'Right to bear arms' decision would improve gun control

USA Today ^ | James B. Jacobs

[Ancesthntr]

I want ballistic fingerprinting even less than I want a rectal exam every hour, on the hour.

[MarkL]

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Does "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" speak to a collective right of "the states?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures..." speak to a collective right of "the states?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amendment 9

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

Shall the enumeration of rights in the Constitution not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by a collective right of "the states?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Why is it that "the States" and "the people" are mentioned seperately here, if from the previously mentioned amendments, "the people" refers to a collective right of "the state."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amendment 2

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.

I suppose that this is the only case where the authors of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution messed up, and wrote "the people," when they really meant "the State."

I have yet to find anyone who claims to not have a political motivation to explain to me how the Founding Fathers managed to trip up on this one amendment. As mentioned earlier in this thread, "well regulated" has a meaning other than what the "gun grabbers" believe. How about an example of what a "well regulated militia" is, based on the writings of Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

In this case, "well regulated" means "properly functioning," not "run by the state," as so many of the gun-grabbers seem to believe. In fact, let's try rewriting the second amendment, to see how that fits:

A run by the state Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the state to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A properly functioning Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Personally, I choose the second version. Another reason to prefer the second is from an obsolete definition from the 1989 Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed) that in 1690 defines "regulated" as "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers.

Mark

[Ancesthntr]

well regulated in 18th century English ment...I believe... using the same size bullet for supply issues...trained in accurate shooting etc...am I wrong

I always thought that "well-regulated" as applied to a technological device meant "synchronized." Regarding guns, a double-barreled shotgun is "well-regulated" if the shot patterns from both barrels impact the same point at some specified range. Regarding the militia, "well regulated" means "well trained" or "well organized."

It sure as $hit doesn't mean that you have to get the permission of some constipated dolt whose son is on drugs, whose daughter is a ho, and whose wife beats him regularly, and who also happens to work for the government approving firearms applications.

[MarkL]

See my ealier post. Well regulated, in reference to soldiers, meant "well disciplined," at least in 1690 english.

Mark

[Squantos]

Awesome posts........who ever says they have nothing left to learn hasn't been to FR lately. Educational to say the least.

Ya'll Stay Safe, Cache, and BLOAT !!

[meadsjn]

In the end, such action probably would not entirely prevent tragedies such as the recent Washington-area sniper murders. But it could save lives and help...

In Marketing 101, this would be the "catch phrase" with the "weasel words".

[MileHi]

One must wonder if this reporter is 100% wrong because of simple ignorance, or by deliberate attempt to alter public perception in advance of such a decision.

My sense of it is that the author sees the writing on the wall and is attempting to fashion a response to keep his agenda moving foreward.

Either that or he is delusional and needs help.

[Redcloak]

One must wonder if this reporter is 100% wrong because of simple ignorance, or by deliberate attempt to alter public perception in advance of such a decision.

He is correct about the politics, however. The best argument to use against these registry schemes is "That would lead to confiscation, just like it did in (Fill in the blank) ." Such a ruling would make make it obvious that confiscation is flately illegal; it takes the wind out of the sails of the "it would lead to confiscation" argument.

Of course, were registration to be tolerated, it would lead to an endless list of other just-short-of-confiscation rules and regulations. The goal would be to make gun ownership so inconvenient as to be impossible. (Just as post-Civil War voting laws in the South didn't make it illegal for Blacks to vote, they did make it exceedingly hard for them to do so.) The author seems to recognize this as well. Perhaps he hopes that his fellow travelers will accept the half a loaf now in hopes of getting everything but that final statutory crumb later.

[harpseal]

Thrilled gun-control proponents claimed a major victory and predicted further victories once the Constitution is eliminated as a barrier to any and all gun controls.

ONCE THE CONSTITUTION IS ELIMINATED says it all. Once the Constitution is eliminated we have no law in the USA period. All we have is force of arms. Without a Constitution my court system that I set up is as valid as anything anyone else sets up. Since a whole lot of people swore an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign and domestic and these people clearly state they are opposed to the Constitution the response is clear. The Constitution is the only thing keeping these folks safe.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[harpseal]

6) People with sufficient money can buy tanks, aircraft or ships, fully armed, though use of any of the above for any purpose other than a joyride would require obtaining Letters of Marque from the Congress.

