Thoughts on gun control

Nor have i contended anything of the kind . . . i just like to keep the concept of "a well-regulated militia" at the fore of the discussion, in all of its ramifications. However, you are ignoring in your casual use of the term government that it was found in Presser versus Illinois that the Second Amendment is only binding upon the Congress and the national government.

0 Replies

Constitution schmonstitution. It gets amended from time to time when conditions dictate. So amend it already, for clarification if nothing else. No militia, no gun.

You could start, say, by decreeing Only One Gun Per Household (if militiaman in residence there). That would be a small start at least.

0 Replies

It ain'ta gonna happen . . .

The issue is viewed too emotionally by both sides of the debate here . . .

Constitutional amendment is not a common or an easy process:

Article V of the Constitution reads, in part:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

(I left out the parts which protect slavery, not out of embarrassment, but just because they're no longer valid, and would only be recognized by someone familiar with the Constitution in the first place.)

So, you need two thirds of both houses, and then three-fourths of all the states--that 38 states. In modern times, a time limit for ratification has been written into amendments, and it can be damned difficult to get 38 states to ratify within a specific period of time. In the past, the number of states was augmenting, by fits and starts for quite a long time--Hawaii and Alaska were admitted to the Union as States in my lifetime, 1959. But, strange things can happen. An amendment proposed in September, 1787, was ratified as the XXVIIth Amendment in May, 1992.

0 Replies

Set, you pay me the compliment of providing a reasoned reply to a fairly flippant suggestion. I know most of that but....desperate situations require desperate remedies sometimes.

BTW there was a piece in The Guardian today where Mary Robinson stated the USA was leading blocker to current proposals to control the international trade in small arms.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Set, you pay me the compliment of providing a reasoned reply to a fairly flippant suggestion. I know most of that but....desperate situations require desperate remedies sometimes.

BTW there was a piece in The Guardian today where Mary Robinson stated the USA was leading blocker to current proposals to control the international trade in small arms.

Perspective. That is another big thing with in gun control debate.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Set, you pay me the compliment of providing a reasoned reply to a fairly flippant suggestion. I know most of that but....desperate situations require desperate remedies sometimes.

BTW there was a piece in The Guardian today where Mary Robinson stated the USA was leading blocker to current proposals to control the international trade in small arms.

Here it is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1817575,00.html

The small arms trade is not subject to a comprehensive global agreement. Instead, there is a patchwork of national export laws, which unscrupulous arms dealers can easily circumvent. As a result, small arms fall into the wrong hands every day. During the two-week conference most governments said that they supported an agreement to control sales, but instead of fighting to secure a deal that would protect the millions of people worldwide living in daily fear of armed violence, they stood by while the conference was scuppered. It collapsed without agreement after a small number of countries, most prominently the US, blocked key issues.

0 Replies

"Perspective. That is another big thing with in gun control debate." This might be the stupidest thing iv'e ever said.

From article;

"for example when I visited Rwanda just after the 1994 genocide. There, supplies of small arms allowed the Hutu militia to take an estimated 800,000 lives while the world stood by."

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Clearly, the ordinate clause, the primary expression of thought, is the fourth, final clause in the sentence; " ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", with the first, second, and third clauses subordinate to, explanatory of, establishing the premise for, the fourth, and operative, clause....

...So, what does all the foregoing mean? Quite simple, really, and summed up unambiguously in 14 easy-to-understand words;

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

Like it or not, under The US Constitution, that's the law.

DAMN!!! You mean I'm not the only one here who can handle the English language??

I mean, the thing could as easily read:

Quote:

"Due to the well known fact that a wet bird never flies at night, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

and it wouldn't even matter if somebody produced a time-stamped photo of a wet bird actually flying at night, the first part of the thing is nothing more than a motivation, while that last phrase is the law.

I don't see how anybody ever thought the thing was complicated.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Constitution schmonstitution. It gets amended from time to time when conditions dictate. So amend it already, for clarification if nothing else. No militia, no gun.
.

How about, no bill of rights = no constitution and no country.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Nor have i contended anything of the kind . . . i just like to keep the concept of "a well-regulated militia" at the fore of the discussion, in all of its ramifications. However, you are ignoring in your casual use of the term government that it was found in Presser versus Illinois that the Second Amendment is only binding upon the Congress and the national government.

The author of §1 of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John A. Bingham,
explained in a speech in Congress, on March 31st, 1871,
that it was his intention to overthrow BARRON v. BALTIMORE
( the foundation of the concept that the Bill of Rights did not limit the states )
when he wrote that section of the 14th Amendment,
thereby to curtail the powers of the states
by use of its "privileges and immunities" and "due process" clauses,
thus to enlarge the personal freedom of the Bill of Rights,
quoting verbatim each one of the first eight amendments.

When Sen. Jacob Howard introduced the 14th Amendment to the US Senate,
he described "the PERSONAL RIGHTS guaranteed and
secured by the FIRST EIGHT amendments of the Constitution;
such as freedom of speech and the press;...the right to keep and bear arms....
The great object of the first section of this amendment is...
to restrain the power of the states and compel them ... to respect these
great fundamental guarantees." [ emphasis added by David ]

Please note that the 2nd Amendment
is within and among the " first eight amendments of the Constitution ".

Note also that the issue before the USSC in Presser
was whether militia had a right to seize the public streets
for their exercises.

