My objections in the gun control debate

[skeptic1138]

1) During revolutionary war times "arms" were taken to be what an individual soldier would carry.  So a flint lock rifle, maybe a pistol, and some ammunition.  An ordinary (but practiced) person might get off one shot every 30 seconds with such weapons.  Today a soldier commonly carries not only a machine gun and pistol that offer vastly greater range and fire power but also hand grenades, and shoulder fired missiles capable of bringing down an aircraft.  Yet I don't think even the NRA is suggesting that shoulder fired missiles be made available to the public.  So when the NRA claims that those wanting to add controls around background checks or magazine capacity etc are shredding the constitution, that is pure bunk.  EVERYONE thinks there should be a line, the only difference is where to draw that line.

 

2) I think that the 2nd amendment is the only one that offers an explanation of why it is there.  "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.".  The founders thought this was important enough to include but that part seems to be totally ignored in debates on this issue.  Its not at all clear to me that personal ownership fits in the category of a well regulated Militia.  I'm not sure of the implications, I just think its an aspect that needs debate.

 

3) The NRA (despite being in favor a few years ago) objects to background checks for all sales whether commercial or private usually on the grounds that it would not prevent criminals from buying guns.  Well of course it won't "prevent" it, but it will make it harder and isn't that a worth while goal?  I think generally inconsistencies in laws are bad, so if we insist on background checks for sales in gun shops, I see no reason not to insist on them for all sales.

Edited May 25, 2013 by skeptic1138

[Sentinel7]

It seem's to me that it is kinda unfortunate for you that we stand in the way of your dream.

 

 

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

[jonjon]

Spoken like a true gun control drone. 

Demanding that the citizens rights be infringed to assure the security of a free State

When the extremist threat to our nation comes, they will have the shoulder fired missiles.

Disarm the public now so they can offer no resistance.

[skeptic1138]

It seem's to me that it is kinda unfortunate for you that we stand in the way of your dream.

 

I don't even know what that means.  

Spoken like a true gun control drone. 

Demanding that the citizens rights be infringed to assure the security of a free State

When the extremist threat to our nation comes, they will have the shoulder fired missiles.

Disarm the public now so they can offer no resistance.

I was skeptical that any adult debate would be offered here, I guess I was right about that.

 

Oh well.  Worth a try.  Now I know better.

Edited May 25, 2013 by skeptic1138

[Sentinel7]

I don't even know what that means.  

I was skeptical that any adult debate would be offered here, I guess I was right about that.

 

Oh well.  Worth a try.  Now I know better.

Thats because gun control is not up for any kind of debate ( EVER )

 

Do you know what that means

 

 

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

[Mountain Girl]

You can never look at a law at what it is, but what it can become. An example would be the seat belt law that was voted on and passed in the state I live in.  The government said " It will always be a second offensive.  You will never be pulled over just because you don't have a seat belt on."  Not even 2 years later, they have entire patrols out just for seat belt violators. Criminals are not effected because they don't care about laws.  Your not going to get the guy selling guns in the alley to do background checks.  There is only one reason a government wants to control guns. For your safety is not the correct answer.

[jyoshi]

..

2) I think that the 2nd amendment is the only one that offers an explanation of why it is there.  "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.".  The founders thought this was important enough to include but that part seems to be totally ignored in debates on this issue.  Its not at all clear to me that personal ownership fits in the category of a well regulated Militia.  I'm not sure of the implications, I just think its an aspect that needs debate.

...

"..free State" might imply that the states may need to protect themselves from an overreaching federal govmt, and you can't do that with muskets.

And what about the first amendment, freedom of the press? In those days, the distribution of newspapers was limited and not across the nation, and there was no internet, so how can that apply today? And here you are spouting off your views on the 2nd, excercising your 1st amendment freedom of speech on the internet that wasn't even dreamed of in those days..... Maybe we need to limit that too!

[skeptic1138]

"..free State" might imply that the states may need to protect themselves from an overreaching federal govmt, and you can't do that with muskets.

I'm not suggesting "arms" be limited to muskets. In the 1700s "arms" did not include cannon either, and you could not defeat a government without them. So I don't think this clause is talking about states protecting themselves against the federal government, though that is how I first interpreted it as well.  I'm not sure just what it does mean.

 

And what about the first amendment, freedom of the press? In those days, the distribution of newspapers was limited and not across the nation, and there was no internet, so how can that apply today? And here you are spouting off your views on the 2nd, excercising your 1st amendment freedom of speech on the internet that wasn't even dreamed of in those days..... Maybe we need to limit that too!

