1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Academic Discussion

Discussion in 'Legal' started by The1911Man, Dec 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The1911Man

    The1911Man member

    Hi, newbie here. I am interested in checking both sides of the "Gun Rights" issue and this site was recommended. So please, humor a fence sitter and please put forth some academic discussion.

    Isn't the second Amendment for Militias only?
    How does the second Amendment apply to an individual?
    Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a bad thing?
    Why is registering your guns a bad idea?

    Please no flames, I won't speak to members who put the flames out and it won't do your cause any good.

  2. jnojr

    jnojr Well-Known Member

    No. A "militia" is made up of "The People". And "The People" in the Second Amendment are the same "The People" in all the rest of them.

    "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."

    That's how.

    Why should "assault rifles" be banned? And what good do those "bans" do? Cocaine and heroin are "banned", but easily available just about everywhere.

    We do not need to defend how or why we exercise our rights. You need to defend why it's necessary to infringe upon our rights.

    Why is registration a good idea?

    Registration leads to confiscation. That's what the Nazis did, among others... make everyone register so they knew where to go when it waas time to round up the guns and "troublemakers".

    I hate to break it to you, but the Second Amendment does not exist to protect a right to self-defense, or to hunt, or to target shoot. It exists as a check against a tyrannical government. Our War for Independence was not fought against a foreign invader... the Crown of England was, technically, our lawful government. I say "technically" because we had good reasons to break away from them, and, of course, we won :) The Second Amendment exists to enshrine our right to throw off another government that becomes tyrannical, that tramples upon our rights, and no longer represents us.
  3. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Well-Known Member

    Why would the others apply to individuals? The first, second, and fourth all use the same phrase "the right of the people". If we're going to be academic, just what exactly in the phrasing of "the right of the people" in the first is legally different from the phrasing of "the right of the people" in the second?

    If one was to argue that the second is only a "group" right, then the same must be argued for the first and fourth.

    I guess it could be argued that the fifth and sixth are explicitly individual rights, using the terms "No person" (singular) and "the accused" (emphasis added) respectively. Taking a very legalistic approach one could argue that if the first and second were meant to be individual rights like the fifth and sixth, they would have been written "No person shall be denied the right to keep and bear arms".

    But to state that, based on wording, the second is a "group" right, one must concede the first as well.
  4. azredhawk44

    azredhawk44 Well-Known Member

    We are all part of the militia. As such, our government acknowledges the need and right for militia to bear arms.

    More importantly, IMO: The natural rights argument. Our government was created by men who greatly feared excessive government power. They started their foundation with zero power, granted 100% power and rights to the people. They then began the process of granting powers to government. But they finished the job with a list of "thou shalt not..." mandates that the government is never to breach, to affirm the natural rights of all men, regardless of the words of government.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2006
  5. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Well-Known Member

    Legally? Try defining "assault rifle". If you can't come up with a clear, concise, legal definition of something, trying to ban it seems to be an irrational move.

    Philosophically? Well, that depends on your viewpoint of how people should be able to live their lives. If you believe that the state is the ultimate keeper of "the people" then by that line of though control is not a bad thing.

    If however you're viewpoint is that "the people", being free, should be the ultimate keeper of their lives on an individual basis, then you would understand that the concept of a state protecting the people, "for their own good" is merely another form of oppression.

    So which is it? People should be free to live their lives as they see fit, or should they be slaves to others fears?
  6. quatin

    quatin Well-Known Member

    I have to ask here if registration makes any difference when it comes time that they decide to strip guns from the country. Would you just sit about and do nothing even if your gun wasn't registered? Wasn't the point to have guns to defend the bill of rights? How is this different from motor vehicle registration?
  7. Jim March

    Jim March Well-Known Member

    I'll take on one of these questions: the "assault weapon" thing.

    The reality is that all fully-automatic weapons (multiple shot per trigger pull, usually switch-selectable to single-shot-per-pull) have been STRICTLY controlled (to the point of being as close to banned as you can get) since 1934. The registration process is horrendous, few people go to the trouble and it's gotten much nastier since 1986. REAL military "assault weapons" are full auto (or three-round-burst, legally the same thing as full auto).

    What the more recent "assault weapon" bans are actually controlling are semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) guns that are "related to" their military cousins but have different trigger group parts and cannot accept the military full-auto parts.

    Why would people want to own the semi-auto near-cousins to military rifles?

    1) Because spare parts from the surplus market are cheap. Military rifles are always produced by multiple vendors so there's always parts and accessories floating around.

    2) Because the military versions have to be tough to survive both battlefield conditions AND full-auto fire, their de-tuned civilian cousins that never see full-auto fire are if anything even tougher.

