Gun Crime

[faded glory]

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.

[faded glory]

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?

[chequita guevara]

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:

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.

[-=Vagrant=-]

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.

[faded glory]

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.

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

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

[faded glory]

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.

[Stefu]

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.

Originally posted by faded glory

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.

[chequita guevara]

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.

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.

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:

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!

[chequita guevara]

at Stefu.

[chequita guevara]

Here's SCOTA in The US v Miller, 1939

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-

'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [307 U.S. 174, 180] cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'

Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.'

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should 'contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ....' Also, 'That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.'

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: 'That every able-bodied Male Person, be- [307 U.S. 174, 181] ing a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. ... That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; ....'

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening's Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: 'The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.'

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that 'All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,' with certain exceptions, 'shall be inrolled or formed into companies.' 'There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.'

Also that 'Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good [307 U.S. 174, 182] powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.'

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

[DinoDoc]

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.

[loinburger]

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?

[MrFun]

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.