Let's get political. Gun Debate!

John, just to review...

Quote
Gravity Fed
so let's get political! Discussion on the US, guns, gun owners, the 2nd amendement, and the rest, go!

Alex's first post..no mention of mass murder, school kids, bank robbers or overthrowing the government. I still don't think anyone here said anything other than guns were fun to shoot , useful for hunting, desireable for self defense or something not needed.

And just to counter your assertion that mass or multiple murders can't be from an edged blade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder plenty of multiple deaths listed.

I had a customer, nice old guy...less than average sized a bit, more than average drinker but terribly pleasant and not combative even when drinking...beaten to death in his home with a claw hammer. Seems it was for a very small sum of money and the death was felt needed so he couldn't identify the assailant. Now I'm not claiming for a second that he could or would have protected himself with a gun but even in small communities bad things happen, with or without a ready defense. The means of defense should not be legislated with a total lack of common sense...such as Feinstein exhibits. Our personal defense should be our personal choice with some logic and common sense thrown in..i.e not gatling guns or rocket launchers unless in rogue elephant country.

No Timmy, since you have nothing to say---since there is nothing between your ears, that ain't surprising, you shut the fuck up..

Go someplace where there's lots of 20 something losers, never was-ers, never will be-ers and argue with them..there must be someplace for guys like you.

You add nothing here worth the time it takes to glance at.

You are here solely to annoy.

And you're not even very good at that...just half assed yapping...

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Hmm. I was close. But like clockwork, he replies.

---

Welcome to the cult of JVL drink the koolaid or be banned.

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
heymagic


Can't recall seeing a post here declaring anyone would shoot police or troops to retain their guns.

Well the subject started as a result of yet another mass murder..
It is everybody else who keeps yapping about killing all the crazed burglers.

And there is an underlying presumption in the hard core loons contained in their statements that the whole 2nd Amendment is all so that the evil Gubbymint should remain in fear of an armed populace---which is total horseshit but it doesn't matter what the obvious intent of these men of the English Enlightenment was, now all that matters is how uneducated, undisciplined people who want it to justify their received idea of what it means, that's all that counts...so no point trying to convince them that the intention was to avoid the evil of a standing army...which they had direct experience with and it sorta bugged them to be forced to pay for the costs of without any say in the matter..

This one had me scratching my head. I got out my old Constitutional Law book and just so we are all on the same page...literally....





Everybody read the whole page. Lets all get a little more learned.

Thank you Gene for all the wisdom you bring to the forum.

Thank you John for questioning everything. Seriously...even if we all know what that gets us sometimes.

Jens, I live up by the Barkhamsted reservoir where there are more guns than people, more trees than guns, the last murder took place before I was born, and if you were to break into my house, according to John, I would manage to shoot us both. haha.

Oh, and I'd like to thank my constitutional law professor, lets call him "Mr. S-----", for my healthy dislike of a strong federal government.

If "all" citizens have a "constitutional" right to "keep and bear arms"...

Then why are certain people under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 "not eligible to possess a firearm or ammunition"?

~ Fugitives from justice
~ Unlawful users of certain drugs
~ Those commited to a mental institution
~ Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year
~ Those convicted of crimes of domestic violence

The Federal law not only creates a permanent ban on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a felony, it even applies to those under indictment for a felony.

Yes it's true that certain individuals "may" be eligible to apply for an excemption, but that isn't the point.

The point is that there's "no" exclusion to certain citizens that fall into the catagories listed in the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 in the 2nd ammendment.

Is the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 illegal or void?

I doubt it, if it was passed in Congress.

So...

This "could" set a precedent that the 2nd Ammendment is not absolute, could it not?

If not, then why not?

Quote
MarkHille

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
heymagic


Can't recall seeing a post here declaring anyone would shoot police or troops to retain their guns.

Well the subject started as a result of yet another mass murder..
It is everybody else who keeps yapping about killing all the crazed burglers.

