Replies

The one thing that is clear in the intent of the framers is that they felt that law-abiding citizens could arm themselves. They also didn't feel that gun ownership should be completely unregulated, as made evident in their opening words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ." (I'm going from memory here).

But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation -- and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented.

My own personal take is that no citizen who can prove that he or she is a law-abiding citizen should be prevented from purchasing or owning a reasonable firearm (I would stop short of true military weaponry). No waiting period, no delays, no other preconditions beyond proving they are a law-abiding citizen should apply.

My own personal take is that no citizen who can prove that he or she is a law-abiding citizen should be prevented from purchasing or owning a reasonable firearm (I would stop short of true military weaponry). No waiting period, no delays, no other preconditions beyond proving they are a law-abiding citizen should apply.

The framers intended (and the USSC has ruled in Miller) that the 2A applies to arms commonly in use by the military. The true test is whether or not the weapon is "discriminatory". A rifle would be OK, things like land mines and bombs not.

But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation -- and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People. --Tench Coxe

I think it was fairly clear that the founders intended the militia to have access to modern military arms, and that the militia did not answer to the government.

IOW, yes, if some people got together to form a civil militia then it should legally be allowed to procure field artillery if it so decided. As long as it was well-regulated, and by that I mean reasonably disciplined, the government wouldn't legally have a leg to stand on. That, of course, wouldn't stop them from arresting everyone involved.

"...and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented."

Learn history. "Back in the day", private individuals and institutions were allowed to do EXACTLY that. What do you think those PRIVATE sailing ships were armed with?? Spit-ball shooters???

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ." (I'm going from memory here).

IIRC, regulated in that time frame was thought to mean that all the able bodied men had an individual long gun, a basic load of ammo, and could shoot with acceptable accuracy.

But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation -- and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented.

My own personal take is that no citizen who can prove that he or she is a law-abiding citizen should be prevented from purchasing or owning a reasonable firearm (I would stop short of true military weaponry).

The militia was expected to show up with current military hardware. How were merchantmen expected to arm their vessels with cannons after being granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal?

But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation -- and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented.

Two BIG problems with your assumption:

1) "Regulated" in the parlance of the day meant "prepared". The clause meant that the government should answer to you and me. The militia (armed citizenry) would ensure their compliance. The only militia the government should respect is one that is prepared to take them on. "A well-regulated militia being essential to a free state..." (from memory... apologize if syntax in error...) means that we are free because we can keep the government from oppressing us by force. "They answer to us" is the model of our institution.

2) If "none of us would permit" that us peon commoners shouldn't have Howitzers, how do you explain "Letters of Mark"? By these letters, the early federal government could commission private warships for service. Considering the fact that the warship was the nuclear weapon of that age, I don't see how we can all agree with your assumption.

In the 2nd Am. "Well Regulated" does not mean regulated as in controlled by rules and regulations. "Well Regulated" means "efficiently working" like a well oiled machine that is "regulated" or timed effectively.

Don't have time to skim all the posts, so hope I'm not redundant:

'They also didn't feel that gun ownership should be completely unregulated, as made evident in their opening words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ."'

"Regulated" means EQUIPPED, or regimented. NOT as in fraught with rules. Notice it is the MILITIA which is "regulated" - not arms!

If you put it into historical context, “well regulated” in the late 1700s would have the meaning: Trained, drilled and proficient. Hence, a well regulated militia could have been worded: A militia that has been trained, drilled and is proficient in the arts of making war. The framers of the Constitution had no concept at all of “government regulation” in the current context.

Since the Constitution itself has an article concerning “Letters of Marquee” and the issue thereof, it was assumed by the framers that privet citizens would own warships mounting dozens of cannon.

Neither that clause nor the second amendment has been rescinded…

Sorry, I interpret all the regulations as infringements.

If a person is crazy enough or violent enough to be randomly dangerous, lock him up.

