Gun control is not unconstitutional!

[DFLer4edu]

This debate got started in another thread on which laws are unconstitutional, I thought it deserved its own thread as it is an issue of public safety. Here is a link to the original thread and below is the thread's 2 cents. Please give me your 2 cents! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=5602

Mr.Green93
all gun control laws (are unconstitutionl)

DFLer4edu
6. No they're not!
The Second Amendment reads:
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.

Now I would argue that stopping people from owning machine guns is not infringing on a citizen's right to bear arms because it does not infringe upon, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." It merely infringes upon their right to bear machine guns. People are still free to have many other forms of "Arms" and in general, "bear Arms."

In addition, the Ninth Amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" Now I would say that public safety, although not directly mentioned in the Constitution, would fall under the 9th Amendment. The people have a right to their safety. A machine gun puts their safety at risk. The people have spoken, machine guns are a threat to their safety. Congress is empowered to get machine guns off the streets and protect the natural rights of human beings.

Public saftey, is however, inderectly mentioned. Under the Elastic Clause of Article 1 Section 8 congress is empowered, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying any into the Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution also gives Congress the power to, "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." If the public's safety does not fall under the "general Welfare of the United States" I don't know what does!

FeebMaster

7. That's interesting


I guess machine guns aren't arms then? How does a machine gun put anyone's safety at risk?

Congress is empowered to get machine guns off the streets and protect the natural rights of human beings.

You make it sound like machine guns are banned or something. They aren't. Except for in a few states just about anyone can buy a machine gun if they care to fill out the paperwork and pay the tax. They're pretty expensive though, what with the government artificially inflating the prices on them.



DFLer4edu
9. Machine guns are a risk to public safety


because well if this isn't obvious here goes it.
Q:How long or how thorough are background checks for machine guns?
A:I don't know, but since they're letting people own them, they're not long enough or thorough enough. Because the fact that you want the gun is a pretty good indication that you're nuts and/or a criminal. And although it takes a person to do damage with it, I'd say it's criminal negligence to let just about anybody own these type of guns.
On the nut side of things(the side that raises it as their Constitution right to own a machine gun), I refuse to believe that they need a machine gun to defend themselves.
No one needs Machine guns to defend themselves except,
Republican gun nuts,
Anybody with common sense knows they're safer if no one has them! Welcome to the NRA.

On the criminal side of it, you're doing damage control. It stands to reason that a criminal with a machine gun is more dangerous than a criminal with one.

As for, "Congress is empowered to get machine guns off the streets and protect the natural rights of human beings" I know that machine guns are legal. I was more speaking in an ideal world. Congress should be empowered to act for the good of the American people. I don't care if people own a shotgun of a riffle to hunt with. What gets me is the type of gun you don't hunt with and does way too much damage to even be considered by most gun lovers, to be a measure for self defense. Look at these guns and tell me how many of these guns are for hunting and self defense and how many are toys for members of the NRA and deadly weapons for criminals.

[MrSandman]

1. One question?

"Q:How long or how thorough are background checks for machine guns?
A:I don't know, but since they're letting people own them, they're not long enough or thorough enough. Because the fact that you want the gun is a pretty good indication that you're nuts and/or a criminal."

How many of these machine guns, legally owned by "criminals or nuts," have been used in a crime?

[demsrule4life]

3. He has much to learn about the laws

that govern the ownership of full automatic weapons. I believe the answer to your question is three, and one of them was a police officer.

[DFLer4edu]

12. Fair enough

But show me where you got that statistic. And what about other guns? I just started with the most deadly because it seemed to make sense and I don't care if nobody has been killed at their hands, I'd sleep better knowing people didn't have them.

[demsrule4life]

20. Here is a decent link

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

[DFLer4edu]

23. Thank you

I seemed to have picked the wrong type of gun to take my battle up with!
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/resources/facts/reader/0,2055,257020,00.html Handguns on the other hand

[MrBenchley]

2. In fact...

Although the NRA claims that the Second Amendment cofers an individual right (which, if true, would make every gun cotnrol law unconstitutional) they have NEVER sued on Second Amendment grounds. That's NEVER as in no where, no how, no time. They've been quick to sue on other grounds..

