Second Amendment Liberal

[Columbia]

http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2004/MERC-Jan-15-Thu-2004/22983887.html

Second Amendment liberal
It's not an oxymoron for this Big Government gun nut

By Steve Sebelius

Most of the time it's simply an unwelcome contrast, like a glass of Sauvignon Blanc with a well-done steak or a pair of chocolate-brown socks worn with a charcoal-gray suit.

Second Amendment liberals.

Our numbers are few, and we are generally treated like cigarette smokers looking down on cigar aficionados: It's all tobacco, after all, but there's tobacco and then there's tobacco, if you know what we mean.

Those who with loud voice and courage of conviction defend to the death (or at least to the end of the 10-minute segment on cable news) the First, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution suddenly blanch when it comes to the Second...

[JasonDeter]

1. I see no problem with qualified folk owning guns yet

I agree with Wes Clark when he said, "If you want to own an assault weapon join the military." And there should be background checks and records kept and ashcroft kicked out of the Justice Dept so ashcroft and justice in the same sentence isn't an oxymoron.

[Columbia]

3. You missed the point of the entire article

The Second Amendment expressly protects the right of people to keep and bear arms, including and especially true assault weapons.

I do agree with you about Ashcroft however.

[JasonDeter]

4. No, I agree and disagree with the article.

The only rub is for some it has to be all or nothing. If it comes down to that I'll take nothing. Melt em all down and make peace sign lawn ornaments.

[Columbia]

5. Interesting

Is that how you feel about the rest of our civil rights as well?

[JasonDeter]

6. No, the 2nd is the only one needing modification.

But you know, if the Russians or Muslims do invade America and I do need an assault weapon I'll just turn my 9mm Glock into one bad assault weapon.

[Columbia]

40. There is more of a danger...

of government tyranny than foreign invasion, although assault weapons would do well against either.

[DavidMS]

73. I doubt the second amendment had anything to do with tryany

The concept seemed to be that by encouraging civilan ownership of arms a degree of proficency will be aquired without goverment expense so in the event of a national emergency it will be easier to train soldiers as they are already frimilar with the basic concpets.

One also must remember that at the time the wave of the future seemed to be large conscripted armies (see Napoleon) which because they were drawn from the body of citizenery at large as opposed to a specific group would be only as politicized as the citizenry at large. Observe the fall of Ceausescu. The conscripted army simply sided with the public.

[alwynsw]

100. Read a bit deeper into the various papers and memoirs of the founders

and that doubt will disappear. IT was a prime reason for the 2nd in the eyes of many of the document's framers.

[Columbia]

102. Yes, please do some historical research

as alwysnw suggests. I'd suggest you start with the Federalist papers, specifically 29 and 46, for a lot of insight about why the right to keep and bear arms is so important.

[MrBenchley]

69. Actually, you were right the first time

the only thing that needs to be modified is the NRA's lies about the Second Amendment conferring an individual right.

[1a2b3c]

85. If it isnt an individual right

Why have individuals been able to own guns in american since its begining?

[MrBenchley]

94. Individuals have owned pants and shirts

needles and threads, buckets and mops, pots and pans, eyeglasses and false teeth, shoes and stockings,, hats and coats, etc.. etc. etc.. "in american since its begining"......

[hansberrym]

95. And your point is... n/t

t

[MrBenchley]

97. Obvious.

[hansberrym]

96. I suspect that individuals will continue to legally own ...

pants and shirts, needles and threads, buckets and mops, pots and pans, eyeglasses and false teeth, shoes and stockings, hats and coats, and guns.

Unless the slide towards Totalitarianism continues unabated.



From the ant-fascist WWII era:

"praise the lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free".



(edited for spelling)

[MrBenchley]

98. That's true....

But I doubt pant owners will sit around lying in public about a "right to pants"....nor will they be screaming gibberish about "pant-grabbers". And I doubt haberdashers are suddently going to branch out into Nazi memorabilia and hate literature.

By the way, we used COLLECTIVE guns and ammo in WWII and every other war.

