On the issue of owning guns

[1kmb1]

Yes, because it is training and not intrinsic cultural values that makes the difference as to whether one uses their guns on family and friends or fellow citizens.:tongue:

when did i say anything like that? unfortunately you edited your original statement. but you essentially asked why they arent worried about all the guns. and i gave you the reason.

 

[joyboytoy79]

I thank Jason for the grammar lessons and I reiterate a post that went uncommented.

Try this: GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment <---link>

It's interesting. Yes. Nice that it comes from a pro-gun website and ignores that SOME of the founding fathers (i.e. Alexander Hamilton) had reservations about the Second Amendment, assuming that it was non-debated, and non-challenged, and also ignoring that it was changed several times in phrasing by both chambers of Congress. Original intent and purpose becomes a muddy assertion when you're talking about hundreds of people's intentions.

And realize that the 14th Amendment was passed so that blacks could keep their guns after the Civil War to defend themselves from whites who were passing laws to take guns away from them.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <---link>

Another very interesting read. I've read the whole thing, and just in case i was missing something, i did a word search for "gun" "arms" and "firearms." No hits. It is my understanding that the 14th amendment was passed so that blacks would be counted as citizens, with the full rights and responsibilities conferred to them by the preceding articles and amendments to the constitution. The Wiki article you cite supports my understanding. The amendment itself does not speak of or allude to gun ownership.

Amazon.com: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 (9780275963316): Stephen P. Halbrook: Books <---link>

Furthermore, it is no coincidence that the right to bear arms in the second amendment directly follows the first amendment (the right to free speech) and that both are in the "Bill of Rights" which are commonly acknowledged as individual rights.

I don't happen to have Mr. Halbrook's book on hand to read, and really don't feel like paying $60 to read something that was written in 1998 by a man who has written nothing other than pro-gun propaganda. He wasn't a founding father. He isn't a legal scholar. Why should I pay attention to him?

And BTW, the First Amendment is limited in scope. Libel, a form of speech, is prohibited by law, as is slander. Since the second amendment directly follows the first, as you so duly pointed out, shouldn't it stand to reason that it be similarly limited?

 

[B_spiker067]

when did i say anything like that? unfortunately you edited your original statement. but you essentially asked why they arent worried about all the guns. and i gave you the reason.

To the best of my recollection the edit was of a single word ('or'?).

 

[B_spiker067]

It's interesting. Yes. Nice that it comes from a pro-gun website and ignores that SOME of the founding fathers (i.e. Alexander Hamilton) had reservations about the Second Amendment, assuming that it was non-debated, and non-challenged, and also ignoring that it was changed several times in phrasing by both chambers of Congress. Original intent and purpose becomes a muddy assertion when you're talking about hundreds of people's intentions.

Hamilton was a Federalist. That is, he was someone who believed in a strong dictatorial central government. He kinda liked monarchy. He was an elitist. As this kind of a person he did not trust the rable. He did not trust you or I. Of course he would argue against you or I being armed.

Another very interesting read. I've read the whole thing, and just in case i was missing something, i did a word search for "gun" "arms" and "firearms." No hits. It is my understanding that the 14th amendment was passed so that blacks would be counted as citizens, with the full rights and responsibilities conferred to them by the preceding articles and amendments to the constitution. The Wiki article you cite supports my understanding. The amendment itself does not speak of or allude to gun ownership.

From wiki (below) but it is annotated and speaks to a legal concept of Incorporation and also mentions black plight in the south as regards to being able to defend themselves. In essence the Bill of Rights couldn't be taken away by states thanks to the 14th Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Incorporation (of the Bill of Rights) is the American legal doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, although some have suggested that the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be a more appropriate textual basis. Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, in 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal, but not any State, government. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

....

