[themic]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/856672.asp

Thought provoking article... his main thesis is:

that without a supreme-court-approved individual right to bear arms, the war over gun control will never be stable, and continue to be viscious. With that in place, however, gun control advocates could probably make much more ground... as soon as they stop being so damned stupid all the time.

thoughts? comments?

[Edward429451]

Reasonable regulation would be ok if it wasn't a lie and the stepping stone to disarmament. Thats a well established deception and tactic at this point, given rise to the thought pf regulate reasonably or not at all.

The supreme court ruling would only mean something if it was undertaken by men of integrity. The problem with the supreme court is that they are appointed and not elected. They want to rule on our rights, and are personally put in place by one man and his (puppeteers) whims.

I dont think so. I hold SC justices to be some kind of modern day political Trojan Horse, thrust on the people to speak for the people and wont listen to the people. It dont take a rocket scientist to surmise that the SC will never rule in favor of the people on an issue.

[MicroBalrog]

Well, I've written to him to say that I agree with him in that the Second Amendment doesn't protect WMD's as they cannot be used without harming innocents. However, I continued, it does protect ownership of all other weapons , as they all can be used without harming innocents. I then continued that the 2A could be construed to allow MINIMAL regulation on some forms of carry or transportation (i.e., no high-explosives on buses).

Is that stupid?

[themic]

i dont think it's stupid. it really comes down to where you draw the lines.

as it is, we on this board tend to draw lines that many would call "extremist," even though it probably isn't a smart idea to transport quantities of high explosives on buses, or to have WMD, on an individual level.

and that's a point i think he didn't quite explore enough, also, was his line about weapons that are harmful to innocents while used correctly

i.e. if i use a handgun correctly it shouldn't harm innocents

if i were to use a rifle correctly, in my own home, it would harm innocents most likely, cause i'm in a large apartment building. but does that mean i shouldn't own one? i have rifles in my apartment. so is ownership contextual? it won't hurt anyone for someone out in the country to have a hand grenade, when used correctly, should he be able to bring it in the city? if not, does that mean i shouldn't be able to have a rifle in my apartment? i would hope not.

so obviously merely having the capability isn't the answer of where to draw the line.

nots also that with the explosives on the bus example, or the example of having WMD, that there's a safety issue regardin proper care and maintenance. a gun can just sit there, or transported, or jostled about, or not be cleaned for years, and wont hurt anything. explosives, though, need much more special care to ensure they don't cause harm. could you say "active care?" what about stable explosives that don't require active care (C-4 for example)?

i think what it comes down to, IMO, is the issue of aimed fire. grenades and TNT and WMD are sort of aimed, but not very precise weapons, even when used correctly. a firearm, even a fully automatic one, IS a precise weapon when used correctly.

[MicroBalrog]

I think, from what my military friends told me, and from my general reading, that explosives CAN be safely used/aimed (look, the military blows up thousands of shells during training and almost nobody gets hurt). WMD is where I draw the line.

[Jim March]

Basically correct, so far as it goes. But remember who the audience is, and the tactical purpose for the document.

[BOBE]

//"Reasonable regulation" is not an issue. "Shall no be infringed" means no
regulation.

[Standing Wolf]

...what I am now coming to appreciate is that increasing numbers of persons on the Left create in their minds a false world in which to live — a world that better suits their preconceptions. They are not content to disagree with the goals of their opposition or about predictions of future policy results. They must make up facts about the world that fit their theories — like the “homeless” crisis that immediately vanished when Clinton took office.

Which explains how guns cause crime.

[NIGHTWATCH]

No guns, no America. Hold your ground. :mad:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

//"Reasonable regulation" is not an issue. "Shall no be infringed" means no regulation.

That is a ridiculous assertion. Please point out any of the Bill of Rights where there is no regulation at all. Please point out any of the Bill of Rights where there SHOULD be no regulation at all in your mind.

Then why didn't they use the same language in the first amendment "Congress shall make no law..."?

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
Date: 1533
transitive senses
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

Exactly how was Congress going to maintain any militia if it wasn't entitled to make regulations concerning arms? How do you fight a war with one million different calibers?

