Guns: A Loaded Argument

The Heritage Foundation ^ | January 2, 2003 | Paul Rosenzweig

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[Atlas Sneezed]

"And yes, those who own automatic weapons should register them."

Never mind that these are precisely the type of arms (those carried by the current well-equipped foot-soldier) that the founders wanted to make sure that the citzens had in quantities that vastly outnumberd any standing army, whether USMC or NYPD SWAT.

And in 1986, the tyrants in Congress (and a duped President and NRA) enacted a law that stopped FOREVER the production of these militarily-essential arms for civilian, so that there is one per 1000 citizens, and that number is actually much smaller accounting for the many concentrated in a few private collectors hands (many obsolete) and the fact that population will grow, while the guns will wear out.

In 100 years, the citizens will have at best 100-year-obsolete weapons to fight tyranny. In 500 years (if this tyranny lasts), we will be limited to 500-year obsolete arms.

Miller says I have the right to a machine gun, and that has since been misinterpreted and distorted.

[Nix 2]

It should remember where we came from.

---

And where we are NOW! We are at war, whether anyone will admit it or not. Disarming us or trying to NOW would be suicidal. Hell, it might be suicidal even if we weren't at war.

I direct the SCOTUS to take a good hard look at Australia and Great Britain. And then look within to senator b*tch and her cronies.
And then, sez I, let'em try.

[Centurion2000]

The issue isn’t so much the amount of regulation. Hardly anyone, including the vast majority of those who say the Second Amendment protects an individual right, suggests that the amendment is an absolute prohibition on all government regulation of the use and ownership of firearms.

YES IT DOES. "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear cut

Yes, they say, the amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from making it illegal for the average citizen to own, say, a grenade launcher or an anti-tank missile.

Those weapons are deployed at the platoon level in an infantry unit. Yes, they are exactly what the Founders of our country wanted in the hands of the militia.

And yes, those who own automatic weapons should register them.

STRIKE 3 ..... Miller is totally unconstitutional.

[GailA]

What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE do these idiots not understand?

[Shooter 2.5]

Blaming the NRA for gun control is like blaming the crew of the USS Arizona for the Pearl Harbor attack.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Blaming the NRA for gun control is like blaming the crew of the USS Arizona for the Pearl Harbor attack."

No, it's more like blaming Neville Chamberlin for Hitler's invasion of neighboring countries.

[Shooter 2.5]

The NRA is only a lobbying group. They don't make the laws. If the gunowners would support the gun groups we wouldn't have any gun control. Whining about what the NRA can't do doesn't help the situation.

We need the 95% of the gun owners to join some sort of gun group. It doesn't matter which group they join. Driving gun owners out of the NRA is doing Sarah Brady's work for her.

Learn to work together.

[cruiserman]

Yes, they say, the amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from making it illegal for the average citizen to own, say, a grenade launcher or an anti-tank missile. And yes, those who own automatic weapons should register them.

I have a problem with those statements. I can get a grenade-launching, Yugoslavian SKS for $160 here in town. I don't see the point of registering any firearms, including automatic weapons.

Repeal the ban on automatic weapon importation/manufacture.

[Wurlitzer]

"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 guess I can understand those who got learnt in goberment skools not understanding this sentence structure but where on earth does the first part of the sentence in anyway modify the last part?

Frequently a very smart Freeper (sorry I don't recall who dat person be) :-),posts a test sentence (an I am doing this from a limited memory) like the following.

An educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" or words to that effect.

In the test sentence to follow the gun grabbers logic, I guess that only educated people should be allowed books.

[NJ Mountain Goat]

"Blaming the NRA for gun control is like blaming the crew of the USS Arizona for the Pearl Harbor attack."

Well, the NRA gave Bob Dole the okay for the Brady Bill in exchange for hunter harrassement legislation. (See GOA Vol 13, No. 1) That sounds like gun control to me!

[xsrdx]

No, it's more like blaming Neville Chamberlin for Hitler's invasion of neighboring countries.

Well..... theres a pretty strong argument that the NRA is the only reason we still have any 2nd Amendment left to quote.

Without them, and without discounting the efforts of the VERY FEW hardcore progun citizens in this country, we would likely be in the same fix as our Canuck, Aussie and UK brethren.

What NRA bashers tend to forget is that ours is a government of consensus and compromise, and no amount of martyrdom or self righteousness about natural rights is going to change that.

Idealism is nice in a vacuum, but short of taking up arms against the government the NRA is all we've got -soccer moms outnumber machine gun owners in this country by about 4 million to one.

Think anybody in congress is scared of GOA? Think again.

[The Raven]

Yep...always err on the side of freedom....

[xsrdx]

And lest I come across as some NRA apologist, I'm not - I would much prefer GOAs positions.

But until WE change the attitudes of about 225 Million fellow Americans, the GOA position will remain fringe and outflanked.

[boris]

More to the point, the actual Second Amendment has/had only a single comma. Every quotation with more than one comma is a misquotation and designed deliberately to mislead. See, for example THIS

--Boris

[NJ Mountain Goat]

Here's my take. Looking at original intent, the Founders knew what arms where, and also knew what artillery was. The right guaranteed was to arms, not artillery. So when someone asks if the Second Amendment guarantees them the right to a missle or an attack helicopter, the answer is that the guarantee ends at arms.

As to "shall not be infringed" the word infringe leaves a little wiggle room. Unobstructed might be a good definition. Any waiting period is an obstruction. Unfortunately, a database probably is not.

Finally, as to Miller, it is 100% constitutional. The finding is spot on. The supreme Court in Miller held that even criminals are entitled to possess military-style weapons. The Court then stated that it didn't know if a sawed-off shotgun was a military style weapon. (Since Korea and Vietnam, we now know.) Since Miller wasn't there in court, and no one volunteered, it became a missing fact. The Court stated that is had no notice of the type of weapon being of a character (military) to be protected under the Second Amendment. Had Miller mounted a defense, and showed the military use of a sawed-off shotgun, we'd all be owning M-16s today.

This means that your .380 Astra is probably not protected, but your AR-15 is.

Many district courts have quoted Miller incorrectly, presuming it's holding to be different. Most say that Miller stands for a militia being guaranteed the right to arms. In reality, it states that individuals, even criminals, are guaranteed a right to military-type arms.

I suggest a reading of Miller.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

[boris]

BTW, I commend to your attention The Unabridged Second Amendment

and the following links:

A Practicing Attorney's Look at the Second Amendment

A Problem With Guns

ASSESSING THE CASE FOR FIREARMS PROHIBITION

Hoplophobia - The Root of All Evil

The Commonplace Second Amendment (destroys "militia right" interpretation)

[FreeTally]

What I find odd is that in many State constitutions, there provisions about citizens owning and keeping guns is very direct and explicit. Why the heck couldn't the FF's just written something like, "No free man shall be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms during times of peace or war".

[boris]

"Here's my take. Looking at original intent, the Founders knew what arms where, and also knew what artillery was. The right guaranteed was to arms, not artillery. So when someone asks if the Second Amendment guarantees them the right to a missle or an attack helicopter, the answer is that the guarantee ends at arms."

So the "Arms Control and Disarmament" agency should quit thinking about nuclear weapons and focus on handguns?

--Boris