My views on gun ownership

[Art Eatman]

A small number of people contributed to the language of the Bill of Rights. It seems to me they would have been consistent in the meaning of the words they used. Most well-educated people are consistent in their use of words, and certainly folks like Jefferson were well-educated.

So, why would a word have one meaning in one amendment and a different meaning in another? How can "the people" refer to individuals in one amendment, and only to groups in another?

It is as legitimate to call "the people" collective in the First Amendment as in the Second. IOW, one must have a preconceived idea of singular vs. collective in the use of "the people" to claim it is collective in the Second Amendment.

Again I refer to the (apparently) never-read preamble of the Bill of Rights as to the intent, the perceived need. In the context of the purpose of the BOR, there is no way it's a collective right. Further, how can a group of restraints on the central government (the purpose of the BOR) simultaneously be restraints on individual citizens? That's absolutely contradictory.

Art

 

[schromf]

I will look for a forum that better suits my purposes.

I have just the site for you:

http://forums.about.com/ab-collectdoll2/start

Yeah, its a forum on collecting Barbie Dolls....Be Gone TROLL........

But you all failed to recognize that because I said Democrat in the first sentence

Actually if you spend some time here we have some very hard core democrates on this board. They gained respect here because their agruements are backed by facts. Read some of the roundtable posts, we have several that are quite charactors, and we nasty republicans end up conceeding points regularly when they are based in fact. If you bother hanging around a little you might be very suprised that we have a sizeable liberatarian presence, you might say we are equal opportunity 2nd amendment rights supporters.

 

[fjolnirsson]

By your argument, it should be legal to own an operational Abrams tank-- but I don't think anyone here would agree with that.

You're wrong. I can think of two off the top of my head.
During the early days of our country, the government regularly issued letters of marque(sp?) to private citizens who owned crew served weapons (ocean going ships bearing cannon) and allowed them to take ships belonging to the enemy.
An Abrams is a crew served weapon, and I see no reason why a neighborhood or private citizen should be denied ownership.
I don't think they should be legal for inner city use, though. The tracks tear up the asphalt.

Welcome to THR.

 

[artherd]

Sir- I question your credentials and your qualifications. Please provide tangible evidence of both before I spend my valueable time in debate.

Thank you.

By your argument, it should be legal to own an operational Abrams tank-- but I don't think anyone here would agree with that

One minor point, I know of several privately owned tanks, though none of the Abrams generation (at several $million a pop, I am not surprised!)

 

[Powderman]

mpd239, if you're still here...

As you can see, we are all very strong in our beliefs, as I am sure that you are.

Here are some of my observations. First, though, let me introduce myself.

I live in Washington State, and I patrol one of the most crime-ridden areas of the State. This area is located in the City of Tacoma, WA.

I also patrol outside of the city. Being a Tribal Law Enforcement Officer, I encounter a wide spectrum of calls. Within our reservation boundaries, we have everything from conditions of abject poverty and destitution to multi-million dollar homes.

We also are actively combating a serious gang presence and the attendant violent crime that goes with it. I have been patrolling this area for over three years now.

The weapon of choice for criminals is the handgun. Period. No one wants to carry a huge rifle that can not be concealed readily.

And, as far as militants being able to buy guns from a gun store, please be advised that the vast, VAST majority of crime guns are stolen. There is no vetting or background process required to acquire a stolen firearm. These statements can be verified by taking a look at the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report.

Now, to the brass tacks. While there are many speculations on ownership of firearms and the like, I believe that the true measure of what guns mean to us--and should mean to the American people as a whole--can be found in this essay written on The Firing Line, another firearms related board. This essay can be found here:

http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/Metal_and_Wood.html

To all THR members, if you haven't read this yet, you should.

mpd239, this essay sums up what the Second Amendment is about. Please feel free to post in response.

 

[roburado]

Why do I need an AK-47?

Well, my personal choice is the AR-15. So, I'll answer the question of why I would want an assault rifle for personal defense using the AR-15 as an example. To understand the answer to the question of why one would need an assault rifle for personal defense, one has to take into account likely tactical scenarios.

Simply, personal defense with such a weapon would be a close-quarters combat situation. What do people who train for close-quarters combat use for such situations? Short-barreled AR-15s, MP5s. At least, those are the more common weapons in use with such operators. Why not use what they use? They trust their lives to these weapons, because they work well in those situations. Why can't I be allowed to do the same?

