Right to Bear Arms

[Libsmasher]

For years, the gun confiscation movement said the second amendment only refers to arms for a well-regulated militia. For years also, I've said that the first clause of the second amendment only gave an example of why people should have the right to keep arms. Now the USSC has swept away for all time the well-regulated militia argument, upholding that it is INDIVIDUALS that have a right to arms. It backtracked a little by saying this right isn't unlimited, but the end of the well-regulated militia specious argument is historic.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html

 

[pocketfullofshells]

For years, the gun confiscation movement said the second amendment only refers to arms for a well-regulated militia. For years also, I've said that the first clause of the second amendment only gave an example of why people should have the right to keep arms. Now the USSC has swept away for all time the well-regulated militia argument, upholding that it is INDIVIDUALS that have a right to arms. It backtracked a little by saying this right isn't unlimited, but the end of the well-regulated militia specious argument is historic.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html

I see so when it rules on guns the way you want, it sweeps away all argument for all time...but yet on Obortion where it also has ruled, has that stopped the debate at all? nope

That said it was the correct call, and also it is correct that it is not unlimited...no you cant have a ICMB in your back yard for Self Deffense...but a hand gun yes.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I see so when it rules on guns the way you want, it sweeps away all argument for all time...but yet on Obortion where it also has ruled, has that stopped the debate at all? nope

That said it was the correct call, and also it is correct that it is not unlimited...no you cant have a ICMB in your back yard for Self Deffense...but a hand gun yes.

Well, while you may not be able to have an ICBM for your personal self-defense, as a member of the unorganized militia, it's still open to debate.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well, while you may not be able to have an ICBM for your personal self-defense, as a member of the unorganized militia, it's still open to debate.

I think that's a debate very few would take.

And the idea of all kinds of Milita running around scares me a bit, look at the nations where that's common, no good comes from it. Iraq, Lebanon for examples..

 

[Jeugenen]

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS

It is not primarily for their collecting; nor primarily for their hunting; nor even primarily for their self-defense against violent criminals; it is primarily for well regulated militias in every state; ready, when faced with intolerable governmental tyranny, for explosive bloody revolt to preserve their Liberty.

Just as every sensible American child should grow up knowing exactly how to safely use the automobile for transportation; so too every sensible American child should grow up knowing exactly how to safely use the gun for revolution.

Every well informed American knows that the Right to Bear Arms is a sacred integral part of the American system of Constitutional government, by the People and for the People, in which their executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are subordinate to the supreme democratic majority will of the People.

Every sensible American governmental official has a very healthy fear of this inherent revolutionary power of the American People.

Every American governmental official knows that any action subversive to the Constitutional Rights of the American People is an act of tyranny.

 

[Andy]

I see so when it rules on guns the way you want, it sweeps away all argument for all time...but yet on Obortion where it also has ruled, has that stopped the debate at all? nope

That said it was the correct call, and also it is correct that it is not unlimited...no you cant have a ICMB in your back yard for Self Deffense...but a hand gun yes.

Well abortion is ridiculous on so many levels. The right to... kill children is in our Constitution? Where?!

No one could get an ICBM anyway. Guns are a right, plain and simple.

 

[Andy]

I think that's a debate very few would take.

And the idea of all kinds of Milita running around scares me a bit, look at the nations where that's common, no good comes from it. Iraq, Lebanon for examples..

That's a mis-understanding of militia. In the age in which our Constitution was written, militia was understood to be any and all males of adult age. If you were an able bodied adult, you were in the militia. There was a general understanding that you were supposed to be ready and able to help defend yourself, your town, your friends family and neighbors.

Now we have babies posing as adults who are not willing do defend even themselves, let alone anyone else. Nor have the means or ability to do so if they wanted. This has given rise to the criminal underlining of our nation that fears nothing, because it doesn't have to.

If you want a great example of militia, look at Switzerland. Everyone is required to be in the militia. They have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world today. As part of militia service, guns are stored at home. Nearly every household has a military grade weapon at home.

Yet, the Swiss crime rate statistics say.... huh? What swiss crime rate! The people of switzerland do not even record the crime rate because it's too low to bother with!

When you think about it, it make perfect sense. Would you try and break and enter in someone's house knowing every single person along that street, including the target home, has a military rifle that could be used in seconds to shoot you? Would you mug someone knowing every person on the street or in nearby buildings, all have military grade weapons at their disposal? OF COURSE NOT!

This is what the founding fathers envisioned with the right to keep and bare arms. It works for the Swiss, it can easily work here.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well abortion is ridiculous on so many levels. The right to... kill children is in our Constitution? Where?!

