|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 16, 2010, 07:57 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
You are correct that for a long time now, legislators have mischaracterized, ignored, or otherwise abused the 2nd Amendment even though they were aware of its true meaning. They also are aware of Switzerland, Kennesaw, sporting uses, etc. THEY DON'T CARE. They don't care about logic, they don't care about truth, they don't care about the Constitution. They are elitists that will do what they want to because it makes them feel better. Recognizing that the 2nd Amendment does not grant, but merely enumerates a pre-existing natural right, should be all the argument needed. NO GOVERNMENT should be allowed to violate basic human rights. This will be the most effective tactic for regaining those rights, much in the way abolition, women's suffrage, and others were. |
|
February 16, 2010, 10:30 PM | #27 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2010
Posts: 14
|
I'm aware the legislators pushing the gun-banning bills don't care. It's the people on the fence VOTING for the legislators who we really need to convince. Roughly 20% of this country supports firearm ownership, while 20% wants to take our guns away. Its the middle 60% that we need to persuade with our arguments.
And the right to bear arms never was considered a "basic human right." It's a right granted to us by our Constitution under our government, but far from inherent to human nature. Basic human rights are more along the lines of those described in the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, etc.). |
February 16, 2010, 10:56 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 3,716
|
Quote:
None of that has changed in 200+ years.
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. |
|
February 16, 2010, 11:28 PM | #29 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
The right to keep and bear arms for defense of self is in fact a basic human right. There is no more pre-eminent right than the right to continue to exist. The Court in Heller explicitly acknowledged this. Further, the constitution does not grant rights. It protects pre-existing rights. Lastly, before you quote from the Declaration, perhaps you should be reading John Locke. It was from his works that Jefferson lifted much of the opening verbiage of the Declaration. In fact, you should acquaint yourself with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746), David Hume (1711-1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), among some few. These were the men upon which western philosophy, and American idealism itself, were founded upon. The entire concept of Privileges (political rights afforded to free men, within the confines of a particular society) and Immunities (natural rights afforded to humans by the mere fact of being born) were thoroughly discussed by these great thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment era. Locke, perhaps more than others, was one philosopher that our founders knew and agreed with. Without men like those mentioned above, our concept of republican government would be totally different. |
|
February 16, 2010, 11:50 PM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Common Law of England, said: "...Self defense therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society..."(1915 abridgment, pg 289, http://books.google.com/books?id=jAU...age&q=&f=false ) And interestingly enough, the Catechism of the Catholic Church provides: "Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow...." (paragraph 2264, emphasis added) BTW, in case you're wondering why I bring in the Common Law of England, it's the basis for out law in the United States. |
|
February 17, 2010, 03:25 AM | #31 |
Member
Join Date: January 15, 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 30
|
CrossfireRacerX
check out:
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 at 180-183 Note in particular that the majority, as Justice McReynold wrote, based their decision on that case on their awareness of what "ordinary military equipment" consisted of. Miller lost because nobody briefed the COurt about the use of trench guns in WWI. In other words, the Court, in a case which is still upheld as good law, determined that the Federal Constitution, which as you know trumps state law, protects the right "of the citizens to bear MILITARY arms" from being infringed. Seriously, according to Miller, if the 2A is an individual right, which I believe it to be based on my research and education, than the indivdual has an uninfringed right to those evil black rifles, but NOT pappy'd bolt-action sporting gun.
__________________
Please do not rely on the above as legal advice. I am not your attorney, you are not paying me to advise you, I only practice in Indiana, and we have no attorney-client confidential relationship. |
February 17, 2010, 03:30 AM | #32 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2010
Posts: 14
|
I've read Locke and Hume and am familiar with their works.
