The Meaning of the Second Amendment

[craddock 0]

Quote

Maybe I misinterpreted your meaning

I'd say so. I have reread it and have no idea why you think I want to place any requirements on owning firearms. I was responding to someone else who was however, and I questioned him on sending people off to serve who are in no shape to do so.

I also never even mentioned anything about being physically fit. I suppose you got that from "in any shape". There is alot more that goes into being "in shape" to let's say go oversees and serve, than being physically fit

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

you based this entire argument for the need to have weapons that match the modern military on US vs Miller that dealt with a shotgun with a barrel less then 18". Not exactly an HK416 is it?

Have you read US v Miller?!?
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

"And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Can you truly read that to mean anything other than 'weapons appropriate to a miltia and military are covered by the second amendment?'

Quote

Argument based on case none the less

What, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States aren't good enough for you when discussing constitutional law?

Quote

Partly because I don't think that the founding fathers would have been as vague about the "militia" term and it's relation to a "person bearing arms" ,if they knew that the difference was single action vs an MP5 that shoots 800 rnds/m.

There is nothing vague about "militia." It was a clearly defined teerm then, just as it is now.

Again I ask, since you have failed to answer, do other amendments only cover technology that existed when they were written? Does the first amendment only cover quill pens and crude printing presses? Does the fouth amendment not cover electronic searches?

Quote

These being the same guys who thought "militia" meant something along the lines of early defence against the British. That "militia" is history.

Search the US Code for the word militia. You'll find Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13, § 311. The militia exists today. It is still supported by the congress, as evidenced by the CMP and National Matches, and it is still regulated at the state level.


Also, if you are to engage in intelligent conversation you need to understand the definition of a "subordinate clause" and how it applies to the second amendment.
The militia clause demonstrates, as stated in US v Miller, the firearms appropriate to the militia are covered by the second amendment. however, the need of the militia to be armed was one reason for the amendment, not the only one. No one in the late 1700s ever wrote that the militia was the only reason, now did they? The constitution and the bill of rights are limits on governmental power, not the limit of public freedom, right?


Finally, you never answered my other questions:
You oppose automatic firearms because they are "too fast."
Do you oppose .50 caliber firearms because they are "too big?"
Do you oppose certain handguns because they are "too small?"


ps - if you think the amendment is outdated, go aheaad and pass a new one repealing it. Until then, the amendment stands, and you ignore it at your own peril. If one amendment can be bypassed by simply ignoring, what stops congress from doing the same thing to the other amendments? Do you want to risk them all because you are happy to limit one?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Alias 0]

no time now, but I'll ditto your pick apart and address your comments later....without making assumptions on your opinions

But why do you draw the line at RPG's? What is the difference to you between RPG's, M-777A1's or FIM 9's and the shotgun with a barrel length under 18"

And do you think the outcome of US vs Miller would have been different if one of the above was the issue?

AND....are you applying for our class 3?

Carpe Diem

[sammer 0]

Quote

Just go get your class 3 - your problems solved

In most states you don't need to be a C3 SOT or have any kind of FFL to own an M16. You just have to save up 15K, fill out the papers and wait. No loss of rights, just a huge loss of $.

The problem I have here is that law abiding citizens are having to pay 15K for 1K rifle due to the NFA laws. Meanwhile, it's a trivial task for a criminal to gain possession of an illegal but physically identical rifle. I don't really have any problem with the registration of title II guns, but the unconstituional transferr tax, and the ban on manufacture of transferrable guns pisses me off.

I really don't see a problem with select-fire weapons in the hands of civillians. You just don't hear about NFA guns being used in crimes very often. Machineguns are not really much better at mowing down crowds of people, I think you watch too much tv and need to spend more time at the range.

Sam

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

But why do you draw the line at RPG's? What is the difference to you between RPG's, M-777A1's or FIM 9's and the shotgun with a barrel length under 18"

If you actually read my original post, you'll see that I drew the line where the founding fathers (you know, they guy who wrote the bill of rights?) drew the line.

It covered infantry weapons. Today that would mean at least M16s and M4s. I also made it clear that it might, though not positively, cover SAWs and other squad level machine guns. I never said it covers an M2, I and I stated that it does not cover crew served weapons. You do realize that the M777 is a cannon carried by a helicopter or towed by a truck, right? Does that sound like "infatry" to you? Do you understand the meaning of "militia?"

In case you're not clear, I drew the line on this side of RPGs, so that they were NOT included anymore than a Howitzer or a Stinger.
(you could've called them stingers and howitzers; it's not like those numbers are rare, or that anyone who didn't know couldn't google them)

Quote

I'll ditto your pick apart and address your comments later.

That'd be nice. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myslf because simple quesitons aren't answered.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

no time now, but I'll ditto your pick apart and address your comments later....without making assumptions on your opinions

But why do you draw the line at RPG's? What is the difference to you between RPG's, M-777A1's or FIM 9's and the shotgun with a barrel length under 18"

And do you think the outcome of US vs Miller would have been different if one of the above was the issue?

