Michigan goes full auto again!! Woohoo!!

[Parruthead]

OMG now they can have fully Automatic Weapons too. Lucky Bastards.... I only wish we here in wisconsin had ccw like michigan did. Guess its time to move...

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

But wait just a minute. You just did that above when you said you got
a def from a dictionary. Dictionaries are often politically motivated, plus
the common usage of words change with time - as with "regulated".

I think your are just stiring the pot. No one is that........oh wait
a minute.......highroad....................

Oh please..you are going to charge the websters standard english dictionary with being politically charged since it's definitions do not agree with your opinions...get real. Are you serious?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

OMG now they can have fully Automatic Weapons too. Lucky Bastards.... I only wish we here in wisconsin had ccw like michigan did. Guess its time to move...

You have no availability of CCW in Wisconsin? That sucks...i think that any competent adult that can meet simple requirements should be able to get a CCW. I do have some issues about open carry...mainly because it is just more trouble than it is worth and alot of business will deny entry.

 

[Nightfall]

That was not an answer to my question.

P.S. If that is what they "clearly" meant...then why did they not write it that way. All their other writings were very clearly worded and written in great detail.

They did write it quite clearly. Some reading for you.

 

[Remington788]

You have no availability of CCW in Wisconsin? That sucks...i think that any competent adult that can meet simple requirements should be able to get a CCW

***. In another thread you said this.

I do not, however, believe that it is appropriate for any joe smoe to be able to walk around with a loaded and deadly weapon.

So are you or are you not for CCW?

Methinks the penguin lives under a bridge. Trolls are also known to live under bridges.

I agree.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

Do your realize what "well regulated" even means? I am betting not.

Uh, does it have something to do with bran muffins?

Regards.

 

[ctdonath]

Bazookas, LAWs, shoulder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.

'sqeze me? "Not small arms"? Sorry, I don't see any such qualifying aspect to the 2nd Amendment - a very clear statement written by men who owned (and/or borrowed privately owned) field artillery and battleships, and also wrote the "letters of marque" clause based on the presumption of privately owned very heavy weapons.

The "small arms only" premise is preposterous. The Founding Fathers were mere citizens who took on the #1 world superpower of the time; it's absurd to think that they intended similar citizens have anything less than full access to the lightest and heaviest weapons available at the time, for use against the most powerful tyrrany citizens could face.

Yes, I understand the concern about one nut killing lots of people. Face it: this discussion board is entirely focused on GUNS - machines which, when used skillfully, can kill lots of people very fast (even bolt- and break-actions); recall that one of the first modern school shooting incidents involved flushing out a school via fire alarm and the kid/perp picking off evacuees with a bolt-action hunting rifle.

Funny, a periodic question is "what good is a handgun against an army?", alternated with the declaration "the 2nd Amendment only applies to small arms!" Strangely, such commentators suffer cognitive dissonance with the obvious trump response: "yes, the Founding Fathers fully intended citizens have the protected right of obtaining ANY weapon - precisely because they may have to take on an oppressive government."

 

[Ryder]

Didn't some Michiganders already legally own them through the corporation exclusion? If this new "opinion" still requires a sheriff's signature (and I'll bet it does) not much has changed.

Preventing everyone from obtaining automatic firearms isn't going to stop anyone from killing megatudes of people if that's what they want to do. Arson is known to rack up huge body counts in a hurry.

 

[carebear]

Oh please..you are going to charge the websters standard english dictionary with being politically charged since it's definitions do not agree with your opinions...get real. Are you serious?

Penguin, I agree you have to look at the definitions, however you have to look at the definitions in use at the time the Amendment was written in order to get an accurate read. That's where the Fed/anti-Fed papers come in, they define exactly what the Founders meant the words to mean, not what Mirriam-Webster has as common usage today.

On that, ironically, honest, competent, legal authorities on both sides of the gun control issue agree. The really smart anti-gun rights legal minds realize the 2nd has to be repealed in order to enact Constitutional gun control. It's the Schumer's, Brady's and lesser lights who try to say it doesn't mean now what it meant when it was written.

Original intent is the key.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

So are you or are you not for CCW? e.

