Parruthead
Member
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...
chas_martel said: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....................
Parruthead said: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...
They did write it quite clearly. Some reading for you.PlayboyPenguin said: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.
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 not, however, believe that it is appropriate for any joe smoe to be able to walk around with a loaded and deadly weapon.
Methinks the penguin lives under a bridge. Trolls are also known to live under bridges.
Uh, does it have something to do with bran muffins?chas_martel said:Do your realize what "well regulated" even means? I am betting not.
'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.Bazookas, LAWs, shoulder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.
PlayboyPenguin said: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?
Remington788 said:So are you or are you not for CCW? e.
carebear said: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.
I disagree only in detail.progunner1957 said: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.
Nightfall said:They did write it quite clearly. Some reading for you.
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."PlayboyPenguin said: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?
PlayboyPenguin said: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.
Vern Humphrey said: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."
PlayboyPenguin said: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.
The military does NOT accept the mentally ill, the mentally unfit, felons, children,
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.carebear said: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".
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.Hawkmoon 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.
"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.
to me.which refers to training and competence, not any sort of gov. control
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.PlayboyPenguin said:Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side.
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?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.
David W. Gay said: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.