THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:
You can't escape that the militia clause is dependent.

The militia clause is independent.

That doesn't mean that the Second Amendment shouldn't be viewed in the context of the Militia.
But the reasons for viewing it in this context have nothing to do with the first clause.

In the parlance of earlier centuries,
there were 2 kinds of militia
( bearing in mind that there were no " police " in the USA,
nor in England, until the following century )

1. private militia; i.e., the guys in the neighborhood,
like a volunteer fire dept ( called " well regulated militia " )

and

2. government sponsored militia ( called " selected militia " ).

Obviously, the militia of Article I section 8
were a government militia;
not so were the militia of the 2nd Amendment
( who, in theory, cud be brought into military conflict
with the selected militia ).

0 Replies

Ohmsickdavid, I assume you realize you are an idiot. but don't let that slow you down, you are often entertaining.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Ohmsickdavid, I assume you realize you are an idiot. but don't let that slow you down, you are often entertaining.

Is that a compliment,
coming from one who sees everything backward ?

2 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In the parlance of earlier centuries,
there were 2 kinds of militia
( bearing in mind that there were no " police " in the USA,
nor in England, until the following century )

1. private militia; i.e., the guys in the neighborhood,
like a volunteer fire dept ( called " well regulated militia " )

and

2. government sponsored militia ( called " selected militia " ).

Obviously, the militia of Article I section 8
were a government militia;
not so were the militia of the 2nd Amendment
( who, in theory, cud be brought into military conflict
with the selected militia ).

The "select militia" was a concept that was advocated by many Framers, but ultimately rejected. It involved a militia that was composed only of a segment of the population.

The other kind of militia, which the Framers did adopt, was a "general militia", which was composed of everyone. This militia was very much under the control of the government under Article I Section 8.

The term "well-regulated" was used to describe a militia which had trained to the extent that they could fight as a coordinated unit instead of as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
In the parlance of earlier centuries,
there were 2 kinds of militia
( bearing in mind that there were no " police " in the USA,
nor in England, until the following century )

1. private militia; i.e., the guys in the neighborhood,
like a volunteer fire dept ( called " well regulated militia " )

and

2. government sponsored militia ( called " selected militia " ).

Obviously, the militia of Article I section 8
were a government militia;
not so were the militia of the 2nd Amendment
( who, in theory, cud be brought into military conflict
with the selected militia ).

The "select militia" was a concept that was advocated by many Framers, but ultimately rejected. It involved a militia that was composed only of a segment of the population.

The other kind of militia, which the Framers did adopt, was a "general militia", which was composed of everyone. This militia was very much under the control of the government under Article I Section 8.

The term "well-regulated" was used to describe a militia which had trained to the extent that they could fight as a coordinated unit instead of as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.

That was one sense of the term " well regulated militia ";
the older use of that term was in reference to private militia,
as distinct from the government boys,
who were designated " selected militia " meaning
chosen by, and equipped by, a government.

If the authors of the 2nd Amendment
had meant a government organization
( such as that of Article I section 8 )
they 'd not have gone out of their way
to call it by that name,
which had been well known for several centuries.

" Well regulated " meant well disciplined,
in the sense that the fellows 'd not be obstreperous,
nor shoot up the town, in a spirit of exuberance.

Standing alone, the word " militia " meant
the guys in the neighborhood,
as distinct from the king 's army.
David

0 Replies

"Boys in the neighborhood!" Dave, you are really straining now. Please don't hurt yourself.

Again, if the framers wanted to give individuals an unfettered right to bear, they would not have brought in the militia wording. They didn't provide explanations in the other amendments for the rights bestowed.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Quote:
"Boys in the neighborhood!"
Dave, you are really straining now. Please don't hurt yourself.

U make it evident
that u have little knowledge of the history of the times.

There were no police anywhere in the USA,
nor in Colonial America, nor in England,
until the following century.
When a community was faced with an emergency,
be it a fire, or an Indian raid,
thay all turned out as swifty as possible
to address the problem.
Knowing that ( as Jefferson put it ) Indian attacks
entailed an " undistinguished destruction of all ages,
sexes and conditions " everyone in the neighborhood
of every age turned out to fight for his life.

Apparently, this surprizes the Advocate of hostility to personal freedom,
who probably thinks that in the face of Indian attacks,
thay just called the police n forgot about it.

