Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
Posted on 04/09/2002 12:17:54 PM PDT by RCW2001
News stories from around the nation identifying gun control as a trip-wire issue dividing conservatives and liberals don't surprise. The events of September 11 have heightened the resolution of the "individual rights" interpreters of the Second Amendment. These are distinguished from the "collective rights" faction. The former stare the language in the face and come away with a reading different from the collective crowd. At issue is the interpretation of a single sentence: "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." Opponents of comprehensive gun-control laws view this as a constitutional guarantee of the right of Americans to own guns. An easy to way to put it is that they view the amendment as if the initial clause were irrelevant, leaving us simply with a guarantee against federal gun control that challenges the right of citizens to own weapons. By contrast, of course, there are those (roughly speaking, the nation's intelligentsia) who insist that the Second Amendment goes no further than to say that Congress may not legislate against the right of individual states to organize militias of arms-bearing citizens.
The learned arguments go on and on. The gun-control lobby has suffered two severe blows in the recent period. One of them is that Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard, much esteemed by American liberals, in part because of his enthusiasm for abortion rights, having examined the historical documents, opines that indeed the people who framed the Bill of Rights intended to guarantee individual, not merely collective, gun-ownership rights. And the Fifth Circuit ruled in the same direction in United States v. Emerson.
As with other contentions requiring constitutional interpretation, the division over gun control is only one part historical (What did the framers intend?). Another, more significant part, is political (What does the American public want?) But it's better, and safer, to ask the question: What do the American people reasonably want? It probably could be established by polling that the American people would be happy to hang anybody who burns the U.S. flag, but such sentiments are not likely to be codified.
It's more fruitful to argue reasonable limitations on gun ownership. A comic routine in Las Vegas in 1980 featured a debate between presidential contenders Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter on the matter of gun control, Walter Cronkite presiding. "What about atom bombs, Governor Reagan? Do you believe the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to have atom bombs?"
"Well, Mr. Cronkite," the comedian answered pensively, "just small atom bombs."
The assertion of a right at ridiculous lengths — the absolutization of it, in the manner of the American Civil Liberties Union — is a way of undermining it. If the Constitution says you can say anything you want under any circumstances, then you can shout fire! in a crowded movie theater. If you have the right to remain silent in all circumstance, then you can decline to give testimony vital to another citizen's freedom and rights. If you insist that a citizen has the right to own a machine gun, you discredit his right to own a pistol or a rifle.
What ripened in the aftermath of September 11 was a sensibility — of the individual citizen's dependence, at the margin, on his own resources. George Will put it pithily (as ever), when he asked, Call for a cop, an ambulance, and a pizza, and ask which is likelier to get to you first. A rifle in the closet wouldn't have been useful against the swooping 767s that struck the Twin Towers. But a sense of the implications of chaos and anarchy was sharpened. An analyst 20 years ago remarked that an 82-year-old couple living in an apartment in the Bronx, after twice being assaulted, found it possible to sleep at night only after acquiring a pistol and advertising its presence on a note pinned to the outside door.
Both sides will find it useful to temper extreme expressions of their positions. But it is certainly true that at this moment it is likelier that congressmen running for election or reelection in November will not press the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment.
I get depressed when I can't get to the range on weekends.......does that count?
"Reasonable restrictions on machine guns" is just the start of the slippery slope that leads to banning all guns. We're already at "reasonable restrictions on semiautos". If they have to include the word "reasonable", you can bet it ain't.
The gun grabbers then trot out "well, what about nuclear weapons?". They don't answer the question, they just assume you'll give in, and agree to their definition of "reasonable", which changes all the time as they define as unreasonable what they once agreed was reasonable. It's like their "living Constitution".
The First Ammendment never said anything about "reasonable free speech". There is a good argument for banning the private possession of nuclear weapons, while allowing ownership of machineguns, artillery, etc., but it takes too long to discuss here. Don't fall for ANY "reasonable restriction" arguments, even from pro-2A folks. It's a slippery slope.
Many folks who enjoy working on 1911s prefer the Series I pistols, much like they prefer a pre-Series 70 Colt 1911. One less hand needed when reassembling the weapon.
Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
We're beating them at their own game in Michigan now. First CCW, then the transportation bill, now suing cities banning CCW because of the old preemption act,
On the horizon is black powder reform(Mich has the worst black powder laws in the country, equal to California and Jersey), and gun free zones.
And we are now up to almost 30,000 members.
Why is there any discussion????????? Don't answer that.
"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."
I don't see how there can be possibly be any question about what this statement really means to anybody who can read English.
To illustrate the import of the phrase, change the wording to the following and see if the sense is changed:
"The Moon, being made of green cheese, being susceptible to being eaten by cosmic stray rats, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, tell me what is essential in the Amendment and is the ruling clause?
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Consititution, October 10, 1787
Who are the Militia? Are they not ourselves?Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright 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.
A Pennsylvanian (likely Benjamin Franklin), The Pennsylvanina Gazette, February 20, 1788.
But you DO have the right to own a machine gun! But you have to be prepared to pay for it, too, due to the BATF's artifically created pricing heirarchy that puts a gun realistically worth $50 to cost $2000.
You also have the right to own tanks, field artillery, battleships and anything else you can afford. The Constitution admits it with this Article:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9 -- Congress shall have the power ....to grant Letters of Marque.
A letter of marque is basically a legal document that allows privately owned ships to attack ships of countries we are at war with without fear of being branded a pirate. Those ships carried cannons, so by extension, if they had them, they MUST have had the right to own them. A cannon was the most powerful weapon at the time. Therefore if you have the money, you have the right to own a fighter aircraft, a tank, or any other device you wish.
To argue that only the government has the right to own certain items is a VERY dangerous road to go down. If they can declare that only the government can own tanks, what is to stop them from declaring that only the government can own real property? Sound familiar? It should, it is the basis of all socialist/communist regeimes.
How about a pistol in the cockpit, Bill?
If you insist that a citizen has the right to own a machine gun, you discredit his right to own a pistol or a rifle.
Discredit the right with whom? With those who would rationalize the banning of all guns with "reasonable" restrictions? Screw that. The generation of the Founding Fathers had the right to own anything that the army owned, and this must be construed to include the modern infantry weapons of today. To fail to do so would be like allowing the government to circumvent the First Amendment by banning high-speed printers, censoring TV and radio and regulating internet content.
Interesting. Series I aren't legal for sale in California, so the one I got is a Series II, and the box was marked as not for sale in New York. Hmmmm.
Not quite. I think Kimber is unwilling to go through the onerous Pistol Permit system. You may not even possess a pistol in your home, in New York, unless you have a permit. However, once a permit is granted, it is usually an automatic CCW.
I think Kimber just got sick of all the people ordering firearms that found out they needed to cancel the order and go through the 6 month to one year long permitting process.
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.