The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 31, 2012, 07:33 AM   #76
teeroux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,488
Quote:
Do you think our forefathers had current guns in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment?
I think our forefathers had near the current government in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment.
teeroux is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 09:30 AM   #77
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,447
I don't buy into the fight against tyranny argument, nor the militia argument.
The 2a doesn't specify what purpose the arms will be used for. What it does specify is the "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" leaves nothing to the imagination. It's pretty strong wording.

The constitution and the bill of rights was written to deal with future events. It was intended to span centuries. Without it, this country would have died long ago.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 12:26 PM   #78
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 962
"...the right to keep and bear arms." NOT "...the right to keep and bear muskets." They were intelligent. Of course they knew that muskets and pistols would advance just like everything else does.

Lucky for us gunners.
dajowi is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 02:20 PM   #79
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
rickyrick
I don't buy into the fight against tyranny argument, nor the militia argument.
Permiot me to introduce yo to the Federalist papers, som,ething every single American should read and be familiar with.


Quote:
James_madison

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...n-federal.html
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--
Old Grump is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 02:37 PM   #80
Stevie-Ray
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,464
Quote:
The key here is "well regulated militia", while I believe they would have expected/required/desired the militia to have equivalent arms, they also had an expectation that the militia was regulated, not simply citizens with arms. I believe that is where the 2nd amendment is weak as it pertains to civilian privileges of arms, and subsequently is at risk.
Wrong. The key here is the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the militia. The regulated militia would be chosen from the armed populace.

Why does everybody seem to agree the word PEOPLE means everybody in all amendments except the Second?
__________________
Stevie-Ray
Join the NRA/ILA
I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed.
Stevie-Ray is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 02:51 PM   #81
SnowTrekker
Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 32
Yes, the founding fathers certainly wanted citizens to be armed with the same armament available to the military.

I believe that if they had the foresight to see a government like Syria's launching airstrikes against its own people, that they would want the American people to be armed with stinger missiles to defend themselves from those planes. Would they want citizens to have nuclear missiles? Well, we could probably have an endless intellectual debate over that.

The fact is that there will soon be legislation introduced that will be the most restrictive we have ever seen. I am very concerned that this legislation will pass. I am also very concerned that with only two new Supreme Court justices, the 2nd Amendment could be reinterpreted as to not be an individual right.
SnowTrekker is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 03:08 PM   #82
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,447
I guess they should have been more specific in the wording of the second, or maybe less.
Shoulda put an expiration clause, so when the government becomes trustworthy, we can give up our arms.

Like any law it can be discussed and promoted beforehand, I.e the federalist papers, but it's the final wording that matters. It's kinda like 200+years from now someone saying "Oprah Winfrey meant this."
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 03:54 PM   #83
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,252
Quote:
The key here is "well regulated militia", while I believe they would have expected/required/desired the militia to have equivalent arms, they also had an expectation that the militia was regulated, not simply citizens with arms. I believe that is where the 2nd amendment is weak as it pertains to civilian privileges of arms, and subsequently is at risk.
Again, direct from Heller, page 1:

Quote:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
While the Supreme Court decision DC v Heller didn't settle every 2nd Amendment issue, it settled lots of them. If it did, there's no sense in rehashing them again.
natman is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 03:58 PM   #84
Tinner666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 330
Quote:
The 2a doesn't specify what purpose the arms will be used for. What it does specify is the "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" leaves nothing to the imagination. It's pretty strong wording.

The constitution and the bill of rights was written to deal with future events. It was intended to span centuries. Without it, this country would have died long ago.
I like this answer.
__________________
Frank--
Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member
Tinner666 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 05:07 PM   #85
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
If there's convincing evidence that a significant number of our community believe the 2A is meant to provide the people with the right to keep and bear arms with which to overthrow the government, then efforts to repeal the 2A will be joined by every citizen who doesn't want and doesn't see the need to prepare for civil war. It's that kind of wild-eyed rhetoric that makes the gun community look like a bunch of armed loonies bent on solving all issues with gunfire. Not very many people hate the politics of the people elected to govern enough to contemplate going to war against the National Guard to take down the whole structure of the federal government.

The 2A was created around the existing circumstances at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Prior to the Revolution there weren't enough British army troops in the colonies to adequately defend against the Indians so local citizens (males 16 to 60) banded together and trained in armed organizations that could be called to duty in emergencies - the militia. They were called "Minutemen" because they could leave their fields and shops and be on duty with loaded arms "in a minute" in case of an attack by hostile Indians. They worked with the thinly spread British army troops to protect their communities from such dangers. When dissatisfaction among the colonists began to escalate to rebellion against the English king the militias were the organized armed force that gave the rebellion its teeth and the cooperation between them and the British army turned into confrontation. That's why the British army left Boston for Concord- to disarm the rebellion by capturing or destroying military supplies stored by the Massachusetts militia. But the militia, who at that time were the only armed forces on the side of the rebellion, intervened and the war was on.

