do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?

[2dogs]

http://http://ballew.org/amend2.html



Bill of Rights: AMENDMENT II
"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."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINITIONS (from The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition):
MILITIA. A citizen army as distinct from a body of professional soldiers. The armed citizenry as distinct from the regular army. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. The whole body of physically fit male civilians eligible by law for military service.
RIGHT. Refers to a just claim, legally, morally, or traditionally: the right of free speech.
THE PEOPLE. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. The citizens of a nation, state, or other political unit; electorate.
KEEP. To retain possession of; to have as a supply; to store; to maintain for use or service; to save; to continue or do; to have something in one's possession or control.
BEAR. Carry.
ARMS. Weapons, esp, firearms.
SHALL. Used to express determination or promise, or inevitability. A directive or requirement.
INFRINGED. Violated, encroached, defeated, invalidated.

VIOLATED. Broken, disregarded, injured, harmed, desecrated, interrupted.
ENCROACHED. To intrude gradually upon the possession or rights of another. To advance beyond proper or prescribed limits.
DEFEATED. To annul or make void, thwart.
INVALIDATED. Nullified.
NULLIFICATION. The refusal or failure of a state to recognize or enforce a U.S. law within its boundries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Amendment translated into Current English usage with dictionary definitions:

Well trained armed citizens, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of citizens to possess and carry weapons, esp, firearms, will not be violated, encroached, defeated, invalidated, nullified, or infringed in any way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every person (this includes every government official) who, under color of law, deprives any Citizen of Rights, Privileges, or Immunities secured by the United States Constitution is subject to civil and/or criminal penalties pursuant to Title 42, UNITED STATES CODE, Section 1983, 1985, and 1986 and/or Title 18, UNITED STATES CODE, Section 241 and 242. Penalties include up to $10,000 fine and/or 10 years in prison, or both, and up to life imprisonment, if death results."
- American Pistol & Rifle Association, Box USA, Benton, TN 37307
All acts or laws which require registration, permits, fees, or which place restrictions on Citizen's Arms are unlawfull and unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws are null and void as though they did not exist. Any person, especially a government employee or agent, who attempts to infringe upon the Right to possess and carry firearms is acting unlawfully and is subject to punishment.



:banghead:

 

[2dogs]

http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/henry/edcc082500.htm

"From time to time the anti's propose repealing the Second Amendment. Should you find yourself facing a left-wing, warm-and-fuzzy bedwetter espousing this view, educate them to the fact that the entire Bill of Rights is immune from such action, since the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was a prerequisite for nine of the thirteen colonies ratifying the new Constitution in the period 1787-1791. But for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, there would be no Constitution.

If the whiner persists in this vein, just tell him that you would agree to amending the Second Amendment so as to make it consistent with the doctrines and beliefs of the Founders, to wit: "Save for lunatics and violent felons, as so adjudged by a competent court of jurisdiction, the right of the people individually and collectively to keep and bear arms for any purpose whatsoever is and shall remain inviolate. This amendment applies to weapons of any form, and specifically includes such weapons as are currently in use by the military forces of the United States or any other sovereign state."

This rewording is completely in accord with the views of the Founders. When you hear that Jefferson, Madison, et al could not have intended for citizens to own machine guns because such things didn't exist in their time, ask the speaker if his thinking also applies to the banning of radio and television from protection under the First Amendment for like reasons.

Of course, we all know that trying to win this argument with logic and facts is like wrestling with a pig; you can't win, you will get filthy, and the pig likes it."


:banghead:

 

[2dogs]

http://http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/EmersonLetters.htm

"First of all, she describes me as a liberal. In fact, I'm a socialist.

Second, she calls me a "gun-control advocate." In fact, nowhere in my Harper's article, "Your Constitution is Killing You," did I specifically argue in favor of gun control; all I said, rather, is that if that is what the democratic majority wants, that is what the democratic majority should get, Second Amendment or no Second Amendment.

