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.
=lucky4life;33514437]The entire constitution is pretty outdated. Technology has brought us things that the founders couldn't have even dreamed of. definitely believe in the right to own firearms,
And that for sure indicates a commendable attitude! Thanks!
Quote:
but the 2cnd amendment doesn't really apply to our society anymore. guys like Thomas Jefferson could never have envisioned things like nuclear arms, nerve gas or biological weapons.
Here is where we part company. No, the Founders could never have "envisioned" things like nuclear arms, biological weapons, etc. You are right, there....
BUT, the qualifier is that the weapons you mention are not those that would apply under the "bear arms" aspect, anyway. The main intent was that the weapons which could be borne by the average citizen would match those carried by the "standing army", in the event that the said army would be ordered to enforce something like, say, a suspension of the Bill of Rights...
Quote:
As far as gun laws go, it should be up to the states IMO. I have no problem with a guy owning an AK47 as long as he has a clean record and it's registered to him .
The obvious problem with leaving Second Amendment issues strictly up to the several states is that guns and ammo can easily be transported across state lines, such that illegal importation of restricted categories of guns and ammunition from one state to another would readily occur in the absence of federal controls or some uniformity between state laws. Having said that, I would be quite happy if - as an interim measure - states and lesser jurisdictions were allowed to institute upon their own initiative more rigorous controls on firearms and ammunition.
=doctorjef;33524750]The obvious problem with leaving Second Amendment issues strictly up to the several states is that guns and ammo can easily be transported across state lines, such that illegal importation of restricted categories of guns and ammunition from one state to another would readily occur in the absence of federal controls or some uniformity between state laws.
Although I definitely see what you are driving at, DocJ....I believe this sorta begs a question on lots of levels. That is to say, there has never really been any truly definitive ruling from SCOTUS, although the Heller decision might have been the best to date. That is, it was an individual, as opposed to collective, right.
For quite a while, this one had been avoided like the proverbial plague... And until it is ever settled, then yes, you are right, it will come up, forever...
Still though, just to ask... what do you mean by "illegal firearms" transported across state lines? Illegal firearms are just that...illegal. If there is a demand for "black market" firearms in certain states? Then I guess people in those states want them. Or legal ones too, far as that goes?
Quote:
Having said that, I would be quite happy if -- as an interim measure -- states and lesser jurisdictions were allowed to institute upon their own initiative more rigorous controls on firearms and ammunition.
It is obvious, DocJ, which side you are on, broadly speaking -- which if fine, for sure, far as goes. I just want to ask if you might elaborate on this one a bit more...?
As in? Would you -- as per your own outlook -- go the opposite direction as well? For instance, would you back that certain "pro-gun" states/locales be "allowed" to lessen the draconian taxes and restrictions on the same? Something like the "equal/opposite reaction" thingy...?
Did you know that the Bill of Rights was copied directly into the Constitution of the Confederate State of America, except that the first comma of the Second Amendment was taken out. In the CSA Constitution, it states quite clearly and unambiguously "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State", removing any comma-induced doubt that the overriding principle was the existence of a "well regulated Militia" as the thing of necessity, not the willy-nilly right of unregulated hooligans to bear arms. The founders of the Confederacy clearly meant to clarify that, and even changed the phrase to make that clear.
Did you know that the Bill of Rights was copied directly into the Constitution of the Confederate State of America, except that the first comma of the Second Amendment was taken out. In the CSA Constitution, it states quite clearly and unambiguously "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State", removing any comma-induced doubt that the overriding principle was the existence of a "well regulated Militia" as the thing of necessity, not the willy-nilly right of unregulated hooligans to bear arms. The founders of the Confederacy clearly meant to clarify that, and even changed the phrase to make that clear.
Did I KNOW? Wellll, yeppers....I do believe I may have looked it over a time or two in the past....
But anyway, surely you are not serious, Jtur! As in that the CSA constitution (largely written by Southern men to begin with) was intended to put the private right to own guns would be ultimately controlled by the state???
*sighs*
Yes, I guess I reckon -- to repeat -- I do know a little teeny-weeny bit about the CSA constitution ...
Here it is (first the whole, then the section):
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.
Good lord, if you think for one minute -- with all due respect -- that the CSA constitution was intended -- any more than that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to mean anything other than an individual right...then what planet do you live on?
Heck -- fer gosh sakes -- the whole core of the Confederate Army was overwhelmingly made up of self-organized men from particular locales/counties all across the South who brought out their privately owned rifles and shotguns (or whatever), and marched off to fight the Yankees. By "self-organized" I mean that they were NOT necessarily always formed by a local entity, but by men taking it upon themselves to form something of their own....
Do you HONESTLY believe that the Confederate Constitution was meant to restrict the private citizens right to keep and bear arms.
And just who were these "hooligans"?
Now then, if I misunderstood your intent? Then ok, I truly apologize. I mean that sincerely. If NOT? Then I stand by that what you say just has no basis in historical reality at all...
I'm not sure what we can make of the absence of that comma, absent contemporary commentary about the comma! Lots of ambiguous things have crept into revisions of historic texts over time, sometimes quite by accident. And these omissions were not always active repudiations of established principles. An analogy is the accidental misprint of the text of the Nicene Creed in the Book of Common Prayer, leaving out "holy" as one of the four "notes"of the Church. There was never any intention to repudiate the term and its traditional understanding, and yet the mistake in the text of the public liturgy wasn't corrected for a good four centuries.