Right to keep and bear arms
This amendment was briefly incorporated against the states within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from April to September, 2009.[15] It was subsequently vacated and was granted a rehearing en banc by the full Ninth Circuit.[16] Also, the amendment has recently been held to not be incorporated against the states within the jurisdiction of the Second and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals[17]. Such a situation is termed a circuit split, and it can have a major influence on the acceptance of certiorari by the Supreme Court[18]. On September 30, 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari[19] to McDonald v. Chicago, a case in which the Seventh Circuit ruled against incorporation.
Since the modern Fourteenth Amendment analysis for incorporation was adopted, the U.S. Supreme Court has never heard a case for incorporation of this provision against the states. However, three cases that predate the Supreme Court's modern incorporation criteria [Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)] have held the contrary.[20] The court has ruled that the second amendment codifies a pre-existingindividual right to possess and carry firearms, which is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence,[21] and some commentators suggest that incorporation is likely,[22] or that incorporation can hardly be escaped if the inferior courts take the Supreme Court's incorporation jurisprudence seriously as law—as they are required to do.[23]
Regarding the Second Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller said (in a footnote):

With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.[24]
​

The Cruikshank case held that states could violate the 1st Amendment right to freedom of assembly, the 2nd Amendment right to arms and the 15th Amendment right to vote without the possibility of Federal oversight[25]. The Cruikshank case arose from events now known as the Colfax Massacre, in which blacks trying to vote in Louisiana in 1873 were systematically disarmed and then subjected to three days of arson, riot, rape and murder with over 100 dead before Federal troops moved in to restore order [26]. The Heller court of 2008 condemned Cruikshank yet again (in addition to the footnote above) when they cited with approval a new book by Charles Lane, "The Day Freedom Died" in which "the day" was the day the Cruikshank decision was handed down, basically "legalizing" over 4,000 lynchings and innumerable civil rights violations by state and local governments by barring Federal protection of civil rights [27]. This strong 2008 condemnation of the main anti-incorporation case against the 2nd Amendment has left many observers more or less certain that 2nd Amendment incorporation will happen at the Supreme Court in 2010 [28].

^ Good read, huh?

And BTW, the First Amendment is limited in scope. Libel, a form of speech, is prohibited by law, as is slander. Since the second amendment directly follows the first, as you so duly pointed out, shouldn't it stand to reason that it be similarly limited?

The populace should be able to provide the government sufficient resistance via arm struggle should the occasion arise. A semi-automatic AR15 represents that. Slander is subjective. Gambling and usury were Christian values that have gone by the wayside, maybe slander is next. It is so hard to win a slander case in court anyways, ask a lawyer.

 

[FuzzyKen]

First I live in the Southwestern United States in a rural farming community these days. In the State in which I live, gun rules are when compared against other areas what some would consider very lax. It is common in the nearby town to see men coming in to the feedstore or to some business with a holster and a weapon on their side. Yes, any business can post a sign to ban weapons at their particular location. Locally the areas where they are banned by statute include schools, churches, banks, and some retail stores.

I live less than 50 miles from the United States/Mexico border. I am less than 100 miles from Ciudad Juarez, Mx where the bloodiest battles by drug lords are taking place. At the same time where I am on a horse ranch I feel very safe. The reason I feel very safe is that virtually everybody here is a gun owner, and most start teaching their children how to shoot real guns with live ammunition by the time they are 10-12 years old. My Father-In-Law is a State Certified Gun Safety Teacher and License Examiner. In my State you must pass a very comprehensive test to be issued a State Hunting License and you must carry a "gun safety" card with you at all times when you are in possession of a firearm. Hunting Licenses are issued at very young ages.

We really do not have much of a street gang problem. In the history of this town we have only had a few "drive-by" shootings in it's entire history. Not one single one of those "shooters" was local and not one single one of them escaped justice either. In this area, because even young kids know how to shoot and shoot well there are some odds that a shooter of this nature would not make it to the end of the block before his "drive-by" vehicle looked like "Gauntlet's Ghost", which was the Eagle bus shot up in the movie "The Gauntlet" made back in the 1970's.

When I first moved to this area from California, I was a little concerned thinking I was moving into an "armed camp". The exact opposite is true.

I have in fact far better odds in my area of being killed by a deranged cougar than I would a little "street ganger". Gun Safety is dependent on the training of the individuals owning the guns. Anyone properly trained in gun safety will never in their lifetime barring an impaired state discharge a firearm by "accident".

President Obama love him or hate him pledged his support of private firearm ownership and if he had not done so his victory in November of 2008 would have been at best doubtful. We can debate the wording, grammar, and the exact intent of the 2nd Ammendment until we are all mere ashes. The one thing guaranteed is that this will be a debate that outlasts all of us.