No one could get an ICBM anyway. Guns are a right, plain and simple.

and people would say the same about guns , that they think its Ridiculous...just you just don't see that because you agree with the ruling.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That's a mis-understanding of militia. In the age in which our Constitution was written, militia was understood to be any and all males of adult age. If you were an able bodied adult, you were in the militia. There was a general understanding that you were supposed to be ready and able to help defend yourself, your town, your friends family and neighbors.

Now we have babies posing as adults who are not willing do defend even themselves, let alone anyone else. Nor have the means or ability to do so if they wanted. This has given rise to the criminal underlining of our nation that fears nothing, because it doesn't have to.

If you want a great example of militia, look at Switzerland. Everyone is required to be in the militia. They have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world today. As part of militia service, guns are stored at home. Nearly every household has a military grade weapon at home.

Yet, the Swiss crime rate statistics say.... huh? What swiss crime rate! The people of switzerland do not even record the crime rate because it's too low to bother with!

When you think about it, it make perfect sense. Would you try and break and enter in someone's house knowing every single person along that street, including the target home, has a military rifle that could be used in seconds to shoot you? Would you mug someone knowing every person on the street or in nearby buildings, all have military grade weapons at their disposal? OF COURSE NOT!

This is what the founding fathers envisioned with the right to keep and bare arms. It works for the Swiss, it can easily work here.

That does not mean its becuse of the fact they all have guns, there are alot of things that go into it. Just like its not being able to have guns that makes it so bad in the US, its other factors.

 

[Libsmasher]

That's a mis-understanding of militia. In the age in which our Constitution was written, militia was understood to be any and all males of adult age. If you were an able bodied adult, you were in the militia. There was a general understanding that you were supposed to be ready and able to help defend yourself, your town, your friends family and neighbors.

Justice Scalia made, I believe, something of that same point in his majority decision. Confiscationists for decades have tried to turn this right upside down, saying the right to bear arms was only within the context of a militia - in modern times, an agency of the government. This is 180 degrees ass-backwards, because the bill of rights, the first ten amendments, has ALWAYS been understood as a bulwark for PEOPLE against GOVERNMENT. It's sickening that something so obvious has taken so many years to set right, but that's the legacy of too many years of lib control of the USSC.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I think that's a debate very few would take.

And the idea of all kinds of Milita running around scares me a bit, look at the nations where that's common, no good comes from it. Iraq, Lebanon for examples..

Title 10 Section 311, Title 32 Section 313 of the United States Code. ALL able bodied males between 17 and 46, to age 64 if they've served in the Armed Forces, and all able bodies females between 17 and 46 who have served in the Armed Forces ARE in the militia, specifically the unorganized militia. In other words, we have over 150,000,000 militia "running around" every day in America, and it's been that way for over 200 years.

Still scared?

 

[dahermit]

What concerns me is that four justices did not agree that it was an individual right. A Liberal future president could fill future vacancies on the court and could presumable result in over turning that decision. I would be more comfortable if the margin had been higher.

 

[Andy]

and people would say the same about guns , that they think its Ridiculous...just you just don't see that because you agree with the ruling.

No I don't see that because the right to bare arms is in fact a part of our constitution assuming you can do the neat activity of "reading".

Whereas, the right to murder isn't... ever... at any point, in the constitution.

 

[Andy]

That does not mean its becuse of the fact they all have guns, there are alot of things that go into it. Just like its not being able to have guns that makes it so bad in the US, its other factors.

Really? Isn't it odd how the murder rate is higher in states with heavy gun control laws, and lower in states with lax gun laws? Or how it's odd that when conceal and carry laws are past, crime rates drop? Isn't it odd how the last dozen mass shootings I can remember all occurred in locations where guns were prohibited by federal law? I can't, off the top of my head, think of one that didn't occur in such a location.

Yes without quest there are other factors. But the ability of a civilian to defend himself is a primary, if not dominating factor.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I see so when it rules on guns the way you want, it sweeps away all argument for all time...but yet on Obortion where it also has ruled, has that stopped the debate at all? nope

The challenge is that, unlike abortion, "...the Right of the people to keep and bear arms..." is clearly enumerated in the Constitution. When one studies the writings of the Founding Fathers, there's no doubt (to an intellectually honest person) what they meant when they wrote those words, and there is no ambiguity.

The reason the other is still hotly debated is because it isn't clearly enumerated, and SCOTUS went through some mighty severe contortions to determine that cold blooded murder of the most innocent among us was a "privacy issue".