[Edward429451]

"Reasonable Regulation"

Hey now, don't read more into my words than was meant.;)

By reasonable regulation I meant procuring common calibers for militia usage, not de-holstering in schools or bars around drunks, not press checking on city buses, storing your nukes in a real facility (sic), or locking slide backs on formal ranges to show clear (for conformity). Basically common sense or self regulation. Regulation by others in these manners for newbies, instruction, and training purposes.

Things of that nature. Reasonable regulation.

:)

[pax]

That is a ridiculous assertion. Please point out any of the Bill of Rights where there is no regulation at all. Please point out any of the Bill of Rights where there SHOULD be no regulation at all in your mind.
Bartholomew,

Talk about ridiculous. "Shall not be infringed..." As you pointed out, the root of infringe means to break a bit off. So to infringe an item means to nibble away at the edges of it, to break off little pieces of it, pieces that are on the fringe of the item.

The plain language of our country's easily-understood Constitution says that the right to own and carry weapons shall not be nibbled away. No small part of that right may be broken off for political expedience. Not one little iota of that right may be taken.

It's unfortunate that fearful people with ridiculous agendas are willing to nibble away at the rights of other people. But the language of the Constitution is clear: you do not have the legal warrant to nibble away at MY rights.

pax

"A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed." I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms. – Bruce Tiemann

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Pax, please read closely before jumping in. The original poster's assertion was:

"Shall no be infringed" means no regulation.

Are you arguing that the Constitution permits no regulation of any aspect of the Bill of Rights?

So to infringe an item means to nibble away at the edges of it, to break off little pieces of it, pieces that are on the fringe of the item.

So does all regulation by legislature constitute an infringement in your mind? Are your rights infringed by not being allowed a constituional right to slander and libel people?

[pax]

Pax, please read closely before jumping in.
Bartholomew,

That's fairly condescending, you know. It implies that of course anyone who understood the discussion would agree with you and not with him. :rolleyes:

Are you arguing that the Constitution permits no regulation of any aspect of the Bill of Rights?
Not really. I am arguing that the Bill of Rights means what it says.

I think "Congress shall make no law..." MEANS Congress shall make no law respecting the items listed in the First Amendment.

I think "shall not be infringed" MEANS the RKBA shall not be infringed, in the Second Amendment.

Take a look at the language of the Third Amendment. It says certain things shall not be allowed, "but in a manner to be prescribed by law." That means those certain things ARE subject to reasonable restrictions.

If the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment rights to be subject to certain 'reasonable restrictions' later to be prescribed by law, they would have said that. They certainly had both the ability and the foresight to say such a thing if such a thing were what they meant.

pax

The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government. – Joe Sobran

[TallPine]

So does all regulation by legislature constitute an infringement in your mind? Are your rights infringed by not being allowed a constituional right to slander and libel people?

You are comparing bananas and bowling balls ...

Slander and libel are to the First Amendment, as armed robbery and murder are to the Second Amendment.

Why can't people get that through their heads?

Are you not allowed to publish anything because you MIGHT libel someone?

[Minuteman]

Bartholomew Roberts wrote:
Exactly how was Congress going to maintain any militia if it wasn't entitled to make regulations concerning arms? How do you fight a war with one million different calibers?
In the language of the late 18th Century, "reglated" as in "a well regulated militia..." referred to training, not laws. So a well regulated militia is one that is well trained and disciplined.

If even one-third of America's adult males were armed, it really wouldn't matter what caliber each is using. I dare even China, if it had the requisite means of transport, to try invading a United States like that. If you study the relevant history, you'll discover that the militia's purpose, in the case of an invading force, was to hold an enemy at bay long enough for the central government to muster a military force to deal with the threat. The militia at Lexington and Concord did this quite handily, some of whom were shooting squirrel calibers. And by law, militia members are to provide for their own arms and ammunition.

You seem to be concerned about what the law says. That's good. The 2nd Amendment says that a well trained militia is necessary for the defense of a free state and, for that reason, our right to own and carry weapons of war is not to be legislated in any way, for the militia is the whole people except a few officials. A quick perusal of the writings of almost any of the founding fathers will amply bear this out. So I have a question for you. Are you obeying the law by being a member of your local militia (and training), and why or why not?