[DFLer4edu]

8. Tell me more

which other grounds?

[MrBenchley]

28. Here's an example

"...the NRA sued Montclair because the city made national news when students bought guns on the Internet. ...The Montinegros along with other concerned Montclair residents, Moms for Gun Safety, and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs filed suit based on First and 14th Amendments."

http://tanzania.northjersey.com/publications/montclairtimes/page.php?page=5481

No doubt, the NRA just plumb forgot about the Second Amendment while they were preparing these cases....eiother that, or they know the difference between fact and the horseshit they feed their inbred membership.

[Vote2004]

4. It's a Paint Ball laucher!

Calm down, will ya?

[DFLer4edu]

6. Haha

That's funny, whoops, well I'll remove that link

[Vote2004]

5. Sorry, but.........

Sorry I sounded short, but I shared this thread with a conservative friend of mine who owns guns to make a point, and he started to laugh at me uncontrollably. I was deeply embarassed.

[DFLer4edu]

7. haha

Well, I'm a little embarassed too, but I still think that the constitutional argument holds for restricting gun ownership in general.

[auburnblu]

11. Only rich people's bodyguards should have guns

I agree with Rosie.

The day guns become illegal, all criminals in the U.S. will race first thing to their local police station to turn weapons in.

[RoeBear]

13. I love the smell of...

...sarcasm in the morning! Ooh Rah!

[auburnblu]

25. Just couldn't resist n/t

[DFLer4edu]

17. And I didn't show it to my conservative friend!

[FeebMaster]

9. Airsoft?

Sweet, merciful crap you have got to be kidding.

[Baclava]

10. Speaking of common sense...

Wisdom from 225 years ago: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book"

People remain ignorant of history's #1 lesson: That when self-defense is against the law, anyone can kill you.

[DFLer4edu]

14. Anyone can kill you!

but you make a fair point

[auburnblu]

15. Surely you jest

If guns are illegal to own, certainly a criminal would not use one in a crime. I know for a fact that a criminal would say "Ah yes, I heard Rosie say guns are bad and they are now illegal, thus at this point even though I am about to enter this store and rob it, I can't with this gun. I will immediately turn this weapon in to the local authorities and then I shall return and continue on with my plans".

Anyone that believes criminals would quit using guns if they are outlawed is somebody I never want in a leadership role.

[DFLer4edu]

18. However,

shooting people with a gun is not self defense!

[alwynsw]

24. Shooting people with a gun can be self defense.

I've done so. Been there. Got the scars. He broke into my home. I woke up. I got my handgun. He shot. i shot back. I got scars (leg). He got a coffin (two in the 10 ring).

[auburnblu]

27. Wow, glad you made it through that

What a traumatic event, sorry you had to endure that. Thankfully you had the right to have a gun and defend yourself.

[alwynsw]

32. Thanks.

I'm sort of like Paul tibbets when he was asked about dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima. I've never missed a minute's sleep over it.

[DFLer4edu]

33. Self Defense

You were defending yourself. That was self defense. However, I think self defense should be defending yourself with a regard for human life(the man tried to kill you, if you don't share this idealistic sentiment, I don't blame you). However, if possible, I'd rather see people defending themselves with weapons that don't kill. I'd rather see the man in prision than in a coffin. I'm not a weapons person by any means, so you tell me, is there a weapon you could have used to defend yourself with that could have saved your life and not killed him?

P.S. I'm glad you're alive and made it through the ordeal.

[FeebMaster]

34. yes

Yeah alwynsw, next time you have to defend your life maybe you should use a baseball bat or something.

On second thought, maybe you should use one of those foam covered bats. We wouldn't want someone to get hurt. :eyes:

[alwynsw]

35. Sorry about that. What was I thinking?

I shoulda hit him with a Nerf bat.

[DFLer4edu]

83. Well

I don't know. What about a tranquilizer gun? A stun gun? Something that would knock someone out, but not kill them.

