The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government, any other interpretation is simply wrong.

the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights. They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution. I think you need a course in American history.

Yes, I agree completely.
But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc. And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.

the Intent and Purpose is in the First clause of our Second Amendment.

I disagree since listing 1 reason does not at all imply there are not thousands of others they did not bother to list.
But it does not matter.
One point is sufficient since the result then is NO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all!
It is impossible to read the 2nd amendment as anything but a total and complete ban on federal jurisdiction over weapons.

I view it as a States' sovereign right, clearly expressed and secured by our Second Amendment.

Do states have rights?
I don't think so.
States can only act on behave of the inherent rights of individuals I think.
States do have jurisdictions however, and that works out the same I think?

States must have rights in relation to the federal government.

 

[Rigby5]

The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900. Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
You are missing the whole point. The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
The militia is civilian. The Militia is the federal organization after being called up. Big difference. A posse is when a group of militia are needed.

{...
The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).

The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).

Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.

These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
...}
The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online

It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.

The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.

We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.

It's in article 1, section 8

• "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.

So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.

That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.

This means the 2A is also based around this intention.

I disagree for 2 main reasons.

First is that you have the Bill of Rights backwards.
It does not create any rights at all.
All it does is acknowledge rights have have always existed as inherent individual rights or state extensions of those inherent individual rights.
And while we can see the shadow of the individual right to be armed in the 2nd amendment, it is much more clear in the 4th and 5th amendments.

Second is that the right of individuals to bear arms refers to all these separate individuals as the "militia", uncapitalized.
However, the federation needs to be able to forces individuals to come to the aid of the country if we are attacked.
When this emergency happens and the federal government takes over the militia, it becomes the "Militia", capitalized.
And then the Militia is totally under federal control, under the means and purposes as described in the constitution.
But in no way are these war time emergency powers the main purpose of the militia.
That would be like saying that since the constitution gives the federal government some authority to tax, that then states were banned from being able to tax.
Read the 9th and 10 amendments again.
The idea is that the feds can only do what is explicitly granted, but it is assumed states and people can do everything not explicitly banned to them.
The main point of the militia should not be expected to be in the constitution, only the limited federal use of them.

No, it doesn't create rights and I didn't say it did. It takes power from the Federal government.

No, the militia is not all those individuals. Individuals can join the militia, they are not the militia, they can be a part of the militia.

The militia is set out in article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution and has officers appointed by the state. Yes, they have a right to be in the militia, but the militia is not the people. These two words have a different meaning.

Seeing as 18-45 males was the militia, and the people was 0-1000 females and males, you must see the difference.

You have to be wrong because obviously the militia had to exist BEFORE the Constitution, or else we could not have rebelled from England.
The Constitution did not and can not create or define the militia.
All the Constitution can do is define how the federal government can all up the militia in times of emergency.
And when members of the militia are called up by the federal government, it is a different organization, capitalized in spelling, and now known as the National Guard.

Since there were no police back then, and the state did not enforce the peace, then who do you think did?
{...
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
...}

Here is what the New York state constitution says about the militia:
{...
[Defense; militia]

Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, I agree completely.
But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc. And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.

the Intent and Purpose is in the First clause of our Second Amendment.

I disagree since listing 1 reason does not at all imply there are not thousands of others they did not bother to list.
But it does not matter.
One point is sufficient since the result then is NO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all!
It is impossible to read the 2nd amendment as anything but a total and complete ban on federal jurisdiction over weapons.

I view it as a States' sovereign right, clearly expressed and secured by our Second Amendment.

Do states have rights?
I don't think so.
States can only act on behave of the inherent rights of individuals I think.
States do have jurisdictions however, and that works out the same I think?

States must have rights in relation to the federal government.

No form of government can have rights, neither federal nor state.
What government have are jurisdictions, and governments act under the empowerment of the rights of individuals they serve.
Governments don't have rights, but serve the rights of indiviuals, and by doing so sort of borrow on their authority.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

You have only two defences for the Nation, The Military, Thr National Guard, and the second Adm The2nd adm is the last defence when the other two are gone or unable to respond. Also read the cvonstitution it spells it out in several places.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900. Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
You are missing the whole point. The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
The militia is civilian. The Militia is the federal organization after being called up. Big difference. A posse is when a group of militia are needed.

{...
The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).

The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).

Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.

These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
...}
The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online

It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.

The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.

We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.

It's in article 1, section 8

• "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.

So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.

That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.

This means the 2A is also based around this intention.

I disagree for 2 main reasons.

First is that you have the Bill of Rights backwards.
It does not create any rights at all.
All it does is acknowledge rights have have always existed as inherent individual rights or state extensions of those inherent individual rights.
And while we can see the shadow of the individual right to be armed in the 2nd amendment, it is much more clear in the 4th and 5th amendments.

