the prez's use of executive order on gun control

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

I am not the one writing in fear here.

I also do not insist on keeping a gun around just in case my mother, wife, or even my uncle goes beserk on me and that is not out of "fear" but out of trust for them and their character. Like the US government (who I would put in the "uncle" category), whose background and history I also know well, they are not perfect and may have even hurt me on occasion - and I them - but I have no evidence that effectively paranoid vigilance is required nor do I even remotely understand how not engaging in it would constitute "fear" on my part, but rather it's absence. I also factor in that - not that I have thought much at all about it - I'm am no more in position to successfully defend myself against the US military than I am to keep my wife from doing me harm if she was not who I think she is - less so. My uncle? Probably.

Meet Lon Horiuchi.

And don't worry, we'll carry that responsibility for you. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- You Know Who

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

The constitution and Bill of Rights both require that it be regulated. It is not and therefore it is an abandoned concept, i.e., archaic.

This is a lie.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

It's not a lot of things.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

Is "load of crap" a legal term? The limitation is in the constitution where the militias are trained and supplied by the Congress and their CIC is the president.

I have maintained from the beginning that 2nd amendment is not clear - either for or against gun ownership - and that multiple interpretations are possible among well intentioned readers when considering it and the treatment of militias in the Constitution. The history of the issue and of the writing of these documents includes those who agree with you, but also others who didn't. The amendment is garbled for several reasons and this is part of it. Militias where a practical matter of the day for national (and state) self defense as there was no significant standing army for reasons including relying on the Brits - who, BTW, imposed those taxes to help pay for our own defense during the French-Indian War - and saving money and principled ones having to do with fear of their power. For an easy summary of that history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Wrong. The Second Amendment cannot be used to construe the lack of a right to be armed, according to the 9th Amendment.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The 9th amendment has been and continues to be largely ignored by the federal government.

[Minister_of_Information]

I haven't read Heller, but here is a pretty thorough examination of the roots and intended meaning of the Second Amendment:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardhist.html

The second amendment to the Constitution had two objectives. The first purpose was to recognize in general terms the importance of a militia to a free state. This recognition derives from the very core of Classical Republican thought; its "constituency" among the Framers was found primarily among conservatives, particularly Virginia's landed gentry. Indeed, prior to Virginia's proposal, no federal ratifying convention had called for such recognition. The second purpose was to guarantee an individual right to own and carry arms. This right stemmed both from the English Declaration of Rights and from Enlightenment sources. Its primary supporters came from the Radical-Democratic movement, whether based among the small farmers of western Pennsylvania or the urban mechanics of Massachusetts. Only by incorporating both provisions (p.60)could the first Congress reconcile the priorities of Sam Adams with those of George Mason, and lessen the "disquietude" both of the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts minorities and those of the Virginia and New York majorities. The dual purpose of the second amendment was recognized by all early constitutional commentators;[264] the assumption that the second amendment had but a single objective is in fact an innovation born of historical ignorance.

The distinction between the second amendment's purposes enables us to avoid the pitfalls of the collective rights view, which would hold that the entire amendment was meant solely to protect a "collective right" to have a militia.[265] The militia component of the second amendment was not meant as a "right", collective or individual, except in the sense that structural provisions (e.g., requirements that money bills originate in the House, or military appropriations not exceed two years) are considered collective "rights." Indeed, the militia component was meant to invoke the exertion of governmental power over the citizen, to inspire it to require citizens to assume the burdens of militia duty. In this respect it differs radically from any other provision of the Bill of Rights. To read what was a recognition of an individual right, the right to arms, as subsumed within the militia recognition is thus not only permitting the tail to wag the dog, but to annihilate what was intended as a right.[266] As the one (p.61)provision of the Bill of Rights which encourages rather than restricts governmental action, the militia component's terms were necessarily vague and its phrasing a reminder rather than a command.[267]

The right to arms portion of the second amendment, in contrast, was meant to be a prohibition, as fully binding as those in the remainder of the Bill of Rights. Madison intended that the second amendment be read as incorporating the individual rights proposals put forward by the Pennsylvania minority and by Sam Adams and the New Hampshire convention. Judging from contemporary discussion in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, he succeeded.[268] If either clause can be accorded primacy, it is the right to arms clause; only in Virginia, at the eleventh hour of the ratification process, was a militia clause appended to a federal bill of rights proposal.

Reading the entirety of the second amendment as militia-related, based upon some contemporary references to the need for constitutional (p.62)recognition of the militia concept, confuses the purpose of one provision with the text of another. The second amendment, in short, cannot be explained simply as a last avowal of the classical ideal, as "the last act of the Renaissance."[269] Rather, it is a bridge between the decline of that ideal and the rise of the liberal democracy. Part of the second amendment looks backward to the worlds of Polybius and Machiavelli; but part looks forward, to the worlds of Jefferson and Jackson. Only a recognition of the dual nature of the second amendment will enable us to give meaning to the aspirations of Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams as well as those of George Mason.[270]

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

The 9th amendment has been and continues to be largely ignored by the federal government.

Time to start dusting that puppy off.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Time to start dusting that puppy off.

The 9th and 10th Amendment have been ignored almost entirely from the jump because the Supreme Court probably recognized right away that they would have very, very little to do if they gave full effect to the plain language therein. What is more fun, debating the nuances of entirely abstract and nontextual commerce clause jurisprudence, or telling the government the 9th or 10th amendment clearly bar their action?

[DaveFla]

People who spend all day in anonymous Internet forums defending Obama are now deemed to be mentally ill and therefore are now prohibited from owning a firearm.

Signed: The Prez

This OK with you guys? Row?

[g8tr80]

Originally Posted by Row6

No, the civilized world.

Your suggestions are noted but are not the only defensive actions we can take. They also happen to be expensive and involve some loss of freedom by the innocent and in larger numbers than the very few - and also innocent - who want to own 30 round magazines.

Yes they are defensive and yes we lose some of our freedoms (although I really don't see how) and yes welcome to the real world. If we don't want to spend the money, time and energy then I guess it boils down to a question of cost verses benefit. In your estimation, a few dead kids are the price of doing business? If the answer is yes then that's cold but......ssssshhhh..... you are probably very, very right.

Limiting the size of magazines is a measure we should probably take. You see it couldn't really hurt, feels good while we are doing it, but as plain as the nose on your face, it will not help. Then again nothing is 100% fool proof.

I'm still waiting for your definition of civilized. Nevemind. It will only get all of us in trouble.