[FeebMaster]

84. right

Tranquilizer gun? That's going to stop someone right quick. Good luck with finding a dose that works on everyone.

Stun gun? Well you have to be within arms reach to use one. Probably not a good idea against someone with any kind of weapon.

And just to head off the inevitable taser suggestion. They're useless. People seem to suggest them constantly for self defense. Why, I have no idea.

Sure, you see the police carrying them and they can even be effective. You know why? Because when a cop tazes someone, his backup is going to tackle and cuff the tazee before he gets a chance to get back up. Not to mention that if the taser proves ineffective, the cop is carrying a gun.

[alwynsw]

36. It's highly doubtful, based upon what I experienced and have

learned in defense courses. I'm not talking about Friday night judo at the Y (yes, those are useful classes and I'm not disparaging them). I did the whole circuit at Gunsite Raven Ranch.

One cannot trust anything to stop a determined attacker immediately. That's why I mentioned the "two in the 10 ring". A double tap is the most effective quick stop for an assailant armed with a weapon.

Working in corrections, I saw TASER weapons serve to piss off some inmates. I've also seen tear gas and pepper spray used to no effect.
The problem with a club is that you have to get close enough to use it. That's very difficult when you're confronting an adversary with a gun.

All that aside; I'm glad that I had my .45. He hit me first - in my left leg, so anything resembling hand-to-hand was out of the question. I don't know about anyone else, but I need two functioning legs for that. Now that I'm a middle-aged fat guy, I figure I need all the help I can get.

[auburnblu]

26. If someone is about to stab or shoot you

So if someone is about to shoot or stab you and you had a gun and shot them, what would that be. Perhaps you have some fantasy that if someone breaks in your house and threatens to kill you that telling them that you are an enlightened individual will suddenly bring a big smile to the criminal's face and turn their urge to kill into an urge to hug. I'm not 100% sure that's what would happen.

[RoeBear]

16. I'm going to surprise everyone and say...

... that I agree that gun control is constitutional.

It must be or there would not be gun laws on the books.

That doesn't mean I agree with it.

[MrSandman]

19. To paraphrase,

Slavery was once intrepreted as Constitutional. It was wrong.

[DFLer4edu]

21. Slavery and gun control

Alright, I'll admit that I am a bit ignorant of gun control laws, but surely you don't actually lump slavery and gun control into the same boat?

[MrSandman]

22. Others have(attacking CCW)...I paraphrased

No I do not think they are morally or legally equivalent.

It is in irony to use the same argument...it makes as much or as little sense either way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=33478#33603

aaedited to provide one link...s

[MrBenchley]

29. Hell....

NO argument is too absurd or ridiculous for the RKBA crowd...

[RoeBear]

30. Looking back at history...

...everyone now realizes that slavery was wrong. But it was constitutional at the time.

Maybe someday people will look back and realize how wrong gun control was too.

But no, the sin of gun control does not come close to equalling the sin of slavery.

[MrSandman]

37. See post 10 in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=33478#33588

The reason I paraphrased is that a similar post is made often when the question of Constitution/Poplarity comes up.

Hell, prohibition of abortion and same sex marriages are popular, and ,thankfully, in the former case, ruled unconstitutional.

[MrBenchley]

38. More likely, historians will see "gun rights" for what it is

the dishonest last gasp of Jim Crow......

[Columbia]

39. You care to explain how that could be true?

[MrBenchley]

42. Been there, done that

But all you have to do is look at the pieces of shit who are pushing this idiotic movement...AshKKKroft, Lott, etc.

Or check out Harlon Carter, who made the NRA what it is today...dishonest, racist and shrill to the point of hysteria.

[Columbia]

44. And these people are trying to deny the rights of minorities to own guns?

Please explain. Just how is gun rights denying rights to minorities? I can see how gun control does that, but not the other way around. Try to use facts and logic rather than ad hominem attacks though please.

[MrBenchley]

45. What a frigging pantload.....

Every racist piece of shit that can be found is peddling this gun rights crap at the top of their lungs.

