As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

Toogood Reports ^ | April 15, 2003 | By Chuck Baldwin

[diamond6]

The clause, a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state", is an incomplete thought. It is not a statemnt at all, not does it imply, or directly attach some conditional to the intent, or the meaning of the central idea and command of the amendment.

You're right, that is an incomplete thought. That's why the clause should not just end there. It states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The full sentence implies that a well-regulated militia is equated with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The clause is just pointing out a term "militia" that was based on what was a current situation, the British troops oppressing the people. Organized militia, which consisted of the people was what existed at the time. You can't just say that clause doesn't make sense, so we can remove it. They put it there for a reason.

[diamond6]

The dictionaries still hold the meaning of the word regulated. Webster's(A beetter dictionary) has it as, "bringing order and method". You'll probably find something similar in A.H. Order and method implies and also brings skill. THe idea was to develope skill though drill and familiarity with arms, so that individuals were competent in there use.

Yes. You are correct. That is another possible definition. However, I don't believe it makes my point any less valid. Does the NRA really bring order to anything? They make bring method, they may bring skill, but it is laws that bring order.

[Dan from Michigan]

Nobody will accept that a Remington 870 Pump Load is a semi-automatic assault weapon to be seized. Ain't gonna happen.

I take it you don't like in Illinois. Daley's allies is trying to ban Remington 870's there as .50 calibers.

[Dan from Michigan]

Like LIVE

[dcwusmc]

Nope, I get pissed at the position you appear to have taken WRT the Constitution. Your posts strongly indicate that you believe as I suggested. Otherwise you would more than likely have been proud enough of your position to have come right out and STATED IT UNEQUIVICALLY as I have and others have. You seem shamed to believe as you do... which is why I suggested that you develop some principles. So you can overcome and defeat the shame that you appear to be drowning in.

[diamond6]

The Constitution provides the right to bear arms. However, just because there is a right, doesn't mean there are no limitations to the right. For instance, you may have a right to free speech, but does that allow you to yell, "Fire" in a theater, when there is no fire? You may have the right to freedom of religion, but if your religion requires human sacrifice, is Congress prevented from passing laws prohibiting it?

[spunkets]

" The full sentence implies that a well-regulated militia is equated with the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

There is no such equality. The attached clause is nothing more than the attachment of a desired result to the absolute right the founders intended to preserve and protect. It is the skill of the well acquainted, that I outlined in 1579, they were noting and it's necessity to a free state. Specifically, the government did not include this to establish militia, provide for it's armament, or place any other condition whatsoever on the people's right. Especially a note that jusifies infringement, because the central statement of command forbids it. The first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights are not establishing any power of govm't, they explicitly enumerate rights and prohibit infringement.

[FSPress]

The Constitution provides the right to bear arms. However, just because there is a right, doesn't mean there are no limitations to the right.

====
I understand what you are saying, I think. One last question and then I will quit. Does the Constitution provide the right to keep and bear arms because of the need for a well regulated militia?

[spunkets]

" when there is no fire"

Nor does the 2nd allow justification for the use of arms to infringe on the rights of others. The right to arms is not a right ot use them improperly. the same goes for Free speech. The right does not justify it's improper use.

[diamond6]

The first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights are not establishing any power of govm't, they explicitly enumerate rights and prohibit infringement.

And what does "infringement" mean to you? Are you saying that none of the Bill of Rights allow restriction or limitation of these rights by the government?

[spunkets]

"Does the NRA really bring order to anything? They make bring method, they may bring skill, but it is laws that bring order."

Yes it does bring order. It is an association of folks with common interests, goals and rules. The same association is found in the construction of a government. Govm'ts however involve mandatory membership and obedience to their dictates. There is no order to be found whatsoever in banning inanimate objects, only in defining and regulating there use. Both the NRA and former government activity did just that. They provided for rules governing their proper use.

[FSPress]

Can the government compel you to own arms?

[spunkets]

" And what does "infringement" mean to you? Are you saying that none of the Bill of Rights allow restriction or limitation of these rights by the government?"

That was given back in #1587. The right does not imply it's misuse. Just as the right to speak does not protect it's misuse by a robber announcing a holdup. The 2nd Amend. does not mean the right allows arms to be used as a tool of coercion to enforce the verbal threats made during the robbery. The right to self defense is a valid right, that the right to bear arms can provide for effective enforcement. A right is not infringed by restricting action that infringes on the rights of others. It is infringed when the exercise of that right is limited absolutely w/o regard for any action taken by the holder of that right.

[spunkets]

"Can the government compel you to own arms?"

No.

[Mo1]

Nope, I get pissed at the position you appear to have taken WRT the Constitution. Your posts strongly indicate that you believe as I suggested.

Hmmm .. the key word here would be "appear"

As for the posts that I actually did make .. I believe I stated that I support the 2nd amendment. But I guess you missed that part

[diamond6]

I understand what you are saying, I think. One last question and then I will quit. Does the Constitution provide the right to keep and bear arms because of the need for a well regulated militia? I believe that was the original purpose, based on the historical context at that time. Since the threat was more immediate with the British soldiers, they wanted people to be able to defend their freedom and property against the British government and the replacement American government, to avoid having the same oppression in the future.

[diamond6]

I think I understand what you're saying. However, I think you're argument is kind of like saying, illegal drugs are not dangerous by themselves, only when they are improperly used. I think that some armaments, like some drugs, are so dangerous they should not be allowed for the average citizen.

[diamond6]

" And what does "infringement" mean to you? Are you saying that none of the Bill of Rights allow restriction or limitation of these rights by the government?"

That was given back in #1587. The right does not imply it's misuse. Just as the right to speak does not protect it's misuse by a robber announcing a holdup. The 2nd Amend. does not mean the right allows arms to be used as a tool of coercion to enforce the verbal threats made during the robbery. The right to self defense is a valid right, that the right to bear arms can provide for effective enforcement. A right is not infringed by restricting action that infringes on the rights of others. It is infringed when the exercise of that right is limited absolutely w/o regard for any action taken by the holder of that right. Is the right to keep and bear arms imited "absolutely",when a law is passed by government restricting the use of some, but NOT ALL, weapons?

[diamond6]

CORRECTION: " And what does "infringement" mean to you? Are you saying that none of the Bill of Rights allow restriction or limitation of these rights by the government?"

That was given back in #1587. The right does not imply it's misuse. Just as the right to speak does not protect it's misuse by a robber announcing a holdup. The 2nd Amend. does not mean the right allows arms to be used as a tool of coercion to enforce the verbal threats made during the robbery. The right to self defense is a valid right, that the right to bear arms can provide for effective enforcement. A right is not infringed by restricting action that infringes on the rights of others. It is infringed when the exercise of that right is limited absolutely w/o regard for any action taken by the holder of that right.

Is the right to keep and bear arms limited "absolutely",when a law is passed by government restricting the use of some, but NOT ALL, arms to individual citizens?

[spunkets]

" I think that some armaments, like some drugs, are so dangerous they should not be allowed for the average citizen."

Some drugs have no other purpose, but to alter the mental state of the user. Other drugs have several very useful purposes. I happen to think the same way about those, although no one thought to restrict their use 'till the AMA dreamed it up at one of their first conventions. My favorite drug, aspirin, comes under assault regularly. There is no constitutional justification for banning drugs, or restricting the use of them to permissions granted by those with a particular license.

There are no individual weapons that are so dangerous to life, or liberty that they need to be banned. The bans in place now are precident setting infringements that are a dangerous threat to Freedom.