[MrBenchley]

70. You'll notice...

this "liberal" seems utterly unconcerned about the open racism of the NRA, and seems quite content to belch out NRA lies....

But hey, his opinion is his opinion. Now the big question is, so what?

[Sandpiper]

7. Maybe in NRA leaflets

The Second Amendment expressly protects the right of people to keep and bear arms, including and especially true assault weapons.

The Second Amendment is a qualified right, as evidenced by its first half

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."

And in the only thing close to a definitive case on the matter, the Supreme Court said in U.S. v. Miller:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power — “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

[FeebMaster]

8. Miller?

What is it with people and citing miller? I mean both sides of the argument cite the thing. No one should. Miller is a damn joke.

[Sandpiper]

9. I post case law

You post hyperbole.

I'll stick with case law.

[FeebMaster]

10. Right.

You call it case law. I'll call it a travesty of justice.

[Sandpiper]

12. And you follow up with more hyperbole

[FeebMaster]

23. I just hope

when they try us all for sedition we at least get to be at our own trials.

[Sandpiper]

25. If you're going to read an Amendment

Read all of it. Not just the part that sounds good to you. I'm deeply sorry that the Second Amendment contains that inconvenient language about a well regulated militia.

[FeebMaster]

28. I can read just fine.

I don't particularly care about the 2nd amendment, though. It's long dead.

[alwynsw]

39. If the Second Amendment is dead, so should the rest of the

Constitution be as well. It's not something we can pick and choose the parts we want to abide by.

If the time ever comes that a majority of Americans want to change the Constitution, there are provisions in place to do that. Those provisions are precisely why the Constitution os referred to as a living document. They have been put into play 27 times.

Insofar as the survivability of an Amendment barring private ownership of firearms is concerned I would direct any to view the Eighteenth Amendment as a guide to its probability of success. Humans as a whole desire most that which is denied them by froce of law and/or force of arms.

[FeebMaster]

42. Why amend the constitution?

It's hard work. Just pretend amendments mean things other than they say and pass all the laws you want. Chances are the Supreme Court will back you up anyway.

Hell the NFA it just fine as far as Constitutionality and the Supreme Court go. If the gun banners had a lick of sense they'd try to expand nfa to cover more classes of weapons. Or maybe they could take a page out of the Bush playbook and just use an executive order to ban everything they'd like to ban.

[alwynsw]

43. Why amend the constitution?

If you ask that question seriously, there's no point in debating the merit of the Constitution as a whole.

It's not a buffet. We can't pick and choose the parts we want. COngress also cannot pass laws and expect them to stand that are in contravention to the Constitution.

[FeebMaster]

46. Oh?

It's not a buffet. We can't pick and choose the parts we want. COngress also cannot pass laws and expect them to stand that are in contravention to the Constitution.

They do it all the time. The NFA has stood for 70 years. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's the way it is.

[Sandpiper]

44. I agree

Insofar as the survivability of an Amendment barring private ownership of firearms is concerned I would direct any to view the Eighteenth Amendment as a guide to its probability of success.

Any amendment attempting to bar private ownership of firearms would be foolish and ultimately futile. My only point through all of this has been that the Second Amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to keep and bear arms. There are no absolute rights in Bill of Rights, not even freedom of speech.

And before I get flamed about freedom of speech, Justice Holmes' clear and present danger test is what I'm talking about.

[beevul]

64. True, but...

"There are no absolute rights in Bill of Rights, not even freedom of speech."

Noone hands out gags to keep people from yelling fire in a theater.

Freedom of speech can be practiced with out limitation, but in some cases with consequences.

Noone limits a free persons "potential" for free speech. There is a penalty for abusing it though.

I don't believe, that without a real good and specific reason, that anyone should be "gagging" gun owners.

Its the same thing, where the constitution is concerned. All amendments are equal, and should be protected equally.

[FeebMaster]

11. Supreme Court Trivia.

Where was Jack Miller when the Supreme Court handed down its decision?