"Try to use facts and logic"
For the RKBA crowd? Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight.

[Columbia]

46. Oh well, I tried

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

I will consider your refusal to debate as a concession of this discussion.

Thanks for playing.

[MrBenchley]

47. And you failed to spin the truth away

Here’s the Texas KKK:

"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

Here’s a tip, guys: the KKK ain’t fooling anyone.

[Columbia]

48. More Ad Hominem

We can condemn the organization all we want (as well we should), but the fact remains that you cannot prove that gun rights is inherently biased or infringes on the rights of minorities.

Attack the message, not the messenger.

See again: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[MrBenchley]

49. Cry me a frigging river.....

The plain fact is that the gun rights movement is good old-fashioned racism hiding under a new sheet.

By the way, what do your friends Nizkor have to say on that subject, I wonder?

"Headquartered near Hayden Lake, Idaho, Aryan Nations is a paramilitary hate group founded in the mid-1970s by Rev. Richard Girnt Butler, now 77 years old. It was formed around Butler's Church of Jesus Christ Christian, one of the several hundred churches affiliated with "Identity," a pseudo-theological hate movement. Identity doctrine maintains that Anglo-Saxons, not Jews, are the Biblical "chosen people," that non-whites are "mud people" on the level of animals, and that Jews are "children of Satan."
The post of successor to Butler remains vacant. It is believed, however, that Louis Beam, who has been touted in the past as Butler's heir apparent, may step in to fill that void. Beam, who was David Duke's Texas KKK Grand Dragon in the 1970s, has served as the Aryan Nations Ambassador-at-Large. He recently purchased property in the northern Idaho panhandle not far from the Aryan Nations headquarters at Hayden Lake. He recently attended a gun rights rally whose sponsoring group, reports the Spokane Spokesman-Review, includes militia members and sympathizers, and was at the most recent Aryan Nations congress."

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/paranoia-as-patriotism/aryan-nations.html

Guess they're not fooled either.

[Columbia]

50. Please try a legitimate argument

"The plain fact is that the gun rights movement is good old-fashioned racism hiding under a new sheet."

Prove it.

You cannot connect the KKK and other hate groups as representative of the gun rights movement because there are 80-100 million gun owners who overwhelmingly do not support these racist groups.

If anything, gun rights only furthers the ability of minorities to protect themselves from these hate groups. To take that ability away is to be truly racist against them.

[MrBenchley]

51. Already did that

The NAACP and just about every other civil rights group ended up on the NRA's hate list. That was no accident.

[Columbia]

52. That isn't proof

They are on the anti-gun list because they are anti-gun. Nothing more, nothing less.

[MrBenchley]

56. Yeah, surrrrrrrrre.....

Tell it to Trent Lott.

[hansberrym]

53. More "history" from the Ministry of Truth?

Was the second Freedmen's Bureau Bill racist?

"...in consequence of any State or Local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom or prejudice, any of the civil rights belonging to white persons, including the right to make or enforce contract, to sue,...and to have full and equal benefits of laws and procedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms , are refused or denied to negroes...it shall be the duty of the President of the United States... to extend protection..." (my emphasis)
(Equal Justice Under Law, Hymann and Wiecek, Harper&Row publishers, copyright 1982)



And the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment were acting on racist impulses?

Congressional debates on the Fourteenth Amendment as quoted by Justice Hugo Black in his disent in Adamson v. People of Californina.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=332&invol=46&friend=oyez

'Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; <332 U.S. 46 , 106> the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. (my emphasis)

[milliner]

60. your opinion of the messenger

seems to be a salient part of you decision making process. Although guns seem to be the major (only) thing that evokes a lot of emotions I will try another tack.
As in, Can I quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to support my position that any opinion he authored disqualifies him and the entire Court on any opinion I don't like, as in 'Nice try pantload but that was the Holmes Court and we all know what HE stands for.

http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://hnn.us/articles/1662.html

[MrBenchley]

61. Too frigging funny....

Dredging up a phony right wing attack on liberals to back up your case....

