What the United States Supreme Court Says

[John56{vg}]

I am a gun owner, a Remington 30/30 Deer rifle, and a Browning Automatic Shotgun that was my dad's. And my basic belief is that the polivce and military should not be the only ones with guns.

However, I am for gun control. TO me the NRA is more radical than the gun control folks that want a total ban. All guns should be VERY hard to get and fully automatic assault rifles should be banned.

It is just tragic to me when (and I read about this a few months back) a child can reach into her grandmother's purse, pull out a handgun and shoot herself with it.

The part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court forgot was the "WELL_REGULATED" part of the amendment. Having a gun SHOULD be regulated and you should have to be trained in gun safety and licensed somehow.

My opinion here, of course.

[Virulent]

The part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court forgot was the "WELL_REGULATED" part of the amendment.

I don't think they forgot that part. They just realized that it needs to be constructed as two different topics... topic 1, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", topic 2 "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

What the SCOTUS has finally affirmed is this disjunction; the people need not, and never needed to be, engaged in a militia in order to bear arms.

[John56{vg}]

I was not referring to the Militia part. It is the "well-regulated" part. THAT is the part that people like the NRA and, in this case, the Supreme Court, failed to look at. Gun ownership needs to be "well-regulated/" Not just being able to walk in off the street and buy.

You cannot just eliminate part of the amendment. "A WELL_REGULATED militia . . ." The amendment was created to allow for TRAINED citizens to keep firearms in order to keep themselves and their neighbors safe.

It is part and parcel of the amendment. Therefore it was forgotten and not taken into account.

So I stand by my original posting.

[Virulent]

You cannot just eliminate part of the amendment.

I agree completely. You also can't change the order of the words in it.

A militia must be well-regulated to ensure the freedom of the state.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Same topic, two different statements. It never says that the people should be well-regulated. In case it isn't clear; that's the point I'm trying to make. No regulation of citizen ownership is implied or required in the 2nd Amendment.

[Warbaby1943]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Same topic, two different statements. It never says that the people should be well-regulated. In case it isn't clear; that's the point I'm trying to make. No regulation of citizen ownership is implied or required in the 2nd Amendment.

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought such was the case.

[John56{vg}]

Then why is the part about the militia in the amendment? The amendment implies that BECAUSE we need a "WELL-REGULATED" Militia citizens can own firearms. That also implies that the militia and the citizens comprising the militia will be trained.

You see that is the problem, the amendment can have several different interpretations. The Conservatives on the court go the way of the radicals at the NRA, but it DOES mean they ignore a portion of the amendment.

Any student of history would know that what was MEANT by the amendment was to allow citizens be able to protect their towns and farms from foreign (at the time British) intervention by forming Militias, trained and regulated. That meant long guns and muskets.

And militias are comprised of individuals, of people. Therefore the people are trained and "regulated."

So people should be allowed to have machine guns, tanks, RPGs, etc. without any training or regulation of who these people are that have them? That is madness to me.

[Warbaby1943]

Then why is the part about the militia in the amendment? The amendment implies that BECAUSE we need a "WELL-REGULATED" Militia citizens can own firearms. That also implies that the militia and the citizens comprising the militia will be trained.

You see that is the problem, the amendment can have several different interpretations. The Conservatives on the court go the way of the radicals at the NRA, but it DOES mean they ignore a portion of the amendment.

Any student of history would know that what was MEANT by the amendment was to allow citizens be able to protect their towns and farms from foreign (at the time British) intervention by forming Militias, trained and regulated. That meant long guns and muskets.

And militias are comprised of individuals, of people. Therefore the people are trained and "regulated."

So people should be allowed to have machine guns, tanks, RPGs, etc. without any training or regulation of who these people are that have them? That is madness to me.

I'm afraid that 4 of the supreme court justices may have had similar logic. Too bad it wasn't a more unanimous decision. However, it was the correct one.

[Virulent]

Then why is the part about the militia in the amendment?

As I said below, it is two statements (grammatically, a 'complex sentence'), on one topic. The Founding Fathers did this frequently. For example, the 7th article of the Bill of Rights states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That is clearly multiple statements in a complex sentence, dealing with a single topic.

... militias are comprised of ... people. Therefore the people are ..."regulated."

I agree with you that Militia is a subgroup of People. I don't follow you from there though. By your rationale, any law which acts upon a subgroup of people also acts upon people in general. Example:

Each House (of government) shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same.

A House of Government is compromised of people. Therefore, people are required to keep a journal of their proceedings, and from time to time publish the same. Yes, that's right, BLOGS ARE MANDATORY!

