Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"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."
Does this mean that those who keep and maintain arms can be called up to act as a "well regulated militia" when deemed necessary?
According to Title 10, United States Code, The Unorganized Militia, YES!
According to Section 12 of the Montana State Constitution:
"Right To Bear Arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or IN AID OF THE CIVIL POWER WHEN THERETO LEGALLY SUMMONED, shall not be called in question, but nothing contained herein sahll be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
(EMPHASIS added)
So, also in accordance to the Montana State Constitution: YES!
What does YOUR State Constitution say about the matter?
I don't want to ban the first amendment, I just want to tell you what books you can read and what journalists can write.
Supporting civil rights means supporting all of them. If any other rights as codified in the bill of rights was treated like you and other want to treat the second amendment you would be up in arms, pardon the pun. The 2nd amendment is equal to all those other civil rights, it is not a lower tier right.
The only gun laws that were approved by scotus as reasonable were not allowing felons and mentally ill from having guns, that is it.
Maybe some historical understanding for the need of arms will help you out.
Datos, ne quisquam seruiat, enses. (The sword was given for this, that none need live a slave.) - Marcus Annaeus Lucanus
Actually, SCOTUS reaffirmed the right of a city in Illinois to ban assault weapons in their city. They refused to overturn a lower courts ruling on the matter.
To be fair, SCOTUS in the Heller decision warranted that a case could be made for the individual ownership of machine guns by the average citizen and was an individual right. I personally am happy about that for if they were ever made illegal for the average citizen, I would lose a large portion of my collection of historical military firearms.
I also carry concealed, every day, everywhere.
My differences stem from the 2nd absolutists who believe that no restrictions whatsoever on the 2nd amendment are reasonable. I believe that reasonable restrictions are an important part and parcel of every constitutional amendment and have been so since it's inception. The only question is what, exactly is considered reasonable.
When the Bill of Rights was adopted the only weapon a citizen could reasonably expect to possess was a musket. These could be fired 3 or 4 times a minute. I don't know what the Founders would have thought about allowing people to have weapons that can fire 50 or more shots a minute. And that can shoot at targets accurately a mile away.
When the Bill of Rights was adopted the only weapon a citizen could reasonably expect to possess was a musket. These could be fired 3 or 4 times a minute. I don't know what the Founders would have thought about allowing people to have weapons that can fire 50 or more shots a minute. And that can shoot at targets accurately a mile away.
Please tell us more about this historical fantasy land where muskets were the only weapon a citizen could possess.
When the Bill of Rights was adopted the only weapon a citizen could reasonably expect to possess was a musket. These could be fired 3 or 4 times a minute. I don't know what the Founders would have thought about allowing people to have weapons that can fire 50 or more shots a minute. And that can shoot at targets accurately a mile away.
The average F/A assault weapon can fire 650 rds per minute or more. Usually 10-13 rds a second.
I note that you make no argument that I am wrong but just that you find ridiculous what you think I have said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
So should the average person be able to carry an RPG? How about pipe bombs? Gernades? Anti-tank missles?
I mentioned (in post 27) the protection criteria that is used to determine if government possesses any power to dictate to a private citizen the type of arm he may posses and use (keep and bear). If you would like to have a discussion about how certain types of arms fit into that, then please frame your question in a way that demonstrates you understand the principle and process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
Seriously you just don't want to use logic because you know that your argument is ridiculous.
My argument is grounded in the philosophical, historical and legal record of the Constitution and its enforcement by SCOTUS.
Ridiculous arguments are those that dismiss the record and only rely on emotion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
Just in case you didn't know, common people are using large weapons right now. Common people had pipe bombs in the San Bernadino shooting. Pipe bombs are not the biggest weapons, should they be allowed?
Pipe bombs are not protected under the 2nd Amendment and fall under the legal condition of being a "dangerous and unusual" arm; a specific legal status that has existed for centuries to sustain laws restricting the possession and use of those weapons by private citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
If the argument was that "I need that to defend myself against a tyrannical govt." You could make a case for much larger weapons than plain old rifles.
Certainly! If the government has become tyrannical it has lost its legitimacy to govern and We the People retain the right to rescind their consent to be governed and reclaim the powers originally granted through the Constitution. Once the powers have been rescinded, what was known as the federal government can claim no protections of the Constitution such as federal preemption and supremacy. IOW, the government's weapons of war would belong to the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
Obviously any thinking person knows that there is gray area and not acknowledging it makes the argument ridiculous. You could say "The second amendment says X" to having a anti-tank missile in your garage.
Anti-tank missiles (and nukes and other WMD's etc.,) are the domain of the federal government because the powers to declare war, maintain and provide for the armed forces was surrendered by the People -- so the People can not claim any right to possess or own those weapons. (AKA the doctrine of conferred powers and retained rights)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
You accept limits on your rights to own arms on the scale of missiles and yet deny them when it comes rifles.
Correct. Again, I point to the principle of conferred powers and retained rights. What the people have surrendered they can not claim any right to do (own a nuke, print their own money, enter into treaties etc). The other side of that coin is that for those interests that the People granted NO POWER, then the government can not claim any interest in.
The right to arms is not what the 2nd Amendment "says" it is (or whatever "interpretation" can be squeezed from it) . . . The right to arms is the silence of the body of the Constitution granting the federal government any power over the personal arms of the private citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
Yet when questioned about it you don't want to have a logical framework to debate why one and not the other. That is just nonsense.
Now I have, what do you say now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment they didn't have to think about the destructive power that we have today. Artillery shells and gatling guns were not mobile at the time of writing. Today a normal person can be mobile in his car with a RPG. Trying to not acknowledge it is just plain ridiculous.
And now that I have acknowledged it and given you a constitutional and logically incontrovertible explanation for my position?
This is especially true for democrats. However I have noticed that few people, essentially what people think of as "country folk" believe in the 2nd Amendment for the actual reason that is given in the document
- "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."
You've been listening to Barack Obama too much. I would say that everyone I know that believes in the 2nd Amendment believes that it is our right to "bear arms" that keeps the government in check. You don't give people enough credit. They do understand this relationship, and that is one reason they fear those who advocate taking away their guns. Government is threaten us daily in many and various ways. The EPA tells people what they can and cannot do with their land, etc.
When I was a boy, our neighbor was a German man with horses and about 75 acres. He was also a business man, owned a machine shop. Very smart. He also owned guns. The story goes that some government officials came out to his farm one time (I don't remember what for) and tried to intimidate him. He ran them off his property with his gun, and told them never to come back. They didn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