The first amendment does not talk about newspapers but the general "press". And some speech IS deemed to not be covered, such as the classic yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. I think your point supports my view that interpretation is required. The internet was not known to the founders but we have included it as a form of speech. We have interpreted arms to mean rifles, shotguns, and pistols, but not for example machine guns that states can limit without violating the constitution. All of which points to few if anyone objecting to their being limits, only to where the line is drawn.  All I'm saying in that point is the debate is for the most part NOT for or against the 2nd amendment, but what limits may be imposed.  Just to make the point in a somewhat silly way, I think few would advocate that the 2nd amendment allows private ownership of full armed F-16s.

[jonjon]

 I'm not sure just what it does mean.

 

 

That is perfectly clear.

 

 I think few would advocate that the 2nd amendment allows private ownership of full armed F-16s.

Because you don't advocate it no one can have one.  A bit dictatorial of you isn't it? 

[skeptic1138]

That is perfectly clear.

Yes, and so if you do why don't you explain the meaning of the militia clause?

 

Because you don't advocate it no one can have one.  A bit dictatorial of you isn't it?

It would be if I had said that, but I said nothing of the sort. If you want this to continue you will have to respond to what I actually say. Edited May 25, 2013 by skeptic1138

[Mountain Girl]

A militia is a body of citizens not in the regular military forces. People that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, or protect a community, property or law. Someone who can be "called to arms".

[jonjon]

Our founders had just fought a war with one of the greatest powers in the world. In the mid 1780s, British forces were considered the best of the best. But our founders hadn’t joined a war with a “foreign power.” They had fought a war with their own government in order to separate from it and start anew. This was because we Americans felt England had violated our very rights as Englishmen.

As our Declaration of Independence notes:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

As far as we were concerned, our English governors had begun a systematic attempt to change our rules for “light and transient causes.” That same British government was also using the force of arms to compel us to observe her wicked rule.

The founders also were experts on history and in their deliberations let history be their guide. By their reading of history governments used the force of arms held by their standing armies to oppress the people far more often than they ever did for benevolent ends.

To prevent that penchant for tyranny the founders came up with a novel idea. Instead of having a large, standing army, they’d rely on an armed populace organized in para-military organizations generally under the auspices of the state governments and not the federal. That way, the federal government can’t usurp undue power as the states and the people themselves would be able to stop such a thing.

But, the Second Amendment was also written to prevent the states from turning tyrannical. After all, the amendment centers its attention on both “the militia” and “the people” not the state or government. The rights are conferred on the individual militia members (not the state) and the people (again, not the state).

So, who is the “militia”? None other than we, the people.

That was later codified under the Militia Act of 1792 which holds in part that the militia is made up of “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States” who “shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Naturally once the Thirteenth Amendment made African Americans free and equal citizens, the “white” part was made invalid.

[dog53]

1) During revolutionary war times "arms" were taken to be what an individual soldier would carry.  So a flint lock rifle, maybe a pistol, and some ammunition.  An ordinary (but practiced) person might get off one shot every 30 seconds with such weapons.  Today a soldier commonly carries not only a machine gun and pistol that offer vastly greater range and fire power but also hand grenades, and shoulder fired missiles capable of bringing down an aircraft.  Yet I don't think even the NRA is suggesting that shoulder fired missiles be made available to the public.  So when the NRA claims that those wanting to add controls around background checks or magazine capacity etc are shredding the constitution, that is pure bunk.  EVERYONE thinks there should be a line, the only difference is where to draw that line.

 

2) I think that the 2nd amendment is the only one that offers an explanation of why it is there.  "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.".  The founders thought this was important enough to include but that part seems to be totally ignored in debates on this issue.  Its not at all clear to me that personal ownership fits in the category of a well regulated Militia.  I'm not sure of the implications, I just think its an aspect that needs debate.

 

3) The NRA (despite being in favor a few years ago) objects to background checks for all sales whether commercial or private usually on the grounds that it would not prevent criminals from buying guns.  Well of course it won't "prevent" it, but it will make it harder and isn't that a worth while goal?  I think generally inconsistencies in laws are bad, so if we insist on background checks for sales in gun shops, I see no reason not to insist on them for all sales.

 

First of all just like every other anti gunner you talk about something that you know absolutely nothing about and try to come off as reasonable.

#1 the common soldier does carry around a machine gun. He carries a rifle that's built on a AR platform. Its NOT A machine gun.

Machine guns are battlefield placement weapons or mounted to a vehicle.  

Militia`s are men who can be called in to service when needed. They are not a military unit . They are comprised of citizens.

The NRA has no problem with back ground checks. Those laws are already in place. Lets enforce the laws we have on the books. There`s no need for "universal background checks.  It will do nothing to stop crime only hamper law abiding citizens .