Yes, these guns carry magainzines that have 30 rounds or sometimes more. Let's consider a hypothetical example of defending my home against 2 home invaders. Why two? Well, criminals don't usually do that sort of thing alone. I can't recall where I read this, but a study showed that it takes 6 shots fired to achieve one hit according to one law enforcement entity. Now, there are two invaders. I need 12 shots to hit each of them once. They stand a pretty good chance of surviving that first hit. Therefore, they stand a pretty good chance of still being able to fight. 12 shots will probably not stop the threat. To hit them each once more will bring me to 24 rounds. Shouldn't I at least have the right to have 24 or more rounds in my weapon?

 

[SAG0282]

Hey Powderman, I live near Roosevelt Elementary...sounds like you patrol in my neighborhood. If you see my electric blue Focus, come say hi sometime.

This thread has been great, but has failed to address the topic author's specious "collective right" argument.

Now, to the author, go read again the 2nd Amendment and be sure and remember that "militia" reference. Now, here is the Militia Act ratifiied in 1792, which clarifies the issue pretty well;

"Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints . . . ."

Militia Act of 1792, printed in John F. Callan, The Military Laws of the United States (Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1858): 65.
This is further reinforced by both current federal law, the Supreme Court, and Congress. Moreover, it is the official postion of the Justice Department per John Ashcroft.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States . . . ."

Title 10 of the U.S. Code (Sec. 311) also defines the Militia to include "female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." The Code then divides the Militia into two groups—the "unorganized" militia (the body of the people) and the "organized" militia (the National Guard). This two-fold division of the Militia was not added to federal law until 1903.

"‘The people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [and] it suggests that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990).

"In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a ‘militia,’ they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."

U.S. Senate, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary (1982):7.

(Gun Owners of America contributed to this post)


Your parents should demand a refund on your tuition....you're not getting much value out of it.

 

[Ieyasu]

Solo,

Where did you get those quotes from? Billy Bob's Beercan page, or the Montana Militia's? The quote from Washington is thorougly bogus, and most of that Jefferson quote as well. The quote from John Adams is nicely mangled, err enhanced, as well. *Sigh*

 

[boofus]

Do you people actually think using logic and reason will change his mind? I just see yet another New Dork City liberal hypocrite. Molon Labe is the only answer suitable for those socialist parasites.

 

[SAG0282]

Yeah, he's a typical closed-minded liberal that disregards fact and logic, but I'm curious to see what he says.

 

[Ieyasu]

This thread has been great, but has failed to address the topic author's specious "collective right" argument.

Neither did your post, Siegfried_Geringer.

If I were an anti, here's how I'd respond to the evidence you presented...

First you cite the Milita Act of 1792 as:

"Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints . . . ."

Selective quoting. The full text says:
"That every citizen, so ENROLLED and NOTIFIED..." The Milita Act was a statute. It doesn't comment on the scope of the Second Amendment. What if Congress wrote a statute narrowing the eligibility of militia members? Would the Amendment's scope be narrowed as a result? If not, then why quote the frigin' act at all? (That being said, remember I'm arguing as an anti, and the 1792 Militia Act would not be much proof of a 2A individual right, by itself, however I could see quoting the Militia Act after presenting other FAR MORE substantial evidence of an individual right.

The citation of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990) is not at all pursuasive. The main reason being that many of the justices, who signed that opinion, would argue that the militia clause limits the scope of the right to those people who are members of an active militia. I think it's also foolish to argue that the Supreme Court nowadays supports an individual 2A since they did not overturn the ugly-gun ban.

 

[jefnvk]

An AK-47 is not meant to kill one attacker, or fell a deer-- it's meant to efficiently kill several men. That's not something that is necessary or wanted in the modern United States.

Rearview mirrors were originally designed for the Indy 500, yet I don;t think that any car that has them is by any means a race car. But by your logic, we don't want illegal racing in town, so we should get rid of rearviews.

And personally, the only reason my neighbors shouldn't have an Abrahms is that I would be jealous.

I;d doubt he's coming back

 

[SAG0282]

Funny you should mention Congress, because I quoted the Militia act to follow up with the Congressional subcommittee finding below it.