The Continental army was formed from a coalition of colonies; they were joined by the colonial militias to fight the British. After the war was won, the Continental army was disbanded, leaving just the militias to protect their communities as they had before the war, but without the support of the British army. That's why the first part of the 2A was written: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…" Having organized, armed militias was the only way to provide and protect the security of communities, there was no other military or armed police in existence. The British had tried to disarm the militias - that effort, at Concord, was the first battle in the Revolutionary war - so it was necessary to protect the right of the people to keep arms for that purpose even though that risked an armed rebellion against the new government. The 2A was written to meet the circumstances and situation at the time it was ratified. The Third Amendment clearly has the same origins, as do all the amendments: directly addressing abuses and injustices the colonists suffered under tyrannical oppressive rule of the distant king of England. The marvel of it all is that these rights of the people above the rights of their government, written to directly address issues in the mid 1700s have lasted nearly 250 years, having been expanded and made applicable to the results of progress and changing times by decisions of the Supreme Court.

I believe that were the Founders faced with the sort of insane carnage we're faced with, they would support actions that would improve the public safety and reduce the risk of madmen with extremely lethal weapons while preserving the rights of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 05:14 PM   #86
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,611
A number of people who wrote the Constitution and Bill of rights personally owned weapons capable of killing 30 people in one shot. Given that undeniable fact, I think they probably considered the possibility of someone having that sort of firepower.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 06:09 PM   #87
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
If there's convincing evidence that a significant number of our community believe the 2A is meant to provide the people with the right to keep and bear arms with which to overthrow the government, then efforts to repeal the 2A will be joined by every citizen who doesn't want and doesn't see the need to prepare for civil war. It's that kind of wild-eyed rhetoric that makes the gun community look like a bunch of armed loonies bent on solving all issues with gunfire.
You, like many others, seem to forget history. History, especially the history of the last century, is replete with tyrannical governments. Most all the people, who suffered the abuses of those tyrannical governments, never thought their government would turn on them either.

We have a constitution and we have a process for changing that constitution. Despite a few complainers and the Civil War, its worked so far, without revolution. If the process of Amending the Constitution is followed and our rights are changed, then most people will accept it. As it stands now, despite a few things that are relatively minor, everything is working as designed by the framers.

So, I would whole heartedly agree, that for the current time and the foreseeable future, as long as things are decided constitutionally, any talk of revolt or violent action is silly. However, that does not negate the fact, that things can change and none can say for sure what might happen in the future. I'm not Nostradamus, so I don't know what the world will look like in the future.

I'm 100% certain that all will be aware of when things have tipped past the breaking point. It could be along the lines of the Civil War, by that I mean, there will be some radical change of some form, that will create a constitutional crisis. Or something else entirely, like I said I'm no prognosticator.

What I do know for certain is, the founding fathers intended the people to have the option and the means to resist tyranny. There is no question about that whatsoever.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 07:05 PM   #88
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,447
Lets steer this discussion to the here and now.

What constitutional grounds can we argue for arming ourselves in present day?
The conditions in which we find ourselves: protection of oneself and property, hunting and sport.

The tyrannical government argument, however true, won't wash with the antis. The militia argument won't fly either. Flying either one of those flags is not going to help our cause, might as well go turn in the guns now.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 07:18 PM   #89
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
I don't care what washes with the antis. I care about the truth. Why would I care about antis? They want all guns, we'll they're going to have to amend the constitution then. Go through the process and change the constitution, then you can have my firearms. Other than that forget it.

We aren't trying to win antis over to our side any way where did you get that idea? Also, you better check with the SCOTUS and the writings of the founding fathers. Tyranny of the majority can't take our rights, only a constitutional amendment.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 07:26 PM   #90
dorc-1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2012
Posts: 106
Me, I just don't want to be outgunned in any situation against survivalists, anarchists, or criminals. The gun culture in the USA has created a high percentage of over paranoid hoarders by any definition of the phrase. If military style weapons had never been allowed in this country I would be perfectly happy to have a bolt action, shotgun, or a revolver. Could criminals get there hands on military weapons if they had never been allowed? Sure, but they would be few and far between.....no where near what it is today. But that said.......pandora is out of her box......and there ain't no way of putting her back short of a police state. Those who find comfort in military style weapons as a way to fight back against our own military or police if and when some sort of gov't repression tale comes true are in for a rude awakening.
dorc-1 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 07:48 PM   #91
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,447
I'm not arguing with anyone, but the antis are going to try and get the guns, so I care what they think.

The tyranny argument makes everyone that uses it look like extremists militia nut-cases.

The antis are claiming that 2a is archaic and unnecessary, and y'all are providing evidence to support them.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 08:17 PM   #92
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyrick
I'm not arguing with anyone, but the antis are going to try and get the guns, so I care what they think.