But I know from experience Im just wasting my time explaining. Cause you anti gunners dont listen to facts. You simply want things your way weather they actually work or not.  

I am a honest man and I carry a gun. 

I own AR`s with clips that hold 30 rounds and drums that hold a 100 rds.

I am a excellent marksmen and I know basic battlefield technique .

I am at home in a forest as if it was my living room.

I can make snares from a boot string and catch enough meat in one day with it to feed 4 people.

We will not let them take away our arms. There are two many of us .

YOU and people like YOU must learn to adapt and except the fact that some of us will always be armed  

[skeptic1138]

First of all just like every other anti gunner you talk about something that you know absolutely nothing about and try to come off as reasonable.

#1 the common soldier does carry around a machine gun. He carries a rifle that's built on a AR platform. Its NOT A machine gun.

Machine guns are battlefield placement weapons or mounted to a vehicle.

First of all, even getting technical, it IS quite common for a squad to carry a machine gun (or a SAW) such as the M249. But I was not speaking of that I as speaking of the common M16/M4 which has a fully automatic mode. It is that distinction, semi or full auto, that I was speaking of and I suspect you know that full well but were not interested in debate but just a knee-jerk response. After all to you anyone who disagrees with you is obviously all the same. How is reasonable debate possible if you adopt the attitude that you know what I think? 

 

Militia`s are men who can be called in to service when needed. They are not a military unit . They are comprised of citizens.

No. If that were the case it would be no different from the draft. A militia is a group of citizens that trains at least in some fashion, and the 2nd amendment specifically says "well regulated militias". Each state's national guard units might be more what they were thinking of.  But again I did not say I knew what this clause meant, only that it was obviously important enough to be included while other amendments do not offer this sort of prefixing motivation, yet this aspect is rarely mentioned in the debate.

 

The NRA has no problem with back ground checks. Those laws are already in place. Lets enforce the laws we have on the books. There`s no need for "universal background checks.  It will do nothing to stop crime only hamper law abiding citizens .

The NRA clearly has a problem with requiring background checks for private sales such as gun shows. So removing the ability of a criminal to buy anything they want at a gun show does not do anything to hamper their ability to get weapons? Why not?

 

But I know from experience Im just wasting my time explaining. Cause you anti gunners dont listen to facts. You simply want things your way weather they actually work or not.

Again how is it possible to have a discussion if you just assume you know everything about me? I am a gun owner myself and learned to shoot at a very young age, though I have never gone in for hunting other family members do so. I have no problem with gun ownership.

 

I am a honest man and I carry a gun. 

I own AR`s with clips that hold 30 rounds and drums that hold a 100 rds.

I am a excellent marksmen and I know basic battlefield technique .

I am at home in a forest as if it was my living room.

I can make snares from a boot string and catch enough meat in one day with it to feed 4 people.

We will not let them take away our arms. There are two many of us .

YOU and people like YOU must learn to adapt and except the fact that some of us will always be armed

Again the "people like YOU", you do NOT know me. What YOU need to do is listen before you speak.

What is the reason that you want to be able to fire 30 or 100 rounds without reloading?

[TexasGranny]

[skeptic1138]

The founders also were experts on history and in their deliberations let history be their guide. By their reading of history governments used the force of arms held by their standing armies to oppress the people far more often than they ever did for benevolent ends.

To prevent that penchant for tyranny the founders came up with a novel idea. Instead of having a large, standing army, they’d rely on an armed populace organized in para-military organizations generally under the auspices of the state governments and not the federal. That way, the federal government can’t usurp undue power as the states and the people themselves would be able to stop such a thing.

The wars we fought soon after the revolutionary war were not fought with state para-miliary organizations but with the federal military. So even if this was the idea, it was not put into practice.

 

But, the Second Amendment was also written to prevent the states from turning tyrannical. After all, the amendment centers its attention on both “the militia” and “the people” not the state or government. The rights are conferred on the individual militia members (not the state) and the people (again, not the state).

So, who is the “militia”? None other than we, the people.

That was later codified under the Militia Act of 1792 which holds in part that the militia is made up of “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States” who “shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Naturally once the Thirteenth Amendment made African Americans free and equal citizens, the “white” part was made invalid.

Clearly it is not just "we the people".  The act talks about militia officers, ie.. a clear organization not just gun owners.  Interestingly (and I had not seen this before so thanks for that) it also allows the president to call out a state militia to put down an insurrection in that or other states which seems to be quite counter to the idea that the 2nd amendment was (in part) to prevent states from getting to tyrannical since a revolt against such a state is going to be put down by the very militia you claim the 2nd amendment is using to prevent such a thing.