For reference, the extant US Militia Act of 1792 can be viewed here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_311.html).

TallPine, thank you for that excellent point.

Minuteman

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Slander and libel are to the First Amendment, as armed robbery and murder are to the Second Amendment.

If it was the intention of the Founding Fathers that Congress should not have any regulatory power over arms then why not simply use the same phrasing as in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law"?

EDITED TO ADD:

Here is a good link to peruse. It is a discussion of the Second Amendment from an 1874 Missouri law journal:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/centlj.html

Minuteman:

The 2nd Amendment says that a well trained militia is necessary for the defense of a free state and, for that reason, our right to own and carry weapons of war is not to be legislated in any way, for the militia is the whole people except a few officials. A quick perusal of the writings of almost any of the founding fathers will amply bear this out.

Really? Peruse these writings from the 1789 ratification debates:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same.

The Militia shall be under the government of the laws of the respective States, when not in the actual Service of the united States, but Such rules as may be prescribed by Congress for their uniform organisation & discipline shall be observed in officering and training them.

That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in the actual service in time of war, invasion or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State."

All of those sound fairly regulatory to me.

There are no absolute rights in the Constitution of the United States. Whether there ought to be is a neat question for philosophers; but it will forever remain in the realm of philosophy because practical everyday life demands that there be limits to all rights.

So I have a question for you. Are you obeying the law by being a member of your local militia (and training), and why or why not?

There are two forms of militia today - the organized (National Guard etc) and the unorganized. The only one that trains is the organized and I know of no law compelling membership in it. The unorganized militia is all males 17-45. You don't have to "obey" any law to be a part of it and since they are by definition, unorganized, there is no training.

I have served on active duty with the U.S. Navy for 5 years, another 3 years in the IRR (organized militia per above discussion) and am now a male who would fall into the unorganized category.

[themic]

whoa this thread has wandered a bit, but lots of good discussion here.

here's where my thought process was going, as I read the original article.

look at the case of the 1st Amendment, there are restrictions to the right of free speech. the classic "Fire!" in a movie house, for example. even though this is a guaranteed inalienable right, it is not ok to use this right to harm others.

one of the fundamentals libertarianism, a group which tends to take a rather pure approach to rights, is that no freedom should be encroached upon unless one's exercise of that freedom inflicts upon the freedom of others.

yelling FIRE in a crowded movie house, then, is a deliberate attempt to cause panic and mayhem which, especially in that setting, could likely be foreseen to lead to injuries both physical and psychological, at least to some people.

and therefore it is not ok.

the corrollary to the 2nd Amendment would be brandishing. Even though you are not directly harming anyone, it is a forseeable consequence that panic mayhem and/or indirect injury would ensue. basically, it's a dramatic form of assault (as opposed to battery) with a firearm.

but, is there ever a time when the mere ABILITY to commit a crime of large extent worthy of legislation? This is where my question comes in. Gun regulation is based on the enabling power of the firearm, that mere ownership is somehow unacceptable to society.

conversely, can we look at the 1st amendment and see a corrolary regarding ownership, or ability? Here, I point to FCC laws. for instance, there is a limited percentage of total media market that a single entity can possess. While the direct intentions here are in terms of competition and the ability to hear multiple viewpoints, the point i'm making is that there already exists a means by which the 1st amendment is controlled by way of merely having the power to distribute ideas. don't get me started on the new FCC regs and the effective prohibition of small media establishments such esp in radio.

but basically, there is legal precedent for regulation of large-scale capability in terms of the 1st amendment. the question is, then, in light of this, seeing as we tend to be a bit of a no-rules-of-any-kind crowd here, is:

if we were to get our way, which is way way way in the area of nothing infringed comapred to current law and culture, how far does this go? is it ok for an individual to have a select-fire rifle? a tank? a grenade? tnt? an F-15? powdered anthrax? a dirty bomb? all of which are 'arms.' are there international (geneva) considerations for this?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That's fairly condescending, you know. It implies that of course anyone who understood the discussion would agree with you and not with him.

No, it implies that anyone who properly understood my post wouldn't have responded as you did. Whether you find that condescending or not is of course a matter of personal choice... :rolleyes:

Now, let's cut to the chase...