Third, she says that I argue in favor of "amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment." Not so: I devoted much of it to pointing out that the amending process is quite useless in this instance. Under the terms set forth in Article V, as few as 13 states representing less than 5% of the population can block any change desired by the remaining 95%. Given that no one would have any trouble drawing up a list of 13 rural states in the South or West states for whom repealing the Second Amendment would be akin to repealing the four Gospels, the amendment is, under anything like present conditions, invulnerable. Even though polls indicate that a majority of Americans do not want an individual right to bear arms, a Constitution made in the name of the people says that is what the people must have whether they like it or not.

This is anything but democratic. Rather than amending the Constitution, my position is that we should toss this antiquated document and create a new plan of government from scratch, this time one based on strict majority rule."



Good commie reasoning.

Keep voting these Commies in and one day you will be digging your own 6 foot hole in the woods before getting a bullet in the back of the head.




:banghead:

 

[2dogs]

Whew, OK I feel much better now.

Thanks.

 

[P12]

:banghead:

In the words of the late Professor Roy Copperud:

The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

 

[2dogs]

http://http://www.darkicon.com/Library/letter1.htm

Sorry, but one more for humorous effect. Just tell me when to shut up...............

"Thank you for repealing the Second Amendment and removing the specter of guns from our society. Our streets, schools and homes are much safer than they must have been in your time. It is so much easier to identify criminals now...just look for people with guns! When we see someone with a gun, we simply avoid them and call the police. How much simpler and safer can it possible be! Why, just last week we saw for ourselves that honest citizens do not need weapons. Mother and father successfully defended our home from an armed intruder using only a coffee mug and a rolled-up newspaper. Father should be out of his coma soon, and the doctors say that he should be almost the same as he was before since the bullet missed some of the vital areas of his brain. I thank the State-Approved, NonDenominational Deity Of My Choice that father did not have a weapon, or the intruder could have felt threatened and something very, very bad could have happened. If he decides to come back for the rest of our government-issued furnishings, we will be ready. I have my box-cutter tucked under my pillow, and the phone number for the police hanging on the wall right next to the state-monitored videophone. I rest easily knowing that help is only 15 minutes away. "



:banghead:

 

[Preacherman]

I'm getting a little tired of this... Guys, do you actually read what has been posted? 2dogs, some of what you've posted is blatantly, flagrantly INCORRECT! Example:

All acts or laws which require registration, permits, fees, or which place restrictions on Citizen's Arms are unlawfull and unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws are null and void as though they did not exist. Any person, especially a government employee or agent, who attempts to infringe upon the Right to possess and carry firearms is acting unlawfully and is subject to punishment.

Nonsense! Various State and Federal courts have pronounced on a whole passel of gun-control laws, from NYC's Sullivan laws to various state and federal initiatives, and they have mostly been found to be legally and constitutionally valid. If you tell a "government employee or agent" enforcing these laws that he/she is "infringing your RKBA", and is therefore "acting unlawfully and is subject to punishment", you will almost certainly render yourself liable to arrest for the obstruction of justice. If you try to offer resistance, you might just end up as another criminal statistic!

As I've said before, we have a very well-developed body of constitutional law and judicial precedent in this field. Anyone who believes that that doesn't count is living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land! We may well disagree with some, or even most, of it, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists and is legally binding upon us. We may choose to ignore it, and disobey the relevant laws, but we will also have to bear the consequences, in the form of fines and/or imprisonment, and probably the loss of some civil rights as well - including RKBA - for the rest of our lives.

As for the precise wording and meaning of the 2A, I don't think there is any dispute over what it says. Even the anti's have woken up to this fact. Quoting reams of opinions on what the 2A really means is redundant here. What is important is how the 2A is to be applied in practice. The ONLY opinion that will make any definitive legal difference here is that of the SCOTUS. Once they have defined the meaning of the 2A (which hasn't happened yet), that will be the end of the argument. Of course, if either pro- or anti-RKBA groups don't like that decision, they will be free to campaign for a constitutional amendment to re-state the 2A as they wish to have it applied: but this is something for future reference, if and when needed.

 

[Wildalaska]

If you know anything about the English language, and I hope someone who is appointed as a federal or state Judge does,

Hi I can assure you that I know quite a bit about the English Language, and am confident that most Federal Judges do too (or at least their law clerks do).

