The Right To Bear Arms

[Lakhota]

right here in this thread......someone who is a "gun lover".....and only wants the crazies not to have guns would not be calling for the end of the 2nd .....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/272886-the-right-to-bear-arms.html

post 154.....

Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.

Post 154 in your link is a picture. The statement you reference is in my signature. Nowhere have "I" called for guns to be banned. I don't want guns banned. I simply want sensible gun control. The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete in today's world. The NRA is crazy.

your posts are pretty dam anti-gun Lakota.....i suggest you might want to start expressing yourself somewhat better......no one who is for gun rights would want the only thing protecting those rights to be abolished.......and YOU HAVE called for the 2nd to be shit canned.....i dont see how its confusing if you understand English.....there is a difference between the words MILITIA and PEOPLE.....and i am quite sure the guys who put it together and put it in the Bill understood this.....otherwise why would they have not put Militia instead of People in the second part?.....

My posts only seem radical to NRA extremists. I express my intent just fine. I don't ever recall calling for the 2nd Amendment to be "shit canned" as you call it - but I have certainly stated that it is confusing and obsolete in today's world - in other words it should be changed and updated to reflect modern reality - not the mentally of the founders nearly 225 years ago. They had no way to envision the world we live in today. No civilian has a right to the same weapons as the military.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The limits on the right to bear arms are determined by the court.

First the court must determine what level of arms is "Reasonable".

Not reasonable ......what is in common use.

 

[OODA_Loop]

No civilian has a right to the same weapons as the military.

Not the the same weapons as in military use......whats in common use.

 

[OriginalShroom]

For those who believe the wording of the 2nd Amendment is doesn't give the individual right to "Keep and bear arms" should read the following..

The following is taken from J. Neil Schulman's book Stopping Power,
(Pulpless.com, 1999 © 1999)

//The first person usage refers to Mr. Schulman//

"I just had a conversation with Mr. A. C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement English for several years at Van Nuys H.S., as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin.......

I gave Mr. Brocki my name.....then asked him to parse the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Mr Brocki informed me that the sentence was over punctuated, but the meaning could be extracted anyway:

"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "electorate."

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people."

“Shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed."

"To keep and read books is an infinitive phrase modifying the verb phrase "Shall not be infringed."

I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it clearer.

Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well schooled electorate is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and read books to a well schooled electorate.....

He said, "No."

I then identified my purpose and read the 2nd A. in full:
"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 asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same as the sentence I first quoted you?'

He said, "Yes."

I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.

He transformed the sentence the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in 200 years.

He said "No."

I asked whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict the right to keep arms to "a well regulated Militia."

He said, "No."

According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people are the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned.

I asked him again to make sure:

SCHULMAN: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be restricted to a "well-regulated militia?"

BROCKI; "No, I don't see that."

SCHULMAN; "Could another professional in English grammar or linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"

BROCKI: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."

I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation on the opinion, and be quoted on this.

He said, "Yes."

At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the 2nd. Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms. -July17, 1991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sculman and Usage continued…………

"……but who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?"

That was the question I asked A. C. Brocki.... Mr Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at USC and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. ...

American Usage and Style: The Consensus has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

//Schulman goes on to describe how he introduced himself to Professor Copperud and then describes a letter he wrote containing many questions concerning the 2nd. A. given the debate whether the opening clause, A well regulated militia..... "is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause w/ respect to the independent clause and subject of the sentence, "the right of the ......"

Sculman went on to ask, "I would request that your analysis ..... be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further.....I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary." – PB//

"After several more letters and phone calls... Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis:

[Copperud] The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 25, 1991, constitute a present participle rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall" . The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your questions:

[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to a "well regulated militia"?

[Copperud: (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Sculman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the 2nd. A., or does the 2nd. A assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and mere state that such right "shall not be infringed"?

[Copperid: (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?

[Copperud: (3) no such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?

[Copperud: The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia mean: "well-equipped", "well-organized", "well-drilled", "well-educated", or "subject to the regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud: (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.

[Copperud: to the best of my knowledge thare has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put:

"Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the 2nd A. to the following sentence:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the 2nd. A. sentence; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - e.g. registered voters w/ a high school diploma?

[Copperud: (1) your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure;
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Post 154 in your link is a picture. The statement you reference is in my signature. Nowhere have "I" called for guns to be banned. I don't want guns banned. I simply want sensible gun control. The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete in today's world. The NRA is crazy.

your posts are pretty dam anti-gun Lakota.....i suggest you might want to start expressing yourself somewhat better......no one who is for gun rights would want the only thing protecting those rights to be abolished.......and YOU HAVE called for the 2nd to be shit canned.....i dont see how its confusing if you understand English.....there is a difference between the words MILITIA and PEOPLE.....and i am quite sure the guys who put it together and put it in the Bill understood this.....otherwise why would they have not put Militia instead of People in the second part?.....