I think "shall not be infringed" MEANS the RKBA shall not be infringed, in the Second Amendment.

Is it not possible for Congress to pass regulations on arms (particularly as regards the original purpose of having a viable militia) without infringing on the Second Amendment?

If it is, then the no regulation argument is bogus and you didn't understand my post when you responded to it.

If it is not, then we disagree and you need to advance an argument that will suffice to sway someone who has read extensively on the subject over a period of five or six years if you hope to change it.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

if we were to get our way, which is way way way in the area of nothing infringed comapred to current law and culture, how far does this go? is it ok for an individual to have a select-fire rifle? a tank? a grenade? tnt? an F-15? powdered anthrax? a dirty bomb? all of which are 'arms.' are there international (geneva) considerations for this?

I think the guy draws a good line in the article - any weapon that when used properly presents an unreasonable risk to an uninvolved thrid party is not acceptable. i.e. using an 81mm mortar on your local mugger.

[pax]

Is it not possible for Congress to pass regulations on arms (particularly as regards the original purpose of having a viable militia) without infringing on the Second Amendment?
No, it is not.

And I have no intention of trying to sway you, since your mind obviously closed on the subject. But for the benefit of others following the thread, I will answer a question you asked of someone else:
If it was the intention of the Founding Fathers that Congress should not have any regulatory power over arms then why not simply use the same phrasing as in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law"?
Because the Founders had an intelligent and nuanced grasp of the English language.

"Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall make no law." It means, "shall not be infringed."

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Okay, the first phrase of this Amendment is written within fairly narrow parameters. It says that Congress shall not make a law relating or referring to establishing a religion. With only this phrase, Congress might still make a law which regulates certain religious behavior, and not run afoul of the First Amendment.

Thus the Founders added a second phrase, equally nuanced: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress is prohibited both from passing any law which relates or refers to establishing a religion, and from passing any law which prohibits religious behavior.

Without violating the First Amendment, Congress might still pass laws which relate or refer to the free exercise of religion, and they might still pass laws which prohibit the establishment of religion.

The Second Amendment is a little different: 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.
This Amendment is hardly nuanced at all: the right of the people (the same individual human beings mentioned in the 1st and 4th Amendments) to keep and to carry weapons shall not be infringed. That is, that right may not be nibbled away. No small part of it may be broken off.

There's no wiggle room there at all. The right to keep and to carry weapons shall not be nibbled away in any manner -- not by laws, not by regulations, not by judicial fiat.

Because the Founders knew that they had just written something entirely radical, they added an explanatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This explains the reason behind the radical no-infringement clause. It says that the RKBA must not be nibbled away because an intact RKBA is necessary to security in a free country.

Every time Congress debates "common sense gun control," the members of Congress which do so are demonstrating their contempt for the highest law of the land, and their contempt for their own oaths of office, and their contempt for the safety of America.

And every time we let them get away with it, we demonstrate our contempt for the ideals this country was founded upon.

That there are not lynchings and riots following each nibble taken out of the RKBA means that we simply are not worthy to inherit the freedom for which our forefathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

pax

It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once. -- David Hume

[MicroBalrog]

I think I'll have to repeat myself:

"The Second Amendment doesn't protect WMD's as they cannot be used without harming innocents. However, I continued, it does protect ownership of all other weapons , as they all can be used without harming innocents. I then continued that the 2A could be construed to allow MINIMAL regulation on some forms of carry or transportation (i.e., no high-explosives on buses). "

Thus, no WMD.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

No, it is not.

So if Congress passed only one federal firearms law and it was that all males between the age of 17-45 were required to have an M-16 and 210 rounds, this law would infringe on the Second Amendment in your view?

we simply are not worthy to inherit the freedom for which our forefathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

Completely off topic; but I'm just curious as to what you have risked to protect that freedom? I know I've definitely given up some fortune to naval service although with the exception of having a michman in Vladivostok wave a Nagant revolver at me, I never felt like my life was in immediate risk. I don't think of honor (sacred or otherwise) as something you can risk. You either have it or you don't, it isn't something that can be gambled away on a new house at 40-1 odds.

Its a personal question unrelated to our conversation; so don't feel obliged to answer it. I'm just satisfying my personal curiousity as well as examining my own hypothesis relating to posting.