[milliner]

62. Phony SCOTUS opinions?

If you can quote the kkk I can surely quote SCOTUS

[MrBenchley]

63. Quote another right wing attack on "liberals" why doncha

That first one was an idiotic doozy....especially since, despite the headline, the word "liberal" didn't appear anywhere in the piece.

[milliner]

64. You may want

To check your reality medication for it seems to not be working so well.

I never used the word "liberal"

And I'll try again. If you keep quoting the kkk can I continue to quote SCOTUS?

[MrBenchley]

65. Gee, I'm not the one who linked to

"Do Liberals Owe An Apology to the Victims of Sterilization? The Case of Margaret Sanger"

Of which, the very first comment noted "The anachronistic term "Liberals" appears nowhere in this excerpted article. I wonder how many authors are aware that their history works are being exploited for partisan polemical purposes in this manner."

That was YOU.

[milliner]

66. I linked an article

that presented a SCOTUS decission. I will not be held resposible for the words used by the author of this article.

AGAIN you refuse to profer an opinion on the article and how SCOTUS approves of forced sterililzation of a girl because she was 17 and pregnant, obviously proving her inability to care for herself. After reading several of your posts I thought this was something that might chaffe you a bit. My appoligies, my assumptions were wrong

And I stand by my previous post, I never used the word liberal

[MrBenchley]

67. You linked to a pinhead's attack on liberals

But hey, when doesn't the RKBA crowd post right wing crap?

"I will not be held resposible for the words used by the author of this article."
Suit yourself...it's your source...and now evven you want to flee from it.

[milliner]

69. Mr B is a racist

Dateline DU.. Discovered today was the fact that the loved Mr.Benchley, is in fact a racist. Following his own logic , the confused MrBencley admitted that, yes, 'following my logic of using links to support my arguments from racists scum, does in fact make me a racist'.

'That nice milliner pointed out that If he used a link to prove his point, and I think the link directly ties milliner to the link, regardless of content, then when I use the kkk as a link I accept the fact that I agree with the KKK on all of their positions also.? At least, I think that now'

'You see its not so much the facts, as much as where the facts come from', explained MrBenchley

Further disscussions with MrBenchley were fragmented and rather difficult to relate in this article

[MrBenchley]

70. I'm not the one posting right wing gibberish

YOU are...

[milliner]

72. Ouch

[alwynsw]

73. And who posted this link?

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

Oopsie! It appears that the messenger is just fine if it supports your argument, but the RKBA'ers are forced to pick and choose to meet your standards.

MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-25-04 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. And you failed to spin the truth away


Here’s the Texas KKK:

"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

Here’s a tip, guys: the KKK ain’t fooling anyone.

on edit: The KKK doesn't post gibberish. They post blatant untruths, racism, and hatred. There is a difference.

[MrBenchley]

77. And who agrees with "The right to own guns....

as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected?"

For my part, I've said out loud what a pile of shit that is, and proved it too.

But I guess that's RKBA "logic" or whatever the hell it is. No wonder you guys think Mary Rosh is a svientist.

[milliner]

75. ya know

I posted a SCOTUS decission

Care to comment? or is the idea of actually thinking, hurt?

[slackmaster]

82. No, MrBenchley just posts plain old gibberish

Like the Roman Catholic Church's support for gay rights.

:eyes:

[alwynsw]

71. Are we back to ignore the message if we dislike the messenger?

or blindly oppose it?

[MrBenchley]

79. No we're back to the RKBA crowd bitching

because their scummy playmates are being pointed out in public.

[RoeBear]

41. Yes, please explain...

...I'll be waiting.

[Columbia]

31. I agree

Gun control is constitutional. The Supreme Court itself has ruled in US v. Miller that the 2nd Amendment only protects arms that are considered "ordinary military equipment" and I agree with that limit.

[Columbia]

40. Just to add and clarify

That's pretty much the only limit I agree with as well.

