Haha.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
Haha.
The 2nd Amendment makes a statement, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." which essentially expresses why there is a need for the right, which is "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So the right doesn't hinge on being a member of a government-run militia. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Beyond that, the phrase "well regulated" does not mean "subject to strict regulation" it means "well trained and equipped." Professional soldiers at the time were referred to as "regulars" implying that they were not just bands of peasants sent fourth by their masters to fight their enemies, they were fully trained, equipped and disciplined soldiers.
There is no possible way to twist the statement "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." using the first clause to mean that "the people" is limited to members of a government-run militia. Not only that but it is abundantly clear that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a safe-guard against a tyrannical government. How could it possibly protect "the people" if the only people the right applied to were members of a government militia? How?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, it was. Not really persuasive, but interesting. For example, he quoted two examples of supposed clear references to an individual right that did not strike me that way. Also, his claim of circular logic was unfounded.
I am not saying there is definitive proof for the Linguist position, though. Of course, even if there were, the gunlobby would find some true believers with enough knowledge and skill to make a superficially convincing case.
I did not mean it to be persuasive. Merely something I thought you would have an interest in reading.
You mean like members of the left and gun control lobbies are doing on "assault rifles"?
I find you position (that the reason for the existence of a right has absolutely no bearing on the scope of that right) to be fundamentally unreasonable. Therefore, I shall not not reason further on that.
As was made clear in the Federalist Paper linked to earlier, Madison thought it protected the people from a tyrannical federal government by creating stronger state militia, with which to resist the federal government. That is how it was meant to protect the people.
No one makes money off an assault weapon ban, so the members of the left don't wind up with the sort of deep pockets it takes to create a disinformation campaign.
You are confusing the reasons with the actions. I never siad their reasons are the same. Just that their actions are. They are using "true believers with enough knowledge and skill to make a superficially convincing case". Their motives are different but the tactics are the same.
OK. As mentioned earlier the National Guard is out since they are now federal government controled. So now you have an increasing number of malitias forming and members joining them. They are using many of the weapons as their arsenal that the federal government is now seeking to ban. So again we are back to square one. They are infringing, or attempting to, on that right.
Not to mention that the "assault weapons ban" should be changed to the "cosmetic features ban".
A response here to the OB / Stoked remarks above.. . . .
The fundamental kernal notion of the "American" experiment in government, at it's bold beginnings. . . . was the notion that human beings have inalienable rights, including their right to deconstruct their government if they saw fit. A Communist ideologue would therefore call his brand of "revolution" just as justified, and our modern progressives, while variously invoking "history", or "mother earth", or "the children", or any of a hundred of social justice issues as being cause sufficient to deconstruct our Constitution, does in fact agree with this kernal notion.
The fundamental kernal notion behind the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, and the clause in the Constitution prohibiting the Federal government from in way restricting or defining that right, is that people are possessed of the natural right to replace their government by force of any arms.
Many states have copied the Second Amendment into their state constitutions, as Utah has.
Having the capacity to protect ones' life and property from other threats, other than the Federal government, is merely a collateral human right that nobody should imagine they have any business or right to deny to others.
Sometimes, talking to brainwashed ideologues is like the rain in the redrock country. . . . . . nothing is ever going to sink in. The fact that it just runs off explains the Grand Canyon, and the fact that some people are willing to be owned, mind and soul, explains human slavery, and socialism in all its forms.
The fundamental kernal notion of the "American" experiment in government, at it's bold beginnings. . . . was the notion that human beings have inalienable rights, including their right to deconstruct their government if they saw fit. A Communist ideologue would therefore call his brand of "revolution" just as justified, and our modern progressives, while variously invoking "history", or "mother earth", or "the children", or any of a hundred of social justice issues as being cause sufficient to deconstruct our Constitution, does in fact agree with this kernal notion.
The fundamental kernal notion behind the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, and the clause in the Constitution prohibiting the Federal government from in way restricting or defining that right, is that people are possessed of the natural right to replace their government by force of any arms.
Many states have copied the Second Amendment into their state constitutions, as Utah has.
Having the capacity to protect ones' life and property from other threats, other than the Federal government, is merely a collateral human right that nobody should imagine they have any business or right to deny to others.
Sometimes, talking to brainwashed ideologues is like the rain in the redrock country. . . . . . nothing is ever going to sink in. The fact that it just runs off explains the Grand Canyon, and the fact that some people are willing to be owned, mind and soul, explains human slavery, and socialism in all its forms.
My point was that a serious disinformation campaign (one that hires specifically biased experts, creates specifically biased studies, produces specifically biased position papers, etc.) requires serious money. The less-gun-control lobby has two groups with deep pockets, whose revenue will be put at risk (manufacturers and the NRA), the more-gun-control lobby has no such organizations supporting them.
I actually don't have a problem with that, as long as there is some oversight to make sure they don't go from militia to criminal cartel. I agree that in organizations with such oversight, the Second Amendment protects their right to keep more effective arms than revolvers.
Serious money or the support of media outlets. For example: The term "assault weapons". The media is knowingly using a disengenous term to skew public opinion of a weapon. There are recordings of AWB supporters admitting that it will do nothing to stop gun violence. And yet we are having hearings and what not on it in an attempt to pass a bill that they know will do nothing.
This is being pushed by democratic politicians, the media and gun control groups like the Brady campaign. (generalized statement to allow room for those amoung those groups that are not in lock step with teh AWB)
I would agree with that statement if you limited it to "deconstruct their federal government".
So then you oppose the AWB? Or do you oppose it for those that are part of a militia? Does that now mean that you have to register as a militia member? That would an easy way for the federal government to keep tabs on those they consider the most dangerous citizens. (see that DHS report). Also who is doing this regulation and oversight? The federal government? That will lead them down the road to becoming the same thing as the National Guard.
Some media outlets are biased, certainly. However, none of them will see their profits rise with any sort of increase in gun control. Whatever their motives and actions, there is no profit motive mixed in.
I am not claiming there is. I have already stated that their motives are different.
Read a report that the gun stories from ABC, NBC and CBS since Sandy Hook have favored gun control by an 8 to 1 margin.
I am sure Fox News has a similar slant the other way.
Last edited:
As you have pointed out, there is no such thing as a clearly identifiable "assault weapon". Is there an actual proposal/description of what would be banned, or am I being asked to support/reject a vaporbill? I've previously said that I would support certain specific bans, for example, on magazine-loaded weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
The National Guard are actually under the control of the governors, and only come under direct federal jurisdiction when 1) war or an emergency status is declared, and 2) subsequently, the President takes command from the governors. So, they still are a militia in the sense intended by the founders, one with great funding and training.
Do you have a specific issue with the DHS report? Did it list any specific groups in an inaccurate way?
I'm not sure why you think registering and oversight is the same as direct control. I register my employment with the federal government, but certainly don't feel that they control who I work for.
All I was trying to say is that profit ups the ante, and supplies money for what otherwise might be an untenable position.
gotta disagree with this... there really was not a Federal government at the time the Constitution was written, and even after it was finally ratified, it took time for the concept of a Federal government to evolve
also, there really were no federal armed forces at all at that time, the army that fought the British in the war of independence had disbanded, battles were primarily fought by coalitions of citizens militias - - it really wasn't until the War of 1812 that there was more of a push for a standing federal army.