I did thoroughly address this thank you. The militia act was interpreted as evidence of intent for an individual right by Congress and even Miller brings it up in it's mention of military grade weapons, etc.

And while the justices MAY be in favor of regulation we aren't, the ruling nonetheless rejects the COLLECTIVE rights argument, so it's useful especially given that he used SCOTUS as evidence.

 

[boofus]

If SCOTUS chooses not to do their job and decides to uphold an unconstitutional law that does not make it right. Remember they once ruled that escaped slaves are not humans with unalienable rights, they had to be returned to their former masters. Blatantly unconstitutional but upheld nonetheless.

If the term 'the people' means the national guard, i.e. employees of the state... Then it is obvious there is no freedom of the press unless you are a state run newspaper or television station. All rights not enumerated to the federal government or reserved for the states belongs to government employees (so no abortions or gay marraige unless you are a govt agent)... yadda yadda. Like I said more liberal hypocrisy and doublethink.

 

[Ieyasu]

You didn't answer my question. What if Congress passed a militia act that narrows the eligibility of militia members?

The militia act was interpreted as evidence of intent for an individual right by Congress

Wow, in 1982 a Senate Republican majority with a few pro-gun Democrats, renders a Congressional document supporting an individual right, and they interpret the Militia Act as evidence of intent of an invidual right. That's real impressive evidence!

This is what boggles my mind. Three jurists who were contemporaries of the Founders, wrote constitutional commentaries explicitly stating that the 2A was an individual right. Instead of offering that as evidence, the first Militia Act, a report by a Republican Senate and a rather irrelevant 1990 Supreme Court decision are proffered.

 

[Ieyasu]

Boofus, what the bleep are you talking about? I realize it's late, but geez, please try to understand the context of these arguments.

Somebody was trying to offer a 1990 SC decision as evidence that the 2A protects an individual right. I rebutted that assertion. It has nothing to do with whether the Court made the correct decision.

Once again, *SIGH*.

Oh, and by the way...

Remember they once ruled that escaped slaves are not humans with unalienable rights, they had to be returned to their former masters. Blatantly unconstitutional but upheld nonetheless.

Please refer to the Consitution as it was when that decision was rendered. Slaves were declared as 1/3 a person, or some such, originally (for census purposes, I believe).

 

[boofus]

It doesn't say the militia's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

I find it very unlikely that the authors of the BOR would use the term 'the people' several times in such a short document meaning society as a whole in 1 amendment and then individuals in every other amendment.

Plus the word 'keep' implies private ownership. How many people do you know that are discharged from the military that KEEP their arms? You'd get tossed in prison for theft of federal property among other things.

 

[saltydog452]

Without The Bill of Rights, all of 'em, the Constitution is justa piece of paper.

salty..

 

[Ieyasu]

It doesn't say the militia's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

Yeah, well tell that to the courts and how they've interpreted the copyright clause which is similar in structure:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/39.html)
However, a recent Supreme Court decision may have nibbled on the edges of that claim. (I don't feel like looking it up now.)

Again your argument will be far more pursuasive if you can quote a Founder or a contemporary, rather than just saying so!

 

[boofus]

Last I checked the amendments in the bill of rights WERE written by the framers of the Constitution or founders as you call them.

 

[Ieyasu]

And while the justices MAY be in favor of regulation we aren't, the ruling nonetheless rejects the COLLECTIVE rights argument, so it's useful especially given that he used SCOTUS as evidence.

Wrong. As I stated many of those justices would argue that the militia clause restricts the right to active militia members only. Or are you going to argue that such a restriction is still an individual right?

 

[Ieyasu]

Last I checked the bill of rights WERE written by the framers of the Constitution or founders as you call them.

Duh, what the bleep is your point? We're arguing about the effectiveness or validity of some of the evidence offered to support one's interpretation of them.

 

[boofus]

You asked for a quote from the founders. Apparently what they wrote on parchment with their own 2 hands does not count?

 

[Ieyasu]

You asked for a quote from the founders. Apparently what they wrote on parchment with their own 2 hands does not count?

I did not ask for a quote from the Founders.

 

[boofus]

Again your argument will be far more pursuasive if you can quote a Founder or a contemporary, rather than just saying so!

Are you john kerry by any chance?