Yet another reason to ban assault weapons

[bionicarm]

[/QUOTE]Voting is rational,but you havent answered the what if question .That is the sole purpose of the Second amendment.To prevent or to revolt against what ifs?
There's been so many interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, I don't think anyone truly knows what they meant when they wrote it. I believe it was intended to provide a 'militia' for protection against invasions of our country. Ever watch The Patriot with Mel Gibson? Based on that movie, the militia was an intergral part in our victory over Cornwallace and the British. When there were not enough 'uniformed men' available, our national leaders of the time called on the average citizen to take arms to help protect our rights and freedoms against these invaders. I don't think it was their intent to allow the citizenry to take arms against their own people, especially their government, when they disagreed with what they were doing.
Think of it this way. I disagree with a lot of laws my city and state governments have cooked up over the years. I'd like to drive down the road and hang out gambling in a casino, but I can't because gambling isn't allowed in Texas. When I lived in Dallas, I wanted to go to my local store and buy a six pack, or go to a local restaurant to buy a beer. But in certain parts of Dallas, it's 'dry'. You can't find beer or wine in the store, and you need to buy a 'membership' to drink at a bar or restaurant. So based on your interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, why can't I band together a group of people who agree with me, and storm City Hall or the State Capital and force them to change the laws so I can gamble anywhere in Texas, or by a six pack at the local store in Dallas?

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996756
There's been so many interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, I don't think anyone truly knows what they meant when they wrote it. I believe it was intended to provide a 'militia' for protection against invasions of our country.
The only interpretation that counts however is the one Issued by the Supreme Court:
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 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’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. 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 atlarge. 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.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Held:
1. The Second Amendment 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.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti federalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[veni vidi vici]

The Supreme Court breaks down the terminology so nothing is left to debate:
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 Rightsuse the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in theFirst Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and inthe Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shallnot 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 rightsthat may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of theright: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret
their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of theEnglish Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionarydefined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for hisdefence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary
(1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter
Webster) (similar).

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996588
... That's why Checks and Balances are in place. ...
The founding fathers believed an armed citizenry is a check and balance.

 

[veni vidi vici]

2. Prefatory Clause.
The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .”
a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies,
regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations” The Federalist
No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison)(“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands” Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]hemilitia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms&#8221.
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia,
stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-
regulated military forces described in the MilitiaClauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12.
b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not securityof each of the several States as the dissent below argued,see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in histreatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.”
1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in referenceto the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country&#8221. It is true that the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state” and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a “‘free country’”
or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Securityof a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see, e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15, 1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen & G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other instances
of “state” in the Constitution are typically accompanied
by modifiers making clear that the reference is tothe several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” inArticle I and Article III shows that the word “state” did not have a single meaning in the Constitution.
There are many reasons why the militia was thought tobe “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders largestanding armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander
Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men ofa nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

 

[veni vidi vici]

And so on and so on.....They agreed with what Journey just said above.
Read the decision ,it is spelled out clearly.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2996852
The founding fathers believed an armed citizenry is a check and balance.
Come on. That has nothing to do what I'm talking about. Vici is talking about starting a Revolution in the event Congress cahnges any part of the Constitution he agreed with. That WAS NOT what the founders fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to mean. Please don't tell me you think that's the case.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996883
Come on. That has nothing to do what I'm talking about. Vici is talking about starting a Revolution in the event Congress cahnges any part of the Constitution he agreed with. That WAS NOT what the founders fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to mean. Please don't tell me you think that's the case.
LOL dont go putting words in my mouth.
1st off Congress works for us and they apparently listen when votes are involved. But i am amazed you are still alive since you must have been born prior to 1787 to have known personally what the forefathers meant.
Or do you have some other form of verification for you claim?
I show some facts and evidence ...lets see yours

 

[veni vidi vici]

This may help you with your question on what are forfathers intended
Here is one of our forefathers speaking on the issue:
In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:
“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . ."
“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people."

