The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers ... which was created in 1903, 112 years later.

Christian news in maine.com ^ | 18January, 2004 | Larry Austin

[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 ...

[Double Tap]

Bookmark

[robertpaulsen]

"There is little doubt that the drafters wanted this to apply the bill of rights to the states, especially the second."

Now I'm confused.

You stated in your post #54 that the 14th amendment incorporated the second. When I disagreed, you point me to a link that supports my contention, not yours. Now you're saying that it's not incorporated, but it should be, because Jon Roland says that was the framers' intention?

I disagree with the author of your link. IMO, the 14th amendment was part of a trilogy (13th, 14th, and 15th), all three ratified within five years after the Civil War, written to protect certain rights of the newly freed slaves.

Try my link at the bottom, Incorporation. Much shorter than yours, probably because my author doesn't have to nitpick words and intents to make his point or justify his position.

[justshutupandtakeit]

As referenced in the 2d arms were the instruments owned by individuals subject to call into the militias. They were not instruments which could not be carried by individuals or required crews to operate.

Artillary was under the control of the Unit and operated by trained specialists.

There is nothing in the 2d allowing the creation of private armies.

[Jim Verdolini]

“There is not a scintilla of evidence that any arm greater than a individual arm was ever considered as an arm to be kept or provided by an individual militia member. There is considerable evidence to the contrary.
This seems to be at least a scintilla of evidence.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA 34):
This law placed certain classes of firearms into a registered ownership category. Private individuals can possess a functional machine gun, silencer (suppressor), short-barreled rifle or shotgun, smooth-bore pistol, cane gun, or destructive device (certain shotguns, grenade launchers, hand grenades, bazookas, mortars, cannon, etc.) only after first paying a Federal Transfer Tax of either $5 or $200 per firearm/device. The $5 tax applies to pen guns, cane guns, smoothbore pistols, or any other such firearm that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms classifies as "Any Other Weapon" (AOW). All other functional guns or devices in the NFA registry require payment of a $200 federal tax for each private transfer. The tax is not an annual tax. It only is paid each time a functional NFA firearm is being transferred to or from a private owner (excepting inheritance).”

I fail to see any connection between a militia and congress establishing regulations on these classes of arms. The act also did not address the intent of the founders and no Supreme Court case over the law ever addressed that specific issue.

I have not said that such arms were not nor could not be owned by individuals. I have said that such ownership is not protected by the Constitution as these classes of weapons were not derived from any of the classes of arms actually discussed by the founders as protected and upheld by the courts as the same.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There were very few artillary pieces owned by individuals. Some may have been purchased by wealthy men for the local militia but few, if any, owned them personally.

[ctdonath2]

but the debates surrounding the ratification of the amendment as well as the actual wording of the Militia Act do serve to provide an insight into the intent of the founders.

Care to quote any? Everything I've read indicates they intended the people be able to rise up and counter any gov't-run military - which presumes having the tools to do so outside gov't ownership.

[justshutupandtakeit]

My idea as to the meaning of the 2d does not make me a GG.

Being a member of three of the Liberals most hated organizations: the NRA, the Federalist Society and FR does not make me a GG. Disagreeing with you does not make me a GG.

Neither the first or second amendment is Absolute. Just as you have no first amendment right to yell fire in a crowded theater you have no right to possess Ricin since it is not a defensive weapon.

[mrsmith]

Cannon were owned by merchants and used on their merchant ships- not warships or privateers- regularly. It was standard practise in an age of piracy and war.

However, the government's powers to regulate them does not IMO comport with the idea that they were considered protected under the Second Amendment.

[djf]

A whole lot changed since 1863. Most of those changes occurred in the 30s. I doubt it was coincidence that at the time Social Security was instituted, the peoples gold was seized, and the income tax was being finalized, that the rights of the people to own guns was severely restricted.

[Saundra Duffy]

More, now than ever!!

[jonestown]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

--- explain how we can prevent Osama's followers from legally obtaining biological ARMS.

---

We the people have the Constitutional power to pass reasonable laws restricting the possession & use of chemical/biological/nuclear materials that can be used in making weapons of mass destruction.

Anyone with a bit of common sense, using due process of common law, could arrive at that conclusion.
You refuse.

[ctdonath2]

In reality, unless the Constitution specifically prohibits something and the courts allow the prohibition, your distinction simply does not matter.

What constitutes "arms" is the center of this thread. How the three branches of government routinely violate the Constitution is a different matter.

Try it [owning a cannon] and see how far your “right” takes you.

If you have the $$$, you can have a cannon. Federally it is perfectly legal; your state may vary, but keep in mind even someplace as anti-RKBA as New York does not disallow their ownership and proper use.

[Dead Corpse]

Like this one...

3" Parrot Rifle.

[ctdonath2]

Just as you have no first amendment right to yell fire in a crowded theater

Sure I do! Especially if there is a fire in a crowded theater. I have that right; I also am responsible for the consequences. Ditto for RKBA: you can own anything; you are also responsible for the consequences of use.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is clear from the second that the concern was to have an armed population ready for militia duty and as such they had to have personal weapons, firearms, ready for action. Any cannons a unit owned were properly stored in a depot ready for their crew to retrieve. They could not be used by an individual and almost none were owned by individuals.

If any of the Founders had them "on their lawns" it was during a time of danger when they might be used. Though it is highly doubtful if ANY had them at any time. What Founders do you believe owned their own artillary?

Nor were there many "heavily armed ships" cruising about capable of fighting the nation's enemies. They were specially commissioned and outfitted for such work ONLY when necessary. Should they attempt acts without the commissions they would be punished severely. Possession of cannons for defense against pirates was prudent and not discouraged by the governments. After all this was the high seas not US territory.

Only after being trained and passing tests would militias allow a soldier to handle cannons. Private ownership, on land, almost never occurred.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have not seen any information that any of the Founders actually owned anything but muskets, rifles, handguns, swords or knives.

Seeing an old cannon on a lawn somewhere is no indication that a Founder had it there.

[robertpaulsen]

The first amendment was incorporated under the 14th amendment's provision of Due Process (not Privileges and Immunities) and applies to the states. That means when nude dancing is allowed as "free speech", it must be allowed in every state.

The second amendment has not been incorporated. It only applies to the federal government. The gun laws in your state are guided by your state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.

That's how different states have different gun laws. How some states allow concealed carry and some don't. How certain cities like LA, New York, Chicago, Washington, DC can actually ban the ownership of guns.

(Didn't you ever wonder how states could have different gun laws?)

[newsgatherer]

Thank you, I will pass that on to the author

[Dead Corpse]

And you again with the humor... You aren't even worth the refutation anymore. How many times does your beloved Incorperation myth require debunking before you finally let it go?

[newsgatherer]

Thank you, that is great.

Jake