The tyranny argument makes everyone that uses it look like extremists militia nut-cases.

The antis are claiming that 2a is archaic and unnecessary, and y'all are providing evidence to support them.
Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it, only I'd leave out the invective in the future if I were you. It runs counter to TFL policy on decorum.

The Supreme Court has ruled what the 2nd Amendment is and is not. Those arguing that the second is archaic, unnecessary, etc are in a small minority. To show how wrong and extreme that opinion is, it runs counter to President Obama, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who all three believe the American people have a constitutional right to own firearms for defense. They are on record saying so.

If agreeing with the founding fathers, the Supreme Court and various politicians all known to be for increased restrictions, is being an extremist nut case, then I'm guilty as charged. If its not, then maybe I'm not the one who should rethink his opinions.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 08:31 PM   #93
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,447
Again I'm just stating how the public views and reacts to certain statements. Certain things invoke flammatory responses. I've been reading postings and responses all over for weeks. Sorry for the misunderstanding. We are a fairly closed forum here, so we are all in general agreement, at least in spirit of the constitution, court decisions ect. But in public the defense against tyranny doesn't fare so well.

So please understand I'm not attacking anyone here. Just pointing out how the opposition views the argument.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 08:36 PM   #94
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,446
Quote:
The tyrannical government argument, however true, won't wash with the antis. The militia argument won't fly either. Flying either one of those flags is not going to help our cause, might as well go turn in the guns now.
Go ahead. I'll keep mine.

Quote:
Never has the militia been called out to overthrow a tyrannical government and I'm not sure one ever has been anywhere.
Challenge Accepted.

Athens, Tennessee, 1946. Look it up, BlueTrain.

There it is.

Challenge Met.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 08:41 PM   #95
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stmar
If its so clear cut then I guess there is nothing to be concerned about? So why all the threads? ALL laws are subject 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.
Sadly, we have long since lost the ability to definitively interpret plain text. I discovered the phenomenon when I took a literature class in college and the whole premise was that none of the writing was actually endowed by it's author with meaning. It meant what it meant to us individually. I didn't realize at the time that generations had been taught to view the world from that perspective.

Laws should not be subject to interpretation. The question should be one a constitutionality. Laws should be clearly and concisely written. Should be, I say. I fully realize that they're not.

The 2A is not a "law" either. It is the standard by which laws are judged. It is one sentence. It is not vague or conditional. It is not open to interpretation. The SCOTUS has now definitively concluded, not that it should take such a decision, that the prefatory clause is not and never has been the singular purpose. Well, says I, DUH! Common sense. Never has been, never should have been, is not the only purpose.

Just like my example with the cookies. It doesn't have to include every possible scenario to be all inclusive. The meaning is clear.

The cookies are mine and you keep your paws off. I'll do with them as I please.

So, if the prefatory clause is not the only purpose, then the clause that matters, the defining statement is:

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

How much clearer could it be?

Now, here is where I might diverge from some other folks, because I do not believe that the relatively modern doctrine of Incorporation is actually correct.

The states have their own constitutions. If the COTUS was meant to apply to the states it would be all we needed. It wasn't and isn't meant to apply to the states.

Court battles over states laws should be fought based on the state constitution. Virtually every state (if not every) has their own version of the 2A either in the text proper of the document or in it's own version of a Bill of Rights.

We'd solve a lot of problems is we got just a couple of concepts right.

In this instance, the application is simple. The 2A applies to National level gun laws. The 2A is an "inalienable right". Inalienable rights can only be infringed under very specific, very restricted circumstances. Almost all, and certainly all existing, gun laws are unconstitutional on a National level.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
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 31, 2012, 08:46 PM   #96
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,447
I'm keeping mine too, Jimbob. Lol, I was just expressing frustration a little. calmed down now.

Again not meant against members of this forum.


I looked up Athens Tennessee 1946, extremely interesting, thanks for sharing.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 08:58 PM   #97
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,447
Brian pretty much states my view of it but I lack the language skills.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 09:15 PM   #98
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,454
Quote:
Now, here is where I might diverge from some other folks, because I do not believe that the relatively modern doctrine of Incorporation is actually correct.
Do you disagree with Black's doctrine of Incorporation, or with the idea that the BoR applies to the states?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 09:38 PM   #99
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,446
Quote:
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.
-Bluetrain

Ah, but the Constitution does not bind YOU, my friend: It states what the Federal Government can do, and the Bill of Rights specificly prohibits things that it CAN NOT DO TO YOU!

If you find that you can not live in a country where others are protected from the .gov by these provisions .... well, there are other countries without such protections .... there is no fence keeping you here.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/

Last edited by jimbob86; December 31, 2012 at 09:43 PM.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 09:56 PM   #100
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,447
Someone mentioned it, here's the Texas version of Rkba

Quote:
SEC. 23. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.


SEC. 29. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick 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 01:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15310 seconds with 7 queries