AND....are you applying for our class 3?

From Military Police Magazine, April 2003

Quote

The Winchester Model 97--firing a modern 12-gauge shell--with pump action; six-round magazine capacity; and short, 18-inch barrel was brought over by American military police and infantrymen and rapidly became known as the "trench sweeper."

Therefore, the short-barrelled shotgun WAS, at the time of Miller, an accepted infantry weapon. Strike one.

Neither the FIM 9 (Strike two) nor the M-777A1 (Strike three) is a weapon in normal use by the infantry. The M-777A1 specifically breaks your argument, seeing as how it is a crew-served howitzer. I think it would be sort of hard for an infantryman to sling one of those over his shoulder and carry it around the battlefield, don't you agree?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

My son is an infantryman in the US Army. His weapon is a 85mm mortar IIRC.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

You're a poor act for imitaitng a senile old wretch, professor - or have you actually forgotten that this has been explained to you several times?

A mortar is not issued to most of the infantry, is it? Is it a single man weapson system? No. It is a crew served weapon

http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m252/
http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m224/

It is a weapon to support infantry. It is not an infantry weapon. It is not covered for the same reason Stingers and RPGs and larger weapons systems aren't covered.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jumper03 0]

well, if you want infantry weapons I think you should have to undergo infantry training. Wouldn't want you to whip out the SAW and not have well defined fields of fire now would you?

Oh- and I finally voted in your poll.
You convinced me.....

Scars remind us that the past is real

[Kennedy 0]

Honestly I would probably support some sort of short term compulsary service (military or otherwise) post high school. However, the constitution says states have the responsibility/ authority/ burden of maintaining officers, but who runs the training is less clearly defined.

Right now, if we want to change training standards, we have to write both the federal legislators and our state reps. Of course, neither really gives a damn about the militia or wants to admit what the second should cover, so that's one more letter for their "round file." Doesn't mean it shouldn't be written, though.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jumper03 0]

Well, the point I've been working on is that I see the second amendment as defining a right that comes with responsibility. What I don't want to see is that old fucker at Wal-mart with the oxygen tank have a saw strapped to his walker. Or my redneck cousin with a Browning .50 cal on top of his toyota. I'd move to Somalia if I wanted that.

I actually have no problem with private ownership of such weapons as long as the users are properly and THOROUGHLY trained.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

You're a poor act for imitaitng a senile old wretch, professor - or have you actually forgotten that this has been explained to you several times?

A mortar is not issued to most of the infantry, is it? Is it a single man weapson system? No. It is a crew served weapon

http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m252/
http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m224/

It is a weapon to support infantry. It is not an infantry weapon. It is not covered for the same reason Stingers and RPGs and larger weapons systems aren't covered.

Not very good. Now why would you deprive a militia of such useful weapons on purely arbitrary grounds?

Next you'll be telling us that hand grenades aren't infantry weapons.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Next you'll be telling us that hand grenades aren't infantry weapons.

They are infantry weapons, but not firearms. I don't recall the 2nd amendment saying anything about the right to bear explosives. Hand grenades are outside the scope of this discussion.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Next you'll be telling us that hand grenades aren't infantry weapons.

They are infantry weapons, but not firearms. I don't recall the 2nd amendment saying anything about the right to bear explosives. Hand grenades are outside the scope of this discussion.

Pretty toothless militia we have here. No RPGs, no grenades, no mortars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Alias 0]

Quote

Machineguns are not really much better at mowing down crowds of people, I think you watch too much tv and need to spend more time at the range.

Sam

You're funny. I always need more range time but I didn't learn that fact by watching TV....more like exposure to reality

....plus, only the kids watch our tv

Carpe Diem

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

My son is an infantryman in the US Army. His weapon is a 85mm mortar

I don't think he humps the mortar tube, base plate and ammo, all by himself. Not unless he's a gorilla. That's a crew-served weapon, requiring several people to transport and operate.

And I don't think there is an "85" mm mortar in the U.S. inventory. We use either 60 mm or 81 mm mortars.

I thank him for his service!

[Alias 0]

Quote

Quote

But why do you draw the line at RPG's? What is the difference to you between RPG's, M-777A1's or FIM 9's and the shotgun with a barrel length under 18"

If you actually read my original post, you'll see that I drew the line where the founding fathers (you know, they guy who wrote the bill of rights?) drew the line.

It covered infantry weapons. Today that would mean at least M16s and M4s. I also made it clear that it might, though not positively, cover SAWs and other squad level machine guns. I never said it covers an M2, I and I stated that it does not cover crew served weapons. You do realize that the M777 is a cannon carried by a helicopter or towed by a truck, right? Does that sound like "infatry" to you? Do you understand the meaning of "militia?"