[Edward429451]

So if Congress passed only one federal firearms law and it was that all males between the age of 17-45 were required to have an M-16 and 210 rounds, this law would infringe on the Second Amendment in your view?

Doublespeak for confusion.:rolleyes:

Requireing people to have arms wouldn't be infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, cause they'd have them and be bearing them. So no point is made there.

[Intune]

Bart R asked:
"Completely off topic; but I'm just curious as to what you have risked to protect that freedom? I know I've definitely given up some fortune to naval service although with the exception of having a michman in Vladivostok wave a Nagant revolver at me, I never felt like my life was in immediate risk. I don't think of honor (sacred or otherwise) as something you can risk. You either have it or you don't, it isn't something that can be gambled away on a new house at 40-1 odds."

You failed to ask Pax about leading the riots and lynchings. Having failed to lead or participate in such activities indicates what? A misconception of the BOR? Is it just me or do I detect a condescending tone here?

:confused:

Pax said:
"That there are not lynchings and riots following each nibble taken out of the RKBA means that we simply are not worthy to inherit the freedom for which our forefathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor."

Inheriting something doesn't require any action. That there are no efforts expended to KEEP that inheritance seems to be the crux of the statement.
Lives, fortunes, and sacred honor have already been expended.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Doublespeak for confusion.

Requireing people to have arms wouldn't be infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, cause they'd have them and be bearing them. So no point is made there.

OK, for everybody who would like to chip in their two cents but hasn't been following the argument well, here is the original quote again:

"Shall not be infringed" means no regulation.

Thus since there can be no regulation concerning arms under this assertion Congress may not mandate anything relating to keeping and bearing arms - even in a positive nature. After all, what if I want to use an AK instead? Either that or this is a ridiculous assertion and "shall not be infringed" does NOT mean a total absence of regulation, only that such regulation cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


As an aside NOT related to my original argument... To the people who are arguing that there can be no legislation restricting arms: It is a neat philosophical concept; but that is all it will ever be. There has never been and will never be a society where the use of weapons isn't regulated in some fashion. It may not have been formally codified; but you can bet it was regulated. The arguments that there should be such a society are a neat intellectual diversion but will forever remain outside of pragmatism on the intellectual plane.

[Intune]

“There has never been and will never be a society where the use of weapons isn't regulated in some fashion. It may not have been formally codified; but you can bet it was regulated.”

Yeah, I’ll just bet those Vikings ran to the armory to sign out their battle axes & swords.

"...only that such regulation cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms."

Huh? Alright, then please name me one simple "regulation" that wouldn't be an infringement.

What, good Sir, do you consider "reasonable" regulations in this day & age?

:uhoh:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What, good Sir, do you consider "reasonable" regulations in this day & age?

I can't think of many. The prohibition on firearms ownership by the insane and violent felons. Even then there are potential issues in both that concern me. The former Soviet Union was fond of imprisoning political dissidents by labeling them "insane" and many felony crimes these days are piddling crimes that are properly handled at the state level. However, my views on what is reasonable are no more relevant than Pax's view that the Second Amendment forbids all regulation.

My point was more along the lines of whether the Founders intended it or not, Congress or some other legislative body is going to regulate firearms.

Wishing or believing that some halcyon day of no firearms regulation is ever going to happen is right up there with the bliss-ninny dream of nobody has guns and we all unilaterally disarm. It isn't going to happen and when you suggest it as an obtainable goal, people switch off to the rest of what you say, no matter how valid it was, because they question your grip on reality.

If our solution to questions about the breadth of the Second Amendment is to go around saying "It means no regulation at all!" we might as well just shut up and not say anything, because we are hurting our own cause more than we help it.

I love to provoke someone into saying "We should ban all guns" in an online debate; because here in the U.S. that isn't a popular view with most people (though it is a damn sight more popular than "There should be no gun regulation whatsoever"). I like to single out that one person if I can find him and use his arguments to taint the less extreme arguments others make by implying that they all think the same but only this person actually said it. It isn't necessarily logical; but it is effective.

Likewise, the percentage of people who think that no regulations of arms at all is a good idea is similarly small, and the same tactic can be executed successfully against anybody foolish enough to advance that argument; unless they also possess the extraordinary skill to sell that argument - and nobody here does so far as I have seen.