[jonjon]

The wars we fought soon after the revolutionary war were not fought with state para-miliary organizations but with the federal military. So even if this was the idea, it was not put into practice.

 

Clearly it is not just "we the people".  The act talks about militia officers, ie.. a clear organization not just gun owners.  Interestingly (and I had not seen this before so thanks for that) it also allows the president to call out a state militia to put down an insurrection in that or other states which seems to be quite counter to the idea that the 2nd amendment was (in part) to prevent states from getting to tyrannical since a revolt against such a state is going to be put down by the very militia you claim the 2nd amendment is using to prevent such a thing.

When the left tries to address the clause at all–and they don’t often bother with it–they find the whole idea of a militia to be a useless artifact.

 

The left scoffs at the idea that our current standing army might be turned against us. The militia is now unnecessary and that, they say, makes the whole Second Amendment null and void. As a writer on Alternet says, “the entire legitimate rationale for the 2nd Amendment has been obliterated.”

 

So, the left claims that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for “the security of a free state.”

 

Another argument the left pursues is that the founders just couldn’t understand that technology would advance until we’d have machine guns that can cut down dozens of men in seconds. The founders only had muskets that took “twenty minutes to load.” This technological blindness also makes the Second Amendment null and void.

 

There is also some focus on the “regulated” part. The left expects that “regulated” is a means to impose regulations (i.e. rules, laws) on the militia.

 

Some want to use the “well regulated” part of the Amendment to serve their gun-banning ways, as well. One argument goes that until there is a properly, “regulated” militia created, then guns can obviously be taken away from people until and if said militia is organized and put into operation. In fact, this argument goes that if there is a militia that isn’t “regulated,” then it is actually a threat to the nation. Once again, they say this is proof that guns must be taken away from Americans.

 

For decades, the left has argued that if guns are at all guaranteed for Americans it is a “collective right” not an individual right. They maintain that the “well regulated militia” clause pertains to a group of men, not the individuals. Without the “well regulated militia” the individual citizen has no use for the firearm under the Second Amendment. The first precedes the latter and without the first the latter is null.

 

Lastly, many on the left just dismiss the whole argument. The Constitution isn’t a fixed thing, after all. It is a “living document.” The Constitution is “a work in progress” and we can change it any time we want. So, why bother getting into the tall weeds on this? It’s outdated, we don’t have to be held to it, let’s just eliminate it. We should abandon that old White men’s document and make our own rules whenever we want to.

[skeptic1138]

When the left ...

 

The left scoffs ...

 

So, the left claims...

 

Another argument the left pursues...

 

The left expects that “regulated” is a means to impose regulations (i.e. rules, laws) on the militia.

 

For decades, the left has argued ...

 

Lastly, many on the left ...

As long as you insist on telling others what they think, there is little point in trying to have a discussion.

[nstoolman1]

What is the reason that you want to be able to fire 30 or 100 rounds without reloading?

 

 

Because nothing in God's law or the Constitution says I can't. I have used 10,20, and 30 round magazines. They are a "female dog" to load. A 100 round drum is very fun to use. Why does it matter to anyone if I, an honest, hardworking, background cleared gun owner wants a 100 round drum magazine?

 

I am not against background checks to see if a person should be allowed to own a gun. I am against background checks thar done and the information is collected and used as a data base to show who has them. Run the checks and shred the paper work. We already have a provision for that but they want to expand it to a data base.

 

The 2nd ammendment is there to enforce our natural instinct to protect ourselves and family with the tools that are available. That protection from evil may extend out to criminals bent on taking my stuff(and others)and include foreign entities and our own governments. Why should my inherent, God instilled instinct be restricted to tools that are ineffective against modern tools?  

[skeptic1138]

Because nothing in God's law or the Constitution says I can't. I have used 10,20, and 30 round magazines. They are a "female dog" to load. A 100 round drum is very fun to use. Why does it matter to anyone if I, an honest, hardworking, background cleared gun owner wants a 100 round drum magazine?

 

I am not against background checks to see if a person should be allowed to own a gun. I am against background checks thar done and the information is collected and used as a data base to show who has them. Run the checks and shred the paper work. We already have a provision for that but they want to expand it to a data base.

I sort of figured the answer would be "because its fun", and I think it would be.  I also agree that everyone buying a gun in any forum should be checked, and then that date expunged and we have the technology and methods to assure that it happens, if we chose to use them.

[jonjon]

As long as you insist on telling others what they think, there is little point in trying to have a discussion.

As long as you refuse to acknowledge your agenda your discussion is noting more than manipulation anyway.