04:47 AM   #73
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,429
This was clearly addressed by the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller, page 8:

Quote:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
natman is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 06:16 AM   #74
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,467
So if I understand the opposition's interpretation of the bill of rights, then soldiers can be quartered in a condo or privately owned apartments. Lol

The constitution, as I see it, has three distinct and separate entities; the United States, the States and the People. So, to borrow from peetza,

.....the right of the people to store and eat cookies, shall not be infringed. There's no vagueness to it, the brevity of the 2a gives the government no wiggle room. It was not intended to be vague. There's really not much to argue about.

I'm a dummy and I can figure it out.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 06:54 AM   #75
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
You know, after some reflection, discussions like this tend to be meaningless, much like the arguments over clips, a term which some manufacturers use with little regard for what we might think it means. What difference does it make what the original meaning of the 2nd amendment was, or what the militia was. I for one do not care to be bound by what they decided well over 200 years ago no more than I wish to be bound by things written 3,000 years ago, even though such things were thought to be very, very important. Sacrificied any animals lately?


Never has the militia been called out to overthrow a tyrannical government and I'm not sure one ever has been anywhere. After all, the only thing that will happen is that one government will be replaced by another, perhaps by two others, maybe even more. I cannot imagine that a government that comes to power by force of arms, by revolution, will be any better than the previous one. What the militia was used for was to put down rebellion, which it did fairly well, fight the Indians and repell invasion, the latter two which it did poorly.

It'd be nice if it could be rewritten but that'll never happen in my lifetime although that's not saying much.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15076 seconds with 9 queries