Mikejonestkd, there is a world of difference between a sword, a revolutionary war musket, and an AR-15. Which is the most efficient tool in a self defense scenario? Which is the least forgiving? The right to defend your life has not changed, but the available means to do so have, which is why the BATF regards weapons in different classes with different laws regarding each. But let me play the devil's advocate here (oh lord ) could the argument not be made that we could defend ourselves with less lethal measures, which would both stop the attack and not take another person's life? Wouldn't things such as stun guns essentially render firearms obsolete hazards in terms of self defense? Which somewhat leads back to my point that firearms are not inherently a basic human right. It can be extrapolated from your explanations that everywhere firearms are not allowed, the people there have been deprived of there right to life. Obviously this is not true, yet it is the logical connection between the statements made above. Firearms are a basic human right because we have the right to life, therefore being deprived of firearms we are deprived of the right to defend our lives. And yet the argument could be made that there are less lethal options available for self defense, which are still legal in those areas preventing the possession of firearms. Based on the argument above, I'd argue that while the right to bear arms is a right we are fortunate enough to have in this country, it is a privilege and is by no means inherent to human nature. Furthermore, the vague wording of the second amendment failed to specify WHAT TYPE of arms can not be restricted. Heller has ruled on that, but that goes to show it can again be ruled on in the future. And yet Miller has ruled essentially that only military firearms are protected. So should our sporting rifles be taken away, and should we be issued fully automatic military weapons in their place? This is obviously not what the second amendment stands for... This presents yet another reason why it is important to formulate compelling arguments fighting for why private gun ownership is necessary. All of the above arguments supporting the second amendment have supported it solely on martial grounds. So as bblatt11 pointed out, our sporting firearms should not be protected under the 2nd amendment while our AR-15s and AK-47s should. I find it ironic that the given the option, the gun-seizing left would prefer us to have the sporting rifles, while those essentially are what are not protected under the second amendment. :/ Last edited by CrossfireRacerX; February 17, 2010 at 03:56 AM. |
February 17, 2010, 06:15 AM | #33 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
All right, as I suspected earlier, you have been less than forthcoming about your views and intentions here. But for a moment, I'll play along.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The nature of a weapon is that to be effective it must be capable of overcoming the adversary, who in the real world will have a gun or a knife. Equal or greater force deployed with greater speed wins the day. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
February 17, 2010, 06:26 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
One of the things that bothers me a little when you speak of the militia is that here in Virginia, the militia, as referenced above, is defined as individuals between the ages of 16 and 55. I passed that point nearly ten years ago. So the militia is hardly "everyone." Even in Switzerland there are age limits to military service. It is also true, supposedly, that a serviceman may purchase his individual weapon at the end of his term of service (in Switzerland) but it is altered to semi-automatic only. I haven't read much of anything regarding ownership of handguns in Switzerland.
Another thing about this discussion of freedom, firearms and the militia; there is an irony in that people here talk about freedom because the militia is a protected institution, in so many words, yet the militia was not a voluntary, free will based concept at all, no more so than in Switzerland (unless you're female). It is a round about way of saying that you have to be free to own firearms and military equipment in order to satisify your requirement to be a part of the militia, at least so it was in the 1790s. The Swiss generously provide such things to their militia members.
__________________
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. Last edited by BlueTrain; February 18, 2010 at 09:47 AM. |
February 17, 2010, 09:23 AM | #35 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 17, 2010, 01:20 PM | #36 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2010
Posts: 14
|
With regards to the comment about swords vs muskets vs ar-15's my point remains. Which is most efficient at doing its job? One must close to engage with a sword, a musket takes a long time to reload. An AR-15 can be used effectively at long ranges with shots made in quick succession. That was all I was trying to say. Genocide is committed on a daily basis with weapons such as machetes, but does that mean its as efficient as any form of bullet? certainly not. Just as effective, yes. efficient, no.
The point made basically about "bringing a knife to a gun fight," I 100% agree. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, a point often overlooked by those who want to take our guns away from us. My intentions have not changed from those outlined in the first post. I'm just enjoying this thread for what it's worth. Those arguments I posted earlier as the devil's advocate were the most common anti-gun arguments I've come across. And my original point still stands. The country is in no means unanimous on firearm ownership. When push comes to shove, I just don't think pointing to our Second Amendment will convince many people that we need our collection of firearms. I DO think many of the arguments above will be more persuasive when the time comes. I'm sorry if you think I've got a hidden agenda. Hopefully over time you'll eventually realize I have no such thing. |
February 17, 2010, 01:32 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
The overwhelming majority of Americans do believe we have a right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court is steeply inclined to apply it to the states this year. |
|
February 17, 2010, 02:25 PM | #38 |
Member
Join Date: January 15, 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 30
|
CrossfireRacerX - I think you may be confusing the issue unnecessarily.