Unlike some individuals, I do see reason for restrictions on a few weapons simply because of practicality. There are weapons today which can take out a target at a distance of over 2 miles. Weapons of this nature include the Barrett Model 95, Model 99, and Model 82A1. I do not see a reason that the average hunter needs to be able to drop a Buck Deer over 2 miles away. There are other weapons with similar capabilities. These are weapons for a very limited purpose and gun sports including hunting are definitely not what this was intended for.

We talk about the elimination of firearms as if there was some proof that this elimination was going to have a positive impact on crime numbers. In each case, it in fact has had a positive impact on crime. The criminal knows which areas are populated by unarmed people and statistics would tend to indicate that they prefer to commit crimes in these areas.

Based on what has happened with other forms of mandatory insurance, I would hesitate to think what insurance companies would do to "screw" the American public if we had to have mandatory insurance of any kind on a firearm.

Remember also as a general rule that guns used in crime are destroyed by law enforcement agencies in most jurisdictions with a few exceptions. This could mean that you would forever be paying insurance premiums on a gun you no longer owned for decades and the gun could have already been destroyed. The unsurance companies would find this to be one of the greatest meal tickets they could ever be given. Also, the idea of any kind of mandatory insurance on a firearm is in fact a problem because that insurance and the records that the companies would have could be hacked by computer hackers telling the bad guys exactly who owned guns to steal and where they were located. Personal data has been mined from many state and federal computers by those with criminal intent, guns would be no different and private insurance carriers would be an easy target.

Historically Mandatory insurance on anything when it is structured as a fee paid by government mandate or statute to a private corporation has been the opening of a gate to incredible abuse by the companies selling that kind of coverage to the general public. When California many years ago enacted rulings requiring mandatory automobile insurance after stating that rates would go down, they, within two years had raised insurance rates and imposed fees and penalties that were rediculous if a policy lapsed and you then tried to reinsure.

Though I am not in any manner for the "Howitzer" in every home attitude of the NRA, I am a strong and very verbal supporter of the rights of all qualified American Citizens to bear arms. Qualified means no mental illness, no criminal record, no record of improper use of a firearm. The American Citizens means that I do not feel that those who are not here legally should share this right. This is not because they are less conscientious as people, but that because of their status they would be more likely to be targeted by criminals to be victims of gun theft because the criminal would know that a person with an illegal status would be far less likely to report the crime to law enforcement agencies and risk deportation.

 

[Jonesy98]

Such a shame there is even a debate. Annual militia training occurred nearly everywhere in colonial America... the men were expected to own and be proficient with a military-grade firearm. The 2nd Amendment exists so that the People can depose of an overbearing, despotic gov't. Simple as that really...

The real shame is when you think about all those Kalishnakov's built and paid for with good 'ole greenbacks... kinda makes you go hmmmmm(?)

 

[mynameisnobody]

Nobody in government is ever going to try and repeal the Second Amendment.

But there are factions which are trying to reduce it to meaninglessness.

For one, consider the recent Heller decision. The decision, written by Scalia, argued that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right to general armed defense, and - somewhat surprisingly - none of the other justices disagreed with that claim. There were two dissents to the decision, one by Stevens and one by Breyer. Both argued (though in slightly different ways) that although the 2nd was indeed about individual rights, it didn't matter - 2nd Amendment protections could be overridden by local legislatures.

This is in incredible claim. It is a direct refutation of Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court was originally intended to handle disputes between the States and resolve conflicts between laws. But in Marbury, John Marshall argued that the Constitution was a law - the supreme law of the land - and that any law which conflicted with it would have to yield to the greater authority of the Constitution. This is the basis for all subsequent Court determinations of unconstitutionality. Although Marshall's argument doesn't seem to have been strictly forseen during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, his logic seemed (and seems) impeccable; and it elevated the Judiciary to the status it enjoys today, as one of three essentially co-equal branches of American government, due to its new-found ability to constrain, in some cases, the Legislative branch.

So for a Supreme to claim that the Constitution takes a back seat to any legislature is a huge retrogressive step. It is alarming that this theory seems to prevail amongst the members of the court's "liberal" wing. The disastrous Kelo decision, implying the Court's disdain for the concept of private property, was bad enough; but the trashing of guaranteed individual rights at the whim of any legislative body is a new low.