So people should be allowed to have machine guns, tanks, RPGs, etc. without any training or regulation of who these people are that have them? That is madness to me.

Yes, I do believe that there should be no regulations or requirements, except that which individuals choose to apply to themselves. I call it anarchy though.

[denuseri]

I for one am glad they havent taken the often only recorse for defence that i would have available if attacked, pepper spray and martial arts wouldnt get me very far in defending myself from most men bent on harming me.

[Virulent]

I for one am glad they havent taken the often only recorse for defence that i would have available if attacked, pepper spray and martial arts wouldnt get me very far in defending myself from most men bent on harming me.

"God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

[Warbaby1943]

"God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

Now you know how I feel about guns but men will never be equal to women. They have all the, err shall we say, power. What they don't control isn't worth having anyhow.

[denuseri]

lol, where is all this power guys i aint feeling it lol,, i think they gave it all to the dommes ,,,pouts, oh well, as a slave i wouldnt really want it any other way,

goes out to the back forty to blow away some beer bottles and scare the liberals


protecting my owners property (me) by deadly accurate force if nessesary

[Warbaby1943]

lol, where is all this power guys i aint feeling it lol,, i think they gave it all to the dommes ,,,pouts, oh well, as a slave i wouldnt really want it any other way,

goes out to the back forty to blow away some beer bottles and scare the liberals


protecting my owners property (me) by deadly accurate force if nessesary

Maybe you should blow away the liberals and keep the beer bottles. They at least had a useful purpose.

OH yeah, that power that all women have is lower than the your naval right about where your legs come together at the top.

[John56{vg}]

Maybe you should blow away the liberals and keep the beer bottles. They at least had a useful purpose.

OH yeah, that power that all women have is lower than the your naval right about where your legs come together at the top.

One of the EXACT reasons I am a Liberal and FOR gun control. Because if a conservative nutjob comes for me because he hates me because I believe different from him and he can't stand that I will meet force with force.

Warbaby, you may have been kidding, but there are a lot of nutjobs out there that aren't. I am a live or let live type of guy. Most Liberals that I have met are.

The problem with COnservatives is to get along you have to believe JUST as they do.

[Ozme52]

Like I said - set back 300 years

You mean 1708? Nothing like a little hyperbole.

You probably think that it was a bad idea that the English yeomenry owned longbows too.

------------------------
(more)

Now that I've read more of this thread... it's too much like religion. One believes what one believes and no arguments will sway one from their beliefs.

So my parting comment is that I believe heartily in gun control... because you can't hit what you're aiming at unless you can control your weapon.

[MissElizabeth87]

So... I'm not sure whether the 2nd amendment demands it or not (Debating the constitution is rather pointless in my opinion. It was vague on purpose). But either way, don't we HAVE gun control laws? I mean, in most states there is a three day waiting period, you have to have license, you can't own certain guns until certain ages, concealed carry licenses are harder to get, and you can't get one if you have a criminal record... and you can't get automatics anywho... so... what is the point of this argument?

[Thorne]

So... I'm not sure whether the 2nd amendment demands it or not (Debating the constitution is rather pointless in my opinion. It was vague on purpose). But either way, don't we HAVE gun control laws? I mean, in most states there is a three day waiting period, you have to have license, you can't own certain guns until certain ages, concealed carry licenses are harder to get, and you can't get one if you have a criminal record... and you can't get automatics anywho... so... what is the point of this argument?

Those who proclaim to want gun 'control' are, actually, more interested in complete prohibition (among law-abiding citizens, at least) than in actually having working, effective controls. The last thing they seem to want is intelligent people, with training and understanding, being able to defend themselves. They seem to think that allowing criminals to run rampant over unarmed people, robbing, raping and even killing them, is far preferable to the possibility that some law-abiding citizen might kill one of the criminals!

[John56{vg}]

Those who proclaim to want gun 'control' are, actually, more interested in complete prohibition (among law-abiding citizens, at least) than in actually having working, effective controls. The last thing they seem to want is intelligent people, with training and understanding, being able to defend themselves. They seem to think that allowing criminals to run rampant over unarmed people, robbing, raping and even killing them, is far preferable to the possibility that some law-abiding citizen might kill one of the criminals!

Now this is what is called a "sweeping generalization." It is not even NEAR to being true. I am a gun owner, I like guns, and I don't want the government to be the only ones with guns. But I am for the banning of assault weapons, greater controls on training and regulation of guns. Many of my friends feel the same way.

