Puff Cigar Discussion Forums
MEMBER CIGAR REVIEWS | STAFF CIGAR REVIEWS | CIGAR VIDEOS | ONE ON ONE INTERVIEWS | CIGAR NEWS | CIGAR FORUMS | PIPES | LIFESTYLE | CONTACT

User Tag List

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

This is a discussion on Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern within the Guns and Knives forums, part of the Everything But Cigars category; Originally Posted by ResIpsa i was thinking about this earlier. And in fact to really consider the 2nd in full, ...

  
  1. #61

    2B1 ASK1 Hammerhead's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by ResIpsa View Post
    i was thinking about this earlier. And in fact to really consider the 2nd in full, you also have to define what a militia is. To me falling back on my training, plain language baby. Well regulated to me means to be overseen by the government.
    That's at least part of the point. What constitutes "plain language" today is not what it meant 250 years ago.

    http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

    [SIZE=2]"Following the path of least resistance is what makes rivers, and men, crooked."[/SIZE]

  2. #62

    An Original Latino ResIpsa's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
    That's at least part of the point. What constitutes "plain language" today is not what it meant 250 years ago.

    http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
    again, this would be a citation from a biased source, so of little real value. But, I'll play along.

    a quotation from your source:

    "The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained"

    but thoroughly trained and disciplined by WHO?? The government, of course,. The alternative is that you have a bunch of yahoos all running around with their own "well regulated" miliitas doing whatever they please, not under the control of the government. Kind of sounds like the situation is Iraq, doesn't it? And I seriously doubt that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind,

  3. #63

    Puffer Fish with some spikes garilla's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    There's a reason they were called Minutemen. This is because all able-bodied individuals should have the means to defend themselves and our Country in a "minutes" notice. Taking my firearms any further than arms length from me would inhibit my ability to do just that.

    Our "Red Dawn" is coming, in the form of politically driven policy that has never worked. Ever. It will be subtle, you may not even see the law pass, but sooner or later, there will be a knock on your door. It will be personnel coming to collect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    Make your position well known on the issue. RIGHT NOW. Your children will thank you for it.



    - Garilla
    You never know what's on the other shelves of the humidor. You always know what to expect from Death Row. Congratulations on the desire to quest...

  4. #64

    Full grown Puffer Fish Little Giant's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Just more from the gun control NAZIS!!!

  5. #65

    Grog Wench TTgirl's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by ResIpsa View Post
    Okay.....but TTGirl i miss your point. Regardless of what the author of the piece may have thought of standing armies, the fact remains obviously no one agreed with him because we have a standing army, and have had one for a long time. so.........

    Point #2, I give no more credence to an article on the second amendment put forth by the Anti-Federalist than I would to an article on racial equality put forth by the KKK. Both organizations have bones to pick with the other side and a vested interest in presenting only thier side of the story. You'd get farther with me by presenting a fair, unbiased and neutral presentation of the facts and a like argument.
    RI, I posted that link because it offers an often-overlooked perspective on standing armies and some of the perceived dangers of keeping them. I always found it interesting that there was really very little historically to draw on for backup at that point, but the observation was made nonetheless. It always made me wonder... if the debates over the wording/structure of the constitution were taking place today with the additional historical events available as backup, what the outcome might be?

    Oh well... it's fun to speculate, but it's just that.

    And we did end up applying ideas set forth by both the pro- and anti-federalists.

    Anyway, I think you may be getting "right" mixed up with "cause". We may not have cause to keep arms as individuals because we have a badass army that'll come to our rescue in case of foreign invasion, but we do still have that right, as antiquated a concept as it might seem.

    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.

    The meaning was really not up for debate until the 20th century.

    There was a very thorough study on the 2nd done by some folks over at the DOJ from a few years ago. It's been a while since I read it, but I do remember a good number of court cases and plenty of historical perspective being included, and the authors are much more eloquent on the subject than time and fuzzy-headedness will allow me to be at the moment, so I apologize for sending you on another link hunt.

    Not sure if it meets your definition of neutrality, however. I'm sure you'll let me know.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

    Take care and happy reading!

    ---------------
    [SIZE="1"]How to remove images from posts, avatars, and signature lines: [/SIZE][SIZE="1"]CLICKY[/SIZE]
    [SIZE="1"]When life gives you lemons - grab the tequila and the salt.[/SIZE]

  6. #66

    Evolving Lead Puffer Fish oddball's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by ResIpsa View Post
    As to the 2nd amendment, in order to understand it you have to look at the history.The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1789. At that time this was a country in turmoil, under the threat of attack from enemies both foreign and domestic. THAT is why we needed a well regulated militia, and THAT is why citizen-soldiers needed to keep the weapons in their homes, there was no standing army and individual citizens needed to be able to take up arms at a moments notice. EVERYBODY was part of the militia. That is not the case today. We HAVE an army. individual private citizens being armed are NOT "necessary to the security of a free state". and that is what the intent and rationale behind the amendment was. The amendment addresses a situation that existed at that time, it was never intended to create a right to have arms in your house for any old reason you saw fit, it was intended to provide for the security of the nation, which was under constant threat at that time.
    The reason Madison wrote the Bill of Rights was to lay out some ground rules for individual rights that needs protection from the government. So, the 1st and 3rd to 10th amendment is all about individual rights and for some bizzare reason the 2nd is not? Nowhere else are rights recognized for government (which in the Framers' view is the Servant) but denied to the people (the Masters). No other amendment of the original ten speaks of the States having rights. As I have posted earlier, the 1st contains "right of the people" along with the 2nd, but both have have different meanings?