 

[veni vidi vici]

Here are some more forefather thoughts:
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.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh,
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

 

[veni vidi vici]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2996887
LOL dont go putting words in my mouth.
1st off Congress works for us and they apparently listen when votes are involved. But i am amazed you are still alive since you must have been born prior to 1787 to have known personally what the forefathers meant.
Or do you have some other form of verification for you claim?
I show some facts and evidence ...lets see yours
Your words:
Voting is rational,but you havent answered the what if question .That is the sole purpose of the Second amendment.To prevent or to revolt against what ifs?
So what exactly did you mean by 'revolt'?

We were discussing the Federal Govt. messing around with the Constitution.
Again, I have no clue what they thought. You spew multiple quotes from various individuals from that time, but those comments were based on the weapons they had available at the time. My thought was if the weapons of today were available to the politicians of the 1700's, would they feel the same about the general public owning these types of weapons? As an NRA gun fanatic, you of course would surmise they'd have no problem with it. But that's my point. Neither you or I have a clue what they would've thought.

 

[acrylics]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2997443
Your words:
Voting is rational,but you havent answered the what if question .That is the sole purpose of the Second amendment.To prevent or to revolt against what ifs?
So what exactly did you mean by 'revolt'?

We were discussing the Federal Govt. messing around with the Constitution.
Again, I have no clue what they thought. You spew multiple quotes from various individuals from that time, but those comments were based on the weapons they had available at the time. My thought was if the weapons of today were available to the politicians of the 1700's, would they feel the same about the general public owning these types of weapons? As an NRA gun fanatic, you of course would surmise they'd have no problem with it. But that's my point. Neither you or I have a clue what they would've thought.
IMO there is no "sole purpose" but I would contend that throwing off the government was clearly one of them. Read the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that it is man's duty to throw off a government that has become destructive of our inalienable rights. Furthermore, since the means with which to do so is a required necessity, I would say that "assault weapons" certainly fall within that realm as there would be no way to combat any police force without sufficient firepower.
The Founding Fathers were not making comments based on weapons of the time, they were making comments on people, governments, and rights, and those things have not changed.
FWIW, not an NRA member, don't like them at all. Like most organizations, their sole purpose is to maintain their own existence, but JMO.
From the Declaration of Independence"
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Since the government derives it's power from the governed, the governed maintain the right to take that power away from those who would wish to abuse it, and not simply by voting them out but by force if necessary. This is the final "check & balance" in our system.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2997443
Your words:
Voting is rational,but you havent answered the what if question .That is the sole purpose of the Second amendment.To prevent or to revolt against what ifs?
So what exactly did you mean by 'revolt'?

We were discussing the Federal Govt. messing around with the Constitution.
Again, I have no clue what they thought. You spew multiple quotes from various individuals from that time, but those comments were based on the weapons they had available at the time. My thought was if the weapons of today were available to the politicians of the 1700's, would they feel the same about the general public owning these types of weapons? As an NRA gun fanatic, you of course would surmise they'd have no problem with it. But that's my point. Neither you or I have a clue what they would've thought.
"Revolt" Look up the definition.
I showed you what the founding fathers where thinking and what the Supreme Court thought,what other info do you need.
Im a American standing up for the US Constitution not a NRA fanatic.
You are the one with a problemwith the Constitution not me.
Progressive Liberals

You are the scary ones.Keep trying though you might just actually really bury this country.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2997663
"Revolt" Look up the definition.
I showed you what the founding fathers where thinking and what the Supreme Court thought,what other info do you need.
Im a American standing up for the US Constitution not a NRA fanatic.
You are the one with a problemwith the Constitution not me.
Progressive Liberals

You are the scary ones.Keep trying though you might just actually really bury this country.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.
Progressive Liberal?