[Sandpiper]

13. You've studied your NRA leaflets well

[FeebMaster]

17. nra leaflets, that's good. (nt)

...

[Sandpiper]

15. Supreme Court Trivia II

Where is the case that overrules Miller and defines the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right to keep and bear arms?

[FeebMaster]

22. There isn't one.

As if it matters. Do I get a gold star?

[Sandpiper]

24. ...

As if it matters.

Well, the rule of law does matter in this country. Contrary to what Charlton Heston might tell you.

SCOTUS has had 65 years to overturn Miller, yet, after all this time they've chosen not to. How very odd. Could it be that 65 years worth of Justices have found it correct?

[FeebMaster]

26. Charlton Heston haha.

Yes the valiant supreme court dodging the issue for 65 years.

So I guess when the portions of the PATRIOT act that were just ruled unconstitutional get to the supreme court and they overturn that ruling you'll be just fine with that? At least the defense will probably get a few arguments in on that one.

Rule of law and all that.

[Sandpiper]

27. All you've done so far

Is spit gun lobby talking points at me. Do actually have anything substantial to say?

[FeebMaster]

29. gun lobby talking points?

Are you disputing the background of us v miller?

[Sandpiper]

31. And are you unfamiliar with the principle of

Stare Decisis? It's the whole basis of our common law legal system. Why has no court overruled Miller up to this point, including, I might add, our majority conservative SCOTUS of today.

[FeebMaster]

34. Hey if you want

to pretend that the whole miller case was peachy keen that's just fine by me. But then you have to bring up the whole conservatives = pro-gun argument, which, I'm sorry, is tired beyond all reckoning. The Republicans have passed more gun control in the last 25 years then the Democrats could ever dream of.

[Sandpiper]

36. And if you want

To overturn this "travesty of justice" go find you a good constitutional law attorney, then find someone who's in trouble for owning a banned weapon, and see if you can get cert from the Supreme Court. It only takes 4 out of 9.

[FeebMaster]

38. Yeah.

I'll get right on that.

[FeebMaster]

30. For that matter,

What is it that makes a short barreled shotgun worse than a long barreled shotgun?

How did they arrive at 16" for the NFA anyway?

[Sandpiper]

32. It wasn't 16" it was 18"

And you've got me on that one.

[FeebMaster]

35. oops

rifles are 16". My mistake.

[Sandpiper]

37. The whole point of the NFA

Was to restrict the types of firearms commonly used by bootleggers.

[FeebMaster]

41. Yes

and to give underworked tax agents something to do since alcohol was legal again. God forbid the government lay people off.

Why 16" and 18" though?

$200 taxes on $20 shotguns and $3 silencers. Yeah it's a good law.

[MrBenchley]

71. In fact,

not even the conservative Rehnquist court is willing to take up the question.

Perhaps if the scum of the earth can wedge another crooked piece of shit like Scalia on the court, the gun nuts will get the dishonest ruling they crave.

But it's a sure bet that they won't with anything approaching a liberal or moderate judge, such as a Democratic president is likely to nominate.

[FeebMaster]

14. Supreme Court Trivia 2.

Where was Frank Layton when the Supreme Court was hearing the case?

[Sandpiper]

18. Supreme Court Trivia III

What gun control legislation did US v. Miller affirm?

[FeebMaster]

21. The Jolly old NFA of 34 (nt)

...

[FeebMaster]

16. Supreme Court trivia 3.

Where was Miller and Layton's lawyer when the Supreme Court was hearing the case?

[Sandpiper]

19. Supreme Court Trivia IV

What type of firearm did the Supreme Court say was not protected by the Second Amendment?

[FeebMaster]

20. Why it was a short barreled shotgun.

I wonder. How many short barreled shotguns could be found in the trenches of World War I?

[alwynsw]

45. Quite a few actually

unless my Grandfather and two great uncles were telling tales. I sincerely doubt that they were.

[FeebMaster]

48. I am shocked. (nt)

...

[Sandpiper]

47. Miller was alot closer to WWII

Than WWI.