[Withergyld]

78. Did you read what you posted??

"Gun control is constitutional. The Supreme Court itself has ruled in US v. Miller that the 2nd Amendment only protects arms that are considered "ordinary military equipment" and I agree with that limit."

So why are AK-47's and M16's or any other military are heavily restricted?? Full Auto weapons require registration along with a $200 tax. The 1994 AWB restricts semiautomatic versions of Military Weapons based on features that make then more useful for military purposes.

It should be noted that Miller NEVER served in the Armed Forces. If the right to own weapons considered "ordinary military equipment" only belonged to the Police and members of the Armed Forces, why did they not then simply say "You are not in the Military, therefore you have no right to keep and bear arms." This is NOT what happened. They examined the definition of "militia" which was all "able bodied males" the stated that a sawed of shotgun was not useful militarily.

Since I am an able bodied male I am a member of the "Militia", in the context of US v. Miller any law that infringes on my right to have weapons that would be considered "ordinary military equipment" is Unconstitutional.

I feel the following laws violate this right:
1994 AWB
The National Firearms Act
The Ban on manufacture on new machine guns.

[Columbia]

80. I never said I agreed with the AWB

And I am aware that Miller was not a member of the Armed Forces.

My point is that according to the ruling in US v. Miller, it should be constitutionally legal for us to purchase an M16A2 rifle and similar type weapons.

I agree with everything you said above, I'm a friend to gun-rights here in case you haven't seen me around. :)

Hello, my name is Columbia, and I am a gun enthusiast... ok ok, I'm a gun nut. ;)

[happyslug]

43. Look at HOW the Militia was armed in 1792

Congress wrote the Militia Act right after passing the Second Amendment. You can use such acts to show WHAT congress intended when it passed parts of the US Constitution (For example when someone challenged HOW the Federal Courts were set up, the US Supreme Court looked not only at the Constitutional Provisions setting up the Federal Courts but the First Judicial Act. The Court used the First Judicial Act to determine WHAT Congress meant when it adopted parts of the Constitution. We can do the same with the Militia Act of 1792).

In Militia Act of 1792 Congress did address WHAT weapons the Militia was to have, the Act lists only Three:
1. .69 caliber Smooth bore musket (the Assault Rifle of 1792).
2. A "Rifle" if the company was a Rifle Company.
3. A Hanger (A sword for the commander of the Company, it was both a symbol of Rank and a method of giving Visual commands to the troops).

As late as WWI, you just had Modernized versions of the above, for Example the Bolt Action Rifle of about 1900 had replaced both the Musket and the Rifle of 1792. Now some armies still carried swords but most company commandeers had switched to pistols. WWI changed the Infantry squad, platoon, company and Battalion, drastically, increasing the types of weapons used at all levels of combat.

Do to these changes today's Infantry have the use of a wide number of weapons. Given that Militia has to use the weapons of Infantry, ALL INFANTRY weapons are thus Militia weapons.

These Military weapons include the Following
1. M16 or other assault rifle (Squad Level Weapon)
2. M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW)(Squad Level Weapon)
3. The FN MAG general purpose Machine Gun.(Platoon or Company Level Weapon)
4. 60mm Mortars (Company Level Weapon)
5. 81mm Mortars (at Battalion Level)
6. .50 Caliber —2 Machine Gun (Battalion Level Weapon)
7. TOW Anti-tank Missile (Battalion Level Weapon)
9. Dragon (Or its replacement) anti-tank weapon
10. Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missile (Battalion Level Weapon)
11. —203 Grenade Launcher (Squad Level Weapon).
12. AT-4 Anti-Tank Weapon (Replaced the LAW of Vietnam war era, issued to infantry squad members).

If we look at the Militia Act of 1792 we notice the absence of PISTOLS (Except for Section 4 dealing with Calvary). Thus an argument can be made that PISTOLS can be banned on the grounds Congress prefer people to have Rifles, except for Commanders of Units (Replacing the Hangers mentioned in Section 1 of the Act) AND speciality forces that must use a pistol for they can not use a rifle (like the old Calvary mentioned in Section 4).