And there is an underlying presumption in the hard core loons contained in their statements that the whole 2nd Amendment is all so that the evil Gubbymint should remain in fear of an armed populace---which is total horseshit but it doesn't matter what the obvious intent of these men of the English Enlightenment was, now all that matters is how uneducated, undisciplined people who want it to justify their received idea of what it means, that's all that counts...so no point trying to convince them that the intention was to avoid the evil of a standing army...which they had direct experience with and it sorta bugged them to be forced to pay for the costs of without any say in the matter..

This one had me scratching my head. I got out my old Constitutional Law book and just so we are all on the same page...literally....





Everybody read the whole page. Lets all get a little more learned.

Thank you Gene for all the wisdom you bring to the forum.

Thank you John for questioning everything. Seriously...even if we all know what that gets us sometimes.

Jens, I live up by the Barkhamsted reservoir where there are more guns than people, more trees than guns, the last murder took place before I was born, and if you were to break into my house, according to John, I would manage to shoot us both. haha.

Oh, and I'd like to thank my constitutional law professor, lets call him "Mr. S-----", for my healthy dislike of a strong federal government.

Thanks Mark. refreshing to read reasoned commentary. Though the linkie in footnote 7 no workie.. I did however when looking for Linkie in footnote 7 find this:
http://www.potowmack.org/lcress.html

Nice clear concise tracing of the origins oin the English Glorious rebellion of the 1680s of the right to bear arms in the English Bill of Rights and from thence in Neoclassic way, to our Revolution and thence to our Bill of rights...

Now none of the bulk of you guys will want to read it because it explains is clear, vivid langauge, amply laying out the fears of STANDING ARMIES, and for that matter, armed everybody..
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,........'

Read that aloud .

The Neoclassists of the English Enlightenment being well educated in general and in history of Greece and Rome did not imagine any and all serving in the militia (and bearing arms) but meant same as they intended the vote to go to: men of substance. Men of property, men with land with income over £100/year....more than double the mean income in England or 4 times the median.

That's who they meant would have the franchise, who could "Bear Arms in the well regulated Militia" . And understand that why the said "The People" and not "a person's".

They meant the in crowd..
(And that means none of youse guys)

Read the article, learn. It doesn't hurt.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

" "Men of property," Burgh insisted, "must be our only resource. . . . A militia consisting of any others than the men of property in a country, is no militia; but a mongrel army." The importance of placing arms only in the hands of those "whose interest is involved in that of their country" was historically undeniable. Rome succumbed to tyranny when landed citizens shed their responsibility for the republic's defense. On the other hand liberty survived in Switzerland because arms and citizenship remained inseparable. "

Property... what defines property? Land ownership? So anyone who owns a house, field, undeveloped parcel, commercial real estate...

Business? Anyone who owns a business...

Slaves? Well, slaves are over now, however, they could easily be the ones who are not "a freeman" They also couldn't have property... because well, they WERE property.


So, they must be citizens - that is obvious - and having property of some kind, a few kinds are listed, and they must have an interest in their country.


fran·chise [fran-chahyz] Show IPA noun, verb, fran·chised, fran·chis·ing.
noun
1.
a privilege of a public nature conferred on an individual, group, or company by a government


Ok, so we have established what a franchise is, and who fits the mold they were after.

Now, the militia was there non standing army to defend FROM a standing army, or the government. Or invasion, rebellion, or insurgency.

So, you build the militia from the men who own land, business, both - not illegal aliens, not people who both rent AND work for someone else...

And those people fit the mold to receive the right to bear arms.

Even if you take it to be a MILITIA of the PEOPLE, vs an individual, you still have quite a few people who are not in the government (as it should be - read the paper) who get to keep and bear arms.

And obviously THEY get to keep them... who's going to give them the weapons to bear against threats? Including internal ones? The governments not...


Lastly, what are we defining as weapons? Fire arms but no sabers? Dueling pistols? Small swords? bows and arrows?

Also, on the L100 bit...

"Those of unsuitable condition (a statute passed during the reign of Charles II disarmed anyone owning lands with an annual value of less than L 100, other than the son or heir of an esquire or person of higher social rank) were not to be armed."