In a rather different vein, there were true winds of change in the CSA. Not that these were good winds. But to borrow another example from Anglicanism, after secession when Episcopal bishops in the Southern states met to constitute a national province seperate from that existing in the northern USA, there was a proposal that nearly passed - but for the opposition of the Bishop of Virginia - to name the national province "the Reformed Catholic Church in the CSA" in contrast to the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA". Of course in terms of ecclesiology these are two different terms without a distinction: window dressing essentially.
I suspect that this is how much of Southern innovations worked during the brief history of the CSA. And in fact the government of Jeff Davis found it necessary to assert increasingly greater federal power over the course of the war. Ideals are one thing; reality another it would appear.
Last edited by doctorjef; 02-18-2014 at 08:45 PM..
Location: East Texas, with the Clan of the Cave Bear
3,266 posts, read 5,633,404 times
Reputation: 4763
I know a little about Catholics and even less about Episcopalians. Never read either's rule book(s). I'm a better informed in the ways of Charismatics, Pentecostals, Baptists, and Methodists.
=doctorjef;33534494]
I suspect that this is how much of Southern innovations worked during the brief history of the CSA. And in fact the government of Jeff Davis found it necessary to assert increasingly greater federal power over the course of the war. Ideals are one thing; reality another it would appear.
I don't want to stray too much off the main topic, but I have to generally agree with you on this one, DocJ. Some say the Confederacy "died from States Rights"...which was -- at least IMHO -- the very one at the root of what they were contending for! Ironic, huh?
As I have said countless times before, I passionately believe, support, and always will, that the South had the best constitutional arguments on its (ours, for some of us) side.
BUT? Again -- as you bring up -- to win a major war (which that was surely was) -- it becomes sometime necessary -- to subordinate all else to the war effort itself. And that was just something that the individual Confederate states -- to varying degrees -- were divided over. So I can't really argue with you on this one...
Location: East Texas, with the Clan of the Cave Bear
3,266 posts, read 5,633,404 times
Reputation: 4763
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorjef
The obvious problem with leaving Second Amendment issues strictly up to the several states is that guns and ammo can easily be transported across state lines, such that illegal importation of restricted categories of guns and ammunition from one state to another would readily occur in the absence of federal controls or some uniformity between state laws.
Of course the obvious answer to the above percieved problem is not to restrict firearms and ammo. (Who wants substandard ammo anyway?)
Having said that, I would be quite happy if - as an interim measure - states and lesser jurisdictions were allowed to institute upon their own initiative more rigorous controls on firearms and ammunition.
What did NY just do?
And California is also very rigorously restrictive as is Mass., Ill., Conn. and the District of Columbia. I am sure I am missing some.
Somehow those with a inordinate fears of firearms in the hands of citizens are waging a war against ownership.
Years ago ... even 40 years ago but most certainly before that when our citizenry were more exposed to "guns" there was not this rabid phobia. I wonder what fuels it! (Not really ... I think I have a grasp on that). But ultimately, Jeff, states and individuals do partake in the removal of firearms from citizens and exercise the suppression of ownership in many areas of this great nation. NY is routinely scouring private medical records and confiscating registered guns because of any past use of anti-depressant meds. Cali does this also. The war on firearms rages. And all this could very easily come to Texas in force in the future. There are already many incidents of skewed perceptions over riding laws and common sense even in out great state.
Seeing a rifle ... not being brandished ... scared these folks ... WTH???????????? Idiocy!!!!
As this consistent and unrelenting push to remove firearms from the public is ongoing, which part(Amendments) of the Bill of Rights is next on the chopping block? In some ways one might say that the 2nd safeguards the others... or at least historically did.
=BobTex;33535948] As this consistent and unrelenting push to remove firearms from the public is ongoing, which part(Amendments) of the Bill of Rights is next on the chopping block? In some ways one might say that the 2nd safeguards the others... or at least historically did.
Yep, Bob, and you just answered the relevant question, perfectly!
That is -- as you pretty much said in so many words -- if the 2nd is repealed and/or diluted to the point of impotence -- then there is absolutely nothing that would prevent the others from being put on the chopping block...
There is just something in the leftist "vision" that makes those on that side of the fence, feel a certain instinctive "revulsion" over the notion of firearms in the hands of private citizens, and to consider those who own them to be the very type of "backwood redneck" they disdain and loathe, anyway. Private ownership of guns represents the ultimate threat to their whole outlook. Which is why, (as related to the Bernard Goetz subway shooting), that the left almost reflexively condemned it and lashed out as in that it was "racially motivated" and blah, blah. That a person might feel a need -- for the simple reason that they have a natural right to protect themselves and not be killed by thugs -- and prove it by taking action -- is not to be tolerated either as a concept or a reality in action...
How else explain it?
It just deeply offends their essential premise that government be the ultimate protector. A self-sufficient populace, bothers them. Here is a good article on the subject, which absolutely infuriated many of the Brady Bunch followers, when it first came out:
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.
And until it is ever settled, then yes, you are right, it will come up, forever...