[FeebMaster]

49. Yes. Well I doubt

the justices could see into the future. Unless you think those black robes give them some kind of mystical powers?

[Sandpiper]

50. Well, WWII began

The very same year that SCOTUS decided the Miller case. No powers of prognostication needed. Hitler's activities weren't exactly a closely guarded secret, and the weapons of war from WWI were dated by that time.

[FeebMaster]

51. The US wasn't in the war at the time.

I thought the whole point was that the 2nd amendment only covers militia weapons and that, according to the court, a short barreled shotgun isn't a militia weapon. What does it matter what weapons the US would use years later in WW2?

WWI had already happened. Had the defense presented a case, they could have called the government on it's bullshit that short barreled shotguns aren't a military weapon simply by pointing out that they were used during WWI.

For that matter, the weapons of WWI were hardly dated by that time, at least not the small arms. All of the good small arms from WWI were still around for WW2.

[Sandpiper]

54. I guess that depends on your point of view

The US was materially supporting Britain's war effort long before its own entry into the fray.

What does it matter what weapons the US would use years later in WW2?

It matters as a question of what weapons the US was using at present, opposed to what weapons the US was using in a war that had ended 20 years earlier.

[FeebMaster]

55. Fine, whatever.

So then, I suppose no one fighting in WW2 used a short barreled shotgun.

[Sandpiper]

58. Ok, so to sum up, your points are

Miller is a bad decision and should be disregarded because you say so, and the NFA should have been overruled in 1939 because short barreled shotguns were used in the trenches of WWI (1918).

*YAWN*

Well, thank you for the stimulating discussion and for your ;-) compelling;-) arguments.

[FeebMaster]

60. Yes I think Miller is a bad decision.

But even if it isn't like you seem to be saying, the simple fact that short barreled shotguns have been used in every military conflict of the last century kind of puts lie to the claim that short barreled shotguns aren't a militia weapon. Hell, they're probably being used in Iraq right now.

[MrBenchley]

82. You might be interested to know

that although Feeb is a fount of knowledge about Miller trivia, he professed the other day to have not the slightest idea about who Trent Lott was and what he had been up to in his entire disgraceful career.

[FeebMaster]

83. Actually,

I never said I didn't know who Trent Lott was. I just said that I don't know much about him what with him not being my senator and all.

[MrBenchley]

84. Oh, yeah, that's right...

You said he was Republican and then tried to imply that he was not pro-gun (He is).

Can't imagine how anybody even mildly interested in politics could miss knowing that Trent Lott is the public face of white supremacy...and got bounced as Senate Republican leader for longing in public for the days of Jim Crow.

[FeebMaster]

87. I thought we had come to the agreement

that the republicans aren't pro-gun.

[MrBenchley]

88. No, what we said

was that Republicans spout pro-gun rhetoric but only to collect blood money, which leaves "gun rights" with the only true believers......the Aryan Nation and similar specimens....

[FeebMaster]

89. Well if all they're doing is spouting rhetoric

they can hardly be considered pro-gun.

[MrBenchley]

90. Well, as we agreed,

that's your thesis....

Of course, then the rest of us have to weigh how seriously we want to take the opinion of someone who knows so little about politics or current events....

[FeebMaster]

91. I suppose so (nt)

...

[MrBenchley]

72. You will notice

we happened to win World War 2 with our collective armaments.....

[alwynsw]

99. There's a fair number of fowling pieces that were modified by various

resistance groups in WW II. The usual method was to saw off most of the barrel and stock to make them concealable in a bicycle basket, shopping bag (the string type favored at the time, or other commonly used conveyance container.

[MrSandman]

81. I know they were not...

providing judicial notice that the military issued NFA weapons.

[beevul]

65. Literal reading...

"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"

Translation:

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.

Its an explanitory clause at best. Nothing more.

Also...

Militia defined by federal law is STILL all able bodied males from 18 to 46.(someone please correct me if I have the ages wrong)

Not an NRA member here either.