Miller does in fact support the idea that possession of military purpose arms is beyond infringment. However, my point about pappy's sporting gun was that textually, the only arms not protected are those ONLY usable for sporting purposes. If your hunting arm can be, or is similar to an arm that was, used for militia purposes, its protected according to Miller. Frankly, recent history and military events demonstrates that almost ANY firearm may be used for a militia-related purpose. If I had to argue the point in Court, I might concede that the only firearms without a militia purpose are the Olympic quality, not really useful in any other context, sub-caliber rifles, or similar, overly-purposed, sporting arms. And even then, my basis for such an argument is that the military applications of such arms have not been brought to my attention at this time; which is, essentially, the Miller standard. If you're trying to find some justification for limiting militia arms to some tech period of the past, you aren't going to find it in case law.
__________________
Please do not rely on the above as legal advice. I am not your attorney, you are not paying me to advise you, I only practice in Indiana, and we have no attorney-client confidential relationship. |
February 17, 2010, 02:32 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
CrossfireRacerX: you've missed some subtle details in Heller.
First, yes, the Heller decision absolutely says that Cruikshank currently says states can violate the 2nd Amendment. But Scalia and company then put in two strong warnings that the moment they could dismantle Cruikshank, they were going to. Which in turn is why pundits both pro-gun and anti are saying the McDonald v. Chicago case is going to win incorporation of the 2nd in another five months or so. The first warning about Cruikshank happened in a footnote mentioning Cruikshank also said it was OK for states to violate the 1st Amendment. The second is even more explicit if you know what to look for. Towards the end Scalia favorably mentions a book by Charles Lane that had just come out in 2008: "The Day Freedom Died". In it, "the day" in question is the day the Cruikshank decision came out. Lane basically shows the Cruikshank decision to be possibly the most evil ruling in USSC history, one that launched well over 4,000 lynchings and untold other civil rights violations across generations. The Cruikshank decision marked the failed end of an entire civil rights movement in the US, murdered along with real human beings by the Supremes. Citing to Lane's book marked one of the most blatant criticisms of a past USSC case by the USSC in all of US history. Cruikshank is toast - stick a fork in it, it's done. It's so evil even the most Liberal justices will carve it up like a turkey dinner. And it's very possible Slaughter-house will get fried right along with it.
__________________
Jim March |
February 17, 2010, 02:57 PM | #40 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2010
Posts: 14
|
Quote:
I've agreed more or less with every single point raised here. Except the one where people say pointing to the second amendment as a suitable defense of our arms. Legally, for now, it might be. But the population is divided on gun rights, and it's important to be able to articulate why it is important for us to have them, both legally and common-sense wise, PAST the second amendment. |
|
February 17, 2010, 05:16 PM | #41 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Interesting discussion, just my $.02.
Quote:
Quote:
Our right to self defense we maintain is God-given and no government may remove it. The right to self defense is the raison d'etre for the 2A. It ain't about hunting or target shooting.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
February 17, 2010, 05:28 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The implication that the population is divided on gun rights seems to suggest something like a 50 - 50 split or that a majority oppose gun ownership.
Perhaps, the OP could reference the legit literature that suggests such a bleak situation. IIRC, 40 states have now passed shall issue legislation. Gun sales have boomed. It is true that some bastions of antigun sentiment hang tough like MA, CA, IL or NY with restrictive laws - but even in these there are strong progun groups. So how about a little research to flesh out the straw man about the general population value. A hint - most folks support gun ownership but want laws that will restrict access to lawbreakers and folks with some sort of diminished capacity. That point is overlooked in the typical tabloid like survey. But, a competent researcher could find the studies that make the difference I mention.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 17, 2010, 05:30 PM | #43 |
Member
Join Date: February 16, 2010
Posts: 36
|
Assuming what they may or may not have meant about what CONGRESS can or can't do about certain things isn't the most important thing to me. The most important thing to me is that the second ammendment states:..." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.." That ALONE means it CAN NOT be infringed upon by anyone. I don't care if it's congress, federal government or state. It says "shall not be.." not shall not be by the feds but can be by the state. Read it as it is written.
|
February 17, 2010, 05:59 PM | #44 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2010
Posts: 14
|
|
February 18, 2010, 11:13 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
I wanted to point out, before this thread is locked down, that the Federalists, authors of the Federalists Papers, were in favor of a strong central government. True, things might have been different if the other side had its way, but things seem to have been turned on their heads lately, I'd say. It is starting to sound like it is time for another convention.
__________________
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. |
February 18, 2010, 11:37 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
A URL link is not adequate research or discussion. Clear to me that the OP just wants to play with a new first post. Bathetic, IMHO.
Closed.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
|