The 2nd Amendment

[timpage]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

It is apparent you think you have come up with an ingenious line of questioning that will "prove" once and for all that there is no right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia wasn't involved.

Do you really think this approach hasn't been tried before? By minds much smarter than yours? It has been. And it didn't work for them either.

As the old saying goes, your arguments are so old, I've forgotten why they are wrong.

But, to humor you, I will answer your silly questions:

1. Was this kid who shot the 6 year olds a member of the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment explicitly refers to?

No, he wasn't.

2. If not, how does the 2nd Amendment apply to protect his possession of the weapons he murdered these 6 year olds with?

It doesn't. They weren't his weapons. He stole them from his mother. The 2nd Amendment does protect her right to own them, however. See below.

3. If so, did the ability of this kid to get these weapons that he shot the 6 year olds with satisfy the "well-regulated" requirements of the 2nd Amendment? Or was his ability to obtain these weapons and to murder these 6 year old kids not "well-regulated'?

No need to answer. I said it didn't protect his right to possess weapons he stole.

There now. Feel better? And what exactly do you think you accomplished?

There is another old saying that applies to what you are trying to do: "I can win any argument if you let me ask the questions."

You are trying to confine us to "yes" and "no" answers to questions that you have designed in such a way that we will have no choice but to conclude there is no right to bear arms.

It's like the classic example of a lawyer who demands a witness give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There is no good answer to that question. A "no" means you are still beating her and a "yes" means that you used to beat her, but not any more.

Well, this isn't a courtroom and we aren't witnesses that can be browbeaten by slanted questions.

So, the answer to your question is that membership in a militia is NOT and NEVER has been a requirement to bear arms. You have assumed something in your question that is NOT true and you trying to force us to accept it. But we don't have to.

I don't have time to review the entire constitutional history of the 2nd amendment, but the case of Heller vs. Washington DC pretty much put your arguments to rest. Here is a good summary from one of the links posted above:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3

"However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

"In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

"The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

"Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.

"In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

"The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said above, your arguments are so old, I've forgotten why they are wrong.

Your attempts to define what "well regulated" means and what "militia" means are wrong. Therefore, your argument, such as it is, is also wrong.

You're probably right. And you're also an arrogant pretentious fucking prick who I would like to punch in the fucking face given the opportunity.

They're continuing to bury those kids today. Hope you feel good about your right to bear arms you smug fucking cocksucker.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Lexus, no more strawmen. NO ONE is saying that everyone has to be armed so get off that. In fact Kennesaw, GA passed a law several years ago saying everyone had to own a gun and they did not enforce that law.

They didn't have to.

The scumbags bugged out before the question came up.

It seems that the POSSIBILITY that their intended victims *MIGHT* comply with the law, and arm themselves, was enough to persuade them to find more accommodating victim preserves.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Lexus, no more strawmen. NO ONE is saying that everyone has to be armed so get off that.

And I didn't post that everyone has to drink from the bottle, either. I was correctly pointing out the extremes in the conversation ....

.... ban weapons or allow everyone to carry.....

We already have some "carry" restrictions in place throughout the country on a state-by-state basis, which differ BTW, although similar in many instances, and "type" restrictions on ownership or carry of weapons and rounds. Enforcement is a problem.

After reading about the recent Oregon mall shootings it seems that the shooter had stolen a weapon from someone to take to the mall before he was scared to death by an off-duty security guard who was ill-trained to address the threat with his .22 glock concealed carry weapon he brought to the mall for .......? ... show?

BTW:
Some security guards know how to "take care of business":

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Shoot...180707301.html

One can tighten the restrictions and access in the law, but that will not solve the immediate issue regarding school security, which, IMO, should have been aggressively addressed beginning the day after Columbine (how many intrusions have we had since?) AND also addressed with regard to public places where large vulnerable crowds gather, adults and children.

I make a distinction between mandatory attendance and voluntary attendance. In the first instance no one has any "control" over to the risk to them personnally, while in the latter they do by simply not attending. Their personal freedom of choice is their protection.

If "we" are there because of our government, then our government must assure our safety getting there, being there, and getting back to our homes. What ever the cost.

[Randy4Candy]

Those on here who think that continually beating the radical drum from either side and feel the arrogant need to keep us "informed" of either of the extreme positions are horribly deluded. Thanks to you who continually do this for giving us those many, treasured "shakes head" moments.

It doesn't, in some cases though not all, do any good to have 50 different sets of laws and 50 different sets of enforcement levels. Why, when changing this supposedly goes against "states' rights?" As long as you can buy a gun at a show in any state with lax laws and then take them, unrestrained by the freedom of movement we have in this country, to another state with strict laws on the acquisition of certain weapons, ammunition and accessories - Houston, you've got a fu*king problem.