My posts only seem radical to NRA extremists. I express my intent just fine. I don't ever recall calling for the 2nd Amendment to be "shit canned" as you call it - but I have certainly stated that it is confusing and obsolete in today's world - in other words it should be changed and updated to reflect modern reality - not the mentally of the founders nearly 225 years ago. They had no way to envision the world we live in today. No civilian has a right to the same weapons as the military.

you might think its only to the extremist....but when you "mock" what they say with your anti-gun posts instead of debating what they say......well need i say more?.....when i read your first post on this LaKota where you claimed you were for reasonable gun control i had no problems with that......but as soon as you started doing your "mocking" and saying the 2nd is obsolete.....you changed my mind about you......you think i am the only one?....you are doing as much damage to reasonable gun control advocacy as the rabid "gun nutters" are doing to the 2nd amendment by what some of them say.....you both are not doing your sides any favors......

 

[Darkwind]

The arguments surrounding the inclusion of the bill of rights in the constitutional document are neither hard to find nor a matter of fiction. They are included in every copy of the "Federalist Papers" that are recorded in the early records of our country.

These rights were so commonly held that it seemed rediculous to have to include them in a document which was written to provide a limited number of powers to the federal government. The founders believed that these rights extended from birth and that it was inconceivable that any government would attempt to assume powers over them. The second amendment doesn't provide us with the right to keep and bear arms - that which is given by the Creator can't be taken by man - but the second amendment was put in place to say that it was a right that the federal government had no power to touch and must defend and protect.
Not just the second but all ten of the amendments in the bill of rights was put in place for this reason. The defense of such rights was unlimited so long as you are willing to accept the responsibility for each of them. You are free to say anything you like as long as it doen't infringe on the rights of others. Libel, slander and yelling "FIRE" in a dark movie theaters are not infringments on your rights it is just that you must be willing to accept the punishment for your actions when they incite injury to others.
You have the right to worship, or not, as you please so long as you don't threaten the right to worship, or not, to others. It is not a limit on your right but the extension of those same rigts to others. You are free to keep and bear arms as long as you do not endanger another with your acts. That would infringe on their rights. Since I have never injured or even threatened someone with my guns I am protected by the letter of and intent of the second amendment. You have no power to restrict my personal right because of the illegal acts of others just as no one can limit your freedom of speech because of the slander or incision to riot by others.

Our rights are forever our rights - each and all of them - and they can only be taken away by our own individual abuse of them.

Your wasting your time. The apple believes that the Bill of Rights doe NOT limit government. He thinks that it is okay to give up your guns because who is going to put the white man on a reservation? White in the middle with a red skin is what Indians call government lackeys. Apples.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's not what I said (obviously ). Try to concentrate. I said, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead. Don't change the subject, just name one.

there were very few

Ok, what were their names?

how would we know the names of German and Japanese spies unless they got caught??

there were very few possibly and largely because the effort to prevent the spying was so effective, not because the Japanese did not wish to have intelligence as you seem to imagine.

Do you think the Japanese looked among the Irish, Polish, or the Japanese to recruit spies?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Amen! I'm also a gun nut - just not a radical NRA gun nut. Only a fool would think they have a right to the same weapons as today's military.

Bull fucking shit you lying shack of shit.

see.....Reb knows he has seen your other threads.....

 

[UseCaution]

I'm a gun lover and hunter. I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens. I simply want some common sense gun control. I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's. IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.

Now we have common ground my friend. I'm glad because I'm tired of seeing you so abused on this forum by people who share my opinion. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about wishing to disarm qualified citizens. I was never a NRA member because I found their rhetoric too extreme. I too found the 2nd Amendment wording confusing until I did just a little research. People of the 18th century spoke differently than we do today. The intent remains true. If you and I and our fellow countrymen feel it's time to repeal or adjust the 2nd Amendment, we have a vehicle for that in Article V.



The Constitution of the United States

* * * * * * * * * *

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind. It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.

What can you say about all this? Meeting of minds, the NRA is an embarrassment to reasonable rational gun enthusiast. As I have no guns, but have excellent shooting experience. The language was absolutely developed from a different mindset and technology understanding of that time. Along with no standing army. But from the standpoint of being out in THE back country townships at that time, were dangers just on their own ,during these times I would've felt great comfort knowing that I can keep my guns. I can apply the right to bear arms no matter what during these dangerous periods. But the volatility of small weapons like the assault rifle vs. Today's modern army technology to decimate you. The second amendment is flawed!

