|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/05/2003 : 17:25:48 [Permalink]
|
jcmginn wrote:quote:
Ah I forgot because there are countries where it hasn't happened (yet) then it can't happen here. Gee how stupid of me to think that very thing. I wonder if the Germans were thinking the same thing as they watched political dissidents, Jews, and other minorities drug to the gas chambers. The history of governments killing portions of its own people is against you on this. All it takes is a little stimulus, bad economics, despair, poverty, starvation, and then a scapegoat is invented.
The slippery slope argument is valid in many historical cases, simply giving examples of where it has not happened (yet) does not mean it is a real danger that should be guarded against.
Well, shoot. I thought you were the sane one in this thread until now. Apparently, if I call an argument a bad argument based upon a known and popular logical fallacy, even you are so emotional about this issue that you read all sorts of garbage into my posts which isn't there.
I disagree with the idea that gun control measures such as registration WILL UNDOUBTEDLY lead to an un-armed populace being slaughtered by its own government. I never said it couldn't happen here, and for you to imply that I did is simply insulting. I'm not so fucking idiotic.
quote:
My quote above in my reply to Kil shows how registration can be used as a tool for total gun control.
Ah, I forgot that 'can' equals 'will'. Gee how stupid of me to think that possibility doesn't mean inevitibility.
That is the fallacy upon which rests the "the first thing the Nazis did was institute gun control" arguments, that because it's happened before, it will necessarily happen again, here in this country.
Such arguments are moronic. They have no place on a message board which appears to be devoted to skepticism, given the critical-thinking implications of the name. This should be an opportunity to stamp such trash out, especially since there are better anti-gun-control arguments available. You've used some, yourself. Going for the slippery-slope, fear-mongering option is pathetic in comparison (yeah, just try to convince me that pointing at the Jews and implying that gun registration will have us lined up for a brand new gas chamber is not fear-mongering and emotional button-pushing).
Is there anyone here who's capable of delivering the pro-gun side of the debate without resorting to this kind of crap?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 17:37:21 [Permalink]
|
| How about the arguement that gun control doesn't prevent gun crime, and thus most gun control measures are special interest goals aimed at curbing a guarenteed right in the US BoR rather stopping gun crime. Economics and social justice have long been the best ways to reduce all types of crime, including violent crimes. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 18:07:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
quote:
jmcginn:
First I would like to see some studies that back up the claim that gun control reduces violent gun deaths. I have yet to see them and the data I have seen so far indicates that in the U.S. there has been little to no effect from gun control. But again I don't claim to have seen all the data, so please provide me a reference or two.
While I think gun control is a good idea, I also have a problem with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, as you seem to have noticed.
quote:
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case, United States v. Miller, in which the Court laid out the basic Second Amendment analysis that has informed judicial decision-making on this issue to this day. In the Miller case, the Supreme Court upheld the indictments of two individuals for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Those indictments had been attacked by the defendants on the grounds that the law under which they were brought, the 1934 National Firearms Act, was unconstitutional because it violated the Second Amendment.
The Court held in that case that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to insure the viability of state militias, and it said that the amendment must be interpreted and applied with that aim in mind. The Court's analysis in the case concentrated on the question of whether possession of a sawed-off shotgun was, in any sense, related to the preservation of a state militia. In no place in that opinion is there any analysis of whether the shotgun could be used for self-defense or for sport. The only relevant inquiry for the Court was the relationship of the gun to the organized militia.
So, the Miller case clearly means that there is no constitutional right to own guns for purposes unrelated to the organized militia, that is, for self-defense or for sport. The Court upheld the National Firearms Act as applied in that case, because it determined that possession of the shotgun, by those defendants, was not related to the organized militia.
The Court went on to explain the nature of the militia that the Second Amendment protects. It explained that the militia back in colonial days was an instrument of state government. It was, in a sense, a form of universal military service. Virtually all able-bodied males between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were enlisted for military discipline in the militia. These men were subject to calls to service, and they were even equired to own certain kinds of guns and have a certain supply of ammunition at the ready to use for militia service. Thus, as the Supreme Court understood the militia, the militia was infected with substantial government regulation, and it was government regulation of a military force designed to be used for collective defense.
In the modern era, the only such military force we have, that is, the only such militia we have, is the National Guard. Since the Miller decision, the courts have looked at whatever gun-control law is at issue, and asked: Does enforcement of that gun-control law, in any way, impair the ability to arm the militia? And since gun-control laws typically exempt the National Guard, the Second Amendment has been essentially irrelevant in terms of an actual constitutional barrier to gun-control laws since the Miller decision.
Thus, the Miller decision set out the essential constitutional analysis that every court since Miller has used in evaluating the constitutionality of gun-control laws. And every court that has interpreted Miller has interpreted it the same way; that is, to require a connection between the possession of the gun at issue and the maintenance of an organized militia. And if enforcement of the law against that gun in no way impairs the militia, that is, the National Guard, then there is no substantial constitutional issue.
Read more at:
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/articles/judiciary.asp
And this about Gun Control, Canada and the US:
http://www.guncontrol.ca/content/Cda-US.htm
quote:
jmcginn:
Second, my reference to your lack of critical thought on this issue has nothing to do with what side you choose, but your irrational attempt to redefine what the 2nd amendment says and what it was intended to mean. Mainly this entire bit:
Kil:
OK, I get it now. We have the right to bear arms just in case we need to suddenly get together and form a regulated militia. I know it says "well regulated" but that was probably hyperbole. I mean, how "well regulated" can a militia formed on the fly be? Also, since we must be talking about our own government coming after us, because we now have a military, it would be kinda silly to invoke the exact wording of the second amendment to protect ourselves. So, we can throw the "well" part away. It would be far too inconvenient to wait for the "well" part to kick in while they knocking down our doors. Of course, the wording after the second comma of the second amendment must be taken literally and without additions or subtractions, unless you want to own a nuke.
And that means, while we are not busy fighting off tyranny, we can have our assault weapons with your guarantee that we will act responsibly with them.
jmcginn:
This entire quote is irrational by ignoring the history of tyrannies and the suffering of the people who did not have arms and by trying to redefine the original intentions of those who wrote the 2nd amendment.
I keep hearing about tyranny. I have read the historical quotes you posted about tyranny and a well organized militia. As I read the 2nd amendment, I see it calls out for a well organized militia as the only reason you get to bear arms. I will agree with you on that. That is what it says. I just don't understand how a militia can be well organized when it doesn't even exist, by your definition. The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and yet there is no friggin militia. That is unless you're willing to count the national guard. I do.` I was being facetious when I wrote what you quoted above. What I am hearing is that everyone gets to have any gun just in case they need to form a well organized militia. And in the meantime, even if they choose not to be in a militia, they can use them for reasons not granted by the 2nd amendment. The above quote was to point out how gun ownership is defended and yet how the actuality of gun ownership, most often, has nothing at all to do with the intent of the amendment.
I strongly doubt that when a person goes to the store to buy a gun, she is thinking about the need to be ready to form or join a "well organized militia" as the rea |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 21:22:18 [Permalink]
|
Darwin Storm wrote:quote:
How about the arguement that gun control doesn't prevent gun crime...
How about the argument that the U.S. hasn't even attempted to pass real, effective gun-control legislation, which might be a good reason why the current laws don't do squat to protect the populace from gun crime? Note that I did not use the word 'prevent', or anything close to it, since the only way to truly prevent gun crime is through some magical, non-existant country-wide automatic gun-destruction device, a clearly ludicrous notion.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 23:12:02 [Permalink]
|
I would be most interested to hear what you consider effectice gun control. Chicago and DC both have complete bans on handguns, yet suffer from the highest rates of gun crime. An outright ban is about as drastic as you can get, and it seems to have done little.
Of course we can look to Great Britain if you prefer. They have always had a low rate of gun violence. REcently, all handgun ownership was banned. The effect. Instead of reducing gun crime rates, they have actually increased. Gun control is ineffective. The primary source of gun crime is criminals, who , by definition, break the law.
Even if we did have a magical gun destroying wand, it really wouldn't curb violent crime. For every murder by gun, there is one by other means of physical violence. Getting rid of guns won't solve any problems, even if you could make them all disappear. So, again I ask, what is the point of gun control, especially measures that target law abiding citizens? |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 23:23:06 [Permalink]
|
BTW , if you read through the Miller case, you will notice they never claim that the second amendment doesn't pertain to the individual. Their arugement was that a shotgun doesn't neccesarily fall under arms that would be useful in a militia. By that token, it is quite possible to argue that supposed "assault" weapon bans actually violate the second amendment, since AR-15's and such are civilian models of military rifles. Of course, the whole concept of "assault" weapons is a joke, since the defining characteristics of assult weapons are cosmetic, no performance, characteristics.
AS to your view that the national guard counts as a militia, it might be prudent for you to understand that the National guard units are funded largely in part by the federal government, and fall under the control of both DOD and their respective states.
Numerous texts and quotes from the time of the founding fathers clearly illustratest the idea of a militia as a force of armed civilians that can unite in a time of need. In fact, the whole idea of a standing army was an anethema to most of the founding fathers, and the concept of a cizenary militia was clearly defined as the people's insurance against possible future tyranny. Now, think what you like about the national guard, but historical documents clearly define the militia as citizenry. Additionaly, you will notice that ALL refereces to the PEOPLE, means the PEOPLE, not the state or the federal government, which are both specifically referenced when powers are given them.
As for self-defense, I agree that the second amendment doesn't cover that, except in the vaugest terms of defending the people against tyranny. However, self-defense is a basic and accepted tenet in law. In both constitutional law, and state law, an individual has the right to defend themselves with force if neccesary.
|
|
|
|
Julie_Bris
New Member
Australia
24 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 23:42:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Julie Bris wrote:quote:
First and foremost I invite you to visit the abovementioned sites before replying.
As far as I can tell, they are more of the same: an argument about the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy, and nothing at all to do with domestic random small-arms violence.quote:
The connection between the bombing in Kosovo and Columbine is not only that they took place an hour apart...
That's either coincidence, or you're claiming that one caused the other. Which is it?quote:
...but were tragedies that should have never happened.
As are so many other things, like Bophal, Viet Nam, the Salem Witch Trials, Celine Dion, and the Inquisition. Why focus on two separate events which coincided, to some extent, in time? Your main point, which you might finally be getting to (I'm not sure, see below), becomes lost in all this irrelevancy and emotional button-pushing along the way.quote:
Any loss of life is a tragedy but what I can't understand is WHY when the US kills people well that's ok...
Who's saying that that's okay?quote:
...yet if one American is harmed well then lets ask the whole world to pray for them, the whole world is to feel their pain and sorrow?
Well, if you need a primer on tribalism, I'm sure one can be found online.quote:
Again, with their “DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO” attitude, they display their arrogance and utter disrespect for the rest of the human race.
If you mean 'they' as in "the people who run the U.S.," I have little argument there. If you mean 'they' as something else, I'll have to wait until you clarify your meaning before I respond.quote:
Many pointed the finger of blame at Marilyn Manson for these childrens behaviour yet no one said “hey wait a minute look at all the violence our government encourages” (as listed in the initial post) perhaps it's the government and not Marilyn Manson that influence our children.
What a load of crappola that is. Perhaps it's the parents who most influence their children, and neither the government nor Mr. Manson. I very much hope that I don't fall for that "blame someone else" garbage in raising my own child (haven't yet).
Julie Bris screamed:quote:
Q. WHY DO YOU NEED A FIREARM?????????????
To attempt to protect myself and my family from the madmen who run this country, perhaps - the very people you're la |
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, racism and arrogance. |
| Edited by - Julie_Bris on 08/05/2003 23:43:47 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 08:32:30 [Permalink]
|
Dave W,
quote:
Well, shoot. I thought you were the sane one in this thread until now.
Think what you will, I don't give a shit.
quote:
Apparently, if I call an argument a bad argument based upon a known and popular logical fallacy
Exactly what known and popular logical fallacy do you have in mind?
quote:
I disagree with the idea that gun control measures such as registration WILL UNDOUBTEDLY lead to an un-armed populace being slaughtered by its own government. I never said it couldn't happen here, and for you to imply that I did is simply insulting. I'm not so fucking idiotic.
I disagree with such a notion too, however I do feel that it is a notion that should be guarded against since it has appeared enough in history to warrant the defensiveness. You know that whole "learn from history or be its slave" kind of thing.
quote:
Ah, I forgot that 'can' equals 'will'. Gee how stupid of me to think that possibility doesn't mean inevitibility.
Again I never said "will" nor did I am imply that it is "will". But because it "can" happen then we should guard against it. Not to be paranoid, but simply guard against it.
quote:
That is the fallacy upon which rests the "the first thing the Nazis did was institute gun control" arguments, that because it's happened before, it will necessarily happen again, here in this country.
Show me where in hell I said this? I have stated over and over my reasons for my right to own guns:
1. Their enjoyable.
2. They can be used for personal safety (although I do not own them for this reason, but my parents do).
3. Their useful (hunting for example).
4. I have the right to own whatever in the hell I feel like since I am a responsible adult.
5. The government does not have the right to infringe on my rights to own them based on the BoR.
6. They are used as a deterrant and eventually can be used as a last line of defense against tyranny.
The slippery slope argument at least in my version says this:
1. In history tyrannical governments have often used weapon controls to sedate the populace.
2. After such sedation these governments have often acted out atrocious acts on its own populace.
3. In the U.S. this is a possibility that should be watched against thus all gun control attempts should be viewed with skepticism even if their intentions seem honest at first.
4. Our founding fathers identified this threat and placed safeguards in our BoR to protect us against it, and their method of protection was allowing citizens to arm themselves thus causing the government to fear them instead of the reverse.
Dave W, maybe it would better suit you if I instead called this argument a lessons from history argument instead of a slippery slope argument. Is it the main reason I say I have the right to own guns? I would say its tied with 4 & 5 from my reasons above with #1 a distant second. Would I say its the main reason I oppose gun control? Its probably tied with the fact that gun control infringes on my rights and takes away my liberty and gun control simply doesn't work very well.
quote:
Going for the slippery-slope, fear-mongering option is pathetic in comparison (yeah, just try to convince me that pointing at the Jews and implying that gun registration will have us lined up for a brand new gas chamber is not fear-mongering and emotional button-pushing).
Dave W, I am not trying to push fear-mongering options on you or anyone else however I still think it is wise to look back at history and see the mistakes others have made. Sadly I think you have read more into my argument then I wrote as well.
I apologize if I misunderstood your point in the following:
quote:
It's the first step in the long, fallacious slippery-slope argument proposed by Darwin Storm: gun control has often lead to gun banning which has often lead to the "massacre of civilians by their own government." It's a crappy argument since there are plenty of countries with strict gun-control laws which show no evidence of being likely to be overrun by Hilter-like figures.
I do hope you know the difference between guarding against something and saying it will definitely happen if step 1 is taken. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 08:35:09 [Permalink]
|
Kil,
The Miller case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
This case appears to ignore the original intentions of the writers of the BoR as well, although it does imply that every able bodied citizen (or male in this case) is part of the militia and should arm themselves. Note this was historically considered a duty or responsibility not just a right. And as Darwin Storm pointed out their main point was that the sawed-off shot gun in this case was not a military weapon or useful for a militia. Now the main problem I have with the Miller case is that it goes against the original intentions of our founding fathers for the 2nd amendment as I have documented in previous posts.
Darwin Storm addressed this point perfectly a couple post down.
Your data comparing Canada and the U.S. ignores many differences between our two countries. For example Canada has a much larger social welfare and healthcare structure. It also has a much smaller population to land area ratio. Comparing two data sets such as these without trying to control for other factors is terrible science. Read The Bell Curve to see how such similar thinking can be done with race and IQ.
quote:
I keep hearing about tyranny. I have read the historical quotes you posted about tyranny and a well organized militia. As I read the 2nd amendment, I see it calls out for a well organized militia as the only reason you get to bear arms.
Then you have ignored the quotes I have provided from such people as Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Paine, etc. Obviously it was not their idea that a militia was the only reason to maintain arms and (resisting tyranny was) and the militia was a phrase that referred to all able bodied males (I think today we can include females :>)
quote:
I strongly doubt that when a person goes to the store to buy a gun, she is thinking about the need to be ready to form or join a "well organized militia" as the reason she wants a gun. She isn't thinking about government tyranny. And while I hear and understand these arguments, and can see how you might interpret the 2nd amendment the way you do, I just can't help but feel that a big load of smoke is being blown up my ass.
I also strongly doubt that when the average person goes to the store to buy a gun they are planning a big shooting spree. In fact I would doubt that more people plan on such an act then those who plan on preventing tyranny. While I hear and understand gun control arguments, I fail to see the logic behind them and can't help but feel that a big load of smoke is being blown up my ass.
Until I hear a logical argument as to why we should impose gun control and give up our rights to own them (and possibly our protection as well) then I fail to see why I should support it. Until I am shown some serious evidence that guns really cause violent crimes and that they are the real causes of our problems I will continue to support my right to own them. So far all I have seen is an attempt to try and distort the original intentions of our founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution/BoR, attempts to take away my rights, and allot of emotional pleading about the problems of violent crimes in the U.S. combined with scapegoat guns as the problem. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 09:07:49 [Permalink]
|
Problems with gun control. Improper sight alignment sight picture....
Seriously though, I could, in Denver, go pick up a .38 for $20 in maybe 20 min. A hand gun, depending on the type, can be used as a range weapon. One instance of hunting with a handgun that I am fully aware of is when my dad shot a doe with his .357. I've personally fired the 45 and 9mm at over 50 yards - acurately. Granted my bow shot is farther.
If I can pick up a weapon illegally quickly, what matter is gun control? We have stiffer penalties, right now, for selling a dime bag of coke, than we do for selling a 'Saturday Night Special'. The only purpose in the snub nosed .38 is close range killing. Beyond 20 feet the thing is pretty useless. So in that regard the .38 serves no purpose.
Proper training in using a weapon, should include situational ethics and legalities. The regulation of a law abiding citizen owning a weapon has no effect on the criminal illegally purchasing and using a weapon. Proper storage of weapons should significantly reduce the possibility of weapon related accidents, especially with small children. Should prevent older children from gaining access to said weapons. Proper storage of a weapon will also require gaining access to said weapon and necessary rounds, hopefully giving enough time for someone to think about their actions. Which would make the heat of passion legal argument moot. Thus reducing the number of manslaughter cases instead making them murder cases.
The number one rule of gun ownership is responsibility. If you can not be a responsible gun owner, you should not own a weapon. End of story. Education is the only way to ensure the majority of gun owners act responsibly.
At the range, I seriously worry about anyone who is unaware of where their muzzle is aimed and who is around them. My first thought is, 'That idiot shouldn't have a weapon in their hands.' My second is, 'I hope they don't have a round chambered.' |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 09:24:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Darwin Storm:
BTW , if you read through the Miller case, you will notice they never claim that the second amendment doesn't pertain to the individual. Their arugement was that a shotgun doesn't neccesarily fall under arms that would be useful in a militia.
Additionaly, you will notice that ALL refereces to the PEOPLE, means the PEOPLE, not the state or the federal government, which are both specifically referenced when powers are given them.
However, self-defense is a basic and accepted tenet in law. In both constitutional law, and state law, an individual has the right to defend themselves with force if necessary
The 2nd amendment gives each state the power to form and regulate a militia. That's it. That is why I keep asking, where is this militia? If you are not comfortable with having the national guard as protection against federal tyranny, produce a militia that is "well
regulated" to protect the State. What the second amendment does not do is grant personal carte blanche ownership of weapons. So why is it that every time someone suggests gun control, knickers bind up and gun advocates cry foul based on the erosion of rights granted by the 2nd amendment? As you noted, the case for self defense makes much more sense than all this 2nd amendment crap, at least as a legal defense for gun ownership. I'm not saying I'm cool with that. I'm just saying that the 2nd amendment arguments are baloney. I think it's interesting to note that the NRA has never won a case using the 2nd amendment as their defense for gun ownership.
From the ACLU:
quote:
QThe Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't it mean just that?
A There is more to the Second Amendment than just the last 14 words.
Most of the debate on the Amendment has focused on its final phrase and entirely ignores the first phrase: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . And to dissect the Amendment is to destroy its context.
While some scholars have suggested that the Amendment gives individuals the constitutional right to bear arms, still others have argued for discarding the Amendment as irrelevant and out of date.
However, the vast majority of constitutional experts agree that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to apply only to members of state-run, citizen militias.
QIf it doesn't guarantee the right to own a gun, why was the Second Amendment included in the Bill of Rights?
A When James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in the late 1780s, people were still suspicious of any centralized federal government. Just 10 years earlier, the British army been an occupying force in Colonial America enforcing arbitrary laws decreed from afar.
After the Revolutionary War, the states insisted on the constitutional right to defend themselves in case the fledgling U.S. government became tyrannical like the British Crown. The states demanded the right to keep an armed militia as a form of insurance.
QDoes the Second Amendment in any way guarantee gun rights to individuals?
A No. The weight of historical and legal scholarship clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that states could maintain armed forces to resist the federal government.
Most scholars overwhelmingly concur that the Second Amendment was never intended to guarantee gun ownership rights for individual personal use. Small arms ownership was common when the Bill of Rights was adopted, with many people owning single-shot firearms for hunting in what was then an overwhelmingly rural nation.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/reports/2ndamend.htm
http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 09:45:02 [Permalink]
|
Kil,
quote:
The 2nd amendment gives each state the power to form and regulate a militia. That's it. That is why I keep asking, where is this militia?
Kil, I have given quote after quote from the authors of the Bill of Rights demonstrating that this is not what they intended, modern interpretations aside. The militia as the founders wrote, are all able bodied men capable of firing a weapon (again this should be extended to women today).
Of course one could argue that the militia is no longer properly maintained since there are no longer regular drills or exercises as they used to have nor any structured organization, but that is something our Federal government would get a little nervous about. And this has nothing to do with the fact that a militia can form and provide resistance either in case of tyranny or invasion. Iraq is a perfect modern day example of what an armed populace can do to an invading force as a form of resistance.
Modern erosion of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a problem for over a century now. The same argument using modern interpretations can be used to support the phrases "Under God" or "In God We Trust" as not violating the 1st amendment. Supporters claim they are not "respecting an establishment of religion" but are simply honoring are ceremonial deistic heritage. And this shit has held up in the courts despite the fact it flies directly in the face of what our founding fathers intended.
You are trying to do the same thing to the 2nd amendment that the Religious Right is trying to do to the 1st (not to mention Bush and his cronies with faith based initiatives and school vouchers). You are watering down the meaning of the amendment without consideration of what the authors wrote about its purpose. Strange I believe you would draw upon Jefferson's term of separation of church and state to defend the 1st amendment's original intent, but you will not draw upon the same man's words to defend the second. Why the irrational hypocrisy?
Its original purpose as I have clearly demonstrated was to deter and resist tyranny and ensure liberty. Gun control jeopardizes the original purpose of the 2nd amendment.
Edited to add:
The fact that the ACLU supports your point is not suprising, while I support many things the ACLU supports, underneath they are a liberal political force, not an honest defender of our rights, thus their position on gun control. The fact that many scholars also support this view is also not surprising either since many scholars also have a liberal bias.
However the real test comes down to, what was the original intent. And here is where the ACLU's, democrats, yours, and other gun control advocates arguments fail to meet the mustard. The original intent is clear to anyone who wants to read the historical writings, trying to say that was not their intent is either dishonest or foolish.
Edited to add:
By the way, the State is a government as well, albeit smaller. A state could theoretically break from the union and impose martial law on its inhabitants. Without an armed populace what kind of resistance could be provided against such an action? Thus simply saying guns belong to state militias only is foolish since the National Guard units fall under the control of the Governor of the state and they fall under U.S. Army command when activated. |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 08/06/2003 09:54:36 |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 10:30:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun regristration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.
Adolf Hitler, 1935 |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
| Edited by - walt fristoe on 08/06/2003 10:31:15 |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 15:39:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
The 2nd amendment gives each state the power to form and regulate a militia. That's it.
I will repeat myself again. In the constitution, refereces to the government is clearly defined, as either the state, government, etc. All references to the People refers just to that, the people. The second amendment clearly states the right of the people, not the states, and historical documentation from other sources clearly supports the militia as the people, who may unite if neccesary, to defend home, state, or nation. Now, if you can find where in the second amendment that the "state" is used, I might reconsider, but every time I have read through it, the word People, seems quite clear. Who knows, maybe my copy has a typo.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
While some scholars have suggested that the Amendment gives individuals the constitutional right to bear arms, still others have argued for discarding the Amendment as irrelevant and out of date.
However, the vast majority of constitutional experts agree that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to apply only to members of state-run, citizen militias.
In this case, the ACLU is actually being dishonest. I will readily agree that there are disagreements over the exact meaning of the second amendment by many individuals. However, everything I have read indicates that the VAST majority of Constitutional experts, specifically constitutional historians, agree that the second amendment refered explicitly to the people, and not the state.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 02:33:42 [Permalink]
|
I dug this out of the archives from a posting of mine from a couple of years ago:
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)
This is a frequently misunderstood decision of the Supreme Court. It does not question the contemporary interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; it is a consideration of the facts of the individual case. Miller and a friend (Layton) were indicted for transporting a short-barreled shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller's attorney requested a dismissal on the grounds that the NFCA (or the portion that applied) was unconstitutional. The motion to dismiss was granted. Miller and Layton were released and promptly disappeared (the legends say they were murdered, but there is no support for this). The U.S. then filed directly to the Supreme Court to reverse the finding; when it was brought to the Supreme Court, Miller was no where around, so only the government's side of the case was presented. The Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed individual rights to bear arms, but the government was within its bounds to question the legitimacy of a short-barreled shotgun as a weapon appropriate to ‘militias.' They went on to say: “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.'” This last sentence seems to vindicate the idea of the National Guard as the militia, but the court says in the same brief that Miller and Layton (who were not NG members) were not required to be in the Guard to exercise 2nd Amendment rights.
So the only thing specifically found by the Supreme Court in the Miller case was that a short-barreled shotgun (less than 18”) is not appropriate to the militia and so is not a protected ‘arm' under the 2nd Amendment, but the defendants did not require membership in the National Guard to be able to assert 2nd Amendment protection.
|
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