You can go to say, Virginia, and buy a trunkload of red-hot ammo, HCMs, assault rifles, etc. and haul them - even if they're just for you - to say, Connecticut you are, at the very least, breaking the spirit of the Connecticut laws. But, you are free to do so.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by timpage

You're probably right. And you're also an arrogant pretentious fucking prick who I would like to punch in the fucking face given the opportunity.

Well, that was are refreshingly short and honest answer. Unlike a certain somebody on this board, when the argument wasn't going your way, you at least didn't try to change the subject or take statements out of context to make it look like you were still right.

But, if I was arrogant and pretentious, it was only in response to you repeatedly hammering the rest of us with your three questions. So, yeah, I might have gotten high-handed in response to your tiresome posts, but at least I didn't threaten to punch you in the face.

Originally Posted by timpage

They're continuing to bury those kids today. Hope you feel good about your right to bear arms you smug fucking cocksucker.

No, I don't feel smug about anything. You may have read in other posts that I favored restrictions on magazine sizes for all weapons and limitations on handgun calibers.

I'm not a Second Amendment absolutist, but neither am I a gun confiscator who thinks government can be trusted so we do not need weapons.

The dirty "not so secret" secret about the Second Amendments was that it was intended to paint a bull's eye on the newly created federal government. That is an altogether healthy attitude towards government.

Look around the world today and see who people are being killed by. In the majority of cases, people are dying at the hands of their OWN government, not some foreign government. Syria, Iran, Libya, North Korea, the list goes on. How many tens of thousands have died in Syria in just the last year?

[JD Barleycorn]

@ Lexus I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your last post. The guy with the .22 was also a shooter but the other guy beat him to it? That somone with a .22 is not serious about self defense? You carry a pistol all day. You want lightness. I don't recommend a .22 but I remember a story about some guys sitting around talking about self defense. They all had their opinion about caliber and bullet capacity. Finally one guy said that the best gun is the gun that is on you when you need it as his tapped his ankle holster. Do I have to point out that the late, liberal, gun-hating, columnist Carl Rowan shot two teenagers his Washington DC backyard with a .22.,

[Randy4Candy]

For those of you who look down on the effectiveness of a .22 - stand over there about 15-20ft away and absorb a few rounds. Hurt like hell, don't they?

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by timpage

I've got some questions for all you 2nd Amendment gurus who think you know what the Amendment means.

"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."

Was this kid who shot all these 6 and 7 year olds a member of the "well-regulated militia" that the 2nd Amendment references?

If not, then how does the 2nd Amendment apply to this situation?

If so, then are we to conclude that the "militia" is not very well regulated and some changes need to made? Like making certain those who possess weapons designed to secure a free state end up in the hands of those who will use them for that end? Rather than murdering 6 year olds with those weapons?

Discuss.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the part you need to remember, it doesn't say only for the purpose
of a militia, but where are the well regulated militias, might be a good idea.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

For those of you who look down on the effectiveness of a .22 - stand over there about 15-20ft away and absorb a few rounds. Hurt like hell, don't they?

I do have a small 5 round 22 pocket pistol however it carries mags.They do sting.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Well, that was are refreshingly short and honest answer. Unlike a certain somebody on this board, when the argument wasn't going your way, you at least didn't try to change the subject or take statements out of context to make it look like you were still right.

You are an arrogant and pretentious prick, ExNYer.


Your "premise":

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I can live with eliminating automatics for personal protection. Let everyone get a 6 shot revolver. And limit the caliber to a .32, maybe a .38.

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...4&postcount=33


Then as "proof" that a .38 caliber is sufficient you post:

Originally Posted by ExNYer

On the subject of firepower, check out the video surveillance footage of the Empire State Building shooting. I tried to post the YouTube link, but it is huge.

Just search for "Empire State Building Shooting Surveillance Footage" on You Tube and check it out. You will have to sign in as it is not for minors.

Two NY cops squeezed off 16 rounds in seconds from their 9 mm weapons. No word on how many hit the guy, but he went down instantly and died on the spot. So, I guess you don't HAVE to have the biggest caliber possible to stop a bad guy.

The downside is 9 bystanders got wounded - all by the cops. 6 got wounded by bullet fragments and 3 got wounded by direct hits.

Perhaps if the cops had been using 45s, one of those direct hits might be dead? There is a downside to big calibers. Just saying.

So, that's MY anecdote about gun calibers. Does that mean I win the argument?