[hansberrym]

74. The court in Miller referred to the prefatory clause as a declaration.

The bit about it being a "qualifier" comes from VPC leaflets.



(Quoting Sandpiper)
The Second Amendment is a qualified right, as evidenced by its first half

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."

And in the only thing close to a definitive case on the matter, the Supreme Court said in U.S. v. Miller:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power — “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
(end quote of sandpiper)


We do not have to guess what the Miller court meant by "such forces" or "declaration" since they go on to explain in detail.


From Miller:
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ 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. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.(end quote from Miller) (my emphasis)



Also the Miller court refers to a "declaration" in the second amendment. The declaration is of course the prefatory clause and the "guarantee" is that “the right …shall not be infringed”. In the opinion the court says:

“ Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed …”

making it clear that the "guarantee" is the later portion of the amendment stating a right that shall not be infringed. Also the court uses the word declared to introduce the preamble to the 1785 Virgina Militia act that has Preamble similar to the second amendment.

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening’s Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared:

‘The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.’

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that ‘All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,’ with certain exceptions, ‘shall be inrolled or formed into companies.’ ‘There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.’ Also that ‘Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o’clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good <307 U.S. 174, 182> powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.’
{end of excerpt} (my emphasis)



Furthermore, note the use fo the terms "keep...arms" and "bearing arms" as used by the Supreme Court in Miller. In both instances they were referring to an individual's action, so the claim the Miller does not support an individual right is at odds with the language used by the court.

[MrBenchley]

75. In that case

it would seem all the individual has the right to is "a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen..."

But Sergeants in the National Guard have the right to a bullet mold.

Don't even see any right to a pistol there.

[hansberrym]

76. Are pistols in common use?

(From Miller)
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ 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. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.(end quote from Miller) (my emphasis)

[hansberrym]

78. Yes, they are still part of the military issue and certainly useful for

the common defense. Therefor, no matter how narrowly Miller is read, individual ownership of firearms (including pistols) is protected.

[MrBenchley]

79. And what were in common use

at the time Blackstone wrote his commentaries?

[brothermak]

52. ?

I guess he meant "use an assault weapon", not "own" one. Since I'm pretty sure you are supposed to give it back when you leave the service. Unless my bro is bringing his SAW home.

~BM

[FeebMaster]

53. Back in the day,

before they threw people in prison for that sort of thing, people would bring home all kinds of ordinance when they left the service. After WWI, before the National Firearms Act, people lugged all kinds of things home. Maxim machine guns, Browning Automatic Rifles, Browning Machine guns, you name it.

[Sandpiper]

56. What a pity

That people can't bring home claymores, C4, DU, VX, Sarin, Botulin, Nukes...

After all, the second amendment doesn't say guns, right? It says arms.

[FeebMaster]

57. Right.

Because nukes are generally issued to soldiers like candy. Hell, some enterprising young men probably snuck a few home from the first Gulf War.

As for explosives. Well, who cares? People blow stuff up for kicks all the time. As long as they don't kill anyone or damage property that doesn't belong to them what does it matter? Hell I'd trust C4 in the hands of a soldier after he's come home more than I'd trust it in the hands of, oh I don't know, the Philadelphia Police.

[Sandpiper]

59. If nukes are outlawed

only outlaws will have nukes.

[FeebMaster]

61. Yes.

The final refuge of the gun grabber. Nukes. I'm surprised it took 56 posts for someone to start crying about them. I think we need something like Godwin's Law with regard to nukes in gun control arguments. We can call it McFeeb's Law.

If you want to limit the 2nd amendment, I'll be more than happy to compromise with you. We'll ban nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Man portable and squad portable small arms will be unregulated. What should we do with artillery pieces and high explosives? Maybe have a background check requirement before someone can buy them. I don't think that's particularly fair, but I'm willing to compromise.

[Columbia]

62. I can handle those terms

:D

[FeebMaster]

63. No right is absolute.

Compromise is very important. No one can say that I'm not willing to compromise.

[beevul]

66. McFeeb's Law

That cracked me up!!!

