Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Article One, Section Eight, has a paragraph which reads: [Congress shall have the power] . . . 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; . This gives Congress the right to legislate gun control laws,

including the restriction on who may participate in the militia. In The United States versus Miller, the Supremes upheld the National Fire Arms act of 1934, commenting in the majority opinion: The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Both gun control advocates and gun nuts claim that that decision supports their positions. However, the gun lobby is pointedly ignoring the Militia Act of 1903. That act, and its subsequent amendments established the National Guard, and defined all those who were not members of State or Federal National Guards as the unorganized militia. That leaves the Congress free to regulate that unorganized militia based on their power to organize the militia.

The most pernicious influence of the gun debate is the National Rifle Association, which pours millions into congressional campaigns, especially for the House. Most members of the House will not buck the power of the NRA, because those who are not gun nuts don't care, and those who are will join the NRA in actively campaigning against any candidate who does not pass their sniff test.

Nevertheless, Congress could, if they had the collective balls, regulate membership in both the organized and unorganized militia to exclude the mentally, and the other categories you have mentioned.

Planned Parenthood is about so much more than abortion

Hi Setanta, I'm aware of the first part of the clause - I posted it in this thread before, talking about how it introduced subjectivity. However in my above post, I posted only the 2nd part, because that is the only part our other posters bother posting, presenting it as an absolute truth.

It is a terrible idea to keep cutting its funding.

Ample money could be had by simply taxing the rich and putting the military on a realistic budget.

Quote:

Planned Parenthood is about so much more than abortion

Bullshit.

Laws are allowed to restrict a right if there is a very good reason for that restriction and if the constraint is not so severe that it prevents the exercise of the right.

That certainly does not gel with 'shall not be infringed'. In fact, what you are saying is the complete opposite of the meaning of 'shall not be infringed'.

Essentially what you are saying is it is no longer an absolute truth, but subject to the above...in other words, it is now subjective.

It is also an absolute truth that any restriction on guns that impedes self defense is unconstitutional in America.

Perhaps you want to start looking into the definition of the word 'infringe. It means : encroach, breach, break a rule etc. Shall not be infringed means :shall not encroach, breach, break etc. To restrict, as you suggest, is an encroachment, breaches the right to bear arms.

What you suggest is the clear opposite of the meaning of 'shall not be infringed'.

oralloy wrote:

It is also an absolute truth that any restriction on guns that impedes self defense is unconstitutional in America.

This isn't what you said when you said you can restrict certain people from having such guns.

It is also an absolute truth that any restriction on guns that impedes self defense is unconstitutional in America.

If a restriction does not violate the right, there is no infringement

Sure, so prisoners get assaulted all the time, and rapes aren't uncommon in prisons. They therefore need guns for self defence.

And all the other people who I asked 'should they be allowed to have guns' are at no less need of self defence as the ordinary citizen. Some, like standover merchants, drug dealers, and street gangs would likely be at greater risk of assault.

When it comes to the facet of the Second Amendment that deals with self defense, a restriction is only an encroachment if it impedes self defense.

Restrictions that do not impede self defense, do not encroach on this facet of the Second Amendment.

These people were deprived of their rights through due process

By the way, where did you get this part about self defense from? I don't see it in the 2nd ammendment

Alright, so you are saying the 2nd ammendment no longer absolute - you can breach it through due process.

Yet I'm wondering where you got that from concept from, as this is the one ammendent (if I get this right from other posters) that says 'shall not be infringed'.

No. A person cannot be deprived of their rights without due process.

It comes from the Magna Carta.

"No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law."

So if your 2nd ammendment isn't a subjective truth, why not advocate for:
- prisoners to all have guns
- psychotic people to have guns
- severe paranoid schizophrenics to have guns
- domestically violent people to have guns
- standover merchants to have legally have guns
- all street gangs to legally and freely possess guns
- all drug dealers, and drug dealing organisations to legally and freely possess guns
- all people intending to shoot up a school to legally and freely have a gun

Laws are allowed to restrict a right if there is a very good reason for that restriction and if the constraint is not so severe that it prevents the exercise of the right.

Laws are allowed to restrict a right if there is a very good reason for that restriction and if the constraint is not so severe that it prevents the exercise of the right.

No. It is an absolute truth that any restriction on guns that can't be justified is unconstitutional in America.
It is also an absolute truth that any restriction on guns that impedes self defense is unconstitutional in America.

When it comes to the facet of the Second Amendment that deals with self defense, a restriction is only an encroachment if it impedes self defense. Restrictions that do not impede self defense, do not encroach on this facet of the Second Amendment.

People can only be deprived of their rights in America if there is a good reason for doing so, and only if due process is observed.

If these people were convicted of a crime (deprived of their rights through due process) then they may be prevented from having guns.note: this was said in relation to a question about prisoners

If not, then they do in fact have the right to have a gun powerful enough to be suitable for self defense, and I defend their right to have such guns.

Your responses so far have been displaying what I said about our brain filtering things, and how we interpret things based on our beliefs/values/experiences etc.

Your question isn't specific enough. Which part of the subject.