"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to THE SECURITY of a free state..." Some facts for you

[TrollBuster9090]

The average gun nut will either ignore the first two clauses, or claim that 'militia' refers to average citizens. Then claim that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was intended to give citizens the power to overthrow/resist their own government if it became 'tyrannical.'

Well, here are the REAL facts. The 2nd Amendment was there to guarantee state governments the ability to maintain part time state militias which could A) be called up by the State government to respond to a local state emergency or insurrection, B) be called up by the FEDERAL government to either repel invasions OR put down insurrections in or by states, and C) serve as a counterbalance to any federal standing army. It was NOT a reference to gangs of beer-bellied morons running around in the woods shooting at targets with Barrack Obama's or Janet Reno's face on them.

The the point about State Militias counterbalancing a federal army is the closest to the wingnut point of view, and they'll frequently cite Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 28 as proof of this. But if you read the paper (it's only a couple of pages) you'll see he was merely belaying fears about the federal government becoming tyrannical (and claims this is ridiculous), and claims that state militias could prevent the federal government from becoming tyrannical, and THE FEDERAL army would likewise present a balance against STATE governments becoming tyrannical. In Federalist Papers 28 and 29, Hamilton contends that the FEDERAL government should specify how the militias are to be regulated, but that the OFFICERS should be appointed by THE STATE governments as a way of balancing state vs federal influence over the armed militias.

"This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.""--Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper 29

Proof that Hamilton thought fears of the Federal Government were ridiculous:
"There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29


If the average wingnut wants proof of what the Founding Fathers MEANT by a 'well regulated militia,' simply refer them to The Militia Acts of 1792, which were signed into law by GEORGE WASHINGTON HIMSELF. It specifies how the state militias are to be organized, and (more importantly) gives THE PRESIDENT the authority to call up the state militias to either repel invasions or put down insurgencies. (It also MANDATES that all men of military age BUY a musket and other accessories for service in the military....that's right, folks....George Washington, with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton in his cabinet signed a MANDATE 'forcing' citizens to buy something.)

Here are The Militia Acts of 1792. You can use this link to prove to your wingnut friends exactly what the Founding Fathers MEANT by 'militia' in the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Alright, now for the second wingnut talking point. The idea that The Founding Fathers INTENDED that the 2nd Amendment was to be used by citizens to fight against their own government should it become tyrannical. If that was their intention, they had a funny way of showing it! Two years later, George Washington himself actually USED The Militia Acts of 1792 to PUT DOWN THE WHISKEY REBELLION in Pennsylvania in 1794.
The federal govt imposed a tax on whiskey which 500 farmers in Pennsylvania thought was tyrannical. So they took up their arms and attacked the home of the local tax collector. Sounds kind of like the scenario the wingnuts always paint, doesn't it? George Washington apparently didn't agree, because he called up the State Militias of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey to put down the rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

So, to summarize:
1. What the Founders meant by 'a well regulated militia' is spelled out clearly in The Militia Acts of 1792.
2. Hamilton did NOT think 'militia' referred to unorganized, individual citizens, he meant militias organized by state governments. He also thought the fears about the Federal govt. becoming tyrannical were silly. He says so in Federalist Papers 28 and 29.
3. The Founders actually USED the state militias to put down a citizen's rebellion AGAINST A TAX that the citizens thought was tyrannical in 1794.

[shenmue]

1. Yay!

Truth!

[TrollBuster9090]

2. Better yet, truth with LINKS to the actual DOCUMENTS.

If you get into a whizzing contest with a wingnut, they'll usually cite the Federalist Papers. Specifically, Paper 28. Then they'll cite what was apparently 'MEANT' by Hamilton when he wrote it. The quote they'll usually cite is actually a quote from a wingnut book written by Stephen P. Halbrook called 'That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right."

Not surprisingly, Halbrook works for the NRA, and it's part of his job to spread disinformation.

But you'll find these quotes from his book on every wingnut website, and that's usually where they get their ideas about what Hamilton 'MEANT' when he wrote those essays, and by extension, what the Founders 'meant' when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

[Cary]

112. They have links to tbe tobacco industry. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

205. The same Alexander Hamilton, who boasted of being in 10 duels, before being killed in the 11th one..

... by a SITTING VICE PRESIDENT, Aaron Burr? The same Alexander Hamilton whose son was killed in a duel in 1801?

Additionally, Hamilton's son, Philip, was killed in a November 23, 1801 duel with George I. Eacker, initiated after Philip and his friend Richard Price engaged in "hooliganish" behavior in Eacker's box at the Park Theatre. This was in response to a speech, critical of Hamilton, that Eacker had made on July 3, 1801. Philip and his friend both challenged Eacker to duels when he called them "damned rascals."[7] After Price's duel (also at Weehawken) resulted in nothing more than four missed shots, Hamilton advised his son to delope (throw away his fire). However, after both Philip and Eacker stood shotless for a minute after the command "present", Philip leveled his pistol, causing Eacker to fire, mortally wounding Philip and sending his shot awry. This duel is often cited as having a tremendous psychological impact on Hamilton in the context of the Hamilton-Burr duel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel

If I'm reading correctly, the Federalists were todays version of the neo-cons and the teabaggers. They were the corporatists, who favored corporations and bankers over the People:

Intellectually, Federalists, while devoted to liberty held profoundly conservative views atuned to the American character. As Samuel Eliot Morison explained, They believed that liberty is inseparable from union, that men are essentially unequal, that vox populi [voice of the people] is seldom if ever vox Dei [the voice of God], and that sinister outside influences are busy undermining American integrity.[30] Historian Patrick Allitt concludes that Federalists promoted many positions that would form the baseline for later American conservatism, including the rule of law under the Constitution, republican government, peaceful change through elections, judicial supremacy, stable national finances, credible and active diplomacy, and protection of wealth.[31]

The Federalists were dominated by businessmen and merchants in the major cities who supported a strong national government. The party was closely linked to the modernizing, urbanizing, financial policies of Alexander Hamilton. These policies included the funding of the national debt and also assumption of state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, the incorporation of a national Bank of the United States, the support of manufactures and industrial development, and the use of a tariff to fund the Treasury. In foreign affairs the Federalists opposed the French Revolution, engaged in the "Quasi War" (an undeclared naval war) with France in 1798–99, sought good relations with Britain and sought a strong army and navy. Ideologically the controversy between Republicans and Federalists stemmed from a difference of principle and style. In terms of style the Federalists distrusted the public, thought the elite should be in charge, and favored national power over state power. Republicans distrusted Britain, bankers, merchants and did not want a powerful national government. The Federalists, notably Hamilton, were distrustful of "the people," the French, and the Republicans.[32] In the end, the nation synthesized the two positions, adopting representative democracy and a strong nation state. Just as importantly, American politics by the 1820s accepted the two-party system whereby rival parties stake their claims before the electorate, and the winner takes control of the government.

As time went on, the Federalists lost appeal with the average voter and were generally not equal to the tasks of party organization; hence, they grew steadily weaker as the political triumphs of the Republican Party grew.[33] For economic and philosophical reasons, the Federalists tended to be pro-British – the United States engaged in more trade with Great Britain than with any other country – and vociferously opposed Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807 and the seemingly deliberate provocation of war with Britain by the Madison Administration. During "Mr. Madison's War", as they called it, the Federalists made a temporary comeback.[34] However they lost all their gains and more during the patriotic euphoria that followed the war. The membership was aging rapidly,[35] but a few young men from New England did join the cause, most notably Daniel Webster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party#Interpretations

The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801. The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who, during George Washington's first term, built a network of supporters, largely urban bankers and businessmen, to support his fiscal policies. These supporters grew into the Federalist Party committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The United States' only Federalist president was John Adams; although George Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained an independent his entire presidency.[1]

The Federalist policies called for a national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Britain as expressed in the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794. Hamilton developed the concept of implied powers, and successfully argued the adoption of that interpretation of the United States Constitution. Their political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, denounced most of the Federalist policies, especially the bank and implied powers, and vehemently attacked the Jay Treaty as a sell-out of republican values to the British monarchy. The Jay Treaty passed, and indeed the Federalists won most of the major legislative battles in the 1790s. They held a strong base in the nation's cities and in New England. The Democratic-Republicans, with their base in the rural South, won the hard-fought election of 1800; the Federalists never returned to power. They recovered some strength by intense opposition to the War of 1812; they practically vanished during the Era of Good Feelings that followed the end of the war in 1815.[2]

The Federalists left a lasting imprint as they fashioned a strong new government with a sound financial base, and (in the person of Chief Justice John Marshall) decisively shaped Supreme Court policies for another three decades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party

[onpatrol98]

3. Interesting...

To my mind, I don't need a gun. But, I seriously doubt that in the 1700s, you could have a found a group of people who would have thought it a bad idea to have a gun for any number of reasons.

Pro-gun and Anti-gun people do this thing where they try to "out think" the opposition on what the founders were thinking. I usually don't bother. Because life in general was different in the 1700s.

But, if I had to give some thought to this, I'd have to say. I doubt seriously you could have found a person during that time who didn't think a gun was not only useful but necessary. For hunting, protection, and survival against a government not necessarily trusted at that time.

We need sensible gun control. I don't live an area where I feel compelled to own a gun. But, I recognize that there are people who do. Guns aren't a part of some hobby that I participate in. But, I realize there are people who do participate in hobbies that involve guns. Guns are used in horrible crimes. I hate that. But, I know most gun owners do not commit gun crimes. I have neighbors that own guns.

I think the best way to get sensible gun control legislation is to sit down with gun owners (apart from the politicians who use us for their own gain), and come up with solutions.

[Crepuscular]

5. Careful

Careful, you are taking an entirely too reasonable approach to this topic, prepare for zealots on both sides of the issue to tear you apart.......in 3, 2, 1,......

[onpatrol98]

6. Backing slowly away from keyboard...

[Crepuscular]

8. No, by all means...

By all means continue with the reasonable, level headed approach to a controversial issue. It's a refreshing change from how this tremendously polarizing topic is usually treated in these forums. Just don't be surprised if it doesn't last and the thread goes down hill.

[TrollBuster9090]

196. Yes, that comment was entirely too reasonable.

In fact this entire thread is getting entirely too reasonable

?5290

[patrice]

7. "Take the guns away" is an extreme characterization. I know lots of people interested in more

functional regulation and I don't know one who is implying anything as extreme as you suggest and, btw, I don't see how you got that out of OP either, so what did I miss?

[Crepuscular]

9. Seriously?

You must have missed the dozens of regular posters on these forums who constantly and repeatedly call for a total ban on the private ownership of guns. Not sure how you could miss the constant refrain.

[patrice]

10. Seriously? You believe everyone on the internet is honest? ... is what they portray themselves as?

wow.

BTW, we were talking about OP. Please quote where OP proposes taking the guns away.

[Crepuscular]

13. I'm confused

Maybe I missed something, you were not responding to the OP in the post of yours that I commented on and you were the one who mentioned that you had not seen anyone proposing taking away guns.

If you were limiting that observation to just this thread, then you are right nobody called for taking away all guns but the statement was not qualified in that manner. Threads don't exist in a vacuum, they are all part of a continuing dialogue and there is no shortage of very vocal contributors in these forums who regularly call for banning all guns, period. Give it time, they will show up soon.

[patrice]

21. None of which justifies the dysfunctions that we are seeing. Some FEW idiots propose to take the gun

s away and your cohort's response is madly hysterical abandon, extreme over-reaction to extreme over-reaction, and because you have already decided, without anything much more than ANONYMOUS and likely dishonest say-so, apparently, that the take the guns away minority will succeed to some extent (and, btw, we are to assume whatever degree thereof, whether quite tiny or more widely affecting gun owners, it's ALL the same huge travesty of everyone's rights), that justifies whole hog maxed out weapons ownership and threats of violence, ostensibly toward the government, but quite possibly, under the dire circumstances that all of you predict, more likely also coercing local citizenry to mind their political ps and qs or lose their jobs, or not get that contract, or see "friendships" end, or not get hired, or . . . . any of the myriad other forms of fascistic political extortion that ARE possible by means of threats.

Do you know what self-fulfilling prophecy is? Your expectations shape reality. It amounts to this, re gun-ownership, if you depend solely upon your gun to make you safe, when a threat actually materializes, when someone else(s) with a gun(s) eventually shows up, it's too late. You're not safe. You have already shaped reality by how you define it in such severely limited and violent terms and your safety was long gone before your own situation actually got around to revealing that fact to you.

Personally, I'm willing to live with your over-simplification of everything into guns, IF you don't coerce others about it, but not only is that highly unlikely, but also in light of all of the ignored (on the average) responsibilities of citizens to the commonweal, that is, responsibilities to so many OTHER very different aspects of what makes people authentically safe that are left completely to beg in favor of threats and violence, I do wonder why you so desperately want something that fails so completely to keep you safe.

I'm a tolerant person, but my tolerance is coerced by your weapons. There isn't much I can do about that so I'll live with it. But I think you fiddle with your guns while "Rome" burns and then use the "burning" as further justification to ignore and actively cop-out on, OTHER responsibilities and to fiddle even more and more and more. It's a circular, completely self-referential, culture.

And if/when it all comes crashing down, we'll hear "I told you so"s from those who couldn't do anything but pass the buck to others and are, thus, part of the cause of the destruction, a mistaken part that was never under any threat to begin with, a cohort that justifies vast injustices on the basis of a propagandized mistakes about threat to your gun ownership, but a very different kind of part nonetheless, because unlike other problematic causes, such as those that I myself and others contribute, more or less un-wittingly, any of the other non-gun problems that you are responsible for, and which add up to threats to your own safety, are perpetrated by your answer to everything, the point of a gun.

BTW, I'd be glad to hear how your social and economic justice activism is comensurate with or exceeds your gun activism, so I await you to enlighten me.

[Crepuscular]

36. Um, my cohort?

Which cohort is that exactly? The cohort of responsible gun owners that support gun regulations that will have a tangible impact on helping curb gun violence? Because that reflects my feelings on the topic.

You seem to have a magical power to deduce the motivations of others, while knowing absolutely nothing about them. Must be a gift.

Apparently you view this issue as one of black and white, two ends of the spectrum, with no legitimate views falling in between. That type of attitude is part of the problem, not part of the solution. A previous poster in this thread made a post that was filled with common sense, an admission that both sides may have some legitimate arguments. I applauded him for that point of view. You, on the other hand, appear to take a polarizing approach and categorize people into one of two categories, with no room for meaningful discussion between the two ends of the spectrum. That's really kind of a sad.

[patrice]

133. Acolytes of corporate gun-personhood

[Crepuscular]

136. Yeah, Sure.

Over 100 million gun owners in this country and all of them are acolytes of corporate gun-personhood. To put it nicely, it's a bullshit premise that is based on the same kind of stereotypical categorizing that is typified by homophobes and bigots.

[patrice]

138. ALL? You fail to notice that I asked you earlier WHAT PERCENTAGE. Why did you fail to notice that?

Was it an intentional or accidental failure?

[patrice]

139. And, btw, you're saying NONE of them are, so you negate your own (mistaken) critique of my position.

[Crepuscular]

140. Whatever

Your "position" is so ludicrous that it negates itself, without any help from me. It appears that you live in a world of conspiracy and see everyone who disagrees with you as a corporate shill. Um, Okay, you go with that. Not much purpose in trying to have a rational discussion with someone who's world view is that detached from reality.

[Melon_Lord]

28. So they say it but don't mean it?

To what purpose?

[Progressive dog]

15. What about the 100's of gun nuts who want more weapons

and will give up nothing. And I have yet to SERIOUSLY see anyone on these forums advocate a total ban on private ownership of guns. And to call it a constant refrain shows either a lack of understanding of written English or a disregard for the truth.

[Crepuscular]

20. read some gun threads

Read almost any of the gun threads which have flooded GD in the last months and you will see numerous posters advocating total bans, no lack of understanding needed at all. As for those on the other end of the spectrum, as I mentioned earlier, it's a polarizing issue and there are certainly zealots of all stripes.

I come down somewhere in the middle, there are some meaningful reforms that make sense, which I support. There have also been a number of proposals made that will accomplish nothing and which are largely intended for political posturing. I don't support those types of measures. Of course any attempt to debate the "logic" involved in some of the proposals is greeted with the obligatory "NRA" talking points claim, which usually ends any reasonable discussion of the issue.

[patrice]

23. And you think all of that stuff is authentic? If not, what percentage would you guess might not be

what you think it is?

And how many posters does it take to get hundreds of replies, and associated ECHO threads, how many times a day, just on this one board, and then multiplied by the internet?

Do you think corporate personhood is not active in this issue?

What are your personal practices for recognizing propaganda?

[Crepuscular]

27. Authentic?

So you're suggesting that many of the posters who are calling for total gun bans are corporate shills?

Had not really considered that possibility but I think it's a stretch. Is the new gun control group that was put in place really just a front for a bunch of pro-gun corporation lackeys masquerading as gun control advocates? Pass the tinfoil, please.

[patrice]

29. That's either, intentionally or otherwise, naive, or dishonest. In either case, you just proved #21

at least approaching reality.

[Crepuscular]

42. ?

Sorry, I'm having a hard time following the rambling and detached nature of your discourse. Probably my fault.

I wish you well, good fortune.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. Clearly there is some astroturfing

Most anti gun groups funding traces to a small number of well heeled supporters, some of whom are 1%ers like Bloomie.

[patrice]

132. Astro-turfing from both directions. Corporate gun-persons are not sitting on the sidelines here. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

145. Most of the pro gun organizations show a much wider contributor base than the anti gun ones

Not sure quite what you mean by "Corporate gun-persons are not sitting on the sidelines here".
- There may well be some participants from the gun industry participating in the public debate outside of the NRA, SAF, NSSA, etc. Have not seen any covert ones revealed.
- If you think there are any here at DU, I would doubt it. I don't see DU as that influential to be worth the investment. Huffpo maybe.

[patrice]

149. Thanks for that info. Just thinking gun manufacturers, such as those on the board of NRA, and

elsewhere, would have no problems with deploying lobbying resources into the kinds of corporate personhood "speech" that is so widespread now.

No, I don't want to over-estimate DU's significance, but you should consider not under-estimating it either, especially as context for the drivers is so very important and so much of what goes on is on a voluntary basis anyway, in a medium in which it is so very easy to earn and validate one's creds with those who are considered, by some, to be the "movers and shakers".

[TrollBuster9090]

217. 74% of the NRAs funding comes from the gun manufacturers

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/04/13-2

The rest comes from their 4 000 000 members who, although they're very PASSIONATE about gun ownership (not to mention very PARANOID), are not what I'd call a 'wider contributor base.'

[TrollBuster9090]

214. No Astroturfing, No false-equivalence:

Forgive me, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. With 91% support for universal background checks, I find it hard to believe that the anti-gun movement is being astroturfed by a hand full of plutocrats. It has broad public support.

Here's my proof:

The Brady Campaign to end Gun Violence.
Number of donors who donated more than $200: ZERO

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00113449&cycle=2012

Other than Bloomberg, please provide some evidence for your assertion that "Most anti gun groups funding traces to a small number of well heeled supporters,"

Can we have some numbers/links on that, please?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

215. Go look at the VPC

[TrollBuster9090]

216. You mean the Violence Policy Center?

They haven't raised or spent any money since 2007

Here is the sum total of expenditures by all the Gun Control Lobby Groups:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=Q12&year=2012

Please give me your sources for your claim about the anti-gun lobby being financed by a small number of 1%-er plutocrats.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. You have not been around long enough to give your statement much weight

There are any number of posters who want that here. Some will admit it as the eventual goal, others want it right now.

[Progressive dog]

76. What a silly elitist thing to say

Is this what you fall back on when someone disagrees with you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

143. A suitable retort to someone making such broad statements as you did

There are any number of posters here want to ban all privately owned firearms. That you have not seen any does not mean they do not exist.

[Progressive dog]

175. Well then show me

Any number huh. zero one two. What number? It is my experience that people who talk in generalities or cannot cite facts fall back upon their "expertise." It is pathetic when someone claims "expertise" based on how long they have been registered on a website or how many posts they have made.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

179. Here is a very blatant one who has been PPR'd (again)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2443149

There are others, some are IMO socks/zombies.

[Progressive dog]

181. Since this is "again" who was he before?

Do you read minds too? How do you know that I'm not a repeat of some damn liberal Democrat on a Democratic web site?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

182. Zombies usually betray themselves over time. Some even own up to it

What you are asking me to do is called callouts. Its a TOS violation here at DU.

[Progressive dog]

184. Just skimmed the TOS and can't find where answering the question is a violation

Could you show me where the word callout (or even something similar) is in the DU terms of service? What I am asking you to do is stop making stuff up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

185. You did see the poster in the thread who said they support total confiscation?

[Progressive dog]

190. No I missed that but not a big count yet, huh

So any number would be the one today? Practically a majority. Proves that Wayne LaPierre and his syncophants should be really worried.

[Brainstormy]

128. Here's one

I'd love to take the guns away. I'd like to see total national disarmament. And I know others.

[premium]

129. Would you leave the police armed?

After all, they've proven themselves sooooooo trustworthy to respect the civil rights of citizens, right?

[Ikonoklast]

163. Anyone that would use a firearm against an LEO for *any* reason , even a legitimate one, will

end up dead.

It's better to surrender, and hire the best attorney you can find when dealing with cops.

Point a gun at one, and you just ran out of options.

[premium]

165. I agree that if you point a gun or shoot a cop,

you will probably be a dead person, but my question to the poster was if he would leave the police armed even if the whole US population were disarmed, not that it will ever happen.

[AlbertCat]

40. and survival against a government not necessarily trusted at that time.

I don't think even this is what they were thinking in the 1780's. I think they knew Britain would try to take the US back. And indeed they did come back in 1812. The 2nd Amendment was so they'd be ready for that.

[patrice]

4. Thank you for this. So sad isn't it, even when one may in fact be VERY right, violence makes you

most likely wrong, because whatever other alternatives there were, and that one might even have supported, become ir-relevant due to violence.

[former9thward]

11. As long as you are bringing "facts" to the discussion ...

Maybe we should hear from the author of the 2nd amendment, James Madison. You quote from Hamilton who had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

Madison wrote: Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

[TrollBuster9090]

44. The theme of Federalist Paper 46 is no different from Federalist Paper 49

Both are discussing protections from a potential tyranny of the Federal Government, in possession of a Federal army. Not specifically about citizens in general protecting themselves from their governments in general.

In my opinion, the closest you can possibly get to that argument is where Madison says:

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

He then extends the argument by saying the American system of a freely armed citizenry, and State Government-organized militias, which are collectively bigger than any federal army would (presumably) be, would preclude tyranny by the federal government. It's a FEDERALIST argument, not an ANARCHIST argument.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

He makes no similar argument about local governments, which would be the obvious thing to do if he were claiming that armed citizens in general is a good way to prevent governments from becoming tyrannical.

[former9thward]

49. Don't know what anarchism has to do with this.

Nobody is talking about that. You wish to ignore what Madison plainly says and put a spin on it in which you try and stand it on its head. Your choice but not history's.

[TrollBuster9090]

53. I was standing Madison's argument on its head by QUOTING him?

His point was the same as Hamilton's.

The monarchies of Europe maintain power by A) not allowing their citizens to be armed, and B) not allowing local governments to have their own, autonomous militias. (The first point is a bit of hyperbole, though, because most of europe DID allow citizens to bear arms. They just weren't allowed to own HEAVY arms, or organize into militias.)

Please show me one clean quote from Madison that says the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is allow an armed citizenry to overthrow their own government, or prevent government overreach, that wasn't said in the context of state militias, or in the context of an essay discussing ways to prevent the federal government from usurping the authority of the state governments.

[ieoeja]

123. "And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes."

"But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."


You highlighted the wrong portion.


Reminder, the British made no attempt to take any firearms from any homes at Lexington and Concord. They came for the militia's armories.

[former9thward]

130. I highlighted the "wrong portion" because you don't like it.

The reference to the militia is because Madison and the others could not conceive of disarming the population. But continue to re-write history -- for yourself. You remind me of a client who would come into the union hall with pages of the union contract torn out. I asked him why the pages were missing and he said because "I don't like those sections".

[ieoeja]

134. I "re-write history" by QUOTING ... you?

All I did was post an excerpt from the quote you provided pointing out that the excerpt contined the context of the portion you highlighted.

[jmg257]

135. But Madison also couldn't conceive that the people and states would need/want to endlessly

& continously support a huge standing army, or that the people & states would allow federalization of the militias.

Yet the people decided a long time ago that a well-regulated militia is NOT the best security; that a kick-ass army and navy would much better serve to secure our liberties from outside forces, and a federally controlled AND armed select militia was a better security for internal threats AND a great means to support the standing armies.

"To these {US standing army} would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence".


Only when the armed citizenry were part of organized & well-regulated militia would they be able to oppose a federal army under the control of a tyrant, and that is simply no longer the case. Obviously the securities in the 2nd related to ensuring the existence of the constitutionally-recognized state militias, and the people's role in them, are obsolete.

Madison would very likely have to realize that an armed citizenry is no longer required for the state's security, and then decide how important it is they still be armed - atleast w/o substantial regulation.

[TrollBuster9090]

193. VERY good point

And as I said, people in Britain WERE allowed to keep arms of the same sort that American colonists were. So, of the two points made by Madison, the one about not allowing individuals to bear arms is a bit of a straw man. The key to the argument is that of allowing local governments to form those with arms into a militia.

[beevul]

12. Yawn.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

Amendment 2 grants nothing, and restricts only government - the preamble to the bill of rights itself makes that intent abundantly clear.

[TrollBuster9090]

47. I'm not sure what you're claiming here. Can you elaborate?

nt

[apocalypsehow]

80. He's claiming here that *facts* bore him, as they almost uniformly do our "pro gun progressives"*

when they are confronted with them, as in the OP above.


*( )

[samsingh]

153. facts bore gun lovers but they spout

off lies masked as facts in perpetuity

[apocalypsehow]

158. Yep. Nails it.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

14. Guns impossible to regulate going forward

The prices for 3D printers continue to fall, some just a few hundred dollars and shortly they will be cheap enough to be on pretty much everyone's desk. Given that, and the following link... its fairly obviously to see the conclusion.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/download-this-gun-3d-printed-semi-automatic-fires-over-600-rounds/

Might as well find another cause to rail against, because you might as well be complaining about the advent of the printing press and how it might be potentially misused by people to spread disinformation and things you generally don't agree with.

Technology always has been about empowering the individual... for good or bad.

[SunSeeker]

16. So you joined DU just to say the lie that technology has advanced too much to enforce laws?

Pathetic.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

19. So your solution is making 3d printers illegal?

Or is it you plan on having a guard standing in everyone's house watching over each one?

[wyldwolf]

25. My solution would be making 3D patterns or blueprints or whatever illegal

And anyone caught with a 3D printed firearm would face severe penalties.

See, this isn't difficult. Cars don't need to be banned to curb DUI's. Laws need only to be enacted and stiff penalties given for drunk driving to substantially reduce it. Oh wait, that's exactly what happened.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

33. And that would work on exactly the people you dont need to worry about...

those people who wouldn't be headed down to the local school to shoot it up. You took guns away from the law abiding reasonable rational types.

Now, those people who are suicidal maniacs looking to die in a blaze of glory could care less about your laws... they will print up whatever they want and go down in a hail of bullets.

And before you say anything about the maniacs getting the guns from the reasonable people, it wouldn't matter either, because if you took it away from the reasonable types, again... the maniacs would just print them out.

You accomplished nothing.

[wyldwolf]

35. the people I don't need to worry about wouldn't be printing guns

[TampaAnimusVortex]

41. Right now. My point was in 5 years, they will be on practically every desktop around.

Also, it would be impossible to stop them from being downloaded... that's for sure. You could outlaw it here in the US, but of course anyone in the US could simply download it from a server in Brazil, China, Iran, or Turkey.

I don't think people have fully thought through the revolutionary ramifications of 3D printers and how it will completely overturn most industrial processes, intellectual copyright, as well as yes... laws such as gun control.

[wyldwolf]

43. Says who?

There are countless illegal activities products that can easily be done and made in the home. Those things aren't, to paraphrase, practically in every home around.

And, sure, they could be downloaded from foreign servers, like child porn, but possession would still be a big no-no.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

65. Says industry experts - which apparently you know more then.

http://www.zdnet.com/3d-printing-heads-toward-mainstream-7000010176/

A 200 dollar 3D printer sounds like a nice price point for the desktop and that just the start.

As for your other statement, yes... there are countless illegal activities - but you still haven't answered my primary question.

How do you stop the suicidal maniac from downloading a file off the internet, printing out a semi or fully automatic rifle and going on a shooting spree? Tell me again how your laws are going to deter them - because I can tell you, they can care less about them. All you will deter are those who are not the problem.

[wyldwolf]

79. Industry "experts" say 3D printers would make gun control pointless?

THAT was your primary question, and it was answered by myself and other already.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

115. You really dont expect such a transparent attempt at dodging to work do you?

I brought up the point that 3D printer acceptance was gaining traction and used an obvious metaphor of "being on everyone's desk in 5 years"... Certainly any rational person would have known that didn't literally mean every single desk but instead meant wide adoption.

Second, you switch the topic to insinuating that I stated industry leaders said that 3D printers would make gun control pointless, which they most certainly didn't... I said that. Industry leaders simply stated the continued growth, adoption rates, and falling prices.

So, which topic would you like to deal with first?

1. The fact that 3D printers most certainly will be cheap and plentiful within a very short time span OR
2. The fact that those suicidal types will have easy access to CAD plans, be able to print weapons and use them with no regard for laws whatsoever OR
3. Those who would obey the laws are not the one's would would be breaking the laws generally OR
4. If they did decided to, they too would have easy access to the CAD drawings and 3D production units regardless.

[jmg257]

116. What's the problem? Why not start with existing problems that we know about NOW...i.e.

dealing with certain weapons and certain ammunition feed devices where it is shown there is a real govt interest for regulating.

3D printers and illegally made arms and accoutrements can be addressed as part of new legislation.


One thing about laws & people - you will almost never stop everyone from doing everything deemed undesirable; but they are likely to still have a positive impact in controlling at least a portion of illegal behavior, an impact well worth the efforts of enacting them.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

120. I disagree. There are no laws that will ever solve this, even remotely.

As I have stated, those that wouldn't use these in nefarious ways probably wouldn't violate the laws to start with and those that wish to go out in a hail of glory will simply print them out regardless.

Rachel Maddow gets it. See this video. Notice that she gives no solution to the issue also - because there is none.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/vp/51014668#51014668

[jmg257]

122. As mentioned in another post...may be appropriate cause for regulating ammo and reloading

components, to limit effectiveness of contraband arms.

[wyldwolf]

137. It's no dodge. Once your point was debunked, you altered it.

Your original point was 3D printers make gun control pointless. Complete bullshit. You know. I know it. And no amount of backtracking on your part is going to change what you said.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

141. Ah, I see. Claiming victory in defeat...

Unless of course you can copy and paste the quote where I said industry experts said that 3D printers will make gun control laws obsolete, which we both know you cant - as again, I am the one that said it, not them. I'm not sure what this useless verbal flailing is supposed to accomplish?

I made 4 points above, unless you have a specific rebuttal to any one of them, I suggest you simply end the discussion.

[wyldwolf]

144. LOL. ok, good luck with your 3D printer and home made toy guns.

[TrollBuster9090]

194. Why do I get the feeling they've been re-running WEIRD SCIENCE on late night TV?

You can't just hotwire a G.I. Joe doll, a Sergeant Fury comic, and a khaki pair of boxer shorts to your 3D printer, and have a fully functional M4 pop out in a puff of smoke when your house gets hit by a bolt of lightening.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

201. Not quite that easy.... but -

It is easy enough to order all the parts to a weapon without licensing or regulation through the mail except the lower receiver, then print that lower receiver out and just put it all together.

[jmg257]

202. Would regulating the parts of regulated weapons help stem this new technology?

I.E. If new assault weapons were banned, as were the selling/tranfer of any parts for those weapons, would that help limit the impact of 3d printing on skirting new laws?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. That is a fairly Luddite approach and will be no better than its namesake

Data/information wants to be free. Work a plan from there, but you can not control the flow of information once published. Iran and others try, but free nations know better.

[wyldwolf]

39. it's a very effective approach, actually

In my illustrations,

Guns = cars
Illegal use of cars = illegal use of guns

This would still be the case if someone printed a car on a 3D printer or brewed their own booze in their garage.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. Actually you can do both, but I understand where you are coming from

It is still a very marginal approach.

I've taught self defense hand gun courses for years. Many of my students would turn their weapons in for scrap if they no longer felt the need to have them. We need to address the hate and violence before we can reasonable hope for civilians to disarm

[paleotn]

31. It's not terribly difficult....

to take a semi-auto AR-15 and modify it for full auto. But if you do, you go to jail for a long time, so don't even think about it. Construct a full auto weapon by 3d printing, you go to jail for a long time, so don't even think about it. Honestly, I don't see how that advance in technology really changes anything. Ironically, people who are apt to do such things are usually their own worst enemies.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

117. The problem is that sucidal maniacs dont care about jail...

Those wishing to go out in a blaze of glory could care less about laws. Those who would obey the laws would not be the ones that would be the people you would be concerned with.

The suicidal nut jobs could download a CAD drawing of a fully automatic rifle from a Russian, Chinese, or <insert country of your choice> server... print them out, and go start using them and there is very little anyone could do to stop them.

3D printers changes the ball game on as large as a scale as the agriculture, the printing press, etc... At first, it will be relatively simple objects like rifles and lawn gnomes - but over time the complexity will grow until any one person will be able to produce just about anything they want.

[jmg257]

118. This is actually an insightful argument as to why ammunition will have to be regulated.

Not only completed rounds, but reloading equipment and components too.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

124. If you think regulating assult weapons is a difficult proposition...

wait until you try to get that passed through the system. Politically impossible in anything resembling our country.

Also, I wouldn't think that printing bullets wouldn't be too far off in the future as well. One could use ball bearings as slugs and those are easy enough to come by. It wouldn't be terribly accurate long distance, but it would be lethal enough. Developing propellant would be an academic exercise for anyone planning on going on a shooting spree.

[SunSeeker]

60. Nope, no more than I'd make Sudafed illegal. It's what you DO with it.

And it is easy enough to catch people doing illegal things...what with all those advances in technology you keep talking about.

Seriously, why are you here on DU? We are already up to our eyeballs in gungeoneers making the same stupid arguments you're making.

[wyldwolf]

17. LOL. yeah, that's BS.

So, um. Challenge me.

[RobertEarl]

18. True

But.... the 2nd gives a person the right to bear arms. It does not give them the right to do as they please with their arms.

Meaning.... government can legislate that you can't leave your house with your arms.

Yep. The right to bear is there. But not the right to have it anywhere outside your house.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

26. Again, it has nothing to do with rights anymore.

Given that within a few short years, any suicidal maniac will be able to march over to his 3D printer, print out a semi-automatic (or fully automatic!) rife and go down to the nearest school, movie house, etc... and use it to mow down whomever - there is very little anyone will be able to do to stop him.

Those people who intend to die in a blaze of glory wont care about laws... those that would use them responsibly wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

These CAD files are already available for free to download on the web by anyone. No one will be able to put this genie back into the bottle. It's already out.

[uppityperson]

32. So what is your solution to the problem? Or are you saying there should be no regs at all

since people can print their own guns at home?

[pediatricmedic]

54. Maybe we could actually address societies problems/inequalities and mental health issues

That might bring the killing way down and make these new laws obsolete or useless.

I am probably in fairytale land thinking people might actually be interested in solving the problems.

[graham4anything]

34. Anyone can keep a gun in the house, but not a bullet in the street

zero tolerance to any private citizen caught with a bullet in the street, after a new court and new congress is in place in a few eletion cycles.

It is 100% possible to 100% stop any Conn, any supermarket, any movie theatre mass shooting.

Without banning one gun in a private residence.

All it takes is not allowing bullets in the street and having zero tolerance like teenage drinking in NJ.

And new security systems can make bullets obsolete.

as for those wanting to overthrow the government, it goes without saying
same with Zimmy the vigilante.

[RobertEarl]

37. That cat's been out of the bag

People are getting mowed down.

What we are talking about is real tight controls on anyone who wants to legally leave the house with any gun.

What that will do is expose the crazy people. Make it easier to find them. No wise gun owner would object, I'm sure.

Besides, I heard the cad files could be hacked and the printed gun might blow up.

[TrollBuster9090]

51. If your argument is that it's pointless to ban arms manufacturers from selling certain types of

firearms or ammunition to the public because they can just PRINT themselves an AR-15, and 1000 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition I think you might need to think about it a little more.

(And no, the advent of new technology does NOT always work to the empowerment of the individual. Do we really have to go through all the examples?)

[TampaAnimusVortex]

142. No, my argument contains essentially 4 points...

1. The fact that 3D printers most certainly will be cheap and plentiful within a very short time span.
2. The fact that those suicidal types (Type A) will have easy access to free CAD plans downloadable from any number of servers in any number of countries around the world, and be able to print weapons and will use them with no regard for laws whatsoever.
3. Those who would obey the laws (Type B) are not the one's would would generally be breaking the laws to start with.
4. If they (Type Bs) did decided to, they could easily change their minds and become Type As and there is generally nothing that could be done to stop them from printing the weapons and doing with them whatever.

Which specific assertion is incorrect?

As I stated in a post above, Rachael Maddow seems to get it, as she describes the issue without giving any real solution either. See below.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/vp/51014668#51014668

[Occulus]

180. How long do you think it will take for the field of files to remain irreparably polluted by fakes?

Or, worse yet, files which have been altered to leave out, or even worse improperly construct, the final product?

I give that until the end of the first day the first model is uploaded and made public. The only safe versions of the design models will be the ones already produced and owned by the manufacturers of the original, and they will use both patent and copyright law to retain very firm control over the functional mdl or object or (hilarity) blend file.

This isn't like computer software, where if a critical header or dll file is missing, the application won't properly build, install, run, or all three, or, if altered, steals every keystroke and sends that over the botnet it also built when the application first called it. These printers can already produce functional working final products. That's actually a very serious vulnerability where printing firearms is concerned. The necessary openness of the process makes that same openness, applied to printed firearms, a bug, not a feature.

No, a fake or fatally compromised 3D printed firearm model either will not fire, redirect a portion of the gases produced by the combustion of the powder into another part of the firearm, permanently damaging it, or simply explode in your hands.

I would strongly advise the, ah, "firearms enthusiasts" considering 3D printing as a viable gray market option to reconsider before a new kind of disaster bought by their obsession is inflicted on some poor clueless sap somewhere who did not, does not, and will never own or desire to use a gun. I know for a fact, an absolute certainty, that someone only clever to a token degree of the word can, with almost no training at all, render such a model to be printed completely unusable or even dangerous to use in its final, printed form. It's very, very easy, and only requires knowledge of how to select an object in the model, hit 'delete', and then save the rest. And you would not know until after printing unless you very carefully examined the model you downloaded, found and exposed any hidden objects, etc., & etc.

3D printing of firearms is a bad idea for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the printer model, quality of materials, and so on. Frankly, they are and will remain a very easy and monumentally stupid way to get yourself or someone else maimed or killed, and with shockingly little effort on the part of any bad actor.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

186. Your not very savy about reputation and community feedback systems are you?

Or for that fact, file integrity check systems like MD5? (Feel free to Google that up... its worth knowing).

The people providing these files aren't trying to make a profit (although there may be some that try to do so in the future). They do so for political reasons. These are the true believers.

For example - see here

As for your points though:
First: If anyone were to try and seed a faulty file, it would quickly be spotted via file integrity check mechanism as a false copy discarded. If deliberately designed incorrectly - the first person to use it most certainly would report back to the community about it. We see this behavior all the time at sites like Pirate Bay or other download sites. The more hostile files are generally weeded out by the community.

Second: If a 3D printed gun were to fail, there's no reason to think it should do so explosively. The video I posted previous on the Rachel Maddow show in fact shows one fail and it simply falls apart. The barrel itself is still metal... you didn't really think people were printing plastic barrels did you?

Oh, by the way - your statement "I give that until the end of the first day the first model is uploaded and made public." -- your a bit late. They already released that file (a while back) and its got hundreds of thousands of downloads. You can go get it now (Google Defense Distributed) if you want and share it with your friends. The genie is already out of the bottle.

[jberryhill]

77. Counterfeiting is legal now?

2D color printers can make all kinds of things too. But get caught with a $100 bill from your color printer, and see what happens.

[DainBramaged]

126. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

too funny

[arcane1]

127. I'm not too worried about plastic guns with plastic bullets and home-made gunpowder.

They would be more dangerous to the user than to the target.

[Orsino]

169. "Go to sleep," whisper the corporate lackeys.

Passing laws and stuff is hard. Isn't it easier to give up and let the gun lobby buy every elected representative and media outlet? Aren't you more comfortable letting others decide what is and isn't worth standing up for? Isn't it easier to believe that the nation is broke and can't afford to force any laws, anyway? Go to sleep, Citizen.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

187. What are you talking about? The gun industry itself will be obsolete when this technology takes off.

Why would anyone buy a gun if they can print one?

[Orsino]

200. I'm talking about firearms.

The things that are bought and sold with wildly inconsistent regulation, or lack thereof. Right now, not at some point in the future when some may or may not be manufactured in private homes.

Right now.

[hack89]

22. “I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms" - Barack Obama

I stand with my President.

[apocalypsehow]

84. You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try.

But you really aren't.

[hack89]

89. You going to deny that president actually said that?

that he believes the 2A protects an individual right?

Can't wait to see how you twist this one.

[apocalypsehow]

92. You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try.

But you really aren't.

[hack89]

100. So do you agree with the President? nt

[apocalypsehow]

101. You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try.

But you really aren't.

[Cary]

113. He relies on us to give bim authority.

President Obama is not a dictator. He is a politician and politics is the art of the possible.

Do you really think President Obama "evolved" on the issue of gay marriage? Of course he didn't. He timed his "change" for the greatest affect. That's politics.

[TrollBuster9090]

195. Heh, I don't deny that A) people have a (natural) right to defend themselves and their property, and

B) the SCOTUS ruled that an individual right to do this with firearms is valid. I'm just providing evidence AGAINST the wingnut argument that The Founders' original INTENT was that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give ordinary people insurgent power over their own government. That an implicit THREAT OF VIOLENCE against the American Government by the American Citizenry was what they had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

I just find that very hard to believe, coming from a group of very rational men, and so far I haven't seen anything in any of their writings that supports the idea.

I've seen PLENTY of their writings that say the purpose of the state militias is to counterbalance any power a federal army might have, but nothing about an armed citizenry threatening to overthrow their own government being the essential protection against tyranny.

[hack89]

198. They were simply restoring and protecting the traditional right to bear arms

that Englishmen had enjoyed for centuries. It was not a radical idea for them.

[TrollBuster9090]

208. Or confirming it, rather than restoring it. For anyone to claim (as Madison inferred) that the

English countrymen didn't have a historical right to bear (small) arms is a straw man argument.

For nearly 1000 years the English monarchs EXPECTED the countrymen to be armed with longbows, and actually held archery contests with prizes to make sure they kept their marksmanship sharp. The purpose was to A) have an armed citizenry to repel invaders, and B) have an armed yeomanry to call up for foreign campaigns. They were ENCOURAGED to have long bows but discouraged from having/making CROSSBOWS because they didn't want the English countrymen to rely on them instead of longbows Henry Vth's successful campaigns in France were the confirmation of that philosophy, when the English bowmen could shoot 10 arrows in the time it took a French crossbowman to shoot one bolt.

[One_Life_To_Give]

206. Militia's were organized well below state/colony level

Looks to me like every town and village had their own militia. At least in the Mass Bay Colony. Organization at the Provincial/Colony level appears to be lacking as the various militias arrive around Boston late on Apr 19 1775.

I have the impression in the few short years between the French and Indian War and the Revolution. Concern was directed more against a French and/or Native threat than from their own Crown. As you say natural right to defense of Life, Liberty and Property.

[Curmudgeoness]

30. And, of course, "well regulated" actually means regulations are acceptable.

People who throw the 2nd Amendment around to get the government out of their rights to have all the guns they want (no regulation) certainly skip over that part.

[davidn3600]

46. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to put restrictions on the government....not the people.

That right there highlights the fundamental flaw of your entire argument. The Bill of Rights were written and designed to handcuff the FEDERAL government and to prevent abuse of power.

I can assure you that the founding fathers did not write the 2nd amendment to protect the powers that be. The bill of rights is supposed to stop the government from intrusion into our private lives and stop the erosion of our civil liberties. And I have to say....THANK FUCKING GOD WE HAVE THEM! Because without those first 10 amendments, we would be a very, very, very difficult country today.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Here's why you're wrong about the Second Amendment.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Those are the powers of Congress specifically enumerated by the Constitution. It's what the Second Amendment means by a well-regulated Militia.

I can guaran-damn-tee you that when George Washington called up the state militias to overthrow the insurrection of the Whiskey Rebellion, those farmers' "private lives" were about to be intruded upon. If they hadn't scattered, their private and public lives would have been over.

The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact enforced on the federal government.

[Thinkingabout]

48. K & R good article

[MadHound]

50. Hmm, who to believe. The Supreme Court or some anonymous user of a political chatboard?

" 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

And let's not even go into the myriad of other lower court precedents that pretty much say the same thing.

[Niceguy1]

55. And dont forget the state

constitutions that also guarantee RKBA.

[TrollBuster9090]

56. I'm not sure what the contradiction is?

Nowhere in the Scotus ruling is it claimed that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give citizens insurgent power over their own government, or deny that the 2nd Amendment was referring to the ability of state governments to form militias. It wasn't a textualist ruling, it was a traditionalist ruling.

And the supreme court's decision is a little odd in that it A) protects the individual right to possess firearms unconnected with service in a militia, and B) defines EVERYBODY as being in a militia.

But it wouldn't be the first time the Scotus made a bizarre ruling that was merely designed to avoid stirring up shit with the Status Quo

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=60&invol=393

[SunSeeker]

58. This is not the only odd--and wrong--Scalia decision. nt

[MadHound]

59. This is what you stated,

"The average gun nut will either ignore the first two clauses, or claim that 'militia' refers to average citizens."

I pointed out that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, indeed that the Second Amendment does give individuals, not part of a militia, the right to own guns. And no, the Court ruling doesn't define everybody as being in a militia, stating " 'Keep arms' was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else."

As far as the reasons that people keep guns, those vary with the individual. Some own them for self defense, some own them for hunting, some keep them as a tool that is useful in farming and ranching operations, and yes, some keep them because they are afraid that their government will become too powerful, too out of control. But you know what, it doesn't matter what the reason a person chooses to own a gun, the point is, they have every right to do so, within the limits set up by their particular state and federal statutes.

[TrollBuster9090]

78. The Supreme Court didn''t actually 'rule otherwise.'

They essentially said "we have no idea why the first two clauses are there, but the third one is true." They left the purpose of the first two clauses unresolved, but upheld the third one "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" on grounds of 'tradition.' They then cited the ten lower court rulings which SUPPORTED their case, and contradicted the ten that didn't.

Like most people, I'm forced to accept the fact that the Scotus will occasionally make a ruling that's really just an OPINION based on tradition, in the absence of anything other than other opinions; and in the absence of any clear legal consensus. But let's call it what it was, an opinion, and not let anybody wrap themselves in the text of the Constitution, or the Founders' original intent over it.

[MadHound]

94. Again, who to believe, an anonymous internet poster,

Or the actual ruling put forth in Heller. I provided a link, you can download a copy of the ruling and read it for yourself. I suggest you do so.

Also, what do you say to the two thirds to three quarters of the American public who also believe that an individual has the right to own a gun? That you know better than they do?

[TrollBuster9090]

197. *Facepalm*

"Also, what do you say to the two thirds to three quarters of the American public who also believe that an individual has the right to own a gun? That you know better than they do?"

I'd say I agree with them. How you could read my OP without realizing that I'm not challenging the right of people to own guns, or that the 2nd Amendment reaffirms that right is beyond me. I was challenging the wingnut argument that the PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment was to give citizens insurgent power over their own government. Something the Scotus ruling did NOT rule on, and something I've yet to see any evidence of. There's plenty of evidence to prove they had something ELSE in mind, but nothing to prove THAT's what they had in mind.

[SunSeeker]

57. I believe Stevens and 200 years of precedent, not the ridiculous Scalia decision you cite.

The strained reading of the 2nd Amendment adopted by the conservative majority in the 2008 5-4 decision in Heller established your reading of the 2nd Amendment. The OP simply restates what Justice Stevens and the other justices argued in the dissent. Scalia, the same brilliant mind that gave us Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. Fuck him.

[MadHound]

61. Except, as I stated, it just isn't the Heller ruling,

It is centuries of lower court precedents, state court precedents that lay the groundwork for this, and led up to the Heller ruling. Not to mention the fact that at any given time, between two thirds and three quarters of the American public are in favor of citizens owning guns.

You may not like the Heller ruling, or its previous precedents, but they are the law of the land, so deal with matters as they are, not how you believe they should be. An overwhelming majority of both gun owners and non-gun owners also believe that we need to strictly enforce the gun laws on the books, and enact more gun control. It is always more effective to work with what you have than what you wish you had. What you have is the majority of people wanting better gun control laws, work with that rather than wishing the Second Amendment was interpreted in your own narrow viewpoint.

[madville]

63. The Florida Constitution states that

Florida residents have the right to keep and bear arms. The only exception is the state can dictate how they bear arms, meaning they can regulate open and concealed carry laws.

[SunSeeker]

68. So?

A lot of states do stupid shit driven by lobbyists (i.e. NRA). Florida is no model of fine government. Too bad the Florida legislature isn't more concerned about protecting the fundamental right to vote than some yahoo's desire to pretend he's Rambo--and gun manufacturers' profits.

[madville]

71. Right, who cares about state rights

Like all the states that have recently legalized various levels of marijuana usage? Screw their right to govern themselves.

[SunSeeker]

75. I didn't say they couldn't govern themselves, just that they aren't always right.

And states' rights have their limitations. They are spelled out in all the other Amendments to the Constitution that Republicans do not give a crap about, particularly the 14th Amendment.

And calls for protecting states' rights has long been a dog whistle for being able to discriminate against African Americans, avoid federal anti-pollution laws, etc.

Federal laws against marijuana are wrong as they have no rational basis and should be overturned, but that is going way off the subject of this OP as it has nothing to do with the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[SunSeeker]

64. As Stevens' dissent pointed out, the Heller ruling contradicted SUPREME COURT precedent.

And it is not a "narrow" viewpoint but one that comports with precedent, history and logic. There is nothing wrong with discussing how wrong Scalia was in Heller. But you are right, it is now the law of the land--until we get rid of the evil right wing majority (which would only require one of them leaving). That being said, I of course agree we need to work with what we have. And even Scalia does not suggest an unlimitable right to gun ownership, as some of the gungeoneers suggest--including that buffoon Senator Cruz.

And of course we should enforce the laws that are on the books. But there aren't nearly enough of them, nor money to enforce them, nor coordination between state and federal agencies. Hell, we don't even have a head of the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms, thanks to the NRA, the gun lobby that hides behind it and all those "responsible gun owners." And right now, the NRA and the Republicans in Congress are blocking universal background checks, something 91% of Americans want.

[MadHound]

67. Umm, I don't know what Stevens was talking about,

Because Heller was the first Supreme Court ruling that dealt with the actual definition of what the Second Amendment is. There are many lower court precedents, state court and constitution precedents, that point to the right of an individual to own a gun. Given those precedents at the lower court and state level, I think that the Court actually got this one right.

I also doubt that getting rid of the right wing majority would change that definition with the Supreme Court. After all, Democrats from Obama back to FDR and beyond how consistently expressed support for an individual to own a gun.

[SunSeeker]

69. Try reading the Stevens and Breyer dissents.

And the numerous precedents they cite, such as United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939).

[MadHound]

70. I have,

United States v Miller is a gun control case, not a definition of the Second Amendment. Heller is the only Supreme Court case the definitively defined what the Second Amendment means. That is why it is considered a landmark case.

[SunSeeker]

73. It is the only Supreme Court case to have interpreted it that way.

Miller and others addressed the 2nd Am (Courts don't "define" the Second Amendment, they interpret it). But it was not until 2008, 40 years of NRA lobbying and this sick Supreme Court majority that it was interpreted the way it was. That is why Heller is considered a landmark case. And it will forever live in ignominy, like Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.

[MadHound]

90. You obviously don't have a legal background,

Court cases can indeed define parts of the Constitution, they can also interpret and clarify them. The Miller case(have you read the Miller case) was not about defining or interpreting the Second Amendment, it was about gun control. Go read the case, it is out there.

Heller is a landmark case because it defines the Second Amendment. Don't believe me, fine.
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html
http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2012-12-29/galis-second-amendment-now-defined-heller-case
http://constitution.laws.com/2nd-amendment

I can go on and on with the links, but you should get the idea.

[SunSeeker]

121. LOL. Way to mansplain it!

I am guessing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you and Scalia of not knowing what they're talking about. And you teach Constitutional Law where? I guess Justices Stevens and Breyer don't have a legal background either....

[apocalypsehow]

99. Yep - the Heller ruling was the "Dred Scott" and "Plessey v. Ferugson" of our generation:

it will be overturned in the near future. The only sort of folks who openly support it are well described in my sig line:

[hack89]

62. The President thinks the 2A protects an individual right. Is he wrong? nt

[SunSeeker]

66. No. Unfortunately, that is the law now thanks to the ridiculous 2008 Heller decision. nt

[davidn3600]

72. President Obama disagrees with you and says the 2nd amendment is an individual right

After the Heller decision, Obama said this:
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

[SunSeeker]

74. I'm not running for President. I'm not trying to pander to gun nuts. nt

[apocalypsehow]

83. Hmmm..."MadHound" praising a 5-4 Rightwing court with Scalia in the lead...who to believe?

You're really not fooling anybody with your pro-NRA peddling of gun lobby propaganda, know it sport?

[MadHound]

93. So, I suppose that you also disagree with President Obama

When he states, "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms." I suppose you also disagree with the dozens of lower court cases that defined the Second Amendment as permitting individuals unconnected with a militia as having the right to own guns. Likewise, you probably disagree with the state court cases and state constitutions that say the same.

That's OK, it is your right to disagree with all of that. The thing is sport, it is the law of the land, deal with it.

[apocalypsehow]

96. So, I suppose you completely and totally support President Obama's recent gun control proposals?

You're not really fooling anybody, pal.

[MadHound]

103. Actually I do,

I'm in the same camp as the majority of gun owners, who not only believe in better enforcement of the gun control laws we have in the books, but also believe that we need better gun control laws. I have no problems with banning assault weapons(though I think that it will be fairly toothless, since the definition of "assault weapon" is so amorphous) nor do I have a problem with banning high capacity clips.

You see, you make the same mistake that a lot of folks around here make, that gun owners are all gun nuts, that we're all part of the NRA and won't budge an inch. That simply isn't true. Members of the NRA comprise only four percent of the total number of gun owners in this country.

But keep mischaracterizing gun owners there, keep driving them away. That's a real winning strategy you have there.

[apocalypsehow]

105. Actually, you don't - as shown over and over and over again, particularly with your opposition to

the AWB.

You're not really fooling anybody, sport.

[MadHound]

109. Got links?

Seriously, you are talking out your fucking ass. You are making far too many wrong assumptions based on your own biased bullshit.
Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2084489
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022023330
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022147553
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022023508
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275181

Care to continue calling me a liar? I can go back into the archives for the last eleven fucking years and show you that my position on guns and gun control has been consistent.

So either admit you are wrong, or admit that you were lying.

[apocalypsehow]

147. "Care to continue calling me a liar" - Why should I get in your way? You're doing a bang-up (no pun

intended) job of that all by your lonesome.

[apocalypsehow]

107. "though I think that it will be fairly toothless, since the definition of "assault weapon" is so.."

So much for that assertion.

Ongoing fun with "pro gun progressives"*...


*( )

[MadHound]

110. The fact of the matter is the definition of assault weapon is pretty amorphous,

It is based on appearances rather than actual capabilities of the gun. Under the old, and proposed AWB, I could change out a stock, remove a flash suppressor, a couple of other cosmetic changes, still have a weapon that is just as lethal and deadly as before, but is perfectly legal under the AWB.

I suggest you educate yourself, because you have no clue as to what you're talking about. Which makes you a laughingstock as a debater on this topic.

[SunSeeker]

125. Thanks for the laughs. You are good at this.

Gungeoneer trolls make DU suck. And we get new gungeoneers each day, like the nut who joined DU just to hijack this thread by claiming 3D printers make laws obsolete. I guess you might as well have fun with it.

[patrice]

131. There's another one up there saying everyone on the internet is authentic, so every time we see

"Take their guns away" that's someone who wants to take all of the guns away, even though that isn't what OP is about.

Then someone else jumped in after that mischaracterization of OP and said what a reasonable and moderate contribution that extreme interpretation was (up there around about my #21).

[apocalypsehow]

148. The funny thing is, posters like that who have spent YEARS peddling the pro-NRA line are suddenly

reversing course and pretending they are "really" for gun control. And why? They want to be able to post only mildly diluted pro-NRA talking points in the new gun control group without being restricted from posting there for violating the SOP. Thus, you got scenes all over DU like this one where pro-NRA posters are insisting they are "really" for gun control all the while continuing to support right-wing justice Scalia's 5-4 Heller decision.

It's the most amusing spectacle going on DU right now.

"Gungeoneer trolls make DU suck. And we get new gungeoneers each day, like the nut who joined DU just to hijack this thread by claiming 3D printers make laws obsolete"

Yep! Absolutely correct.

[SunSeeker]

167. Yes, it is quite a spectacle.

[apocalypsehow]

98. You sure are anxious to get on the side of that right-wing Scalia court when it comes to their

bogus ruling in Heller, but I note you are no where to be found when it comes to supporting President Obama's proposals on gun regulation and legislation...hmmmm. Again.

[apocalypsehow]

102. Hmmm...where did the Scalia supporter get off to? One wonders...

[MadHound]

104. Impatient one, aren't you.

You know, you're not that important that everybody is going to hang around waiting for every pearl of wisdom to drip from your lips. Chill, this is an internet chat board, not a face to face conversation.

But then again, that's how you roll, insult and ad hominems.

[apocalypsehow]

106. Scalia supporters don't really impress me all that much - nor does his legal career impress the

vast, vast, VAST majority of genuine progressives and liberals. Pro-tip, sport.

[MadHound]

111. Yep, just ignore all the previous precedents set in lower courts,

State courts and state constitutions, all of which uphold the individual's right to own a gun.

[apocalypsehow]

150. You go right on supporting a right-wing supreme court justice's (Ronnie Raygun appointment) premier

court ruling that was a boon to gun nuttery in general and the NRA in particular all over DU - just keep telling us how great the wonderful Antonin Scalia is on Democratic Underground. Just go right ahead. But quit whining about the pushback you're getting from the vast majority of DU'ers who have no use for Scalia's right-wing jurisprudence, nor the gun nuttery cause period.

[apocalypsehow]

81. Spot-on OP, with irrefutable facts. Kick, Rec.

[TrollBuster9090]

211. Thank you!

[Bolo Boffin]

82. There's also the actual powers granted to Congress in the text of the Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article 1, Section 8:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The regulations of the Militia comes from Congress. That's what the Second Amendment means by a well-regulated militia. This is something even Antonin Scalia knows in his opinion in Heller. But try explaining this to your average wingnut.

[Demo_Chris]

85. You didn't make it a sentence without insulting the people you are trying to reach

Well done.

[apocalypsehow]

87. Baloney. You just don't like the *FACTS* presented, to wit: the founding fathers did not care

one whit about Bubba Gump having a "right" to strut about town with his precious popgun slung over his back or perched in his pants: what they did care about was writing a Second Amendment that would give authority to the STATES to organize militias - what we call today "the National Guard" - for their collective self-defense.

There is no "Second amendment right" to "keep and bear arms": only a collective right of states to organize militias, aka National Guards. Period.

As the country increasingly turns Blue, we will have a sequence of Democratic presidents who will nominate supreme court justices who will interpret the 2nd amendment in it's proper meaning, over time. You better get over it now, as those days are coming.

[sendero]

88. I hate to burst your..

.... bubble, and I choose the term deliberately, but 200+ years of interpretation of a law or stricture trumps any literal interpretation YOU might make of it now utterly and completely.

Guns have about as much likelihood of being severely restricted in any way as I have of growing a third arm. It's simply not going to happen but people with too much time on their hands are free to make stuff up I suppose.

[apocalypsehow]

91. Ahhhh, yet *another* "pro gun progressive"* who couldn't be bothered to read the content

of the OP, but decided to post nonsense anyway.

Got news for you, sport: the 2nd amendment doesn't convey an "individual right" to about anything other than join the National Guard, and "200+ years of interpretation of a law or stricture" recognized that until the 5-4 right-wing Scalia court said otherwise. The bogus ruling will be overturned, as soon as a Democratic president has the opportunity to appoint a few more progressive justices.

In the meantime: the country is turning Blue, pal. Guns are soon going to be "severely restricted" in these United States along the lines of Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. You'd better get used to it - or get over it. The vast majority of us don't care which.


*( )

[sendero]

95. You are..

.. another deludinoid. Good luck with your delusion.

[apocalypsehow]

97. You are...another "pro gun progressive"*

Enjoy your, ummm, stay...


*( )

[sylvi]

146. "Enjoy your, ummm, stay... "

I have a feeling you'll be leaving before some of these posters you so snidely imply are closeted right wingers. You can only insult, stir shit and troll for so long before someone wipes your ass slick. BongBong found that out. So might you.

[apocalypsehow]

156. Do you now? I guess we'll see, won't we? Enjoy your, ummm, stay, too.

[sylvi]

160. Yes. We will see.

[apocalypsehow]

161. Indeed. n/t.

[pintobean]

168. It is rather ridiculous

Sendero has been here since 2002; six years before you joined. I haven't seen where the TOS has been modified to say everyone has to agree with you.

[apocalypsehow]

170. Ahhhh...someone's been missing their Meta fix.

[pintobean]

173. Ironic. nt

[apocalypsehow]

174. Tell me about it.

[Orsino]

172. Yes. We shouldn't believe that thigns are possible just because they happened before. n/t

[Turbineguy]

108. Kinda rolls off the tongue though...

"....beer-bellied morons being necessary to the security of a free state..."

[TrollBuster9090]

192. Now THAT's funny! The 'minute men'

(Referring to the time required to down a bottle of Bud.)

[jmg257]

114. Good summary...a couple points to remember..

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2013, 11:04 AM - Edit history (1)

1) State Militias already existed...they were codified under the Articles of Confederation:
"Article VI...nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state...but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

This is why no definition is needed for 'militia' in the Constitution - the Militia of the several States were well-known entities that had existed in the commonweaths for decades; THESE were the entities to be called forth for federal service in Article 1.

2) the Constitution gave important powers over the existing state militias to the federal government. The power to arm & regulate them in hopes of establishing more effective & uniform militias throughout the Union; the power to use them in federal service, as a way of better securing the states, and as a 1st line of defense for the Union against invasion until a standing army could be raised.

3) the states feared this national control, that the powers could be used to destroy the state militias through abuse or disuse, or render them ineffective by ignoring or disarming them, leave the states with no armed force and so open to invasion, rebellions, slave revolts, &c., and to lay the pretext for that bane of liberty and force of tyrants - a large standing army.

The state militias were mandated with very specific roles by the Constitution in order to secure our liberties {the majority of the purposes enumerated in the preamble - establish justice, common defense, domestic tranquility, secure the blessings of liberty}.

The 2nd amendment wasn't needed to ensure the continued existence of the militias, but to ensure the would not be rendered useless, destroyed if left unorganized/unregulated via congressional non-feasance, or by the people being disarmed.


OK - so we know about the importance of state Militias, we know about the protection from tyranny, and we know about the importance of the people bearing arms, the one thing you didn't really address.

So where does the 2nd's security of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' fall in all this?

[slackmaster]

119. Of course the militia refers to "ordinary" citizens. That has always been the case, and it's...

...codified into federal and state laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[ThoughtCriminal]

183. Somebody always posts this

1. The "Disorganized Militia" is not part of the "Well Regulated Militia"

2) It would seem to exclude a) women b) men over 45 c) the disabled. So in citing this I assume that you do not support gun rights for citizens in those categories.

3) This very out-dated - almost 19th century wording includes males 17-45, but Lanza was prevented from buying an assault weapon because he was under 21. Unfortunately he obtained weapons by murdering his mother and taking hers. But under your interpretation, a 17-year old should be able to purchase any weapon and laws that prevent a 17-21 year-old from buying semi-automatic weapons are unconstitutional.

And finally:

4) At best you have established that the definition of a "Militia" is established by STATUTE, not the Constitution. Which means that Congress does have the legal authority to determine who is included in that definition and what is "Well Regulated". Checkmate.

[slackmaster]

188. Congress has been silent on the issue for more than 100 years now.

BTW the term is Unorganized Militia, not Disorganized.

[ThoughtCriminal]

189. 100 years - Really?

Not enough for sure.

They did, despite the statute that you cited pass regulations restricting automatic and other military weapons. These restrictions have been upheld. At this point in history, we need to look at whether those restrictions should be expanded to semi-automatic weapons and large ammunition capacity weapons.

My bad in disorganized. But maybe you haven't seen they guys around here who call themselves the "Militia". Even disorganized gives these guys WAY to much credit.

[slackmaster]

199. Gotta love the impotent appeals to "should" that aren't supported by any kind of reasoning

[ThoughtCriminal]

207. That is not a rebuttle

To any of the points I made. But if you need "reasons".

There are very good reasons. Start with mass killings using those weapons.

[dairydog91]

151. And your brand of originalism, in turn, offers a dubious interpretation of the 2nd.

The text of the 2nd guarantees "the people," rather than "the states," the right to keep and bear arms. What seems to be forgotten in analyzing what this meant at the time of the original Founding is that the first eight amendments to the Bill of Rights, as originally conceived, only restricted Federal actions. It would therefore be true to say that at the time of the founding, the states retained total authority to regulate guns (The original limitations on state power are found in Article I, section 10). However, they did not possess this authority because the 2nd Amendment protected their right to regulate, but rather because the 2nd Amendment's "right of the people" would have only protected the people's right from encroachment by the Federal government. You could say the same thing about the other Amendments. For example, the First Amendment only prevented the Federal government from forming a national church; individual states could and did have official government religions. That Amendment also only restricted the Federal government from restricting individual citizens' right to assemble or speak, while states could restrict those rights as they pleased (Limited only by their own state constitutions).

Since the states didn't give away their power to regulate their own citizens' guns, they retained the power to regulate them as they wished. Functionally, the 2nd Amendment prevented the Federal government from regulating private citizens' firearms ownership; states could muster armed citizens into militias, arm selected citizens for militia service, or choose other forms of local gun control. The 2nd broadly protects individual firearms ownership; such broad protection effectively maximized states' ability to form militias. Even a dirt-poor state which couldn't afford to run a centralized, organized militia would nevertheless have the ability to leave private firearms ownership legal, with no federal interference. Such a state could then muster the privately-armed citizens.

However, once the 14th Amendment is passed, the whole applecart is upset. Once the Supreme Court used it to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights, restrictions that once only prevented Federal action now acted to prevent both Federal and state actions. Therefore, a right "of the people" now established a right that no government entity in the United States could take from any citizen. The Founders didn't think that this was how the Bill of Rights would function, so looking back to their interpretations of how it functioned is at best disingenuous. Considering that 14th-Amendment incorporation is generally understood as a broad extension of the Bill of Rights against state governments, it's very odd to look at people writing about the Bill of Rights before incorporation existed.

Edit: As for the Second existing so as to give citizens the ability to fight the government, it would probably be more accurate to say that it was partly designed to ensure that the states could retain some military capacity to counterbalance any federal military. OP seems to say that.

[samsingh]

152. well researched and well argued. this is the truth and all those opposed

are destroying the country.

[samsingh]

154. this should be recommended a thousand times

[RedCloud]

155. NRA has gunorrhea of the brain.

[HockeyMom]

157. Leave ME out of that Militia

even living in a "gun household". I will not use my husband's guns to "defend myself", so why I hell should I against some mythical militia?

Gun owners, don't bother defending me against a tyrannical government, or even personally against some "armed intruder.

I know gun owners will never understand my views when even my husband of 38 years can't.

[One_Life_To_Give]

159. From Natural Law

From the Boston Committee of Correspondence 1772

Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
Among the natural Rights of the Colonists
are these: First, a Right to Life; secondly, to
Liberty; thirdly, to Property; together with
the Right to support and defend them in the
best Manner they can. These are evident Bran-
ches of, rather than Deductions from the Duty
of Self-Preservation, commonly called the first
Law of Nature.

Seems clear the colonists right to bear arms on the 19 April 1775 was not something the British troops were looking to accept. Not that they could tell the difference between a hunter and a militiaman at 175yrs, nor probably 20 paces. As most were self equipped with hunting clothes and fowling pieces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen It's not clear to me how much the powder previously confiscated from Charlestown meant to the Colonists in a day to day versus native attack versus opposing Gage. And thus to the stores at Concord.

[cyberswede]

164. Jesus Christ - can't you even come up with something original?

Nice copy & paste.


http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread915411/pg2
http://www.beararms.us/FamousQuotes.php
http://whiteswillwinparty.wordpress.com/tag/bill-of-rights/

...ad nauseum...

[arcane1]

166. That would require having, you know, one's own ideas

[apocalypsehow]

171. That gun troll actually linked to something called "whiteswillwinparty."

As time goes by, my sig line proves more and more true with every passing gun troll's posts:

[cyberswede]

176. To be fair...

He just copied and pasted a list of quotes that is repeated all over different gun/RW sites. I found a copy of the list on the "Whites will Win Party" site, among others, on the Google.

[apocalypsehow]

178. I just thought if you clicked it might take you to the Republican National Committee's home page.

[TrollBuster9090]

191. Hahah! That's what happens when you google for pro-gun quotations

It's like following elephants around. It's all very amusing for awhile, but sooner or later you're going to get shat on from a very great height. This whole thread has become very funny, hasn't it?

[DCBob]

177. Which makes total sense.

well done!

[GreenStormCloud]

203. That horse is dead. You can quit beating it.

The collectivist interpretation of 2A is a 20th century invention that died in the early 21st century.

[TrollBuster9090]

209. 'Collectivist?' Seriously?

[GreenStormCloud]

212. Yes.

Your theory that the 2A is not an individual right is called the "collectivist theory". And it is dead.

[TrollBuster9090]

213. I never claimed it wasn't an individual right. I claimed (and provided proof) that the Founders

original INTENT in authoring the 2nd A was to organize Federally regulated militias that can be called upon by both State and Federal Governments in times of emergency, and that it was NOT their intent to guarantee citizens the right to bear arms for the purpose of fighting against their own government.

Nobody's arguing with your right to own arms for self protection, and/or hunting. Just your (or anybody else's) alleged individual right to overthrow their own government by force of arms.

[RedSpartan]

204. It's ironic.

Some spout the argument that the purpose of the Second Amendment was so citizens could fight against the government, when in reality the purpose was so citizens could fight for it.

[TrollBuster9090]

210. Yep, that was exactly my point. And while I'm not denying anybody's right to bear arms, my argument

was that the Founder's INTENT when writing it was NOT to give citizens the ability to fight against their own government. If ti were, Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton, who were all in the Federal Govt Executive Branch at the time, wouldn't have called out the state militias to SUPPRESS the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. They'd have stood there CHEERING, and saying "THAT'S right, THAT'S the idea we were aiming for."