In case you're not clear, I drew the line on this side of RPGs, so that they were NOT included anymore than a Howitzer or a Stinger.
(you could've called them stingers and howitzers; it's not like those numbers are rare, or that anyone who didn't know couldn't google them)

Quote

I'll ditto your pick apart and address your comments later.

That'd be nice. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myslf because simple quesitons aren't answered.

Dude, you have issue's with sarcasm. Which makes debating/learning and trading idea's with you like dealing with a child.

A mature approach might help get your point accross better, with me at least

btw, "infantry weapons" cover more then rifles and machine guns. Missles, rifle launched entry munitions and morters are but a few...at least with the modern infantry....considered by Jane's

Carpe Diem

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

My son is an infantryman in the US Army. His weapon is a 85mm mortar

I don't think he humps the mortar tube, base plate and ammo, all by himself. Not unless he's a gorilla. That's a crew-served weapon, requiring several people to transport and operate.

And I don't think there is an "85" mm mortar in the U.S. inventory. We use either 60 mm or 81 mm mortars.

I thank him for his service!

Actually he's airborne infantry, and he jumps out of a plane carrying the weapon on a leash.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

You're a poor act for imitaitng a senile old wretch, professor - or have you actually forgotten that this has been explained to you several times?

A mortar is not issued to most of the infantry, is it? Is it a single man weapson system? No. It is a crew served weapon

http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m252/
http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m224/

It is a weapon to support infantry. It is not an infantry weapon. It is not covered for the same reason Stingers and RPGs and larger weapons systems aren't covered.

"You're a poor act for imitaitng a senile old wretch, professor - or have you actually forgotten that this has been explained to you several times?"


Maybe the greenies haven't seen this yet, but can we get some moderation in here please? I don't mind throwing stones, but let's have rules that are equal.

[Kennedy 0]

ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

Once again, you haven't bothered to answer simple questions (not that I actually expect you to anymore).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

I don't know why I'm going to justifiy myself to someone who's only response to reason seems to be calling the US a fascist regime, but I will anyway.

We all know kallend is in control of his mental faculties. He was very disingenuous, and I called him on it. He has a habit of being answered direct questions, dropping off the thread for a while, then popping back up to ask questions that have already been answered. He was imitating something he is obviously not. I pointed out a transparent debte choice, no different from pointing out strawmen arguments or poor logic, or other less seemly tactics.

Do you really want me to go back over some of your posts and point out the need for moderation? I'd wager I can find things that would get you banned for a good long while, at least. On the other hand, I've spent more than enough time on you, so I'll be on my merry way.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I don't know why I'm going to justifiy myself to someone who's only response to reason seems to be calling the US a fascist regime, but I will anyway.

We all know kallend is in control of his mental faculties. He was very disingenuous, and I called him on it. He has a habit of being answered direct questions, dropping off the thread for a while, then popping back up to ask questions that have already been answered. He was imitating something he is obviously not. I pointed out a transparent debte choice, no different from pointing out strawmen arguments or poor logic, or other less seemly tactics.

Do you really want me to go back over some of your posts and point out the need for moderation? I'd wager I can find things that would get you banned for a good long while, at least. On the other hand, I've spent more than enough time on you, so I'll be on my merry way.

I'm trying to establish the purpose of a militia that is deliberately denied certain weapons for reasons that appear arbitrary (needs more than one infantryman to operate, etc). What the hell use is this militia going to be if it can't have grenades, rpvs, mortars, etc. all of which ARE used by the regular infantry?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>You're a poor act for imitaitng a senile old wretch, professor . . .

Cut it out, Kennedy.

[tandembrent 0]

my 2 cents worth!

i believe the use of comma's in your posting of the 2nd amendment is incorrect. in all the copy's of the constitution and amendments that i have read there is no punctuation in the 2nd amendment , except for the period at it's end.

if it is read with-out punctuation, i believe, the intent becomes much more straight forward and clear.

i do not claim to be an expert in constitutional law or the english langauge. i have, however, read the federalist papers by jefferson, and most of whats available on jefferson, b. franklin, patrick henry, etc...etc... in reading these works i have only one conclusion to put forward. and that is these great and forward looking and history respectful people were very affraid of the their countrymen not having any way to control an out of control governing body.

they penned the 2nd amendment to ensure that the "constitution" would not be subjugated or subverted, it being the most important document ever worded by man!

these are also my beliefs,
brent

***

~~~~Green grass and high clouds forever~~~~
no matter where you go, there you are!

[Kennedy 0]

National Archives & Records Administration

Quote

Amendment II

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.

Cornell Law

Quote

Amendment II

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've seen versions missing the third comma, between arms and shall, but I have never heard of or seen a copy with no punctuation.

Go to this site to see a hi-res jpeg of the original.
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/charters_downloads.html

direct link to picture (I think) very large

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*