    The constitution gives rights for the government to maintain an army in Articles I & II of the Constitution. That should include the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and the National Guard, which, stop the presses, is also run and funded by the U.S.Government. These govt. branches do not need the 2nd amendment for protection, which is grouped among the ten for individual protection.

    If the 2nd amendment refers to the government (yes, the National Guard is part of the govt.) why is it needed? Why does a government branch, which is the very entity that may regulate arms need a constitutional protection to bear arms? The antis militia stance is very flawed. The Framers could have said, "The right of the States to organize and arm militias shall not be infringed," though that would have contradicted Article I, Section 8, which delegated that power to Congress. Or, how about, "The right of members of the state militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," though that would have contradicted Article I, Section 9, which forbids the States to keep troops in time of peace. "Well regulated" when Madison wrote it does not refer to government regulation. This can be seen in Federalist 29, where Alexander Hamilton, Madison's partner in the Federalist Papers, wrote that a militia acquired the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the "character of a well regulated militia" by going "through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary." Well regulated, in those days meant diciplined, well behaved.

    By the way, James Madison's original draft actually reversed the order of the amendment: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." Makes more sense? The Framers (Madison, Jefferson, etc.) have written much about the "security of a free state" which is also about protection from tyranny.
    You know, a government that oppresses its citizens. Like it has never happened before....
    "Information doesn't kill you"- Frank Zappa

  7. #67

    par
    par is offline
    Puffer Fish with many spikes par's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    but.. using that logic about "well regulated" it begs the question that simply the act of carrying arms does not meet the "well regulated" requirement? If well regulated means the equivalent of proficient (and in the logic presented there appears to be oversight or at least judgement as to when that is evident) then who regulates and who carries judgement about what that is?

    It seems that this argument (especially with the language component) suggest that the notion of "bear arms" is different from "carry arms". using the language of the time doesn't bear arms just suggest the proficiency argument?
    I wanted to say something really witty here but nothing came to mind...

  8. #68

    2B1 ASK1 Hammerhead's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by ResIpsa View Post
    again, this would be a citation from a biased source, so of little real value. But, I'll play along...

    but thoroughly trained and disciplined by WHO?? The government, of course,.
    If you're thinking that the courts and politicians aren't biased, then you have a bigger pill to swallow than I.

    Well regulated has a lot of interpretations. I regulate myself, having received training as provided by private parties. It doesn't always have to be the government that defines things, and lucky for us that it isn't.

    The bottom line here is that US vs. Miller isn't about the 2nd Amendment, it's a case about a violation of the 1934 NFA. Inclusive in that decision, the justices reached out beyond the scope of their authority on that case to express that court's opinion on the 2nd Amendment. They might have also expressed an opinion regarding pastrami on rye or the 1st Amendment, but that's not what they were charged to do in the confines of the case, one more example of the abuse of power, and how interpretations and statements have been abused over time to twist and pervert our rights.

    So, to date, the 2nd Amendment's definition has never been brought up to the SCOTUS in its own right, and if you read the links you've been provided, there's ample lower court decisions, both circuit and others, that support an individual right determination.

    [SIZE=2]"Following the path of least resistance is what makes rivers, and men, crooked."[/SIZE]

  9. #69

    Full grown Puffer Fish Trumpet's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by oddball View Post
    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is the justification clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is the rights clause. Many state constitutions have justification clauses covering such freedoms as speech, press, right to a trial, etc. "The right of the people" also appears in the 1st Amendment; shall we assume that this also applies to the militia only? Of course not. James Madison, considered the author of the Bill of Rights wrote the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". He never disqualified the 2nd Amendment from this statement.

    As Hammerhead pointed out, the National Guard was created in the early 1900s, not 1789. And hardly a militia in the true sense of the Founding Fathers, since they envisioned the militia to be apart from a standing army (Army National Guard is a branch of the U.S. Army, the Air National Guard is part of the U.S. Air Force). In the days of the creation of the Bill of Rights, "well-regulated" did not mean govt. regulated; it meant well-behaved, disciplined, or trained.


    And my favorite:
    At that time "well regulated" meant well-supplied (nothing "obsolete"); NOT the way we interpret "well regulated" these days as in being regulated by the government.
    Last edited by Trumpet; 02-28-2007 at 01:58 PM.
    [SIZE="5"]كافر[/SIZE]

  10. #70

    2B1 ASK1 Hammerhead's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Another way to put this into perspective, by simply changing the words but not necessarily the structure, is this:

    "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the preservation of a democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed"

    I don't think anyone here would suggest that the books had nothing to do with education therefore exercise of democracy. And nowhere in there does it suggest that the government is forcing us to read the books, nor do they mandate education (though it turns out we do have that, but not for this reason).

    Funny how when the object of the phrase changes, that some people can see it, but because the thought of tyrrany is so far off, that many choose to stick their heads in the sand as though there haven't been enough examples of totalitarianism and extermination in the 20th century already.

    There are four quintessential steps to the destruction of freedom:
    Legislation
    Registration
    Confiscation
    Extermination

    This pattern is as classic and reliable as a fingerprint, or chemical reaction. The world has seen so much genocide on the part of governments who systematically disarmed, then slaughtered a portion of their population, that you'd think we'd wise up by now. But for some, they won't accept the necessity of the 2nd Amendment until they're being herded onto a frieght train.

    [SIZE=2]"Following the path of least resistance is what makes rivers, and men, crooked."[/SIZE]

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •