Break out your Chain Mail

[GatorSaint]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinion/jefferson-fake-gun-quotation/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

How many times have we heard this quotation, attributable to Thomas Jefferson, in regards to gun control?

You Tea Party folks need to learn to do some research and take your own chain mails with a grain of salt, otherwise you perpetuate untruths.

Or is that the point?

[g8orbill]

who cares saint

I think gun control is a violation of our Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms

I own 4 guns( 16 gauge, a 30-06, a 38 and a 9 mil) but am thinking of buying several more along with as much ammo as I can to go along with them

[GatorSaint]

And the government considers it treason if you take up arms against it in the Consitution. Which is why the 2nd Amendment should be considered to apply to militias for DEFENSIVE purposes.

We have a National Guard and the most powerful military the world has ever seen, so your theory that having guns is a Constitutional right is completely bogus. We don't need, or haven't for a considerable period of time, militias.

Bunker up and live in fear, I don't care...

[g8orbill]

I think you are totally wrong-but the anti gun wusses of the world really think they will stop violence by taking away the guns-totally delusional but that is what they think

my only fears saint are about your prez and him wanting to ruin this country and become its dictator

[GatorSaint]

If you'd open your mind a little more Bill, you'd fear alot less.

[gatorman_07732]

If you'd open your mind a little more Bill, you'd fear alot less.

In government we trust is hardly a redeeming quality

[g8orbill]

If you'd open your mind a little more Bill, you'd fear alot less.

In other words if I would just sit back and watch your prez become our dictator and just go with the flow I would be happier, huh!

[g8trjax]

In other words if I would just sit back and watch your prez become our dictator and just go with the flow I would be happier, huh!

Yeah, if you're getting forcibly being butt raped, just lay there and enjoy.

[candymanfromgc]

Funnyhow people like Saint define the quotation that Ignorance is bliss.

What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" do the enlightened idiots not understand?

[Lawdog88]

Funnyhow people like Saint define the quotation that Ignorance is bliss.

What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" do the enlightened idiots not understand?


The part that starts after "but . . . . . . "

[RealGatorFan]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinion/jefferson-fake-gun-quotation/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

How many times have we heard this quotation, attributable to Thomas Jefferson, in regards to gun control?

You Tea Party folks need to learn to do some research and take your own chain mails with a grain of salt, otherwise you perpetuate untruths.

Or is that the point?

I like how you point fingers on the Tea Party. Seems this country points fingers at the Tea Party yet are completely clueless about what the Tea Party is about. I know more about the Democratic Party than most democrats on this board. You have this obsession with the Tea Party like many here have. Not sure why you all have an issues with a group that wants this country to live within its means and with a smaller government? Are you so addicted to government handouts? Or maybe you don't care that future generations will pay for your retirement?

[RealGatorFan]

And the government considers it treason if you take up arms against it in the Consitution. Which is why the 2nd Amendment should be considered to apply to militias for DEFENSIVE purposes.

We have a National Guard and the most powerful military the world has ever seen, so your theory that having guns is a Constitutional right is completely bogus. We don't need, or haven't for a considerable period of time, militias.

Bunker up and live in fear, I don't care...

You do know that the best way to placate a populace is to take away their ability to fight back? It takes the President today 3 hours to activate Martial Law and another 3 hours for the NG to do door-to-door searches. I'm not saying Obama would do that but we are paving the way for a future President to do just that. Once you have disarmed the opposition, nothing stands in your way to do whatever you want.

And you to go back to school bud. Just because Jefferson didn't say it doesn't mean no one else did. There are several other Founders who mandated it and wrote about it but somehow people identify with Jefferson as the architect.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

Again, another from Richard Lee:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States (He did say this)

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Some other quotes related to the Constitution:

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman

It's all over the times of that period that to prevent tyranny from taking root is through arming of the populace. You want to subvert everyone - take away their ability to fight back. Nothing else is easier to subvert than taking away a people's arms. There's no other way to fight back; we've seen this even on social networks where many supposed events die out. All it takes is the President to order the internet to be shut down and goodbye cause. How would a populace fight back if their vote someday didn't matter?

But an armed citizen can't be shutdown and all it takes is the people to gather as one army to take back the country if it ever came to that.

[RealGatorFan]

You will see these articles coming out in force in the weeks to come. Yet, the MSM will only show one side of the issue. The best way to disarm the people is through the media and the liberals have an unlimited supply of it from Hollywood to CNN. Even in schools the liberal bias can be seen in full force. I really do think in the decades to come we will have a dictatorship. We are paving the way for it much like Germany did in 1915. It took Hitler less than 15 years to change Germany into the most ruthless regime in history. And the people wanted it.

[The_Graygator]

If you'd open your mind a little more Bill, you'd fear alot less.

I find it amusing how libs think it's always the conservatives and the Constitutionalists who should make concessions and "accept" this Marxist BS from Obama and his progressive ilk.

BILL has a right to fear what's going on, considering Obama and his cronies in congress have so far demonstrated they care nothing for our Constitution or, for that matter, lying through their teeth about issues. Obama himself said he wasn't going to try an take away our guns, but here we are, with him trying to start the mahcine to do so.

The thing that Bill, I, and most all other Constitutionalists fear, is that we know Obama and his cronies wouldn't stop with SA's. Way back in the late '90's I think, Obama himself was quoted that he doesn;t believe people should be able to own guns.

What's amazing is how you libs seem to care nothing for your Constitution and only care for your party.

I've been there, I know how you guys think, so open your minds and drop the obsessive Republican-hate just for once and try to be people instead of sheeple.

[GatorSaint]

And German had what history of peaceful transitions between successive governments of elected heads of states for 250 years in which part of its history before Hitler???

Or have I seen something that indicates Obama is planning on becoming dictator for life?

You people are amazing. Chase shadows all you want. Bunker up. Live in fear, I could care less.

[mdgator05]

Funnyhow people like Saint define the quotation that Ignorance is bliss.

What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" do the enlightened idiots not understand?

So we should be allowed to own any arms we want? What about nuclear arms? After all, the right to buy any arm shall not be infringed.

[GatorSaint]

Shoulder-fired SAMs for the black helicopters would be more useful for our overarmed 22% of the populace.

[RealGatorFan]

Common sense people. Common sense. Name one person who owns a nuclear bomb? Or a shoulder-fired SAM? I hunt with my AR and it comes in very handy. I'd never hunt with a 100KT nuclear missle or a SAM.

[mdgator05]

Common sense people. Common sense. Name one person who owns a nuclear bomb? Or a shoulder-fired SAM? I hunt with my AR and it comes in very handy. I'd never hunt with a 100KT nuclear missle or a SAM.

So we are only supposed to have arms for hunting? I thought it was about stopping the government from being tyrannical. What better way than a nuclear weapon? And no individual owns a nuclear weapon because of arms control.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

While I'm for open gun laws and fewer regulations, were that the actual intent of the 2nd amendment it's long past its usefulness. A man and his guns isn't much to a drone.

[gatordavisl]

I find it amusing how libs think it's always the conservatives and the Constitutionalists who should make concessions and "accept" this Marxist BS from Obama and his progressive ilk.

BILL has a right to fear what's going on, considering Obama and his cronies in congress have so far demonstrated they care nothing for our Constitution or, for that matter, lying through their teeth about issues. Obama himself said he wasn't going to try an take away our guns, but here we are, with him trying to start the mahcine to do so.

The thing that Bill, I, and most all other Constitutionalists fear, is that we know Obama and his cronies wouldn't stop with SA's. Way back in the late '90's I think, Obama himself was quoted that he doesn;t believe people should be able to own guns.

What's amazing is how you libs seem to care nothing for your Constitution and only care for your party.

I've been there, I know how you guys think, so open your minds and drop the obsessive Republican-hate just for once and try to be people instead of sheeple. This post is littered with irony.

[ArtDeco]

To the OP,
do you honestly think that someone on here can claim to quote somebody important and that in turn affects our opinion on something gravely important? Or is that how you make your decisions, based on Michael Moore and Jon Stewart quotes?
No, cerebral people who value freedom don't make decisions based on internet "quotes". Whenever a poster on here claims to quote something I've never assessed myself for accuracy, I just assume it's inaccurate or BS. I didn't even click on your link either, why should I? It does not affect my belief one bit. My beliefs are shaped by something much firmer than your rehearsed half-truths or prattle. That would be 2 documents, one that's over 200 years old and one that is over 2000 years old. But I bet a guy like you would claim that "Jesus didn't REALLY say that" either....

[RealGatorFan]

While I'm for open gun laws and fewer regulations, were that the actual intent of the 2nd amendment it's long past its usefulness. A man and his guns isn't much to a drone.

The drone has to find me and there are ways to down a drone:-)

[ChartsandGrafs]

While I'm for open gun laws and fewer regulations, were that the actual intent of the 2nd amendment it's long past its usefulness. A man and his guns isn't much to a drone.

That's great, but a drone can't occupy a piece of territory and administer governance. You have to send in ground-level troops for that, and they are very vulnerable to small arms fire, improvised explosive devices, mortars, and infiltration.

[dangolegators]

The gun nuts are just going to have to get used a few tighter controls on gun ownership. That's what's going to happen sooner or later.

[g8orbill]

sure hope you are wrong danglo

[ChartsandGrafs]

The gun nuts are just going to have to get used a few tighter controls on gun ownership. That's what's going to happen sooner or later.

The real question is, why aren't you gun grabbers interested in controlling government guns, which kill far more people? Our government is murdering people all over the world, yet you're not concerned about any of that.

How come?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Yeah thank god there are no tanks.

[bluelang]

amidoinitright?!

http://www.cbswords.com/images/ano-alum.jpg

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yeah thank god there are no tanks.

Yeah, and thank God tanks are indestructible. Oh wait...

http://eaglesofpakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/American-tank-wrecked1.jpg

This is a tank. This is a tank on IEDs. Any questions?

[Itssaul]

Yeah, and thank God tanks are indestructible. Oh wait...

This is a tank. This is a tank on IEDs. Any questions?

How many people would die taking down one tank?

[ChartsandGrafs]

How many people would die taking down one tank?

I don't know. Maybe zero. Maybe five. Maybe a hundred. What difference does it make?

The point is, a potentially tyrannical U.S. government and its lawless minions couldn't and wouldn't be invulnerable. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

[Itssaul]

I don't know. Maybe zero. Maybe five. Maybe a hundred. What difference does it make?

The point is, a potentially tyrannical U.S. government and its lawless minions couldn't and wouldn't be invulnerable. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

You said "any questions?" and I had one, that is all. Maybe worth finding out how destructive a tank can be

[dangolegators]

The real question is, why aren't you gun grabbers interested in controlling government guns, which kill far more people? Our government is murdering people all over the world, yet you're not concerned about any of that.

How come?

I don't think US government guns kill 'far more' people than guns owned by private citizens. In 2009, there were around 30,000 firearm deaths in the US. I don't think the combined totals of gun deaths by the US military and US police forces come close to 30k for most years. Perhaps during the peak of the Iraq war it did, but certainly not most years. Can you provide some data that shows US government guns kill far more people than guns owned by private US citizens?

That said, I'm all for a withdrawal from Afghanistan asap. As for US police, I'm not in favor of taking their guns away and having them walk around with nothing but billy sticks for protection.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I don't think US government guns kill 'far more' people than guns owned by private citizens. In 2009, there were around 30,000 firearm deaths in the US. I don't think the combined totals of gun deaths by the US military and US police forces come close to 30k for most years. Perhaps during the peak of the Iraq war it did, but certainly not most years. Can you provide some data that shows US government guns kill far more people than guns owned by private US citizens?

That said, I'm all for a withdrawal from Afghanistan asap. As for US police, I'm not in favor of taking their guns away and having them walk around with nothing but billy sticks for protection.

I don't know. How many people did we kill in Vietnam? How about Iraq, including those criminal sanctions? How about Afghanistan? These were all carried out with U.S. government guns. What do you think the death tolls add up to?

Also, why should the police possess weaponry that the American people shouldn't possess? The police aren't even legally obligated to protect the American people, so why should the American people be disarmed to such an extent that they can't even protect themselves?

What's to prevent the U.S. government from openly becoming tyrannical as so many other governments have?

[The_Graygator]

This post is littered with irony.


Irony, and truth.

That was mostly the point of the post. Unfortunately, it's meaning will be totally lost on almost every lib here who reads it.

[The_Graygator]

The gun nuts are just going to have to get used a few tighter controls on gun ownership. That's what's going to happen sooner or later.


So you think a responsible, law-abiding gun owner is a 'nut'?

I haven't noticed any of them going into theaters or schools and massacring people... only the real nuts, who, btw, are almost always liberals or have heavy-leaning liberal views.

[ChartsandGrafs]

We're told that the American people can't be trusted to own "assault" rifles. Only corrupt, scandalous, warmongering government can have those. Imagine that. The American people can't be trusted to possess assault rifles, but they can be trusted to "vote" for people to use "assault" rifles on their behalf. When we ask them what will prevent the U.S. government from ever descending into mass, open tyranny after the people are disarmed, all we get is the sound of crickets.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

This is a tank. This is a tank on IEDs. Any questions?

IEDs are guns now.

[ChartsandGrafs]

IEDs are guns now.

Break out the straw men while you are at it.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Again, you're making no sense. The point, simply, was that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment being to protect against the government is outdated. Now if you want to amend the constitution to include possession of IEDs, then maybe your post would be in any way on-topic.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Again, you're making no sense. The point, simply, was that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment being to protect against the government is outdated. Now if you want to amend the constitution to include possession of IEDs, then maybe your post would be in any way on-topic.

Having trouble keeping up with the discussion I see.

I'm making plenty of sense. You failed to support the point you think you made. You basically said that the Second Amendment is outdated and no longer useful, since the government has drones. I responded by saying that a government can't occupy, govern, and oppress the people using only drones, that they would have to send in ground-level troops at some point. You then claimed that tanks could do the job. I pointed out that that won't work either, since tanks are very vulnerable to explosives. Now you're trying to change the subject by tossing out straw men.

Would you like to start over and try to support your claim?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Having trouble keeping up with the discussion I see.

I'm not the one who brought an IED to a gun fight.

You failed to support the point you think you made. You basically said that the Second Amendment is outdated and no longer useful, since the government has drones.

Actually, I didn't say that. I asked it. My point was pretty clear: if that's the intent, then guns are not particularly up to date. IEDs had squat to do with that because IEDs aren't specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

So next time you derail a thread at least have the good sense to not accuse others of not keeping up. Thanks in advance.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm not the one who brought an IED to a gun fight.

Says the guy who started it all by bringing drones to a gun fight.

If you wanted to keep the focus entirely on guns, why did you change the subject to drones?

Actually, I didn't say that. I asked it. My point was pretty clear: if that's the intent, then guns are not particularly up to date. IEDs had squat to do with that because IEDs aren't specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

Guns aren't particularly up to date based on what, exactly? Is there some reason you can't say what you mean?

Just make a point already and stick to it.

So next time you derail a thread at least have the good sense to not accuse others of not keeping up. Thanks in advance.

It's pretty clear that you're not keeping up, though. You complained about me bringing up IEDs right after you brought up drones and tanks. You've confused yourself.

Go back to the beginning and state your argument. Don't be shy.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Says the guy who started it all by bringing drones to a gun fight.

If you wanted to keep the focus entirely on guns, why did you change the subject to drones?

If you really can't follow along I can't help you, it's very simple.

Me: If the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to empower the people against government, are guns even effective at this point against drones, etc.?

You: Yes, because IEDs.

Me: Oh my god there's no way this guy is not a high school sophomore.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Put another way, the drones are important to the argument because the government has them. Guns are important to the argument because I'm asking whether they'd be effective against the drones.

IEDs are entirely irrelevant to the question posed.

Surely you're following now. I'm trying to convince myself that you can follow this.

[Itssaul]

I think the real problem is who brought tanks to the equation :P

JK.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Tanks, drones, armed monkeys, whatever. The debate is about guns, and to those who state the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us against the government. Obviously, guns against guns are one thing, and until the dawn of the 20th century I think that holds up.

Now, I think the question is: if this is the intent, should we be allowed to arm ourselves indiscriminately? If so, where does that end?

[ChartsandGrafs]

If you really can't follow along I can't help you, it's very simple.

Me: If the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to empower the people against government, are guns even effective at this point against drones, etc.?

You: Yes, because IEDs.

Me: Oh my god there's no way this guy is not a high school sophomore.

LOL, I love the way you dishonestly cut out the middle portion of that exchange.

Better to be a sophomore than a liar.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

No, that's a pretty spot on summary. I really want to believe you can comprehend the things you're participating in, though ...

[ChartsandGrafs]

Put another way, the drones are important to the argument because the government has them. Guns are important to the argument because I'm asking whether they'd be effective against the drones.

IEDs are entirely irrelevant to the question posed.

Surely you're following now. I'm trying to convince myself that you can follow this.

Guns don't have to be effective against drones, because the government can't, again, occupy, govern, and tyrannize the people through the use of drones only. At some point, the government has to put boots on the ground.

That's why guns are still important.

Of course, you've got no response other than to deflect.

[ChartsandGrafs]

No, that's a pretty spot on summary. I really want to believe you can comprehend the things you're participating in, though ...

Hey, man, whatever you need to convince yourself that you haven't been taken to the woodshed.

LULZ.

[g8orbill]

It is ree dik uh luss how libs want to take guns yet have no problem with abortion and yet are willing to give up more freedoms over an exception( and as tragic as the Newton incident is- it is the exception)

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Hey, man, whatever you need to convince yourself that you haven't been taken to the woodshed.

LULZ.

Guns (the people) versus advanced weaponry (the government).

The people having IEDs is not part of the discussion. I'm sorry you can't follow that.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Tanks, drones, armed monkeys, whatever. The debate is about guns, and to those who state the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us against the government. Obviously, guns against guns are one thing, and until the dawn of the 20th century I think that holds up.

Now, I think the question is: if this is the intent, should we be allowed to arm ourselves indiscriminately? If so, where does that end?

No, I think the questions are, why should we ever trust that our government won't become tyrannical and why should we allow a government that has the potential to become tyrannical to determine what weapons we can possess?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Guns (the people) versus advanced weaponry (the government).

The people having IEDs is not part of the discussion. I'm sorry you can't follow that.

Of course IEDs are part of the discussion. After all, you brought up drones and tanks. If you bring drones and tanks into the discussion, it only makes sense to bring in IEDs, since under a scenario of government tyranny employed through the use of armored vehicles, the people will resort to the use of IEDs, just as we've seen in Afghanistan. For some reason, you can't come up with a response to this.

LOL, it's fun to watch you scramble and change direction.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Of course IEDs are part of the discussion. After all, you brought up drones and tanks.

Please follow.

The 2nd Amendment impacts guns and people. Drones and tanks are what the guns are up against according to the Constitution, not IEDs.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Please follow.

The 2nd Amendment impacts guns and people. Drones and tanks are what the guns are up against according to the Constitution, not IEDs.

What's to follow? You're not making anything resembling a point and whatever it is is irrelevant. The people will not attempt to neutralize drones and tanks with just guns, they will do so with anything at their disposal, and rightfully so. Besides, the Constitution won't even matter at that point.

Try again. Start by making a coherent argument. Babbling about drones, tanks, and the Second Amendment isn't an argument.

[wargunfan]

You do know that the best way to placate a populace is to take away their ability to fight back? It takes the President today 3 hours to activate Martial Law and another 3 hours for the NG to do door-to-door searches. I'm not saying Obama would do that but we are paving the way for a future President to do just that. Once you have disarmed the opposition, nothing stands in your way to do whatever you want.

And you to go back to school bud. Just because Jefferson didn't say it doesn't mean no one else did. There are several other Founders who mandated it and wrote about it but somehow people identify with Jefferson as the architect.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

Again, another from Richard Lee:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States (He did say this)

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Some other quotes related to the Constitution:

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman

It's all over the times of that period that to prevent tyranny from taking root is through arming of the populace. You want to subvert everyone - take away their ability to fight back. Nothing else is easier to subvert than taking away a people's arms. There's no other way to fight back; we've seen this even on social networks where many supposed events die out. All it takes is the President to order the internet to be shut down and goodbye cause. How would a populace fight back if their vote someday didn't matter?

But an armed citizen can't be shutdown and all it takes is the people to gather as one army to take back the country if it ever came to that.

Here here sir! Thank you for your clarity. Thank God that most of us are not willing to become serfs of the government.

[wargunfan]

I don't think US government guns kill 'far more' people than guns owned by private citizens. In 2009, there were around 30,000 firearm deaths in the US. I don't think the combined totals of gun deaths by the US military and US police forces come close to 30k for most years. Perhaps during the peak of the Iraq war it did, but certainly not most years. Can you provide some data that shows US government guns kill far more people than guns owned by private US citizens?

That said, I'm all for a withdrawal from Afghanistan asap. As for US police, I'm not in favor of taking their guns away and having them walk around with nothing but billy sticks for protection.

I take it that you would not want the people left defenseless either. Would it be alright for citizens to have the means to defend themselves when the police cannot?

[Itssaul]

What's to follow? You're not making anything resembling a point and whatever it is is irrelevant. The people will not attempt to neutralize drones and tanks with just guns, they will do so with anything at their disposal, and rightfully so. Besides, the Constitution won't even matter at that point.

Try again. Start by making a coherent argument. Babbling about drones, tanks, and the Second Amendment isn't an argument.

Charts I think he's strictly talking Gun control, not weapon control.

If you believe we should be able to legally own everything possible to stop a tyrannical government then that's a whole 'nuther argument.

[Dreamliner]

The OP probably reveres the original Tea Party - the violent one.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Charts I think he's strictly talking Gun control, not weapon control.

Well, he did reference drones and tanks before anyone else did, so I'm not convinced he's interested in limiting the discussion to gun control. After all, if the government implements the use of drones and tanks against the people, then they've obviously become openly tyrannical and legal gun control would no longer apply. Other than that, his responses have been cryptic and non-committal so far.

[wargunfan]

Well, he did reference drones and tanks before anyone else did, so I'm not convinced he's interested in limiting the discussion to gun control. After all, if the government implements the use of drones and tanks against the people, then they've obviously become openly tyrannical and legal gun control would no longer apply. Other than that, his responses have been cryptic and non-committal so far.

I think OBOB is missing the point of an escalating insurrection against the government. If the feds come for the guns millions are going to refuse to surrender them. If the feds move against millions of Americans tens of millions will be radicalized and move against the feds. Military loyalties will be split and some or most of the military will refuse to follow orders. In that scenario guns will turn into weapons very fast. The insurrection will soon have most of the same weapons and troops as the feds. The Second Amendment is the tripwire for all of the above.
IEDs will make roads very unfriendly to tanks and armored vehicles. The people will take the country back and the Second Amendment will never again be questioned.

[Itssaul]

Well, he did reference drones and tanks before anyone else did, so I'm not convinced he's interested in limiting the discussion to gun control. After all, if the government implements the use of drones and tanks against the people, then they've obviously become openly tyrannical and legal gun control would no longer apply. Other than that, his responses have been cryptic and non-committal so far.

He's referring to guns being useless to government technology, and that to be able to defend us against those we would have to go beyond guns. Therefore leaving the realm of the 2nd amendment

[ChartsandGrafs]

He's referring to guns being useless to government technology, and that to be able to defend us against those we would have to go beyond guns. Therefore leaving the realm of the 2nd amendment

But that argument simply isn't true. Again, the government CAN NOT occupy and administer governance in towns, cities, or rural areas around the United States without putting boots on the ground. They're not going to be able to do that from a drone or tank. They can bomb an area to hell, sure, but at some point, they're going to have to enter the area and secure it with either police, FEMA agents, National Guard, or regular Army troops. This means they will be vulnerable to gun fire from rebel forces.

The government's technological superiority only goes so far, and it's certainly not a proper justification for attempting to weaken the Second Amendment or disarm the American people.

[Itssaul]

But that argument simply isn't true. Again, the government CAN NOT occupy and administer governance in towns, cities, or rural areas around the United States without putting boots on the ground. They're not going to be able to do that from a drone or tank. They can bomb an area to hell, sure, but at some point, they're going to have to enter the area and secure it with either police, FEMA agents, National Guard, or regular Army troops. This means they will be vulnerable to gun fire from rebel forces.

The government's technological superiority only goes so far, and it's certainly not a proper justification for attempting to weaken the Second Amendment or disarm the American people.

I'm pretty sure a decimated population would have no chance against a trained military even with better guns. Couple of bomb runs, some air strikes n such would pretty much erase any semblance of a population we could ever have. At that point The numbers are even, and even with the best guns out there I doubt we could do anything

[Minister_of_Information]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8093/8380201128_c3436f6137.jpg

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm pretty sure a decimated population would have no chance against a trained military even with better guns. Couple of bomb runs, some air strikes n such would pretty much erase any semblance of a population we could ever have. At that point The numbers are even, and even with the best guns out there I doubt we could do anything

If this is true, why was the U.S. military impotent in pacifying Afghanistan? U.S. forces were never able to fully secure most of Afghanistan, despite 11 years of trying. And this was against a tiny, extremely poor population.

Recent history doesn't support you theory very well.

[Minister_of_Information]

The gun nuts are just going to have to get used a few tighter controls on gun ownership. That's what's going to happen sooner or later.

Call us the liberty nuts.

[Minister_of_Information]

Charts I think he's strictly talking Gun control, not weapon control.

If you believe we should be able to legally own everything possible to stop a tyrannical government then that's a whole 'nuther argument.

Insurrection isn't legal either. Is that supposed to matter?

[Minister_of_Information]

Charts, you're making some excellent points on this thread. Keep it up. Quite clearly during an insurrection, questions about the legality of improvised weaponry will be moot.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Charts, you're making some excellent points on this thread. Keep it up. Quite clearly during an insurrection, questions about the legality of improvised weaponry will be moot.

I'd rather skip the whole insurrection angle of the discussion and focus on the argument from some on the other side who seem to believe that the Second Amendment has been rendered obsolete by technology. It's almost like these people see the forces of government as a real-life version of Skynet, where it's man versus unstoppable machine. Didn't they learn anything from the thousands of lifeless, mangled bodies shipped back from Afghanistan?

People watch too much TV.

[northgagator]

Again, you're making no sense. The point, simply, was that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment being to protect against the government is outdated. Now if you want to amend the constitution to include possession of IEDs, then maybe your post would be in any way on-topic.

Being outdated?

The truth is that our civilization as we know it is at the least a heart best away from calamities beyond your imagination. We have many things to fear but here are two. A tyrannical government and no government.

It can be said that the US has never experienced a real situation of a tyrannical gov't. However that is not quite true.

In the 1830's Andrew Jackson betrayed a group of law abiding citizens by declaring the ownership of their property nulls and void, rounding them up, and putting them onto "The Trail of Tears". These citizens paid taxes, fought in our wars, and were assimilating into our culture.

In the 1860's many Americans experience found tyranny to be a double edged sword. Many law abiding citizens in the Southern States had their local and state governments break from the USA to fight a war to keep slavery alive. Many citizens in the Northern States experienced the abusive over reaches of Abraham Lincoln to keep the Southern States in the fold.

From the 1860's to 1965 many Americans lived in fear because they were not white. The US, States, and local governments turned a blinded eye to the discrimination, harassment, and murdering of African Americans. The corruption was so bad that many elected leaders at all levels of government wore the white hoods and robes of the KKK.

In 1942 hysteria swept the land and many US law abiding citizens were pulled from their homes and placed in concentration camps. These people were guilty of either being foreign born or being the children of foreign born parents (German and Japanese).

In the the 1960's the US gov't in its over reactive anti Communist zeal manipulated a non event in the Gulf of Token into the Vietnam war.

The above instances are clear examples of gov't running amuck. In most cases the US citizens in the above instances would of been justified to bear arms against this country.

From another perspective...
Modern civilization especially in the US is too spoiled.

First of all do you think the concepts of weather, geological events, biological events, (natural disasters) and the evilness of man is outdated?

In the last two decades the US homeland experienced two natural disasters. I am referring to Katrina and Sandy. In these disasters some Americans experience a life without government protection. There wad not sufficient police, fire, rescue forces. Private individuals were are the mercy of looters. Who were taking full advantage of a lack of gov't.

In the above two examples American citizens had the need to be armed to protect their life's, liberty, and poessions.

Even in this so call modern civilization there is still the need for Americans to be armed.

[ChartsandGrafs]

In the last two decades the US homeland experienced two natural disasters. I am referring to Katrina and Sandy. In these disasters some Americans experience a life without government protection. There wad not sufficient police, fire, rescue forces. Private individuals were are the mercy of looters. Who were taking full advantage of a lack of gov't.

Not to go off on a tangent here, but I wouldn't necessarily blame this on a lack of government. In fact, the opposite is true. If people were at the mercy of looters, it's only because they were raised and brainwashed to believe that government would protect them in such an event. Many of them weren't armed and hadn't organized with and planned strategies with their neighbors to deal with looters in the aftermath of a natural disaster, because they thought the government would take care of it.

In the absence of government, these people wouldn't have had a false sense of security and would have likely been better prepared.

[Minister_of_Information]

It's funny that this has come up, as last night another civilian use for AR-15's occurred to me: in times of riot, chaos or insurrection, a citizen carrying an AR-15 is effectively a moving zone of law and order. They are peacemakers, even without firing a shot.

[northgagator]

Many of them weren't armed and hadn't organized with and planned strategies with their neighbors to deal with looters in the aftermath of a natural disaster, because they thought the government would take care of it.
.
You unintentional proved my point.

Your reply (a good one) describes a militia and the need for one.
As we all know militias are part of our 2nd amendment rights.

[rivergator]

Call us the liberty nuts.


how exactly have your guns produced your liberty?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

It's funny that this has come up, as last night another civilian use for AR-15's occurred to me: in times of riot, chaos or insurrection, a citizen carrying an AR-15 is effectively a moving zone of law and order. They are peacemakers, even without firing a shot.

I would never argue there's no use for them and I think laws restricting the right to own guns are horrendous.

My argument was specific to the purported purpose, and whether that needs some retrofitting.

[Itssaul]

If this is true, why was the U.S. military impotent in pacifying Afghanistan? U.S. forces were never able to fully secure most of Afghanistan, despite 11 years of trying. And this was against a tiny, extremely poor population.

Recent history doesn't support you theory very well.

Well that's all strategy. We didn't go in trying to kill everyone and take it over as our own.

A full on assault by the government on its own people meant to reduce our numbers to the tens of thousands by use of all resources would be unstoppable.

And the only way to stop them is by civilians having jet fighters, and SAM missiles them selves. And even then it would still be a bloodbath.

I'm not close to ready to give civilians such powerful weaponry.

[Lawdog88]

It's funny that this has come up, as last night another civilian use for AR-15's occurred to me: in times of riot, chaos or insurrection, a citizen carrying an AR-15 is effectively a moving zone of law and order. They are peacemakers, even without firing a shot.


Clearly.

And it is a myth that we all tacitly subscribe to that, in everyday life, the police and the government are available to protect the individual in times of personal danger and crisis . . . when we know deep inside that the first level of personal and familial defense starts - and often ends - with us.

If we abandon that responsibility and instead depend on others for help, we can't complain about any bad results.

The Founders did not view individual responsibility that way, in that time; every man was assumed to insure his own integrity and safety. Nothing has really changed since then to alter that quite correct view.

[helix139]

A full on assault by the government on its own people meant to reduce our numbers to the tens of thousands by use of all resources would be unstoppable.

If the government wanted to wipe everyone out, then you're correct, there is not much we could do to stop it. Tyrannical governments don't attempt such drastic reductions in the numbers of their subjects. They want to control them, not annihilate them. You'd probably see significant portions of the population wiped out, but down to the tens of thousands simply would not happen for many reasons that should be obvious.

[Lawdog88]

I think OBOB is missing the point of an escalating insurrection against the government. If the feds come for the guns millions are going to refuse to surrender them. If the feds move against millions of Americans tens of millions will be radicalized and move against the feds. Military loyalties will be split and some or most of the military will refuse to follow orders. In that scenario guns will turn into weapons very fast. The insurrection will soon have most of the same weapons and troops as the feds. The Second Amendment is the tripwire for all of the above.

IEDs will make roads very unfriendly to tanks and armored vehicles. The people will take the country back and the Second Amendment will never again be questioned.


Imagine a confiscation / ban / or mandatory registration / inspection of all existing weapons, and enabling legislation permitting the government to search without warrant, or with some sort of rubber-stamped warrant issued by some administrative magistrate.

Would we not be back in the King George era, all over again ? I mean, that was what kicked off the Revolution in large part, i.e., the King's unwarranted searches of private residences at will, for weapons and other evidence of sedition.

And suppose (since we are hypothecating) a citizen said no, I have no weapons, and the government searches anyway ? How long would that take to result in armed resistance ?

Not long IMO, and it would not be just from the far-right fringe, gun hoarding, doomsday crowd, either.

[Itssaul]

Imagine a confiscation / ban / or mandatory registration / inspection of all existing weapons, and enabling legislation permitting the government to search without warrant, or with some sort of rubber-stamped warrant issued by some administrative magistrate.

Would we not be back in the King George era, all over again ? I mean, that was what kicked off the Revolution in large part, i.e., the King's unwarranted searches of private residences at will, for weapons and other evidence of sedition.

And suppose (since we are hypothecating) a citizen said no, I have no weapons, and the government searches anyway ? How long would that take to result in armed resistance ?

Not long IMO, and it would not be just from the far-right fringe, gun hoarding, doomsday crowd, either.

I don't think anyone but the far left is proposing such extreme measures. Maybe idk. I don't tend to listen much to fox or msnbc

[neisgator]

If you'd open your mind a little more Bill, you'd fear alot less.

Wow.

Signed,

Next Despot

[Minister_of_Information]

how exactly have your guns produced your liberty?

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." -- A Real, Accurate Quote From Thomas Jefferson

[Minister_of_Information]

Well that's all strategy. We didn't go in trying to kill everyone and take it over as our own.

A full on assault by the government on its own people meant to reduce our numbers to the tens of thousands by use of all resources would be unstoppable.

And the only way to stop them is by civilians having jet fighters, and SAM missiles them selves. And even then it would still be a bloodbath.

I'm not close to ready to give civilians such powerful weaponry.

A government that wipes out its populace has just consigned itself to oblivion. Government depends upon the people as mistletoe depends upon an oak tree. How can it survive without anyone to tax? In any case the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone anything except the acknowledgement that the people have the right to be able to act individually and in concert in their own defense.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Some actual quote our founding fathers really said;

James Madison said: ''Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.''

Samuel Adams said: ''The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.''

Thomas Jefferson: ''No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ''

These should answer the questions river, Row and some of the other gun control folks says

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Others;

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The site

GunCite (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html)

[dangolegators]

Some actual quote our founding fathers really said;



These should answer the questions river, Row and some of the other gun control folks says

These quotes are fine. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with them, since I haven't seen anyone here advocate the outlawing of all arms. We are advocating regulation, as does the 2nd Amendment where it says 'A well regulated militia...'.

[Minister_of_Information]

These quotes are fine. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with them, since I haven't seen anyone here advocate the outlawing of all arms. We are advocating regulation, as does the 2nd Amendment where it says 'A well regulated militia...'.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just bear in mind that "well regulated" also refers to disciplined and drilled as a body, so regulation was also intended to produce a highly effective militia rather than simply to regulate its arms.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

These quotes are fine. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with them, since I haven't seen anyone here advocate the outlawing of all arms. We are advocating regulation, as does the 2nd Amendment where it says 'A well regulated militia...'.

And we have regulated guns. A lot.

What additional regulations do you support?

[dangolegators]

And we have regulated guns. A lot.

What additional regulations do you support?

Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. A national gun registry. Require gun owners to carry gun insurance.

[Minister_of_Information]

Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. A national gun registry. Require gun owners to carry gun insurance.

Negative. I think this should be left up to the states.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

Define both please. And then tell us what tragedies such a ban would have prevented had those kinds of guns been prohibited.

A national gun registry.

To what end? Would this prevent crime? And history has not been kind to gun registrations. It most often leads directly to confiscation, in this country and in others.

Require gun owners to carry gun insurance.

To what end? Are owners of guns not liable for their use today?

[dangolegators]

Negative. I think this should be left up to the states.

Well that's just where we disagree. Guns cross state lines. And being specifically mentioned in the Constitution, regulation of arms is a federal issue.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

An interesting chart

http://www.guncite.com/chart6.JPG

[dangolegators]

Define both please. And then tell us what tragedies such a ban would have prevented had those kinds of guns been prohibited.


You can google it.


To what end? Would this prevent crime? And history has not been kind to gun registrations. It most often leads directly to confiscation, in this country and in others.


Given that any time a crime is committed with a gun, one of the first things the authorities try to do is to track where the gun came from, yes I think it would help prevent crime by making investigations more effective. Kind of like how it can make it a little easier to catch the bad guy if you have a license plate number.

To what end? Are owners of guns not liable for their use today?


To the same end drivers are required to get liability insurance. Do you want to repeal the requirement for auto liability insurance? If so, why?

[Minister_of_Information]

Well that's just where we disagree. Guns cross state lines. And being specifically mentioned in the Constitution, regulation of arms is a federal issue.

Yes but the organization of the militia is left to the states. I'm not saying that there is no Federal jurisdiction, I'm saying this is a matter best left to the states for a number of reasons. If Connecticut wants to ban assault weapons, they can make it a life felony to bring one into the state. If they are serious about enforcing it I bet it would severely limit the transport of weapons into the state. Of course, no law can guarantee full compliance.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

You can google it.


And I find 15 different definitions. I am interested in yours

Given that any time a crime is committed with a gun, one of the first things the authorities try to do is to track where the gun came from, yes I think it would help prevent crime by making investigations more effective. Kind of like how it can make it a little easier to catch the bad guy if you have a license plate number.

Preventing crime and solving crime are two different things.


To the same end drivers are required to get liability insurance. Do you want to repeal the requirement for auto liability insurance? If so, why?

In many states, auto insurance requirements have been lowered to the point of being almost non-existent. Why do you think auto insurers sell insurance for accidents where the other party has no insurance?

[Lawdog88]

I'm not disagreeing with you, just bear in mind that "well regulated" also refers to disciplined and drilled as a body, so regulation was also intended to produce a highly effective militia rather than simply to regulate its arms.


This was the way the author of Heller, Justice Scalia, presented the opening issue:

The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

The Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).³ “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.⁴

1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmenti) ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv) ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentix) uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.⁵

[Lawdog88]

There's more:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) , like the First and Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv) s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?92+542), 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”¹⁶

* * * * *

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmenti) ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmenti) to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.

* * * * *
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

[Minister_of_Information]

I agree, but think that "well regulated" also confers a not unlimited degree of what we understand to be modern regulatory oversight of armaments.

[dangolegators]

Preventing crime and solving crime are two different things.


Is that so? So you think a higher likelihood of catching bad guys does nothing to lower crime rates? I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one.

In many states, auto insurance requirements have been lowered to the point of being almost non-existent. Why do you think auto insurers sell insurance for accidents where the other party has no insurance?

Which states would these be? Most states require a minimum liability coverage somewhere between 20k and 30k. The reason auto insurers sell uninsured driver insurance is because so many people break the law and drive with no insurance.

[Lawdog88]

We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre- Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes. Other States did not include rights to bear arms in their pre-1789 constitutions—although in Virginia a Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) analogue was proposed (unsuccessfully) by Thomas Jefferson. (It read: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”¹⁸ 1 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 344 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)).

* * * *

“The right to bear arms has always been the distinctive privilege of freemen. Aside from any necessity of self-protection to the person, it represents among all nations power coupled with the exercise of a certain jurisdiction. … t was not necessary that the right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution, for it had always existed.” J. Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation in the United States 241–242 (1891).

* * * * *
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. [I]It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

* * * * *
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) extinct.And, hey, there's plenty more, but you can read it yourself at the Cornell Law website.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[Lawdog88]

Well, that certainly put everybody to sleep.

:whoa::yes::laugh:

[Minister_of_Information]

Well, that certainly put everybody to sleep.

:whoa::yes::laugh:

We're not asleep, just tacitly persuaded.

[Row6]

We're not asleep, just tacitly persuaded.

Speak for yourself. I'm too tired to wade in tonight.

[Minister_of_Information]

Speak for yourself. I'm too tired to wade in tonight.

Wade in? I thought you walked on water.

[ChartsandGrafs]

http://inkslingerblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/602937_192858847524217_1235130692_n.jpg

[ChartsandGrafs]

LOL, classic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q10Jz2qIog8

[Row6]

And, hey, there's plenty more, but you can read it yourself at the Cornell Law website.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Scalia:

1 Advances without logical explanation the idea that the fact that a perceived necessity has become archaic doesn't effect rights justified by it.

2 Does not fill in any inferred blanks in the bolded part of that passage. How does he justify limiting the types of arms citizens may possess except to say they are "highly unusual", as if that is enough cause. IOW, if he agrees a line can be drawn how does he arrive at where, and how does he think he has enough cause to overturn the will of an elected body to overrule them on where that line is?

Not part of Scalia's argument, but the constitution grants Congress the power - among other things - to "discipline" the militia, which means "well regulated" is not a passive concept left to citizens.

[Row6]

Wade in? I thought you walked on water.

Good one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frd53vbCHLg

[ChartsandGrafs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nh1rZIzPm0&feature=player_embedded

[Lawdog88]

Scalia:

1 Advances without logical explanation the idea that the fact that a perceived necessity has become archaic doesn't effect rights justified by it. [And concomitantly, fails to fully discuss why basic human rights do not become antiquated just because technology advances.]

2 Does not fill in any inferred blanks in the bolded part of that passage. How does he justify limiting the types of arms citizens may possess except to say they are "highly unusual", as if that is enough cause. IOW, if he agrees a line can be drawn how does he arrive at where, and how does he think he has enough cause to overturn the will of an elected body to overrule them on where that line is? [He saved the line drawing for the next time.]

Not part of Scalia's argument, but the constitution grants Congress the power - among other things - to "discipline" the militia, which means "well regulated" is not a passive concept left to citizens. [Which has nothing to do with the basic right he explicates, i.e., the personal right to possess firearms for self protection.]


Great stuff.

Maybe you will be designated to write the dissenting opinion on the next one.

[Lawdog88]

Hey, where de white . . . er, ah, the Obiden confiscatory proposals that are due out today ?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Is that so? So you think a higher likelihood of catching bad guys does nothing to lower crime rates? I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one.

Not to the extent of violating a fundamental right depicted in the constitution.

Which states would these be? Most states require a minimum liability coverage somewhere between 20k and 30k. The reason auto insurers sell uninsured driver insurance is because so many people break the law and drive with no insurance.

Ironic that you can write this but see no problem with ever increasing gun control.

[helix139]

Scalia:

1 Advances without logical explanation the idea that the fact that a perceived necessity has become archaic doesn't effect rights justified by it.

He doesn't have to justify it. The necessity of the militia is justified by the text of the amendment. Unless the amendment is repealed, the necessity of a militia is a given no matter who perceives it as archaic or not.

2 Does not fill in any inferred blanks in the bolded part of that passage. How does he justify limiting the types of arms citizens may possess except to say they are "highly unusual", as if that is enough cause. IOW, if he agrees a line can be drawn how does he arrive at where, and how does he think he has enough cause to overturn the will of an elected body to overrule them on where that line is?

NFA and other restrictions are outside the scope of the case and opinion. Again, no justification required. The question for Heller was not whether or not a line can be drawn but whether that line can include handguns.

Not part of Scalia's argument, but the constitution grants Congress the power - among other things - to "discipline" the militia, which means "well regulated" is not a passive concept left to citizens.

Perhaps, but whether not congress takes any action regarding the militia does not preclude its existence, and that existence requires the people to be able to keep and bear arms.

[northgagator]

Not part of Scalia's argument, but the constitution grants Congress the power - among other things - to "discipline" the militia, which means "well regulated" is not a passive concept left to citizens.

Where in the US Consitution does it say that the Federal Government regulates the militia?

Also, it states the milita is necessary to the security of a free state.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

To clear up any chance of confusion, lets review the definition of a militia
The term militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[3]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.

A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
My point on this airing of the militia definition is to advise people that the militia is not necessarily the National Guard or the Military Reserves. In the most basic sense of the term it can be two or more people who answer a call to arms. As I recall there is not any requirements on who actually makes that call. In my opinion it can be a homeowner who has a home invasion going on and his neighbors respond.

I am think that maybe a big problem with the USA is that there is not enough community envolvement. A hundred years ago many American pitched in during a time of emergency for various activities (fire, crime, accident). Now we all depend on the gov''t agencies and departments to to take care of us. We are so dependent that we have a lot of apathy in our communities. This apathy has lead to a lot of people not giving a $h!t about drug dealing, prosetution, littering, vandalism. and many more problems. It is very possible that this apathy created an open door for the lawlessness we are seeing today and other irresponsible behavior.

[Row6]

Great stuff.

Maybe you will be designated to write the dissenting opinion on the next one.

If Antone "hold the broccoli" Scalia can do it, how hard can it be?