The 2nd Amendment does not confer that right upon private militia,
nor upon anyone else.
David

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Clearly, the ordinate clause, the primary expression of thought, is the fourth, final clause in the sentence; " ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", with the first, second, and third clauses subordinate to, explanatory of, establishing the premise for, the fourth, and operative, clause....

...So, what does all the foregoing mean? Quite simple, really, and summed up unambiguously in 14 easy-to-understand words;

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

Like it or not, under The US Constitution, that's the law.

DAMN!!! You mean I'm not the only one here who can handle the English language??

I mean, the thing could as easily read:

Quote:

"Due to the well known fact that a wet bird never flies at night, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

and it wouldn't even matter if somebody produced a time-stamped photo of a wet bird actually flying at night,
the first part of the thing
is nothing more than a motivation,
while that last phrase is the law.

I don't see how anybody ever thought the thing was complicated.

That 's absolutely right.
The logic is inescapable,
except by disingenuous liberals
who wish to fake a contrary result
because of the intensity of their revulsion as to freedom of the individual citizen.
David

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Constitution schmonstitution. It gets amended from time to time when conditions dictate.

So amend it already, for clarification if nothing else. No militia, no gun.

Unless it is amended,
it remains the Supreme Law of the Land,
which deprives government of any jurisdiction in this area.

Quote:

You could start, say, by decreeing Only One Gun Per Household (if militiaman in residence there).

That would be a small start at least.

U wud choose to have an unlimited government,
like that of Saddam.

DISPASSIONATE ANALYSIS OF THE AMENDMENT'S
SYNTACTICAL ARCHITECTURE
MAY BE FACILITATED BY THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed" US Constitution, 2nd Amendment

ANALOGY: A well educated electorate being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE
to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

1. Does this say that only voters have the right to read books ?

2. Does this say " well educated " only by STATE GOVERNMENT colleges ?

3. Does this say that only voters
who are professors of state run colleges
have the right to read books ?

4. Does this say that if you miss an election,
it's ok for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Books
to knock down your door and steal your books ?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Set, you pay me the compliment of providing a reasoned reply to a fairly flippant suggestion. I know most of that but....desperate situations require desperate remedies sometimes.

BTW there was a piece in The Guardian today where Mary Robinson stated
the USA was leading blocker
to current proposals to control the international trade in small arms.

Yes; something of which we can be PROUD:
subordinating the powers of governments
to freedom of the individual citizen.
David

0 Replies

Silly Billy. You know what, when we have an old law (say, one which might have some relevance in 1871 but is now obsolete, retrograde and obstructive) we repeal it.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Silly Billy. You know what, when we have an old law (say, one which might have some relevance in 1871 but is now obsolete, retrograde and obstructive) we repeal it.

The thing people such as yourself should understand, is that there are large numbers of people in the United States who would basically be willing to die defending the second ammendment. The question is, are you willing to die trying to take it away from us?

Talk is cheap...

0 Replies

Re: Thoughts on gun control

Craven de Kere wrote:

Just bored musings (I probably won't take up too debate on any of them).......

- I don't understand the disproportionate (relative to other nations) passion that resonates in the US against gun control.

- I don't really care what the constitution says about guns, and how people try to interpret it. I don't formulate my opinion after what the constitution says. The only influence the constitution has on me is the furtherance of the realization that gun control is not gonna happen anytime soon due to the majority needed to amend it.

The passion comes from the fact that other people do care what the Constitution says on the issue, and do not like it when their rights are violated.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

While I'm pro-gun, pretty much, and have owned and been around guns since I was a little kid, I think its absurd motor vehicles and alcoholic beverages effectively are under stricter control in the US than are guns and ammunition.

I haven't studied the alcohol vs guns comparison, but when it comes to cars vs. guns, guns are usually more heavily regulated than cars.

timberlandko wrote:

Frankly, I have no problem with firearms registration and licensing,

I do. The primary motive of such a scheme (I presume you mean centralized registration as opposed to decentralized registration) is to provide the government with a list of gun owners so they can later take their guns away.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

It seems to me the tyranny in the USA on this topic is coming from the members of the NRA.
It is they who wish a plague of firearms on the country, with wholly detrimental effect.

Plague nothing. Freedom is never detrimental.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

McTag wrote:
Set, you pay me the compliment of providing a reasoned reply to a fairly flippant suggestion. I know most of that but....desperate situations require desperate remedies sometimes.

BTW there was a piece in The Guardian today where Mary Robinson stated the USA was leading blocker to current proposals to control the international trade in small arms.

Here it is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1817575,00.html

The small arms trade is not subject to a comprehensive global agreement. Instead, there is a patchwork of national export laws, which unscrupulous arms dealers can easily circumvent. As a result, small arms fall into the wrong hands every day. During the two-week conference most governments said that they supported an agreement to control sales, but instead of fighting to secure a deal that would protect the millions of people worldwide living in daily fear of armed violence, they stood by while the conference was scuppered. It collapsed without agreement after a small number of countries, most prominently the US, blocked key issues.

Are those diplomats still harping about our gun freedoms?

I wish the military would conduct airstrikes against them, so we'd be done with their anti-freedom agenda once and for all.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Silly Billy. You know what, when we have an old law (say, one which might have some relevance in 1871 but is now obsolete, retrograde and obstructive) we repeal it.

Some of us don't see gun rights as obsolete, retrograde, or obstructive.

Some of us have trouble telling the difference between "a country that would repeal such a law" and "any other totalitarian dictatorship".

0 Replies

Thoughts on gun control

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know