Another way to look is at the Federalist Papers, through the Papers address the Constitution BEFORE the Adoption of the Bill of Rights, Hamilton in Federalist No 29 did address HOW to form the Militia.

For the Federalist papers:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

The Militia Act of 1792:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

10 USC 311 (Present version of the Militia Act):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

One last comment, just because you have the "Right" to a weapon does not mean you can not be punished for its mis-use. During 1792, the storage of Gun Powder was viewed as an inherent danger. As an inherent danger if Gun powder exploded, the owner of the Powder was held to strick liability for any damage that occurred. i.e. it was NOT a Defense that the Gun powder exploded do to no fault of the owner of the powder, he had to pay even if a third party caused the explosion (Except if the act to explode was an DELIBERATE act of the third party AND the owner did everything reasonable to prevent such explosions). The Second Amendment did NOT change this rule of law. Furthermore if you used your firearm and someone was harmed you were held liable for that harm (The Second Amendment did not change that rule).

Furthermore one of the reason for the language of the Second was to preserve Congress's right to set standards as to what weapons the militia is to have. Thus Congress can banned Sub-machine Guns because it wants the Militia to have M16s. I question any ban on Military Weapons in favor or less effective weapons, but as long as Congress can claim the ban is to ease re-supply of the Militia if called into actual service, such a ban could be valid. Congress can not just say No weapons for the Militia, but Congress can say WHAT weapons the Militia is to have. Congress thus can rule some weapons "Non-militia" and ban them and such a ban would be valid. This can be the justification for the existing Automatic Weapons ban, congress prefer the Militia to have semi-automatic weapons instead (To ease excess use of ammunition in combat).

My point here is that while the Second Amendment is an individual right, it si a right that Congress can restrict if such restrictions ENHANCES the militia. Congress is also the body to determine what ENHANCES the Militia. Thus Various types of Gun Controls can be valid, provided the Militia can still arm itself is a reasonable manner. The Issue is thus what is a reasonable manner in today's urban environment? That is the debate as to the Second today, and will be for many decades to come.

[hansberrym]

54. Good post, but I disagree with the part about pistols.

(quote)
"If we look at the Militia Act of 1792 we notice the absence of PISTOLS (Except for Section 4 dealing with Calvary). Thus an argument can be made that PISTOLS can be banned on the grounds Congress prefer people to have Rifles, except for Commanders of Units (Replacing the Hangers mentioned in Section 1 of the Act) AND speciality forces that must use a pistol for they can not use a rifle (like the old Calvary mentioned in Section 4)."
(unquote)



http://www.guncite.com/court/state/61ga417.html

http://www.guncite.com/court/state/1ga243.html

http://www.guncite.com/court/state/12ky90.html (Bliss)


A review of early cases shows that only the concealment of weapons was thought to be not protected under the RKBA.

Some cases held that individuals could legally carry a Horseman's pistol if it were not concealed. Other jurisdictions did not limit the protection to large pistols (such as what were known as horseman's pistols) so long as the smaller type pistols (sometimes called breast pistols) were worn openly.

Other jurisdictions (Bliss v Commonwealth Kentucky) held that even concealed carry was ok .

[Codeblue]

55. I'm unsure of all the gun control laws

because I once thought that because so many people had guns in America, that was the reason for so many violent murders at the hands of gun-toting goons. But after watching "Bowling for Columbine" I think otherwise. Michael Moore, who is a staunch liberal, whether affiliated with the Green party or Democrats, explained that there are as many guns per household in Canada, Australia and numerous other countries, there are thousands less deaths from guns than in America.

Which led me to question...are guns really the problem in America is it something deeper?

[demsrule4life]

57. For a new guy you are preatty

damn smart. Welcome to the dungeon.

[happyslug]

58. Read some of the Studies

And you will see that the crime rate goes up and down in relation to Children and Youth Intervention of about ten years earlier.

The reason seems to be that in violent households (WITHOUT CYS intervention) children learn that violence is expected and pays (I.e. they see daddy coming home and beating up mommies, and no one punishes daddy so it must be right for him to do so). As children age they take what their learn at home to school and tend to be violent kids and teens agers. As Teenagers these same violent kids become petty thieves and generally violent people who get into relationships that starts the cycle all over again.