That would be a legislation passed by ENGLAND... not the new legislation the founding fathers drafted. It's right there in the paper.

---

Welcome to the cult of JVL drink the koolaid or be banned.

Thanks Mark. Nice info.

It is very hard to go back and second guess something that was written so long ago. Language changes, word meaning changes and circumstances change. The 'founding fathers' used the word People in several places.Today we might use citizens or populace or ??? They wrote in words of their time, with knowledge of their time and experiences of their time. They still believed in witches, died young from health issues and obviously believed it was ok to keep slaves as well as take someone elses land by trickery and force. Wasn't a perfect society much like ours.

They never envisioned electric lights, computers, walking on the moon, polio, television or 30rd clips. They wrote the basic principals we live by and our society has to modify those to relate to lives and technology as it changes. The basic tenants remain.

The easy answer to gun ownership is if you don't want one, don't get one. No need to fear me because I have one (unless you are endangering my family).

On the local news last night a Seattleish homeowner and his small dog was attacked by 3 Coyotes. Lots of scratches, a bite or two and something like 26 holes from rabies shots. Reporter advised everyone worried about 'yotes to remove their food source....for me that is wild bunnies. Which by the way we found the hind quarters of of one partially eaten in the back yard a week ago. Doubt it was a suicide....odds are coyotes.

".....wild bunnies. Which by the way we found the hind quarters of of one partially eaten in the back yard a week ago. Doubt it was a suicide...."


Oh man! You've slayed me again making me laugh. It's only 1PM on the east coast. Why are you so funny today? Already started on the New Year's eve drinking out there on the west coast?

Thank you, thank you...I'll be here all week...

Morton, the federal and state government can and (on occasion) does pass into effect laws that are unconstitutional. Two things have to happen from there. Someone has to break the law and someone has to enforce the law. Depending on who made and enforced the law it goes into state court or federal court. After the trial it can then be appealed in the court of appeals (both states and federal have their own). From the court of appeals it goes to the supreme court (both states and federal have their own). Ultimately the state supreme court can be appealed to the federal supreme court. The bottom line is that the federal supreme court has the final say in everything. What does the federal supreme court do? They basically hear court cases and decide “is this constitutional or is this unconstitutional” and then gives the reason why. They are the end all be all of interpreting the law and the constitution. They can, with their rulings, interpret things into the constitution and interpret things out of the constitution. Freedom of privacy for example. The word privacy isn’t in there anywhere. They only hear the cases they feel like hearing and they haven’t heard too many when it comes to the second amendment. In 1939, United States v. Miller, a man got in trouble for having a sawed off shot gun. It made it all the way to the supreme court and they basically said, “We don’t think a sawed off shot gun is needed for the state militia to be armed therefore, under the U.S constitution you aren’t guaranteed the right to have it.”

Which brings me to the reason I posted the page I did. I am not allowed to own a gun because of my personal rights found in the 2nd amendment. The supreme court has made it applicable to the State saying the federal government doesn’t have the right to disarm the States for any reason. If the state wants to have a militia then the federal government can’t stop them. The reason I can own a pistol is because of the Connecticut constitution. If Connecticut wanted to they could say “That’s it, no more guns!” And I would lose my right to have a gun. As of right now the federal government can’t stop them from saying that. Now, if the supreme court really wanted to, they could ultimately hear a case about a gun law and say “we think that the constitution means that anyone and everyone should have the right to own a gun” in which case THEN the states wouldn’t be able to take our right to own a gun, but as it stands right now it hasn’t interpreted the 2nd amendment that way. The 9 supreme court judges are extremely powerful people. That is why they are appointed and not elected, and why they serve lifetime terms. I think it would be a tremendously hard thing for the supreme court to make their ruling any more severe against guns because it would ultimately mean taking away the constitutional right that empowers the STATE the right to that power. It is the reason the federal government can’t say “all guns are banned”. It doesn’t matter if state militias currently exists or not or even what we think the point of it was/is.