Based on the foregoing, I respectfully submit that your analysis of the 2 amendment is incorrect.

 

[EnfieldIII]

Sorry to be grating on your nerves Preacherman. I really appreciate you taking the time to help me understand this.
I just have a problem reconciling these two:
The government is forbidden to violate fundamental liberties.
The government can remove fundamental liberties through amendment.
I know I'm just hardheaded.
Enfield

 

[Preacherman]

EnfieldIII, it's not a question of "removing" liberties. These CANNOT be removed, by BoR definition. However, regulating liberties is not the same as removing them. For example, we have numerous laws against "hate speech" in the USA at this time. These would appear to be in contravention of the 1A: but they exist, and are being argued through the courts. They may be modified or overturned by the SCOTUS, but this remains to be seen. In similar vein, there's a constitutional protection against "unreasonable search and siezure": but this has become watered down in recent decades, as the concept of "reasonableness" has been re-defined. With regard to the 2A, there is no way that any government can forbid US citizens the right to keep and bear arms: but there is no prohibition against telling them how to keep them (e.g. locked in a gunsafe, or using a child safety lock, etc.); where to keep them (e.g. out of the reach of children, etc.); or how many or what kind of "arms" may be kept. We also can't object to a fair and reasonable fee for the administration of programs dealing with these areas: after all, if the fee is not unreasonable, it's regulation rather than prevention. If the fee were so high as to be too expensive to allow many to keep and bear arms, this would obviously be unconstitutional.

Obviously, from our point of view, the fewer restrictions and regulations concerning the 2A, the better. From our opponents' point of view, the more, the merrier! We'll just have to keep on fighting...

 

[Wildalaska]

"

All acts or laws which require registration, permits, fees, or which place restrictions on Citizen's Arms are unlawfull and unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws are null and void as though they did not exist. Any person, especially a government employee or agent, who attempts to infringe upon the Right to possess and carry firearms is acting unlawfully and is subject to punishment.

Staements like that are exactly what I am talking about. With all due respect, you are not the one who decides what the law is.

Positions like that, together with the radical positions that accompany it, are the real danger to the RKBA...

 

[Wildalaska]

What is important is how the 2A is to be applied in practice. The ONLY opinion that will make any definitive legal difference here is that of the SCOTUS. Once they have defined the meaning of the 2A (which hasn't happened yet), that will be the end of the argument

Got to disagree with you there just a little Preacher...once the Court determines the meaning, AND whether it applies to the states, then the next question is the PRACTICAL effect of gun laws..

For example..assuming an individual right one thing I have yet to see here is an argument of HOW the NICs system infringes on the RKBA...

Similarly, how does registration infringe on the RKBA?

 

[Blackhawk]

2dogs,

... it is wrong and immoral to place a "prior restraint" on the exercise of a right by a law abiding citizen.

From memory, it seems that you thought felons being prohibited from possessing firearms was a "prior restraint." But now, you're limiting the prior restraint as applying to law abiding citizens.

Am I to conclude that you consider felons to be law abiding citizens, or have I misunderstood you?

 

[othermarc]

Posts Gone Wild! On Fox this Thursday!

I'm not sure i want to hop into this... but oh well, what the hey. right/wrong/indifferent- isn't it all defined by what the collective majority agrees?

anything and everything that one does that is "right" is as so defined by their own opinion, and if most people living under the same gov't agree, then it will probably be a law. Think of all the silly laws out there- like bar closing times. That has nothing to do at all with right or wrong- it's the consensus of the locals on what's right or wrong. Same goes for Gun laws on a state and national basis- they are there cause the majority felt those laws were right and are helpful. From what I can tell, those laws are just popular interpretations of what's right or wrong- not necessarily based on facts (or not all the facts). So let's get off this thread and go convince some others that RKBA is "right" with our own facts.

Happy New Year!

 

[2dogs]

Preacherman

Wildalaska

Blackhawk

We have politely agreed to disagree. Now I am done with this thread.

Have a Happy and Safe New Year, all.

 

[EnfieldIII]

Excellent first post othermarc and right on target.
"Posts Gone Wild! On Fox this Thursday!"
I wish to apologies to you natedog for my part in dragging this thread off-topic. I also want to thank you for posting this thread that IMO made a lot of us think a little harder about our positions on the 2A and gun control in general.
The very best to you and yours in 2003 and concongratulations to THR for living up to its name.

EnfieldIII

 

[45-auto]

Lots of this thread seems to have devolved down to "whatever a court says about 2A is what the law is."

Nonsense.

Two words: jury nullification. The people, not the courts, are the supreme sovreign here.

We are supposed to be a free people. We have not really been so since around the time of the Civil War.

But we may be again.

 

[Preacherman]

I think we've said all we can say at this point. Let's leave it there, rather than risk it degerating into a slangfest.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

Okay, now that everyone's had almost five years to cool down (sorry it's just late at night and I'm using the search function so that I don't make duplicate threads), why not try this thread out again?

I took a basic gun class and I learned that research from Washington DC, not the NRA, found that most of the gun laws out there haven't made much of a difference from before they were enacted to way after they were put in place.

 

[Geister]

For example, felons being precluded from possessing guns puts a few of them away every year thus preventing a crime or two.

Well, with that logic, you could just as easily state that we should throw all *insert ethnic group here* into jail since they are statisically more likely to commit a crime and thus you are preventing crimes.

It's dangerous to start throwing people in jail in order to "prevent."

 

[QuickRick]

do any gun laws curtail crime???

Whenever you insert the word "any" in a question like this the answer has to be yes. That said, I feel that most gun laws actually PROMOTE crime. I do agree with Blackjack's reasoning regarding jailed felons although one could argue this is a penalty as opposed to a law. I use a similar argument in favor of the death penalty. Show me one person, successfully executed, who has ever killed again. I don't agree that all ex felons have a lifetime ban on firearms possession. This should depend on the nature of the crime they were incarcerated for. I don't see G. Gordon Liddy for example, as being a threat if allowed the RKBA again.

 

[ozwyn]

crime reduction is far better achieved through effective prosecution of laws and sentencing that is both carried out completely and applied consistently.

Crime reduction also needs an environment where non criminal means of employment exsist in abundance: in other words a healthy economy and job market.

That's all there is to it: good alternative to crime, and enforcement/punishment that is EFFECTIVE and CONSISTENT.

gun laws don't mean a damn thing to it, the idea of gun laws as a aid to curtail crime is little more than a justification for banning weapons to empower criminals to better assault their victims.

If the base infraction (theft, assault, robbery, murder) is properly enforced and jail time served to the full extent, then you don't NEED to add "with a gun" laws which are rarely properly prosecuted or enforced anyway.

gun laws are a politican feel good measure at the best case and a slippery slope towards tyranny at their worst.

 

[wjustinen]

Regulation = Infringement

What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

 

[wjustinen]

By the way, "well regulated" in 2A modifies "militia," not "the right to keep and bear arms."

Perhaps we could set something up for a north/south exchange where those who are happy to accept "reasonable restrictions" would change places with those of us in Canada who accept the 2A at face value.
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[eric_t12]

...how many of them would be constitutional? i'll bet not many

if they are federally enforced laws, then none. even the Supreme Court agrees "sometimes" the constitution only applies to the Feds.

Any federal law 'infring'-ing on our right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Should states have the right to do so? i suppose... the constitution doesn't necessarily 'regulate' them, but it IS supposed to be the supreme law of the land, and when a state signed on to the union, they signed on with THAT CONSTITUTION in effect.

so yes i think it also SHOULD apply to them.

I just don't see how the majority of gun BANS work, some gun LAWS, yes, but gun BANS only ban the lawful from carrying them AT ALL. I think everyone of age should be allowed to carry, and not lose that right unless they are involved ina violent felony, and would be able to earn their rights back when they finish their sentence. The sentence is - after all - the punishment for the crime, and nothing more. once the sentence is complete they are again full-citizens and should be treated as such. If they get caught again for another crime punish them for it.

and do away wtih the 'life' in prison, what's sthe point? they'll die there anyway. just get it over with... humanely of course. I think carbon monoxide/dioxide poisoning or oxygen depravation would be the most humane... you would just die in your sleep.

my .02