Family intervention tends to break up these cycles, Children see their families being split apart by the violence (i.e. CYS sends the kids to foster homes) and thus these children learn violence is NOT the answer. When such children become teens they tend to be less violent than their parents. Thus the crime rate drops about 10-15 years after any increase in family intervention services (and increases 10-15 years after any cut in such services).

For example family intervention nationwide expanded in the early 1980s after several children abuse cases hit the headlines during Reagan's Administration. The States (and some federal funding but that was by Congress not the Reagan Administration) changed the law to increase the power of CYS and family intervention programs (including Women's help centers and Protection from Abuse Orders). This all lead to the steady drop in crime ten years later under President Clinton. Thus the crime drop under Clinton had less to do with his booming economy (and even less with the increase sentencing adopted by the states during the 1980s) than the increase spending on Family intervention during the 1980s (and the recent increase in Crime rates has more to do with the general cut back on that funding during Bush I's administration, both at the federal level by Bush Sr, and as the state level do to cuts caused by the drop in state revenue do to the Recession that occurred during Bush Sr's Administration).

A similar pattern developed during the 1950s, in the late 1950s a severe recession hit the US leading the states to all cut back on Family interventions services, and this lead to the increase in crime of late 1960s. When Social Spendings increased during the 1960s, it lead to a drop in crime in the mid-1970s (and the general downward movement of crime since the late 1960s).

Britain has had a similar pattern, Thacher cut social services during the 1980s which lead to an increase in crime in the 1990s.

Now this delay in the effect of family intervention funding has lead to people arguing about the effectiveness of gun control and increased prison sentences. What happens is you have an increase in Family Intervention services. At the time of the increase family invention expenditures, crime is also going up. Since crime is going up people pass increase sentences, increase spending on police and increase gun controls. A few years later as the effect of Family intervention takes hold, the decrease in crime in attributed to either gun control, increasing police or Increase sentences. A recession (or other budget crunch) hits. Family Spending is cut (Increase police, sentencing and gun control are more politically popular than Family Services). This leads to an increase in crime ten years down the road (and evidence that the Increase spending on Police, Increase Sentences and Gun Control did not work).

The problem is people what something to be done on crime TODAY. Thus you have INCREASE pressure for increase spending on Police, Increase Sentences and Gun Control, even at the expense of Family intervention. The decrease in Family Intervention leads to increase crime, which starts the circle all over again

Thus the best solution to crime is increase spending on Family intervention (CYS and PFAs). This will reduce crime over the long haul, but there is no political support for such expenditures, while there is high political support for expenditures that do not work (i.e. Increase police, Longer sentencing and gun control). This has been the problem for the US since the 1960s and until people accept the fact that we have to increase spending on social programs and cut back on Police, Prisons and gun control to pay for the increase in social Program, the US Can NOT be address the issue of how to reduce Crime.

[demsrule4life]

59. Toast to a post

:toast:

Only problem is the Repugs would fight it since there is big money in the war on drugs and prisons. The Anti's would never agree since guns "cause" crime.

[alwynsw]

68. Well done, Grasshopper.

welcome to the Gungeon.

[beevul]

74. Welcome...

to DU!!

[milliner]

76. your reasoning is mostly sound

if i could take a small exception,

On the nut side of things(the side that raises it as their Constitution right to own a machine gun), I refuse to believe that they need a machine gun to defend themselves.

IMO the 2cnd amendment is not really about self defense. The 2cnd amendment is enumerated for a specific like defending the public from the govt.

Do not read that to mean that self defense and hunting are not in fact important. I believe that those rights are also worth fighting for.

Again IMO it dilutes the debate. This is a right enumerated to protect me from the govt.

[Shylock]

81. here here!

"I feel the following laws violate this right:
1994 AWB
The National Firearms Act
The Ban on manufacture on new machine guns."


gun control is completely unconstitutional and must be abolished.