I have always said i am for CCW permits. i do not think that just everyone should be allowed to carry. They should have to (as I have said 4 times now in different threads) be able to pass a background check and get through the required gun safety course. that would exclude just anyone from carrying. I have a CCW permit in two states and think ever state should have them available...but their should be safeguards. No case by case crap either...that is too discretionary (current powersthat be could just decide to not allow people they consider a threat to possess arms). There should just be a set criteria...like over 21, no criminal record (felony), no history of mental illness, and a verifiable address.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Penguin, I agree you have to look at the definitions, however you have to look at the definitions in use at the time the Amendment was written in order to get an accurate read. That's where the Fed/anti-Fed papers come in, they define exactly what the Founders meant the words to mean, not what Mirriam-Webster has as common usage today.

On that, ironically, honest, competent, legal authorities on both sides of the gun control issue agree. The really smart anti-gun rights legal minds realize the 2nd has to be repealed in order to enact Constitutional gun control. It's the Schumer's, Brady's and lesser lights who try to say it doesn't mean now what it meant when it was written.

Original intent is the key.

FYI...I did some looking into the definition of Militia in the dictionary...the definition has been consistant since early publicatons of Websters back 'til 1806....the definition they used was copied word for word from an european dictionary dating back to 1655. before the founding father wrote the constitution.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

One more example of HCI/Brady/Million Mom/UN conditioning.

The fact is, the Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed."
Infringed = hindered, interfered with, manipulated, limited, banned, blocked, or screwed with - in any manner.

Therefore, the citizen's right to own and use ALL hand or shoulder-fired, non-crew served, small arms weapons is protected under the Second amendment. That includes full auto rifles and short barreled shotguns.

Bazookas, LAWs, shoulder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.

I disagree only in detail.

The 2nd Amendment does not make any mention of "small" as a qualifier to "arms." I am supposed to be guaranteed the right to keep and bear "arms." If I wish to bear a bazooka, an RPG, etc., as far as I am concerned that, too, is protected under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

They did write it quite clearly. Some reading for you.

I read the paper you linked. pretty good reading. i did notice that they stressed that a person must be acceptable to military duty to be in a militia (and therefore be armed). The military does NOT accept the mentally ill, the mentally unfit, felons, children, etc...so that would rule out some people right there. It also staes that it is under the control of the union and may be regulated by such union (short of disarmament)...which like in the military would include what you can do on duty versus what you can do when not in service. I had a person on this very board state that the mitiltia was there to fight AGAINST the government and alot of people supported his statement. I did find it a bit disconcerting that in some instances they used older definitions and in some they used more recent when those definitions better suited their viewpoint.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Hmm...once again. I do not believe I said that...I believe what I said was...
"I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making." How did you twist that into what you just said?

If you have done as you say ... read the amendment itself, and the definitions of the terms (as used at the time the document was written) ... where in blue bloody blazes do you come with the notion that automatic weapons aren't included? They hadn't been invented at the time, Mate. The intent of the framers was to NOT have standing armies, and to have "the People" -- us citizen type folks -- hold the arms, and thus to maintain the government subservient to the will of "the People."

If you still wish to believe that the Army (et al) are the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, you should then proceed to reading the Militia Act in the U.S. Code ... where it is written as a matter of Federal law that the militia very definitely is NOT the Army, Airforce, Navy and Marine Corps. Don't take my word for it -- go read it for yourself.

 

[carebear]

FYI...I did some looking into the definition of Militia in the dictionary...the definition has been consistant since early publicatons of Websters back 'til 1806....the definition they used was copied word for word from an european dictionary dating back to 1655. before the founding father wrote the constitution.

It isn't the definition of "militia" I was referring to. The one you posted is paralleled in the US Code definition of the "unorganized militia".

I was referring to the definitions of "well-regulated" (which refers to training and competence, not any sort of gov. control) and "arms".

 

[Trip20]

You've obviously been reading anti-gun propaganda. Read the Federalist Papers and the Debates.

In the Federalist Papers, the framers of the Constitution discuss what the new, proposed constitution means. They clearly state that all citizens are allowed to be armed -- "The people are confirmed in their right to be armed."