Your inflammatory statement sounds more like NRA propaganda. The NRA is the organization that goes into areas touched by gun violence and proclaim the benefits of guns to the people dealing with the tragedies of that violence. And they want us all to have grenades and RPGs and M14's so that our kids can be killed. (Now you see THAT is another sweeping generalization, just as inflammatory and wrong-headed as your statement. At least I KNOW it is wrong-headed. I am sure the NRA has many members who are level-headed and realize that we need more controls on guns.

Oh yeah, they are called Policemen. Most police organizations are FOR gun controls.

:-)

[Virulent]

Most police organizations are FOR gun controls. :-)

Why this leaves you smiling I don't know. Police obviously want to reduce the number of guns that citizens have; this makes police more necessary. One of the overriding goals of the State is to maintain a monopoly on the use of violence, so that the resistance to their initiatives is limited.

If I disagree with, for instance, the income tax, I could choose not to pay it. Soon the police will come, and attempt to use the threat of violence to compel me to accept whatever punishment the State deems fit. Obviously the police would prefer if I was unarmed; if I had a weapon designed to punch through bullet-proof vests and kevlar helmets, the police would have to question the necessity of using violence to enforce the will of the State against me.

How many police officers are willing to risk their lives to ensure that the gore-encrusted cogs of the State machine keep turning?

[John56{vg}]

Wow. First killing Liberals and now killing cops. Perfect reasons for having controls on guns.

[Virulent]

Wow. First killing Liberals and now killing cops. Perfect reasons for having controls on guns.

I think you misunderstood me? I've never advocated either of those things. To be clear, I'm strongly anti-murder; and any other act against individual sovereignty. Murder is only acceptable as an act of defense of one's own autonomy. I just don't believe that police deserve the deified standing they hold in our society. They're just people doing a job, and often times their job is flat out evil.

[Thorne]

Now this is what is called a "sweeping generalization." It is not even NEAR to being true. I am a gun owner, I like guns, and I don't want the government to be the only ones with guns. But I am for the banning of assault weapons, greater controls on training and regulation of guns. Many of my friends feel the same way.

Your inflammatory statement sounds more like NRA propaganda. The NRA is the organization that goes into areas touched by gun violence and proclaim the benefits of guns to the people dealing with the tragedies of that violence. And they want us all to have grenades and RPGs and M14's so that our kids can be killed. (Now you see THAT is another sweeping generalization, just as inflammatory and wrong-headed as your statement. At least I KNOW it is wrong-headed. I am sure the NRA has many members who are level-headed and realize that we need more controls on guns.

Oh yeah, they are called Policemen. Most police organizations are FOR gun controls.

:-)

I'll admit to it being a generalization, just as those who rant most about gun ownership in the US generalize over the attitudes here. But if you read through this thread you will see that there are quite a few people, many of them from outside the country, who are far more interested in the banishment of all guns than in proper controls.

No, I'm not a member of the NRA. In fact, I feel that the NRA is about as good for the image of gun owners as bin Laden is good for the image of Muslims. Yes, there are many members of the NRA who are rational and who do want proper controls. But the public persona of the NRA seems to me to be far more radical.

In fact, as I've stated often, I do NOT own any guns, never have and, barring a radical change in my perception of safety within my home, I don't plan on ever owning one. But I do believe that responsible people should have the right to have guns if they feel they need them. It's just that I believe there should be proper, enforceable and enforced control measures, not total prohibition.

[Ozme52]

...

[MissElizabeth87]

I think banning guns is bad. Even if you say that no law abiding citizens can have a gun, obviously, criminals don't CARE about the law. So lets not ban them.

I think selling scary automatics and such is bad. But we have laws against that anyways, and they are hard to come by, as far as I know. So it's okay.

I think having laws about training, locking guns up, who can own guns, and where you can keep them is good.

On top of all of that, I have every intention of becoming a member of the NRA and about half my family are NRA members. It is not that MOST or A LOT OF members of the NRA are crazy and think that there should be no laws about guns. It's just that the radicals/fundamentalists are generally louder than the normal people. It's just like most Muslims don't agree with Bin Laden, most Christians aren't a big fan of televangelists/other radicals I tend to ignore, most Conservatives think that Ann Coulter is crazy... etc. So QUIT talking about how the NRA stands for crazy nutcases who don't care about the safety of normal citizens and children please!

[Virulent]

I'm pretty sure Ann Coulter is a comedienne. Like Stephen Colbert.

[MissElizabeth87]

I'm pretty sure Ann Coulter is a comedienne. Like Stephen Colbert.

Really? I definitely just thought she was a nutcase... Comedienne makes sense though too. haha.

Either way: I think I made my point.

[John56{vg}]

I think banning guns is bad. Even if you say that no law abiding citizens can have a gun, obviously, criminals don't CARE about the law. So lets not ban them.