To win at RKBA, we need to win the cultural battle. Unless legitimate firearms use is more broadly accepted, legal theory (including Constitutional interpretation) is irrelevant because practical politics is going to smother it in its cradle no matter how well founded it might be historically. Legal wins are nice; but they mean nothing unless they can be exploited to gain more cultural acceptance.

I seriously question how much cultural acceptance can be gained by advocating a "no regulation" approach to the Second Amendment at this stage. I think the immediate effect is that people (and even other gunowners) will shut you off and classify you as a wack-job and rather than change the culture to your way of thinking, you make it more resistant to that change.

Fun Fact: 1100 BC - The Philistines restricted the use of iron by the Israelites. One of the earlier recorded efforts at arms control.

[MicroBalrog]

Does anybody remember what the Lord told us to do to them for it?

[TallPine]

Fun Fact: 1100 BC - The Philistines restricted the use of iron by the Israelites. One of the earlier recorded efforts at arms control.

Yeah, but they didn't have a Second Amendment :neener:

[Leaky Waders]

My two cents...

I think that most people who are passionate about gun control have had a loved one killed in an unfortunant incident...they feel that the gun was responsible, not the person pulling the trigger, the location of the victim, the situation at the time, the crime perpetrated were not the cause...the cause was simply the firearm. Their argument is basically 'if there were strict gun laws then my son, nephew etc would still be alive.' Unfortunately, that argument doesnt seem to work. There are plenty of drug laws yet the streets of America are not devoid of addicts. There's a drinking and driving law, a no speeding law, a no killing law, etc...Law abiding people respect the laws and the consequences they yield when broken...criminals do not.

I also think that the persons codifying our laws have no reality check as to what they are doing. In other words....they are not affected by the laws they lobby for or against. If no guns are allowed in Washington DC then fine...Mr President, Congresswoman, Senator, etc...let your security force carry only liquid mace and a billy club while in Washington DC. The average American doesn't have a security force...so since you've passed the law...live by it too. Why are you so entitled to ignore the laws that you make...are you a monarch w/ divine right? Or a representative of the people. This philosophy carries over to the police who drive 75 in a 55 or keep weapons at home because they are on the force. If you live in a jurisdiction that prohibits home weapons, then perhaps you should only use yours at work.

As for crew served weapons and individual rights....I'm not sure. If the argument for gun control is "We need to control guns so they will decrease our crime rate, then I would wonder when the last time a browning 50 cal has been used in a crime."

If the main reason for gun control is "I am an elected representative and I feel threatened by the populance because of my greedy disengenious election," then perhaps the RKBA is working.

If the main reason for gun control is "I live in the city where criminals have guns," then perhaps we should focus on why there are criminals there and keep people responsible for their actions.

v/r,

LW

[Edward429451]

OK, for everybody who would like to chip in their two cents but hasn't been following the argument well, here is the original quote again:

"Shall not be infringed" means no regulation.

I'm following it just fine. Giving you an M16 is not nibbling at your right to bear anything you wish. The moment they say you can't use your AK, its an infringment. You didn't make the distinction when you laid out your little scenario that you couldn't use other arms.

Every time Congress debates "common sense gun control," the members of Congress which do so are demonstrating their contempt for the highest law of the land, and their contempt for their own oaths of office, and their contempt for the safety of America.

OK.



And every time we let them get away with it, we demonstrate our contempt for the ideals this country was founded upon.

This is the sticky part. Isn't complying with gun regulations, getting permits and such, in fact letting them get away with it?:scrutiny:

[pax]

I hate to start things I can't finish, but some family stuff has come up. If this thread is still active Monday or Tuesday, I'll look in on it then. Meanwhile, have fun without me.

A few answers for now:

Bartholomew,
So if Congress passed only one federal firearms law and it was that all males between the age of 17-45 were required to have an M-16 and 210 rounds, this law would infringe on the Second Amendment in your view?
Yes, because implied with the freedom to have something, is the freedom not to have it. Thus, atheism is protected under the First Amendment, and no-gunism is protected under the 2nd.