I've always like a couple of (science fiction writer) Robert Heinlein's thoughts: "An armed society is a polite society"

...and his notion of coventry for them as can't get along with their fellow man.

Paired, they solve the problem of excess violence and leave me alone to stay armed against true enemies, be they my own government or potential invaders.

"No waiting period, no delays, no other preconditions beyond proving they are a law-abiding citizen should apply.

If they kept the number of laws to a reasonable amount I would agree with you.

The one thing that is clear in the intent of the framers is that they felt that law-abiding citizens could arm themselves. They also didn't feel that gun ownership should be completely unregulated, as made evident in their opening words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ."

1) The wording of the 2nd amendment suggests that the militia should be well-regulated. It says nothing about the right to bear arms being well-regulated. In fact, it specifically states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

2) This amendment was written during a time when the term "arms" included all arms available to armies at war. For example, muskets were the pinnacle of firearms technology, and were used by both soldiers and hunters, whereas now we have distinctions between different types of firearms (assault rifles, shotguns, automatic weapons, etc.) It is my firm belief that the Framers' intention was that these "militias" should have access to the same weaponry as any soldiers might have, especially considering that the militias were expected to act as soldiers in time of need. Furthermore, given the level of paranoia that the Framers exhibited regarding oppressive governments, I have no doubt that much, if not most, of the intention of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee citizens a final recourse against their own government, should it become unwieldly (as ours has).

They also didn't feel that gun ownership should be completely unregulated, as made evident in their opening words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ." (I'm going from memory here).

You shouldn't rely on your memory and should do more historical research. Your premise is incorrect. In 18th century usage, the term "well-regulated" had nothing to do with government "regulations". It meant "properly constituted, maintained and functioning".

For example, a clock mechanism was said to be "well-regulated" if it was properly adjusted and kept correct time. Similarly, a militia was "well-regulated" if it was properly equipped and trained and able to perform its function, to protect the citizens and their property and communities.

But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation --

Again, your assertion is based on a false premise.

and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers

Another strawman argument. There is no real threat to the security of this country and the safety of its citizens from people wanting to "pack 80mm howitzers". They're not "packable", anyway, you have to hitch or mount them to a vehicle.

There IS, however, a very real threat to the security of this country and the freedom of its citizens from misguided or malevolent people and officials who worship at the altar of government regulations and authority.

My own personal take is that no citizen who can prove that he or she is a law-abiding citizen should be prevented from purchasing or owning a reasonable firearm (I would stop short of true military weaponry). No waiting period, no delays, no other preconditions beyond proving they are a law-abiding citizen should apply.

Define reasonable, I suspect the Brady Bunch will not agree with your definition. Define "military weapons". The Miller court said, or at least strongly implied, that keeping and bearing militarily useful weapons is what the second amendment protects.

As to having to prove that one is law abiding, I would argue that the burden should be on the Government to prove that one is not.

Besides such "checks" do not deter criminals, who by definition don't obey the law, from acquiring weapons, they only provide at least the potential for collecting data on law abiding gun owners.

Shall not be infringed means just that. All of your "reasonable" restrictions are infringements. Only through individual due process may rights be legitimately denied. They may not be denied "wholesale" to the body of the people.

"...no citizen who can prove that he or she is a law-abiding citizen should be prevented from purchasing or owning a reasonable firearm..."

I personally don't think any of us can prove that we are law abiding any more - there are so many laws and regulations on the books, many of them broad and vague, that we are all pretty sure to have transgressed some of them, probably are transgressing some as we speak.

m themselves. They also didn't feel that gun ownership should be completely unregulated, as made evident in their opening words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ."

The word 'regulated' as used in the Second Amendment did NOT refer to government regulation. In the vernacular of our founding fathers, it meant 'capable'...it meant 'able'...well-trained.

"(I would stop short of true military weaponry). "

Why? If we really need arms to protect ourselves from the Government, they will have true military weapons. Why should we then be limited to sporting arms alone? We did that once, already. They call it "The Revolutionary War" these days.