    How do you get good at anything?

    Answer: practice.

    John Farnham runs a series of rifle marksmanship courses running three days. Students are expected to bring 1,500 rounds of ammo as they'll be shooting 500 rounds a day. Care to guess what happens when you shoot that sort of duty cycle through a hunting rifle? It breaks. Period. Most high-dollar super-accuracy rifle barrels in serious calibers have a lifespan of about 1,000 rounds or less. A military-pattern rifle won't do quite as tight a group as a good deer rifle (although there are exceptions) but it will shoot a LOT more ammo through and still function.

    People with no access to semi-auto military-cousin guns in states like California who want to master riflework have to do most of their practice with 22s as the low power of these gives them a long lifespan, and then try and translate those skills to a full-power hunting rifle as quick as they can, and still end up sending the big gun to a gunsmith once or twice.

    In short, the ban on this sort of gun is really a ban on SKILLS, an attempt to do "people control" disguised as hardware control.

    Whatever is banned becomes "cool" and "scary" and instantly in demand by criminals. Who thankfully usually can't shoot worth a damn but they get ahold of "the goodies" regardless.

    The people who either buy these (or would buy them but can't) to develop skills are no more a threat to public safety than the average advanced martial artist. Ask any cop how often they get their butts kicked by somebody skilled (as opposed to freaked out on drugs or ridiculously strong from pumping iron behind bars). The "kung fu bad guy" is a Hollywood myth, as anybody with that sort of discipline has got it together upstairs enough to avoid a life of crime.

    Same with John Farnham's students. They're not the ones you've got to worry about, yet they are the ONLY class of people (well, other than collectors) who are affected by this type of ban.

    So the final question is, SHOULD average Americans be allowed to develop serious rifle skills?

    Allow me to introduce to you a piece of United States Federal Law that nobody on the gun-grabber side likes to talk about:


    § 311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html


    Go to the source URL above and click "how current is this" - it will tell you that this particular law library last updated their Title 10 section in mid-'06. If any updates to this subsection had been made since then, trust me, we of all people would know about it :).

    I know this is definitely pre-WW2 and I believe late 19th century. Somebody may chime in narrowing it down. There have been advances in equal protection law since that MIGHT force women to be included in the "unorganized militia" today but set that aside for a moment. The proof that this is NOT a reference to the National Guard (the "organized militia" along with the current "Coast Guard" Naval militia) is the reference to women being in the "militia" of any type ONLY so long as they're in an organized militia.

    That means WE are in the unorganized militia. We can be called to militia service in time of need, or even an unexpected emergency.

    Which is exactly what happened on United Flight 93, and what happens whenever citizens band together to deal with any emergency on a community basis, whether violence is involved or not.

    There are a lot of forces within the gov't and outside who prefer to see all such "community defense" issues be handled by the state, even if it causes a fatal delay in protection. They see civil defense by ordinary citizens as "anarchy".

    They're wrong.

    People must have the ability to assist in group defense or protection in a pinch, otherwise they're not citizens...they're sheep who can be led to slaughter at the whim of the first totalitarian to take control with the most guns.

    Governments are the most murderous forces in history. Anybody who forgets that dooms their children.
  8. junyo

    junyo Well-Known Member

    Because registration saves them the time/manpower/effort of door to door, yard by yard, searching the woods, confiscation, as opposed to having a computer spit out a list of addresses.
  9. quatin

    quatin Well-Known Member

    Does that really make a difference if they're coming for your guns anyways? Should I not register my car in case they don't want us to be mobile during searches? Serious question here..
  10. OK-gobbler

    OK-gobbler Well-Known Member

    I view a gun as a tool. I use these tools to hunt, protect my family and property, and for recreational shooting. In many rural areas hunting and protecting livestock isn't a hobby, it is a way of life. Taking guns from farmers and ranchers and trappers would be the equivilent of taking a businessman's cellphone and laptop.

    If someone attacks someone with a hammer, should we ban all "assult hammers?"

    If someone commits a crime using a computer, should everyone have to register their computers and electronic equipment with the government?

    Just some things to think about. Welcome to THR
  11. carlrodd

    carlrodd Well-Known Member

    in answer to all your questions:

    the framers intended civilians to keep arms as not only a constant reminder that 'we the people' are in charge, and are prepared to ensure that it stays that way, and also so that we might actually have the means to enforce our collective will if our government ever forgot. it stands to that reasoning that we should have every small arm at our disposal that federal forces have at theirs.

    if there is any question as to the propensity of even our very own government to flagrantly disregard the will of the people, one need only turn on the television, the radio, or read the papers.

    any effort to infringe upon the above-mentioned rights and reasoning should be viewed with great suspicion.
  12. junyo

    junyo Well-Known Member

    If we assume that confiscation is a given, then I'm assuming that what they don't know I have is harder to confiscate than what they do know I have, and harder increases my chances of keeping. If we assume that confiscation exists as a variable risk then, all other things being equal, increasing the cost and difficulty of accomplishing the task would tend to decrease that risk.