John, I read the article and I’m pretty sure we agree on where the talk of a militia came from. I’m still not 100% sure where your coming from though. I don’t think the federal government has the power to ban all guns. I’m not sure if that is your point anymore.

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
MarkHille

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
heymagic


Can't recall seeing a post here declaring anyone would shoot police or troops to retain their guns.

Well the subject started as a result of yet another mass murder..
It is everybody else who keeps yapping about killing all the crazed burglers.

And there is an underlying presumption in the hard core loons contained in their statements that the whole 2nd Amendment is all so that the evil Gubbymint should remain in fear of an armed populace---which is total horseshit but it doesn't matter what the obvious intent of these men of the English Enlightenment was, now all that matters is how uneducated, undisciplined people who want it to justify their received idea of what it means, that's all that counts...so no point trying to convince them that the intention was to avoid the evil of a standing army...which they had direct experience with and it sorta bugged them to be forced to pay for the costs of without any say in the matter..

This one had me scratching my head. I got out my old Constitutional Law book and just so we are all on the same page...literally....

Everybody read the whole page. Lets all get a little more learned.

Thank you Gene for all the wisdom you bring to the forum.

Thank you John for questioning everything. Seriously...even if we all know what that gets us sometimes.

Jens, I live up by the Barkhamsted reservoir where there are more guns than people, more trees than guns, the last murder took place before I was born, and if you were to break into my house, according to John, I would manage to shoot us both. haha.

Oh, and I'd like to thank my constitutional law professor, lets call him "Mr. S-----", for my healthy dislike of a strong federal government.

Thanks Mark. refreshing to read reasoned commentary. Though the linkie in footnote 7 no workie.. I did however when looking for Linkie in footnote 7 find this:
http://www.potowmack.org/lcress.html

Nice clear concise tracing of the origins oin the English Glorious rebellion of the 1680s of the right to bear arms in the English Bill of Rights and from thence in Neoclassic way, to our Revolution and thence to our Bill of rights...

Now none of the bulk of you guys will want to read it because it explains is clear, vivid langauge, amply laying out the fears of STANDING ARMIES, and for that matter, armed everybody..
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,........'

Read that aloud .

The Neoclassists of the English Enlightenment being well educated in general and in history of Greece and Rome did not imagine any and all serving in the militia (and bearing arms) but meant same as they intended the vote to go to: men of substance. Men of property, men with land with income over £100/year....more than double the mean income in England or 4 times the median.

That's who they meant would have the franchise, who could "Bear Arms in the well regulated Militia" . And understand that why the said "The People" and not "a person's".

They meant the in crowd..
(And that means none of youse guys)

Read the article, learn. It doesn't hurt.

First off, I took out the image of the text book, for those that wish to read it, please scroll back up.

Now, on the left side of that page, the first paragraph beginning with "Because the Second Amendment....," the argument is that it isn't applicable to the states. But beginning with Heller v DC, it was ruled that the federal government cannot restrict the right to keep and bear arms within a federal enclave. This set up the challenge in McDonald v Chicago that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the states as well. That case was argued that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated under 14th amendment due process clause. It applies to the states.

Now we come to Illinois having to craft some sort of legislation that will allow some form of carry via a ruling by the 7th circuit.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/12/53066.htm

I just wanted to point this out for more learnin. And to keep JvL on his toes

---

It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion.
William Ralph Inge

TANSTAAFL

Interesting news article. I have to read it again but seems to make sense the first time thru.

Thanks for that Lee. I wasn't aware of that.

Quote
heymagic
Interesting news article. I have to read it again but seems to make sense the first time thru.

Except the judge's out of context defining of what "to bear" means now is not the usage or intent of the classicly educate men who envisaged a Republic modeled on Rome, where only the upper classes were allowed to keep and bear arms because every "Citizen" was a member of the armed forces, "the militia".....and the vast majority of the population were not and were not intended by the Founders---who remember were ALL rich and powerful men..

Context is everything when trying to understand intentions....and a 20th century out of context interpretation is very likely not going to help one discern the meaning of the words of these educated Patricians of the 1790s.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.