Quote:
Again, if the framers wanted to give individuals
an unfettered right to bear,

No such thing.

Thay did NOT " give " them anything.

In US v. CRUIKSHANK 92 US 542 (1875),
the USSC affirmed the holding of the US 5th Circuit Ct. of Appeals,
that the rights of the 1st and 2nd Amendments long antedated the Constitution,
such that when created,
the US government found those rights in being and defended them.

Accordingly, these rights are older than the Constitution,
which neither created them, nor granted them to the citizenry,
any more than the Constitution created the moon nor granted the stars.

Quote:

they would not have brought in the militia wording.

U have some EVIDENCE of that,
or did u receive that information in a dream last nite ?

I have repeatedly asserted,
and u have repeatedly ignored the fact
that all professional English grammarians who have been consulted
to parse the 2nd Amendment have agreed that it protects an individual right,
regardless of any militia involvement.

You are permitting your anti-freedom, politically correct,
fervent wishes to cloud and befoul your powers of analysis.

Quote:
They didn't provide explanations in the other amendments for the rights bestowed.

So what ?
Thay were free to do it, if thay wanted to, and thay DID.

Against the background of the folks in the community needing
to take care of themselves, with no police around,
the amendment means that:
Because of the need of private militia being armed in their own defense,
the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,
thereby not only defending and perpetuating the pre-existing right
of any citizen to defend his life with his personal armament,
those citizens cud also associate with one another
for a stronger defense.

David

0 Replies

Let 's not lose sight, Advocate, of the USSC holding in
US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:

"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms' ".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING THE SAME PEOPLE
WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EVERY SECOND YEAR.
(Notably, one need not join the National Guard in order to vote for his congressman.)

The Court further defined "the people" to mean those people who have
a right peaceably to assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have
the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures
[4th Amendment] in their persons houses, papers and effects
(personal rights, not rights of states, as you authoritarian-collectivists
allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people are
protected by the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e., the people who can speak and worship freely can bear arms.

It is noteworthy that the Court RELIED upon its definition of " the people ".
Its conclusion in the VERDUGO case is founded upon that definition,
so that stare decisis attaches
David

0 Replies

Dave, Verdugo is certainly not dispositive on the second amendment issue under discussion. It is, as you know, a fourth amendment case, and mentions other amendments in passing. It does not go into the question of whether the right to bear is in the context of a militia. It is not even close to being stare decisis.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That was one sense of the term " well regulated militia ";
the older use of that term was in reference to private militia,
as distinct from the government boys,
who were designated " selected militia " meaning
chosen by, and equipped by, a government.

What evidence leads you to believe that "well-regulated" had such a meaning?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If the authors of the 2nd Amendment
had meant a government organization
( such as that of Article I section 8 )
they 'd not have gone out of their way
to call it by that name,
which had been well known for several centuries.

" Well regulated " meant well disciplined,
in the sense that the fellows 'd not be obstreperous,
nor shoot up the town, in a spirit of exuberance.

Standing alone, the word " militia " meant
the guys in the neighborhood,
as distinct from the king 's army.
David[/b]

It is true that the general militia included everyone, including the guys in the neighborhood, but when they were bearing arms as a militia they were very much under the control of the government.

For instance, when they were called up to form a posse to chase a criminal, it was the sheriff who would call them up. And they would be deputized by the sheriff, and would follow his directions.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Again, if the framers wanted to give individuals an unfettered right to bear, they would not have brought in the militia wording. They didn't provide explanations in the other amendments for the rights bestowed.

The militia clause was hardly brought in as an explanation. It is a legal requirement that the government continue to have a militia (a requirement the government is violating).

Someday someone is going to have to explain to me what an unfettered right is.....

0 Replies

Does "guys in the neighborhood" include guys in the hood, at the poolroom, playing dice in back of the poolroom, at the roller rink, etc.?

Main Entry: un·fet·tered
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: -t&rd
: FREE , UNRESTRAINED

If the amendment gave individuals an unfettered right bear, there could be no gun control, and no restrictions on children, convicts, and mentally defective bearing arms.

Even the NRA supports restrictions.

0 Replies

Here's another way to look at the entire thing...

In the days when the bill of rights was written up, other than in cities, an American without firearms would be totally at the mercy of Indians, wolves, bears, cougars, and poisonous snakes.