Bartholomew wrote,
Completely off topic; but I'm just curious as to what you have risked to protect that freedom?
Not a damn thing. I have done nothing but write rabble-rousing prose on the internet and to the editor of my local paper, vote, and show up at a few pro-RKBA rallies from time to time. I'm as fond of my creature comforts as the next person, and doing anything more might endanger my ability to sit on my couch and gripe.

And Intune followed up with,
You failed to ask Pax about leading the riots and lynchings. Having failed to lead or participate in such activities indicates what? A misconception of the BOR? Is it just me or do I detect a condescending tone here?
Nope, you don't. I included myself. Did you see the word "we"? I even bolded and underlined it, so it couldn't be missed. We have failed to protect the freedoms the Founders died to give us; we have failed to hold our elected officials accountable for their oaths of office; we have preferred the comforts of servitude more than the animating contest for freedom. We aren't worthy of the freedom they gave us.
Inheriting something doesn't require any action. That there are no efforts expended to KEEP that inheritance seems to be the crux of the statement.
Read a little more carefully, please. I said we weren't worthy to inherit. I neither said nor implied that we hadn't inherited such freedom ... only that we weren't worthy of having inherited it since we have no respect for it and no real desire for it either.

Intune added, Lives, fortunes, and sacred honor have already been expended.
You are quite right. They gave their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. We, on the other hand, are too afraid of getting on some stinkin' list somewhere to do anything whatsoever that might actually protect or even extend the freedom so many of them spent all they owned to give us.

Bartholomew opined, As an aside NOT related to my original argument... To the people who are arguing that there can be no legislation restricting arms: It is a neat philosophical concept; but that is all it will ever be. There has never been and will never be a society where the use of weapons isn't regulated in some fashion. It may not have been formally codified; but you can bet it was regulated. The arguments that there should be such a society are a neat intellectual diversion but will forever remain outside of pragmatism on the intellectual plane.
Ah, yes. We must be practical. We must be pragmatic. Trying to achieve something better than what is, is simply a foolish waste of time.

Since we're going to get raped anyway, we might as well lie back and enjoy it -- perhaps even sing the praises of the rapist while he's banging away. If we fight back, we might get hurt. So just lie there and take it, that's the practical thing to do.

Yep, that's what I like to tell myself too. It's much more comforting to do that than it is to admit that I'd rather spend my life in comfort as a slave than to exert myself so that my children may inherit freedom.

Bartholomew again,
I seriously question how much cultural acceptance can be gained by advocating a "no regulation" approach to the Second Amendment at this stage. I think the immediate effect is that people (and even other gunowners) will shut you off and classify you as a wack-job and rather than change the culture to your way of thinking, you make it more resistant to that change.
Ahhhh! Now we're getting somewhere.

Actually, I think the biggest problem and the highest hurdle the RKBA movement has had to face is that our extremists aren't extreme enough.

The other side's extremists want NO guns whatsoever in civilian hands; our extremists want civilians able to own anything they want. The mid point between these two views is to forbid half the weapons available.

Imagine for a moment that the debate were framed in terms of NO guns whatsoever in civilian hands vs. civilians MUST own and know how to use guns. The midpoint between those two views would be that the right to own weapons may not be infringed in any way.

As long as the folks on our side are fighting against our own 'extremists,' we are hurting our cause, and driving the midpoint further from the ideal that the Founders intended when they wrote that amazing document.

I'll let you have the last word since I am gone for the weekend.

pax

A personal note to the Founding Fathers: We're sorry. We blew it. You made it possible for us to live free and we blew it. We've given up nearly every personal liberty in the name of a false sense of security sold to the masses by the same type of maniacal government about which you warned us and against which you fought so bravely. We now have to ask permission to take a leak on an airline flight. We never deserved you. -- Phil Murphy

[cordex]