Second is that the right of individuals to bear arms refers to all these separate individuals as the "militia", uncapitalized.
However, the federation needs to be able to forces individuals to come to the aid of the country if we are attacked.
When this emergency happens and the federal government takes over the militia, it becomes the "Militia", capitalized.
And then the Militia is totally under federal control, under the means and purposes as described in the constitution.
But in no way are these war time emergency powers the main purpose of the militia.
That would be like saying that since the constitution gives the federal government some authority to tax, that then states were banned from being able to tax.
Read the 9th and 10 amendments again.
The idea is that the feds can only do what is explicitly granted, but it is assumed states and people can do everything not explicitly banned to them.
The main point of the militia should not be expected to be in the constitution, only the limited federal use of them.

No, it doesn't create rights and I didn't say it did. It takes power from the Federal government.

No, the militia is not all those individuals. Individuals can join the militia, they are not the militia, they can be a part of the militia.

The militia is set out in article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution and has officers appointed by the state. Yes, they have a right to be in the militia, but the militia is not the people. These two words have a different meaning.

Seeing as 18-45 males was the militia, and the people was 0-1000 females and males, you must see the difference.

You have to be wrong because obviously the militia had to exist BEFORE the Constitution, or else we could not have rebelled from England.
The Constitution did not and can not create or define the militia.
All the Constitution can do is define how the federal government can all up the militia in times of emergency.
And when members of the militia are called up by the federal government, it is a different organization, capitalized in spelling, and now known as the National Guard.

Since there were no police back then, and the state did not enforce the peace, then who do you think did?
{...
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
...}

Here is what the New York state constitution says about the militia:
{...
[Defense; militia]

Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
...}

The problem with your argument here is that the militia was codified into the US Constitution.

Yes, the militia existed before, but it existed in a different way than it existed after the Constitution was ratified.

Before the Constitution was ratified, militia were militias of the colonies. There was no federal govt to call them up, no federal govt to tell them what to do. They could do as they wished.

Article 1 section 8 says:

"to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

This means the Federal govt could call up the militia.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This means the feds can provide arms for the militia, discipline the militia and States were expected to appoint officers. Basically preventing the feds from doing this, however training could be done at a federal level.

Yes, when people were called up into federal service, it was more or less different.

Now, here's the problem.

The Second Amendment ONLY concerned the Federal govt.

So, the right to keep and bear arms only amount to the feds being unable to prevent individuals from owning arms and being in the militia.

At state level there was no right unless the state constitution specifically protected this.

So, does this include self defense? No, it doesn't. No matter how states used their militias, the federal govt made a constitution that prevented the federal govt from doing things. It didn't prevent the federal govt stopping self defense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900. Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
You are missing the whole point. The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
The militia is civilian. The Militia is the federal organization after being called up. Big difference. A posse is when a group of militia are needed.

{...
...}.

The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.

We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.

It's in article 1, section 8

• "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.

So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.

That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.

This means the 2A is also based around this intention.

the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government, any other interpretation is simply wrong.

the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights. They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution. I think you need a course in American history.

Yes, I agree completely.
But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc. And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.

But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.

 

[danielpalos]

The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900. Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
You are missing the whole point. The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
The militia is civilian. The Militia is the federal organization after being called up. Big difference. A posse is when a group of militia are needed.

{...
The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).

The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).

Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.

These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
...}
The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online

It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.

The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.

We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.

It's in article 1, section 8

• "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.

So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.

That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.

This means the 2A is also based around this intention.

I disagree for 2 main reasons.

First is that you have the Bill of Rights backwards.
It does not create any rights at all.
All it does is acknowledge rights have have always existed as inherent individual rights or state extensions of those inherent individual rights.
And while we can see the shadow of the individual right to be armed in the 2nd amendment, it is much more clear in the 4th and 5th amendments.

Second is that the right of individuals to bear arms refers to all these separate individuals as the "militia", uncapitalized.
However, the federation needs to be able to forces individuals to come to the aid of the country if we are attacked.
When this emergency happens and the federal government takes over the militia, it becomes the "Militia", capitalized.
And then the Militia is totally under federal control, under the means and purposes as described in the constitution.
But in no way are these war time emergency powers the main purpose of the militia.
That would be like saying that since the constitution gives the federal government some authority to tax, that then states were banned from being able to tax.
Read the 9th and 10 amendments again.
The idea is that the feds can only do what is explicitly granted, but it is assumed states and people can do everything not explicitly banned to them.
The main point of the militia should not be expected to be in the constitution, only the limited federal use of them.

No, it doesn't create rights and I didn't say it did. It takes power from the Federal government.

No, the militia is not all those individuals. Individuals can join the militia, they are not the militia, they can be a part of the militia.

The militia is set out in article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution and has officers appointed by the state. Yes, they have a right to be in the militia, but the militia is not the people. These two words have a different meaning.

Seeing as 18-45 males was the militia, and the people was 0-1000 females and males, you must see the difference.

You have to be wrong because obviously the militia had to exist BEFORE the Constitution, or else we could not have rebelled from England.
The Constitution did not and can not create or define the militia.
All the Constitution can do is define how the federal government can all up the militia in times of emergency.
And when members of the militia are called up by the federal government, it is a different organization, capitalized in spelling, and now known as the National Guard.