The constitution does not read:

Quote:

"...at times other than when serving or practicing in an organized militia, it is the duty of the American citizen to go about unarmed so as to serve as food for the first hungry wolf or bear who might chance upon him. This is for the obvious humanitarian purpose of preventing the noble predators of the American continent from suffering the pangs of hunger; nonetheless, official militia business shall be understood to take precedence over this duty to preserve our wildlife, while such business is in progress...."

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Does "guys in the neighborhood" include guys in the hood, at the poolroom, playing dice in back of the poolroom, at the roller rink, etc.?

If they have not been deemed by a court to be a criminal, or a danger to themselves or others, yes.

The Framers wanted the entire populace to be armed with military/police weapons. They wanted the government, if it needed an armed force, to go call up the armed general populace to come help. They only wanted the government to resort to a standing army if the armed populace could not handle the problem.

They had some rather strong views about tyranny, and they thought that an armed populace would not execute a tyrannical order against itself. They thought that by creating such a system they would make the government much less susceptible to tyranny.

Advocate wrote:

Main Entry: unfettered
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: -t&rd
: FREE , UNRESTRAINED

If the amendment gave individuals an unfettered right bear, there could be no gun control, and no restrictions on children, convicts, and mentally defective bearing arms.

Even the NRA supports restrictions.

It seems to me that all rights have limits as to what they do and do not cover (otherwise there would be no laws, and a single "right to do anything we want").

The Second Amendment is just as unfettered as the First Amendment however.

0 Replies

Wrong! The first amendment is unfettered. Freedom of speech and press may not be subjected to prior restraint.

The framers didn't contemplate taking guns from people. However, they simply did not give individuals outside the context of a militia an unfettered right to bear.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Wrong! The first amendment is unfettered.

I am still not entirely sure what you mean by "unfettered right" but if the First Amendment qualifies for that consideration, so does the Second.

Advocate wrote:

The framers didn't contemplate taking guns from people. However, they simply did not give individuals outside the context of a militia an unfettered right to bear.

Well technically they didn't "give" the right. But yes. They only intended it in the context of the militia.

If you'd like to force the government to bring back the militia so people can start exercising their right to keep automatic rifles in their homes, I'm with you.

0 Replies

GRAND RAPIDS -- Arming teachers with handguns would make students and terrorists think twice before attacking a school, said a West Michigan lawmaker who has proposed legislation to allow it.

"Right now, the only people who enter school with guns are people who intend to do harm," state Rep. David Agema, R-Grandville, said Saturday.

"I believe it will save lives if a kid or somebody comes into a school and starts shooting again."

. . . .

Agema's bill, introduced last week, is supported by 15 other Republican House members.

The bill would allow teachers, administrators or other school employees to carry concealed weapons on school grounds if they have a state permit to carry one and have permission from their school administrator.

The school could require special weapons training before allowing employees to carry weapons.

"It's totally up to the school district," Agema said. "This is not a mandate. It's giving them the option."

The bill also would allow parents to carry concealed weapons while transporting their children to and from school.

Agema said massacres at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech University prompted him to write the bill.

"If one of the teachers had a CCW (concealed weapons) permit, they could have saved many lives," he said.

Crazed students might think twice about a rampage if they knew teachers were armed, he said. "It might give them second thoughts."

It also might stop terrorists from targeting schools, he said.

"I've talked to some people. They say that could be what they're planning for us here," he said, referring to al-Qaida.

Agema said he expects lots of opposition, including from the Michigan Education Association, and doubts the bill will reach the floor of the Democrat-controlled House.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-38/1189319651113880.xml&coll=6

0 Replies

Quote:

doubts the bill will reach the floor of the Democrat-controlled House.

ROFL

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
doubts the bill will reach the floor of the Democrat-controlled House.

ROFL

Gotta start somewhere. I remember the opposition to the concealed carry movement when we just started. But now law abiding citizens in 40 out of 50 states can get a concealed carry permit if they like.

We'll get those guns in the teachers' hands someday.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
doubts the bill will reach the floor of the Democrat-controlled House.

ROFL

Gotta start somewhere. I remember the opposition to the concealed carry movement when we just started. But now law abiding citizens in 40 out of 50 states can get a concealed carry permit if they like.

We'll get those guns in the teachers' hands someday.

Yeah,
and the pilots too !
I 'm looking for the USSC to void all gun control,
on 2nd Amendment grounds
David

0 Replies

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know