Bartholomew,
There has never been and will never be a society where the use of weapons isn't regulated in some fashion.
So?
We're not talking about regulating misuse. We're talking about regulation of ownership, carriage and defensive use. You have a knack for changing the subject, making a stand on the new subject and pretending that you have backed up your original statement thereby. Anyone in the class want to provide the name of this logical fallacy?
My point was more along the lines of whether the Founders intended it or not, Congress or some other legislative body is going to regulate firearms.
Please bear with me, because I'm a little slow. I interpreted your original point as defending Congress' authority to regulate firearms ownership, not that they would do it regardless of law. It sure seemed to me that you spent an awful lot of time defending their 'right' to do so under the 2nd Amendment if you really meant that they'd do so regardless of the law.
I don't think anyone here is arguing whether or not Congress has passed or will continue to unlawfully mete out regulations in this area, we're arguing that per the Constitution, they are prohibited from doing so. In other words, they are violating their Constitutional mandate.
Again, it really smells like the subject was changed and because we agree on your new position we should agree with the entire preceeding argument. Might fly with the antis you're used to sparring with, but it doesn't hold much water in my view.

I agree that Congress has, and will - if left unchecked - passed laws repugnant to the Constitution. I disagree that they have the lawful authority to regulate possession and defensive use of arms. ('Defensive' does not rule out use of weapons to oppose an oppressive regime.)

[Intune]

Whoa Pax, I was agreeing with you! (No, it’s not the first time!) You're just too used to me disagreeing ;) No biggie, you reinforced what I was trying to say, maybe a little clearer. Now THAT'S a first! :rolleyes: Hope all is okay with the fam.

I don't think the 2nd can be compromised in the least. That it was placed in the hands of the People not the gov was not an accident. One can see the benevolence of government. They have time on their side to conform it to THEIR liking. We may have already missed the boat. I hope not. We know about that genie and the bottle.

[ninenot]

I think Jim's insight is very good.

The article is published to prepare the anti-gun types for the eventuality of a finding that the RKBA is, in fact, an individual right.

Thus, the article is warning the anti-gun types that they had better be cooking up regulations which, on their face, are perfectly acceptable.

Another thread refers to the Mass. AG now prosecuting out-of-State firms for selling ammo to Mass. residents. Evidently the AG is interpreting some Mass. law so that ANYONE selling ammo to Mass. residents must have a Mass.-issued permit.

The AG of Wisconsin (now he's our Governor, for crying out loud) proposed a bill which would ALSO outlaw ammo sales, license or no.

They'll keep trying.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Edward:

I'm following it just fine. Giving you an M16 is not nibbling at your right to bear anything you wish.

But it is a regulation isn't it? It just isn't one that infringes.


cordex:
So? We're not talking about regulating misuse. We're talking about regulation of ownership, carriage and defensive use.

Please go back and show me where the "no regulation" quote I initially responded to and which started this whole exchange specified only the categories you mentioned?

You have a knack for changing the subject, making a stand on the new subject and pretending that you have backed up your original statement thereby.

On the contrary, I have made it clear at several times I am discussing two distinct subjects in this thread - one being my response to BOGE, the second being the fantasy of no regulation of arms. Or did you miss the

"As an aside NOT related to my original argument... "?


Pax:
Ah, yes. We must be practical. We must be pragmatic. Trying to achieve something better than what is, is simply a foolish waste of time.

Your analogy is poor; because something can be done about rape. I like my analogy better which is that wishing for no regulation is a fantasy on par with the anti fantasy of "a world without guns". You can work towards achieving a fantasy until you are blue in the face; but because it has no grounding in reality, you will never achieve it.

As long as the folks on our side are fighting against our own 'extremists,' we are hurting our cause, and driving the midpoint further from the ideal that the Founders intended when they wrote that amazing document.

You may have a point regarding extremes; on that I guess we disagree on strategy; but the reason folks on the side of gun rights don't agree with your argument is because you haven't convinced them of it. If you are going to push an extreme argument, you had better have a convincing theme to back it up or some emotional, cultural bias to appeal to.

Pushing the no regulation angle, you can't rely on cultural bias because the segment of society that shares that bias is to small to effect political change. You can only advance your argument by convincing people who are already biased against it to change their position. If you can't sell that position to me, and believe me there are no shortage of gun owners and NRA members who feel I'm extreme, then what do you think the chances are to get enough of voters to effect political change with this approach?

[Edward429451]

But it is a regulation isn't it? It just isn't one that infringes.

They can regulate more weapons into my collection any time they want!!

No infringment, no harm, no foul.;)

[longeyes]

So where does that leave women and males 46 and up? "Infringed?"