The sole exception to this is except when acting in self defense from attack. Merchant vessels were armed as a matter of course in the 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuries especially if they were entering waters that were known for having many pirates. By about 1910 such armaments were usually dispoensed with simply as a matter of cost effectiveness. The Navies of the civilized world had pretty much swept the seas of large armed pirate vessels and the need for cannon aboard merchant ships had disappeared. Small arms for officers of most ships were still common until the 1960's and almost every old merchant ship contained a small arms locker.

Further, these vessels could in times of war become auxillaries to naval vessels without specific letters of marque. British liners in WWI were officially designated as crusiers if they were to sink or capture a German ship (See the Congressional debates on the sinking of the Lusitania).

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[SoothingDave]

More gun control could be achieved if the courts accepted a different interpretation of the Constitution, the one held by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans -- that the Second Amendment gives individuals a constitutional right ''to privately possess and bear their own firearms.''

That would open the door to a national registry, a database on the whereabouts of every firearm and a critical precondition to such controls as comprehensive licensing and ballistic fingerprinting.

Such a shame that this professor of law doesn't know what "privacy" means.

Here's a hint: anything intolerable to the "private" "right" to abortion is likewise intolerable to a private right to arms. Shall we register, tax and license abortions? Keep lists of all women who have them?

SD

[Tijeras_Slim]

I would maintain that "well regulated" in regards to militia indicates that it is an entity of local or state government (not federal) and not a "mob".

[harpseal]

Agreed that a national registry would totally violate any right to arms. Rights by definition are not subkect to tracking of liscensing by the government.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[SoothingDave]

I would maintain that "well regulated" in regards to militia indicates that it is an entity of local or state government (not federal) and not a "mob".

You probably also maintain that "Deck the Halls" encourages us to dress like homosexuals.

SD

[Travis McGee]

I would maintain that "well regulated" in regards to militia indicates that it is an entity of local or state government (not federal) and not a "mob".

~~Tijeras Slim

"A well educated citizenry being necessary for the maintenance of a free nation, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Does this mean that only government controlled public schools and universities should have access to all types of books? That is your version of "militia".

*************************************

Let's just ask the primary author of the Bill of Rights what is meant by the "militia" in the second amendment:

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

~~George Mason, at the Virginia convention to ratify the constitution. Mason also said

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

[harpseal]

Your maintaining of that position does nothing to address the fact that most legitimate scholarship contradicts that position. Can you cite anything contemporaneous with the adoption of the Bill of Rights that supports that viewpoint. The Ninth Circuit was forced to take George Washington out of context and to rely on quotes from Parade magazine and Arming America the later being a work of contemporary fiction.

Further, you say nothing of the results of failing to recognize the Right of Individuals to keep and bear arms.

[Travis McGee]

One more result of the dumbing down of America is that folks don't understand English.

"The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Squantos]

I will suggest that "well regulated " was used then as we use the term "calibrated" or "coordination" now. Thus a well regulated militia all used the Brown Bess Musket .75 caliber versus a hodgepodge of different calibers and the understandable logistic nightmare that would accompany such a fiasco of fighting.

They all wore a common color uniform if possible. Brought the basic equipment for field bivouac as the "regulations" ....regulated.... per se........

http://www.clede.com/Articles/guns/sgn0105.htm

Just my personal opinion based on my readings over the years.........Stay Safe !

[VW_Mafia_Audi]

"Open to interpretation."
NO WAY!
The Constitution says what it says, no more. The founding fathers wrote it to be as simple as possible. A very complex form of government and laws would be difficult to understand and would cause trouble. Too bad George, the leftycrats and pacifist treehuggers are doing that anyway!

State militias are mainly controlled by the national military. I don't think I can go up and request assistance from the militia. Only the governor and the President can ceploy those individuals.
Now what about if someone breaks into my home? Or what if my family is attacked by bears? We will be defenseless and will more than likely be slaughtered, but the country is a safer place. The law-abiding citizens do not have weapons to defend themselves. Only the criminals have weapons. They run freely through the streets flashing their weapons while the good people of America are forced to run and hide. We are forced to live in fear of the criminal element because our government has taken away our right to defend ourselves...but the country is a safer, more civilized place to live.
B.S.

I won't give up my guns. If a government agent comes to my home to take away my right to defend myself, I consider that an act of tyranny against me. It will go to court, lose, and I will go to Ireland where I can live with a Kalashnikov at my side.

The leftycrats can live in America happy with the fact that any gangster can walk in and kill them, and there's nothing they can do about it.