That's a good one. I really don't follow either of your traditonal party lines. I look at each issue differently, and react on how it affects me. Progressive Conservatives like yourself live in a state of paranoia. You're always thinking Big Brother is out to get you, and will take away something you didn't have in the first place. You spout and defend the Constitution, but you interpret the Amendments in a way they support your argument, and insult someone who doesn't agree with your interpretation. You don't want Socialism or government control, but you'd have no problem accepting welfare if that was your final resort to eat and have a roof over your head, accept FEMA support if your home were hit by a hurricane, flood, or tornado, provide you grants to send yourself or your kids to college, or even accept Medicaid and Social Security when you get old. And no, your income tax doesn't nearly provide enough to pay for all these services if you did happen to need them. You sit there and take YOUR interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to mean it allows you the ability to overtake a corrupt government if you so choose by force, if necessary. I say that if it ever came to that, you might as well bend over and kiss your tooshy goodbye. If an organized group of individuals went to that extreme in today's time, you'd have a Civil War so hugh and so destructive, nothing would be left for the winner. Fortunately, there's not enough people with your mindset that would even consider that endeavor.
You want to be an American that protects your Constitution? GET ELECTED. VOTE FOR SOMEONE THAT AGREES WITH YOUR VIEWPOINTS. Why would you want to even consider violence as an option? What do you think is going on over in the Middle East and in Africa? Did you feel the same way when Bush was in office, or is it just because a Democrat has control right now, you think the world is gonna end, and every Amendment you care about will be changed? Would you have a problem if some religious right individual got into office and decided to bring back Prohibition? I didn't agree with a majority of Bush's policies when he was in office - anti-abortion, anti stem cell research, the Iraq Conflict, etc. But I didn't even contemplate a lynch mob to go storm the White House and hang the guy on the Front Lawn. What did I do? VOTED AGAINST HIM OR ANYONE THAT SOUNDED LIKE HIM. Unfortuantely, he blew so much smoke up people's rearend in 2004, that I got stuck with him for another four years. But the majority of Americans came to their senses, and kept a Bush clone out of there.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996883
Come on. That has nothing to do what I'm talking about. Vici is talking about starting a Revolution in the event Congress cahnges any part of the Constitution he agreed with. That WAS NOT what the founders fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to mean. Please don't tell me you think that's the case.
If congress was to pass a law changing or ignoring any part of the constitution that is exactly the situation the founders had in mind, Tyrannical government.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2997741
If congress was to pass a law changing or ignoring any part of the constitution that is exactly the situation the founders had in mind, Tyrannical government.
Congress can propose to change the Constitution but cant ignore it.Article V
Bionic try reading it and the history that lead up to it and then read some more.Apparently you have not.Find out what our forefathers where fighting against.They werent just thinking about England,they where talking about things like, tyranny,liberty,sovereignty,GOD given rights........
While writting the Constitution ,Bill of Rights,Declaration of Independence.they where also thinking about future generations and giving us the tools to remain sovereign ,in charge of our own government,not the other way around.
These views "YOU" have do not reflect what the US Constitution say, so says the US Supreme Court and the politicians in Washington that havent yet made it a sport to trample the Constitution and most of the people of the USA.
So either you are a Progressive Liberal or best case scenario just ignorant of fact.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2997741
If congress was to pass a law changing or ignoring any part of the constitution that is exactly the situation the founders had in mind, Tyrannical government.
In addition to this politicians and soldiers take a oath to protect and defend the US Constitution as it is today.So if they do not they are subject to removal. How does a unarmed America remove people that do not protect and defend the US Constitution ? Wait until their term expires? Ask them to step down? Impeach?.......

This is the basis of the Second Amendment.To give "The People" the ability to remain free from Tyranny.
Im not advocating Armed Revolt,I am trying to explain to you the what the 2nd Amendment is.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2997711
Progressive Liberal?

That's a good one. I really don't follow either of your traditonal party lines. I look at each issue differently, and react on how it affects me.

Typical, you vote on how it affects YOU. not how it would affect others or the country as a whole.....thus you are a progressive lib.
You support embryonic stem cell research, abortion, taxing the rich at an exuberant amount, global warming and thus in turn anything "green", The banning of assault weapons and other guns, support gay marriage, Want the homeowners in foreclosure bailed out, and support government funded and provided healthcare for all...........what exactly are you NOT a proggresive liberal on. I am curious.