[FeebMaster]

67. I'm not willing to compromise on McFeeb's Law.

:)

[beevul]

68. Question, Feeb...

How come noone is willing to read the second literally, as it is written?

(well, some people do, but alot don't)

[FeebMaster]

77. Who knows?

Reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. Kids are graduating from high school who can't even read. My college English classes were full of them. A lot of people might actually believe the 2nd is talking about a right to form militias. Maybe that's why you get people on both sides of the isle talking about Miller as if it supports their side of the argument.

The people who just want to ban guns don't care what the 2nd amendment or anything else says. The 2nd says militia? Sounds good to me. Everyone who wants guns has to be in a militia. Miller says only militia arms are covered by the 2nd? Great. We can ban anything we want and just say it isn't a militia weapon. Short barreled shotguns a militia weapon? Miller says no, so despite any evidence to the contrary, we'll go with that.

Of course, we're all freaks. Most people just don't care as long as they don't miss the next episode of Fear Factor, CSI, or Survivor. Why would anyone want to own a machine gun anyway? They're expensive as hell and lots of people just want to be able to pay next month's bills. Ban guns? Support gun rights? They've just got better things to do.

[FeebMaster]

80. Besides,

the NFA has been around at this point for just about 70 years. It's never going to get repealed if for no other reason than it's an institution at this point. How many people are still around that remember being able to buy a machine gun as easily as buying a loaf of bread?

The NFA is older than most of the current Supreme Court justices. The oldest, Stevens, was 14 when it passed. Maybe he knew someone who owned machine guns that bought them without so much as a background check or brought them home from the war.

Do you think these supreme court justices are going to declare the NFA unconstitutional? They've lived under it their whole lives. Most people on the pro-gun side don't even want to get rid of the NFA.

If you think that's bad, consider this: The next batch of new 18 year old voters are just young enough to have lived under FOPA their whole lives. FOPA might as well be as old as the NFA as far as their concerned.

[alwynsw]

101. I like it!

No :nuke: Everything else is OK!

[MrSandman]

2. At least he got it right about...

the 2nd Amendment not being for "hunting"

[alwynsw]

33. So. The question that begs to be asked:

Given the Miller ruling, should Congress legislate a short list of military and military style arms that are legal for private ownership?

The short answer is no.

Virtually every firearm in existence today can find its like or a close relative in military use. Therefore, if only those firearms suitable for military use are allowed, virtually every firearm would be on the not-so-short list. That's the beauty of the Second Amendment: its wording clearly allows private ownership of firearms, yet it is silent as to type, therefore allowing ownership of any firearm.

The founding fathers weren't quite so myopic as we might assume. I believe the wording was such because they realized that this was a document that would survive for centuries with minimal modification. With several of them being inventors and scientists of sorts, most notably Jefferson and Franklin, they realized that they could not foresee future inventions, therefore they placed no restrictions on the type of arms allowed in the citizens' hands.

[laidbackkid]

86. NRA nuts disagree with word "allowed"

All good NRA types state that the 2nd amendment simple states that the "right to bear arms" is a God given right that can't be "infringed" by the government. The real problem is how do you interpret the Constitution. The right wing thinks it is written "in stone" but we believe it is a guide for government reform.

It's good that the NRA types keep talking about crime in connection with the gun control laws. Gun control laws have never had any effect on crime but are needed in a modern society so that a small minority of anti-government nuts can't hold the rest of us hostage to their twisted ideas of how government should be.

[alwynsw]

92. Curious

Gun control laws have never had any effect on crime but are needed in a modern society so that a small minority of anti-government nuts can't hold the rest of us hostage to their twisted ideas of how government should be.

You haven't done so, but it has been pointed out on this board that given the types of firearms allowed in private hands, a civilian uprising stands no chance against the government. I would disagree - 80,000,000 gun owners v. fewer than 2,000,000 military, but that's not a likely scenario.

[MrSandman]

93. And governments killed ...

how many of their onwn citizens in the last century?

[davidinalameda]

103. locking

have a good evening