    Car and guns are an apples to lugnuts comparison; you don't have a Constitutional right to use a car on public roads. However nothing stops you from keeping an unregistered car (or say a small, fuel efficient dirtbike, bought with cash) in your garage.
  13. azredhawk44

    azredhawk44 Well-Known Member


    If all my guns are registered, they know how many I have.

    But, If they aren't registered, I can give the 4 cops/soldiers/whoever is collecting up guns my 38special revolver, my .22LR single shot rifle and my 30-30.

    They will drive down the street to the next house. I then go next door to my neighbor/gun range/activist center/church/whatever, where all the upset people are meeting. We decide we've had enough of this nonsense. Everyone busts out their unregistered M1 Garands, M14's, AR-15's, etc. and we water the tree of liberty a bit.:fire:

    Then I get my 38, .22 and 30-30 back.:neener:
  14. Yo, Mr. 1911man, I applaud your willingness to seek the truth.

    It's not often that we get a chance to dialog with a true Fence Sitter and I, for one, welcome the opportunity.

    Please do not consider this a flame because I, like you am interested in the academic discussion.
    Therefore, I am sure in you search, you have logged on to a pro-gun control site and asked questions such as;

    1) Doesn't the Militia really consist of all the people?
    2) How does the second amendment's reference to "The People" differ from the first and the fourth amendment?
    3) Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a good thing?
    4) Why is registering their guns a good idea?

    I would be interested in reading some of the responses.

    Last edited: Dec 7, 2006
  15. The1911man, the Second Amendment relates to our right to keep and bear arms because it references that right as belonging to every person. This is not the part of the Second Amendment, though, that is considered law, as merely to mention the existence of a fact is not to establish law. Same goes for the part about militias. That too is a mere statement of fact, with no legal force. The part of the Second Amendment which establishes law is the part that says "shall not be infringed." This constitutes a prohibition on the infringement of the right referenced. Any Federal Law, therefore, which has the effect of infringing on (placing limits on or cutting back on) the right of each person to keep and bear arms is, right then and there, null and void. No ruling is required to make it so, since the Amendment serves that function automatically.

    It is incorrect, by the way, to say that the legal force of the Second Amendment "applies" to us. It only "applies" to the Federal Government, in that it has the effect of nullifying any law passed under Federal auspices which has the effect of infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
  16. quatin

    quatin Well-Known Member

    So if a gun is constitutional right, then why bother about fearing the government knowing you possess one? If you are planning on a defense against when the government decides to scrap the bill of rights, shouldn't you not register anything for the strategic purpose of them not finding you at all?

    *edit all in one post

    I actually haven't roamed pro-gun control sites. I'm pretty settled on 1-3, but I can't find a good reason against 4. Registering guns just doesn't "register" as anti-2nd to me. Banning ARMS is anti-2nd, knowing that you have a gun doesn't blip on the radar.
  17. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    As for registrations, Canada has a registration.

    It's also quite likely it's been hacked, and is now serving as a shopping list for criminals. There's been a rash of thefts of entire gun collections that the thieves would have NO WAY of knowing about otherwise.
  18. quatin

    quatin Well-Known Member

    Irony that keeping a firearm for home defense perpetuates people into breaking into your home? Perhaps I should put up the sign of "THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOME" so that I can prevent people from robbing me. Even still, that's like registering your car will allow thieves who hack to know which guy has the best car. Registration still doesn't seem to be the problem, people who abuse it seem to be the problem. Just like guns aren't the problem, people who abuse it are.
  19. longrifleman

    longrifleman Well-Known Member

    Accurate as far as it goes, but if there is no registration, there is no way to abuse it.

    I think this disagreement comes up because some people just can't bring themselves to really distrust govt, deep down where it counts. Therefore registration doesn't seem to be a problem. Some of us are a bit more cynical.


  20. azredhawk44

    azredhawk44 Well-Known Member

    Over the last hundred years, the greatest abusers of registered gun owners have been governments. Germany, Cambodia, Russia, China, Canada, California, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Washington DC. All to varying degrees, from harrassment, to property confiscation (theft), to murder or genocide.

    Would Waco have happened if the FBI/BATFE didn't know anything about any firearms at the site?

    Would Ruby Ridge have happened if FBI/BATFE didn't know or care about unregistered short-barreled shotguns?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page