Posted on 01/18/2005 11:25:23 AM PST by newsgatherer
Handgun Control Inc. says it wants to keep handguns out of the hands of the wrong people. Guess what. If you are a law abiding citizen who owns a handgun you have the "wrong hands."
Banning guns works. That is why New York and Chicago have such high murder rates.
Washington D.C. which has strict gun controls has a murder rate of 69 per 100,000. Indianapolis, without them has an awesome murder rate of 9 per 100,000. Gun control works.
You can incapacitate an intruder with tear gas or oven spray. If you shoot him with a .357 he will get angry and kill you.
A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman standing with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
The "New England Journal of Medicine" has some excellent articles on gun control just as "The American Rifleman" carries equally great articles on open-heart surgery.
The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard which was created in 1903, 112 years later.
The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
One should consult an automobile technician for vehicle repairs, a computer programmer for problems with your hard drive and Sara Brady for firearms expertise.
Most citizens cannot be trusted so we need firearms laws because we can trust citizens to abide by them.
If you are not familiar with most of the above you have not been following the firearms debate. In fact you haven't tuned in to the liberals who still have their hands in your pockets and on your firearms even though the pounding defeats ...
(Excerpt) Read more at Christian-news-in-maine.com ...
You believe asking questions are presenting facts? Whatever.
I didn't know any man could carry an ICBM, SLBM or long range bomber, yet those have been the subject of "arms" control treaties. As have battleships, cruisers,etc. (That sort of "arms control" never has worked for long either).
Privateers were a sort of Naval Militia that the fedgov used as an auxillary since the Congress refused (under the Jeffersonian influence) to adequately fund a US Navy. It, at times, also forbid the arming of private vessels.
Arms generally meant small arms whereas artillary referred to cannons, etc. Arms were what the soldier carried in armies and militia while the artillary almost always belonged to the militia troop. Cavalry was also generally not militia.
You didn't need permission to *own* the cannon or the ship, only to "go hunting" ships belonging to the nation's enemies.
Next, Madison's notes come from the Constitutional Convention which occurred 2 years before he wrote a Bill of rights. The use of privateers discussed at the Constitutional convention could not be based on a right that was only drafted 2 years later.
The second amendment doesn't *create*, the right, it forbids the government from infringing upon it. The bill of rights was a response to the perceived power of the federal government created by the Constitution. One of those powers was over the state militias, which could be ordered into federal service and whose organization and weapons were to be "provided for" by Congress.
In this instance it meant a troop of men with a clear and well functioning command structure, under discipline, well drilled and capable of implementing a military plan of action as need be. It was commanded by officers appointed by and answerable to the State within which it was formed.
It was serious stuff not play-acting. Militias were vital for protection against Indians but not much good against trained armies with only a few exceptions due to exceptional leadership.
Sure just like state laws that restrict freedom of speech and the press. Those are not covered by the first amendment...right? Oh wait the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law", the second does not. Further the 14th amendment states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". The privileges and immunities in question were pretty much universally understood to be, at minimum, those protected by the first 8 amendments to the federal Constitution. (A right properly understood, is an immunity from governmental action)
First of all these quotations you reference in some cases did not support the point you claimed. For example, Washington's quote did not refer to fighting a tyrannical domestic government as you claimed was the main reason the 2d existed. Jefferson is not a good source for constitutional wisdom and he very likely would have opposed the document had he been in the country when it was created. And he liked to bluster idealistically when he did not have to do anything. Madison generally brought him back down to earth.
Others were general sentiments not unusual to that period or relevent to the point that there is no right for any idividual or groups, such as terrorists or criminal gangs, to possess any weapon they wish.
There is nothing in those quotes indicating that the Founders were saying that private possession of ANY weapon which can be created was protected. They would have thought you Nuts for such a claim. Many wouldn't even let a Black man have a pistol or is your view they were saying Nukes for All but Blacks?
I don't think they were concerned about private possession of warships and cannon particularly at certain periods when they were beneficial to the fedgov but that is not what was referred to in the 2d. They were necessities in a period of weak federal power and piracy a constant threat. Jefferson considered armed merchants to be a constant threat to peace and at one point opposed all but coastal trading by American ships. AND he embargoed ALL trade with England and France which is a damn sight more than controlling armaments.
Those facts have no bearing on the protections offered by the Second amendment.
You think you can buy a Nike missle with a warhead? Or an ICBM with MIRV capability?
Cannons are not military weapons anymore and are not considered as such. I would bet your insurance company would take a dim view of your possession of them in any case.
you are remarkably good at misreading, misrepresenting, and misunderstanding both my writing (a trivial matter) and those of the Founders (a serious matter).
I must conclude that, no matter what proofs are brought to bear, you shall obdurately resist learning the facts and correcting your error.
That being so, I bid you farewell.
Essentially it means Trained, and disciplined with an effective Command structure of State appointed officers.
These were Civic responsibilities not haphazard affairs. Often life and death stuff.
Actually the Supreme Court never stooped to accept a case challenging the AWB. Plus the Congress and the President rarely consider the Courts precedents or the Constitution in passing laws these days (they once did, as when they "got around" the lack of power to ban or regulate guns by taxing the snot out of them, ignoring the fact that they can't use powers that they do have to violate the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, that being the whole point of passing the BoR in the first place.)
Well you need to learn about it then.
But surely those laws are unconstitutional to the Gummer Brigade? You can't deny the right to possess Ricin now can you?
It would take several drinks for your typical post to even make sense.
Those are examples of the increased vagary of what was a clear term. Arms were initially only those things which could be carried in the arms. Expanding that umbrella was never the Founders' intention merely that of Sophists.
Negoiation between nations regarding these weapons is not relevent to the 2d.
Nor did they intend that Private armies be raised and armed.
Ask Aaron Burr about Jefferson's view of THAT.
Perhaps when you learn what constitutes "proof" you can return to the fray.
ah, buckwheat, you are hopeless.
Fine, amend the Constitution, don't ignore it. BTW, destroyers generally mount or mounted 5 inch guns, not 12 inch guns. Battleships and battle cruisers would carry guns (properly Naval rifles) that big.
Latin, fool: LATIN
"arms" comes from the Latin word "arma" which included all personal weapons of war AS WELL AS armor AS WELL AS ship's gear
the latin word for "arm" (as in upper limb) was "bracchium"
dear GOD you are an ignoramus, besotted of your own false cleverness.
and you are arrogant enough to accuse others of not knowing the meaning of proof?
Good NIGHT, Nancy.
Thanks for the etymology. Now explain how we can prevent Osama's followers from legally obtaining biological ARMS.
Well, not a battleship, those were not invented until the latter half of the 19th century. IIRC, "Old Ironsides", the USS Constitution is a Frigate. She wasn't the biggest warship type of her day, but she was among them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.