I think selling scary automatics and such is bad. But we have laws against that anyways, and they are hard to come by, as far as I know. So it's okay.

I think having laws about training, locking guns up, who can own guns, and where you can keep them is good.

On top of all of that, I have every intention of becoming a member of the NRA and about half my family are NRA members. It is not that MOST or A LOT OF members of the NRA are crazy and think that there should be no laws about guns. It's just that the radicals/fundamentalists are generally louder than the normal people. It's just like most Muslims don't agree with Bin Laden, most Christians aren't a big fan of televangelists/other radicals I tend to ignore, most Conservatives think that Ann Coulter is crazy... etc. So QUIT talking about how the NRA stands for crazy nutcases who don't care about the safety of normal citizens and children please!

I respectfully will not stop talking about the NRA. Not until they stop holding "pro-gun" rallies at the sites of major gun violence, RIGHT after the event. A despicable, political, and uncaring action.

I will not stop talking about the NRA until they push for sane gun laws.

And as I said earlier, my generalization about ALL the NRA members being radicals was in response to another infammatory wrong-headed statement about those that want sane gun control. I KNOW many sane members of the organization. However, the leadership and political arm of the group is radical and uncaring.

So, even though I believe much as you do. I would not belong to the radical NRA.

[Kuskovian]

LOL. It is a mute point.
I am glad to see all these opinions, even if I personally think some of them are bull.

My uncareing, inflamatroy wrong headed, radical, multiple gun owning, active NRA member, conservative, crazy self, didn't go put my life on the line in two wars to defend your rights to free speech or to bear arms for nothing after all.

Looks like the cake eating liberal civillian stereotype still holds true in some corners.

Fanatics are apparently located on both sides of this so called argument.

In defence of the NRA, who are in no way "crazy". We work hard to keep the "right to bear arms" available to the American people. Thats it plain and simple. Without a group of individual conserned citizens like ourselves (the NRA) to prevent it, the government would eventually attempt to remove such rights.

It is not the first nor the last time we shall probably see them try.
I thank the Godess that aparently at least 5 of those Justices on our Supreme Court, see it the same way

[Warbaby1943]

LOL. It is a mute point.
I am glad to see all these opinions, even if I personally think some of them are bull.

My uncareing, inflamatroy wrong headed, radical, multiple gun owning, active NRA member, conservative, crazy self, didn't go put my life on the line in two wars to defend your rights to free speech or to bear arms for nothing after all.

Looks like the cake eating liberal civillian stereotype still holds true in some corners.

Fanatics are apparently located on both sides of this so called argument.

In defence of the NRA, who are in no way "crazy". We work hard to keep the "right to bear arms" available to the American people. Thats it plain and simple. Without a group of individual conserned citizens like ourselves (the NRA) to prevent it, the government would eventually attempt to remove such rights.

It is not the first nor the last time we shall probably see them try.
I thank the Godess that aparently at least 5 of those Justices on our Supreme Court, see it the same way

Amen!!!!!

[John56{vg}]

LOL. It is a mute point.
I am glad to see all these opinions, even if I personally think some of them are bull.

My uncareing, inflamatroy wrong headed, radical, multiple gun owning, active NRA member, conservative, crazy self, didn't go put my life on the line in two wars to defend your rights to free speech or to bear arms for nothing after all.

Looks like the cake eating liberal civillian stereotype still holds true in some corners.

Fanatics are apparently located on both sides of this so called argument.

In defence of the NRA, who are in no way "crazy". We work hard to keep the "right to bear arms" available to the American people. Thats it plain and simple. Without a group of individual conserned citizens like ourselves (the NRA) to prevent it, the government would eventually attempt to remove such rights.

It is not the first nor the last time we shall probably see them try.
I thank the Godess that aparently at least 5 of those Justices on our Supreme Court, see it the same way

My grandfather, my father, my uncles have ALL fought to keep this nation free. I own guns and support the owning of guns. But I DO believe in controls and regulation.

I have said here what I believe in. What I have gotten in return has been the support of shooting and killing liberals. Being called a "cake-eating Liberal stereotype." I DO believe the leadership of the NRA are radical and unfeeling in some of their actions.

I have never said ALL the members are.

I have never said that those that believe that some here are stereo-typical or should be shot.

Stereotypes work both ways though it seems. As does resorting to name-calling. I know that I have a different opinion from the bulk of the people here.

I will not change your opinion, I know that. But I will always support the right for you to say your piece. And you will not change my opinion either. But expressing a different opinion seems to be a crime to some of the people here. Or at least could get you shot.

So I will stop expressing my opinion here.

Sorry that people who think differently are not allowed to have their opinions respected.