Since there were no police back then, and the state did not enforce the peace, then who do you think did?
{...
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
...}

Here is what the New York state constitution says about the militia:
{...
[Defense; militia]

Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
...}

Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

 

[danielpalos]

the Intent and Purpose is in the First clause of our Second Amendment.

I disagree since listing 1 reason does not at all imply there are not thousands of others they did not bother to list.
But it does not matter.
One point is sufficient since the result then is NO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all!
It is impossible to read the 2nd amendment as anything but a total and complete ban on federal jurisdiction over weapons.

I view it as a States' sovereign right, clearly expressed and secured by our Second Amendment.

Do states have rights?
I don't think so.
States can only act on behave of the inherent rights of individuals I think.
States do have jurisdictions however, and that works out the same I think?

States must have rights in relation to the federal government.

No form of government can have rights, neither federal nor state.
What government have are jurisdictions, and governments act under the empowerment of the rights of individuals they serve.
Governments don't have rights, but serve the rights of indiviuals, and by doing so sort of borrow on their authority.

States have rights, in relation to the general government. Jurisdiction, is a States' right.

 

[2aguy]

Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law

Go Vermont.

Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level. After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting. All federal gun laws should be repealed.

Wrong....when democrats controlled states they used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep Blacks from voting....a state can't violate the Rights of an individual.... the Federal Government can't violate the Rights of an individual.

But the point should be that while individual gun rights are not unlimited, it is the states that should be doing the regulating, not the federal government.
For example, gun laws in Alaska likely should be very different from gun laws in NY.
And there is no point to any federal gun laws at all, except maybe over their importation.

How would the gun laws in Alaska be different from New York? Using a gun to commit a crime is just as illegal in Alaska as it is in New York...what you are pointing out is limits to the Right to bear arms that have no bearing on crime.

Laws about using a gun to commit a crime is not a gun law.
Gun laws are about regulations and restriction on possession and ownership of guns.
Alaska has more natural dangers that make guns more necessary.
NY has more crowding any stress that makes anger and crime more common, so then concealed weapons may be more of a problem than they would in Alaska.

Sorry. No. Americans are Americans no matter what city or state they live in. In fact, concealed carry is even more important in New York, where democrats allow criminals to run wild. A Right is not changed due to geography.

 

[danielpalos]

Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level. After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting. All federal gun laws should be repealed.

Wrong....when democrats controlled states they used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep Blacks from voting....a state can't violate the Rights of an individual.... the Federal Government can't violate the Rights of an individual.

But the point should be that while individual gun rights are not unlimited, it is the states that should be doing the regulating, not the federal government.
For example, gun laws in Alaska likely should be very different from gun laws in NY.
And there is no point to any federal gun laws at all, except maybe over their importation.

How would the gun laws in Alaska be different from New York? Using a gun to commit a crime is just as illegal in Alaska as it is in New York...what you are pointing out is limits to the Right to bear arms that have no bearing on crime.

Laws about using a gun to commit a crime is not a gun law.
Gun laws are about regulations and restriction on possession and ownership of guns.
Alaska has more natural dangers that make guns more necessary.
NY has more crowding any stress that makes anger and crime more common, so then concealed weapons may be more of a problem than they would in Alaska.

Sorry. No. Americans are Americans no matter what city or state they live in. In fact, concealed carry is even more important in New York, where democrats allow criminals to run wild. A Right is not changed due to geography.

State management must be slacking if the unorganized militia is causing problems.

 

[Redfish]

The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900. Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
You are missing the whole point. The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
The militia is civilian. The Militia is the federal organization after being called up. Big difference. A posse is when a group of militia are needed.

{...
...}.

The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.

We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.

It's in article 1, section 8

• "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.

So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.

That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.

This means the 2A is also based around this intention.

the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government, any other interpretation is simply wrong.

the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights. They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution. I think you need a course in American history.

Yes, I agree completely.
But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc. And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.

But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.

so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns. That's exactly why the founders left Europe.

 

[danielpalos]

The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900. Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
You are missing the whole point. The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
The militia is civilian. The Militia is the federal organization after being called up. Big difference. A posse is when a group of militia are needed.

{...
...}.

The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.

We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.

It's in article 1, section 8

• "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.

So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.

That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.

This means the 2A is also based around this intention.

the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government, any other interpretation is simply wrong.

the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights. They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution. I think you need a course in American history.

Yes, I agree completely.
But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc. And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.

But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.

so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns. That's exactly why the founders left Europe.

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Lakhota]

NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?

2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come

Fuck the NRA. It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.

 

[Markle]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Punctuation still escapes you I see. I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY!

 

[PredFan]

NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?

2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come

Fuck the NRA. It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.

I just gave the NRA more money, I'm also giving more to the GOA because they are fighting the bump stock ban. I support the NAGR as well. Yeah the NRA had a bad year, all gun owners and freedom lovers did.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.

/——/ Same here.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.

I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.

 

[Flash]

I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.

I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.

You are a member of the militia.

 

[Redfish]

I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.

I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.

You are a member of the militia.

as are we all. the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".