 

[Unkotare]

Do you think the Japanese looked among the Irish, Polish, or the Japanese to recruit spies?

You seem to think that line is really clever, but no one has claimed anything like that and it does not support your position in any way. Stop being so stupid.

 

[Unkotare]

there were very few

Ok, what were their names?

how would we know the names of German and Japanese spies unless they got caught??

And how would you know the names of Japanese American spies if no Japanese Americans agreed to act as spies (as all evidence suggests)? You're trying to insist on something that did not happen as far as you can prove. In fact, the only thing you have been able to support with facts is that one white guy from Maryland spied for Japan during the war. Way to go, genius.


Ok, now it's time for you to say something stupid again.

 

[Unkotare]

the Japanese did not wish to have intelligence as you seem to imagine.

Have I ever said that, idiot? No? Then you can stop repeating it and making yourself look like an illogical moron whenever you like.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the Japanese did not wish to have intelligence as you seem to imagine.

Have I ever said that, idiot? No? Then you can stop repeating it and making yourself look like an illogical moron whenever you like.

Wiki: "Even before the war, a large Nazi spy ring was found operating in the United States. The Duquesne Spy Ring is still the largest espionage case in United States history that ended in convictions. The 33 German agents who formed the Duquesne spy ring were placed in key jobs in the United States to get information that could be used in the event of war and to carry out acts of sabotage. One man opened a restaurant and used his position to get information from his customers; another worked on an airline so he could report Allied ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean; others in the ring worked as deliverymen so they could deliver secret messages alongside normal messages. The ring was led by Captain Fritz Joubert Duquesne, a South African Boer who spied for Germany in both World Wars and is best known as "The man who killed Kitchener" after he was awarded the Iron Cross for his key role in the sabotage and sinking of HMS Hampshire in 1916.[3] William G. Sebold, a double agent for the United States, was a major factor in the FBI's successful resolution of this case. For nearly two years, Sebold ran a radio station in New York for the ring, giving the FBI valuable information on what Germany was sending to its spies in the United States while also controlling the information that was being transmitted to Germany. On June 29, 1941, the FBI closed in. All 33 spies were arrested, found guilty, and sentenced to serve a total of over 300 years in prison.

 

[Unkotare]

Thanks for that post, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said. Why bother quoting me and then posting something utterly unrelated to what I said? You really are a mental case.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Thanks for that post, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said. Why bother quoting me and then posting something utterly unrelated to what I said? You really are a mental case.

ok I'll spell it out for you. There were many German spies in the USA, and of course it was logical to assume the Japanese had the same idea, particularly on the West Coast.

Catching on now??

 

[Unkotare]

Name the Japanese American spies on the West coast. So far you've only named one white dude from Maryland.


Do you know who you CAN name? You can name the extraordinarily brave and loyal Japanese Americans who, despite being thown into FDR's concentration camps along with their families, volunteered to serve their country and went on to become members of the most decorated military unit in US history.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Name the Japanese American spies on the West coast. So far you've only named one white dude from Maryland.

dear, the Germans and Japanese needed intelligence- right?? PLease answer yes or no or be held in contempt of court!!

 

[Unkotare]

Name the Japanese American spies on the West coast. So far you've only named one white dude from Maryland.

dear, the Germans and Japanese needed intelligence- right?? PLease answer yes or no or be held in contempt of court!!

Is that a name? Name the Japanese American spies on the West coast. Answer my question and I'll answer yours. If you can remain lucid long enough, that is.

 

[HUGGY]

I support the rights of bears to have arms...



View attachment $bear arms.bmp

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now we have common ground my friend. I'm glad because I'm tired of seeing you so abused on this forum by people who share my opinion. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about wishing to disarm qualified citizens. I was never a NRA member because I found their rhetoric too extreme. I too found the 2nd Amendment wording confusing until I did just a little research. People of the 18th century spoke differently than we do today. The intent remains true. If you and I and our fellow countrymen feel it's time to repeal or adjust the 2nd Amendment, we have a vehicle for that in Article V.



The Constitution of the United States

* * * * * * * * * *

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind. It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.

What can you say about all this? Meeting of minds, the NRA is an embarrassment to reasonable rational gun enthusiast. As I have no guns, but have excellent shooting experience. The language was absolutely developed from a different mindset and technology understanding of that time. Along with no standing army. But from the standpoint of being out in THE back country townships at that time, were dangers just on their own ,during these times I would've felt great comfort knowing that I can keep my guns. I can apply the right to bear arms no matter what during these dangerous periods. But the volatility of small weapons like the assault rifle vs. Today's modern army technology to decimate you. The second amendment is flawed!

Since you say you have no guns your opinion about guns is irrelevant. I suggest that you shut the fuck up.