I had to laugh when Vern suggesting PlayboyPenguin read the Federalist Papers and the Debates... then PlayboyPenguin suggested those were politically biased publications:

Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.

 

[Snake Eyes]

The military does NOT accept the mentally ill, the mentally unfit, felons, children,

You really ought to read "1776" by David McCollough (won the Pulitzer Prize). George Washington's "army" (really our first national militia) accepted ALL of those, no questions asked.

Children and felons, particularly, are cannon fodder in militias world wide.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

It isn't the definition of "militia" I was referring to. The one you posted is paralleled in the US Code definition of the "unorganized militia".
I was referring to the definitions of "well-regulated" (which refers to training and competence, not any sort of gov. control) and "arms".

Oh, okay...in that case I point you towards the link that Nightfall linked above. It very clearly shows the definition that the founding fathers set forth for what "regulated" means and who controlled the militias (the union). Read it and get back to me.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

If you have done as you say ... read the amendment itself, and the definitions of the terms (as used at the time the document was written) ... where in blue bloody blazes do you come with the notion that automatic weapons aren't included? They hadn't been invented at the time, Mate. The intent of the framers was to NOT have standing armies, and to have "the People" -- us citizen type folks -- hold the arms, and thus to maintain the government subservient to the will of "the People."

If you still wish to believe that the Army (et al) are the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, you should then proceed to reading the Militia Act in the U.S. Code ... where it is written as a matter of Federal law that the militia very definitely is NOT the Army, Airforce, Navy and Marine Corps. Don't take my word for it -- go read it for yourself.

Man...are some people blind. I never said autos were not covered. I just said I was unsure how I personally felt about autos. i said I would love to own one but was not sure they are safe and not sure i can shake the bad memories I associate with them READ people..READ...read before you comment. And I do believe I just said above that the militia is governed by the union. i did not say it was the army. But the papers that you are so fond of do state that the members of the militia have to be acceptable to military service. I assume they mean the standards of the late 1700's...the same basic standards we use today.

 

[Justin]

Don't like full auto?

Don't own one.

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[carebear]

"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

Sounds like

which refers to training and competence, not any sort of gov. control

to me.

The non-Federally regulated (controlled by laws) individual possession of arms is necessary so that the unorganized militia (per US Code and traditional definition) has the means when called into National Service to be put in good order.

The "regulation" refers to the training and discipline of the militia, not any sort of Federal control of the keeping and bearing of arms.

Your point was?

 

[taliv]

i think a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd would apply to weapons common to the militia. that would include, today, for example, full autos, RPGs, grenades, stinger-type missles/rocket launchers, etc.

it would not include ICBM, nukes, biologicals, etc.


in my opinion, if the US agrees to a treaty that bans chemical warfare, then the militia would be prohibited from possessing them (including mortar and artillery with chemical payloads.)

while this may be somewhat off topic,
if the US agrees to a treaty (hypothetically) that banned hollow-pointed rifle/pistol ammo, then I would say the militia is banned from using them against enemies (foreign or domestic) but that people in general shouldn't be banned from possessing them, as they obviously have dual purpose (hunting, sporting, etc)

 

[David W. Gay]

Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side.

OK, I know this sounds impolite, but I laughed when I read that statement. It is quite absurd, really. The U.S. Constitution is, by it's very nature, a politically biased publication.

I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.

Are you saying that if you read what someone else has written on a topic, that you are no longer capable of making up your own mind on the subject?

Every legal descision is politally biased, if even only a little. And if the above is true (not liking to read other's political writtings), then why bother engaging in any discussion on this board? It is nothing BUT politically biased discourse.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Every legal descision is politally biased, if even only a little. And if the above is true (not liking to read other's political writtings), then why bother engaging in any discussion on this board? It is nothing BUT politically biased discourse.

I would hate to think that people as professional and accomplished as supreme court justices let politics interfer with their job...as far as engaging in debate...that is the best way to make your point and sometimes to be enlightened with information that may change your own opinion.

 

[50caliber123]

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It is the last sentence of the second amendment in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights "...The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the part that people should focus on, not the "well regulated militia".