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=184


That's ten additional rounds from a larger caliber weapon than you would allow the ordinary citizen, but you never said you were wrong, ExNYer. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are an arrogant and pretentious prick, ExNYer.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I googled Sheila Jackson and found the following statements, below in red, she made on the 17th of this month. No matter how many times l read her statements, and even try to read something between the lines, I can't find her making any such a statement that she "has come out against all guns."

Would you please take the time to cite the article in which she made such a statement.






For over 10 years in many sessions of Congress I have introduced the HR 227, the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act. I have been an advocate for more gun safety laws in America since I have arrived here in Congress. In one year on average, almost 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun. Over a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968. U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. In order to promote safety for our children it is imperative this Congress brings to the House floor NOW the following gun safety laws:

1. An immediate ban on all assault weapons
2. The closing of the gun show loopholes
3. A more structured mental health support system for families that will allow them to get immediate assistance in regards to mental issues. There should be some pathway in which families can acknowledge mental issues within their family and seek public funded or private counseling services immediately.
4. We must look at the design of primary and secondary schools in which these schools may need to have reinforced bullet proof windows and reinforced secure entrances.
5. Expanding state laws holding adults responsible for securing their weapons.

Shiela Jackson Lee is my Congresswoman. I normally just regard anything she says as the babblings of an idiot.
But, in this case I have to agree with her points 2 through 5. The reason I don't agree with #1 is at this time the term "assault rifle" is way to vague. As I said id a earlier post, a 18 inch barrel Mossberg 12 gage pump can do horrendous damage in the close confines of a building. It is not classed as an "assault weapon".
Or even a little Rugar 10-22 22 long rifle semi auto rifle. It will shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, and with extra clips, can be reloaded in seconds.
Or how about a old lever action in 30-30. Ever seen how fast you can shoot one of those, and most mdels hold 8 rounds.
Most lawnmakers seem to confuse "assault rifle" with "scary looking rifle'. A Browning semi auto deer rifle in 30-06 doesn't look very "scary" at all. It shoots the same round as a BAR and is clip loaded as well. So does the Remington 750 series.
There is no way that the Government is prepared to make criminals out of a big chunk of the American Population. They tried that in Prohibition, and look what happenned. There are millions of weapons out there that can be classed as 'assualt weapons', and it will be impossible to get them. That would be no more practicle than rounding up all 15,000,000 illegals in the Country and shipping them back to their homeland.
So we are faced with dealing with the problem in the best way we can. The NRA has it right. Policeman in every school, coupled with what the Congresswoman proposes.
And yes, we can afford it. The Varsity Football Program might have to do without a little, and schools might have to cut back on some of the bloated beauracracy that permiates every large school district. But it can be done.
And, it is something that can be done now, with no danger of violating any of our Constitutional Rights that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are an arrogant and pretentious prick, ExNYer.


Your "premise":

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...4&postcount=33


Then as "proof" that a .38 caliber is sufficient you post:


http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=184


That's ten additional rounds from a larger caliber weapon than you would allow the ordinary citizen, but you never said you were wrong, ExNYer. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are an arrogant and pretentious prick, ExNYer.

CORRECTION to the post above @ #70: The .38 is .0678 mm larger than the 9mm; it is the 9mm's cartridge that makes the 9mm a more powerful handgun. The 9mm is larger than the .32 caliber, and in the example cited the police did fire ten more rounds than the original premise allowed for.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

@ Lexus I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your last post. The guy with the .22 was also a shooter but the other guy beat him to it?

The "security guard" in the Oregon mall was carrying a .22 Glock when he claimed to have scared the shooter to death ....

I have never heard of a "security guard" or LE officer trained to carry and shoot a .22 ANYTHING ... may be in Kansas .... or Mayberry USA .. but not in Texas....and not in the Federal government.

you still try to shore up whimpy with the .22 Glock at the mall who hid in a store while his gf and her child were hanging out in the mall?

I am aware that a .22 can kill someone. Defense is not about killing or "stinging" someone .. it's about stopping them in their tracks with a disabling punch that renders them ineffective to continue an assault ... and even if it does not "sting," but knocks them on their ass ... even with a vest on when hit with a double tap in center mass.

That requires more than a .22.

[JD Barleycorn]

Jackie S; would you care to tell me exactly what the "gunshow loophole" is? I would like to know what you think it is.

Lexus: What are you talking about? Let me see if I can clear this up. The security guard was carrying his own weapon which happened to be a .22. I don't think anyone said it was a service weapon. I know I didn't. Of course the shooter had no idea what he was facing as far as caliber. He just saw a man with a gun pointed at him. Someone once said that you go to war with the army you have. I don't think this "guard" had time to go a bigger gun. You go with what you got. Read my earlier post on this topic.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are an arrogant and pretentious prick, ExNYer.

I never mentioned you in my post to Timpage.

You must have recognized yourself.