Guns

[Danoff]

Violent crime is high in the UK, but the homicide rate is 4 times lower than in the USA. However, countries record violent crimes differently, so general violent crime statistics are not always good to use when comparing countries. Also, this thread is about gun control, not violent crimes in general.

Citing the thread being about gun control as a reason not to talk about related violate crime statistics is a bit of a cop-out. Gun-specific statistics are almost completely meaningless. The real argument by the anti-gun folks is not that you're better off with gun control because you'll get stabbed instead, the argument is that you're better off with gun control because guns make people criminals and violent crime in general goes down when you remove guns.

Loooooots of reasons to think it goes the other direction (including statistics which have been cited in this thread).

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The 2010/2011 figures show that the gun murder rate is 33 to 27 times lower in England and Wales compared to the USA in the same period. In Northern Ireland the rate is 0.83 percent per 100,000 population. In Scotland there were 2 gun murders in 2010/2011. The rate for the USA is 3.6 to 2.9 percent per 100,000. Very clearly much, much higher in the USA.

That's great considering that you still wish to not cite crime as a whole, as if it's not crime unless a gun is involved.

Violent crime is high in the UK, but the homicide rate is 4 times lower than in the USA. However, countries record violent crimes differently, so general violent crime statistics are not always good to use when comparing countries. Also, this thread is about gun control, not violent crimes in general.

Well if you compare it from a single source in how they view it then you don't have that issue. The UK Ministry of Justice I believe has those but I'm not sure since it's been awhile since I've looked. FBI does it as well, saying it's too difficult is an easy out. This thread isn't about gun control, so obviously you've somewhat solidified my early statement that you probably didn't read the thread. You assuming what this thread is makes you look foolish. And it's another cop out to say "well let's not pay attention to that let me have my singular argument to make my nation look better than the bad ol' USA."

When did I say I support a complete ban? I think what's best is strict control. And guns are a worldwide problem, but of course the issue wont be tackled by every country.

It read like that, maybe do what the majority of us have (if you read the entire thread) and state your position (e.g. I'm pro or I'm for strict control). You allow other people to read too much in to your lack of context because it's just that so while you didn't say it, it seemed implied an that's entirely your fault. Also for that last statement what is ironic is you give an example that tight control works, yet the examples I give are also of tight control nations where it doesn't work such as Mexico. So it would seem nations are trying to handle it but it doesn't work all the time like your beaming ray of hope.

 

[Carlos]

Listening to you, it sounds like you think everyone who has a legitimate reason to own a gun is just an accident waiting to happen. Why do you think most gun owners are irresponsible idiots?

I also find it funny that a criteria you have for owning a gun for self-defense is to have it in multiple pieces, locked in different areas, and requiring a scavenger hunt and multiple keys, RPG-style, to be able to use it. I'm sure that when you would actually need it the criminals will wait, just like they kindly wait for the police to show up.

I have no problem with a background check to keep criminals or mentally disturbed individuals from legitimately getting guns. I disagree with a registry and occasional home invasion to do so. I also think that "medicinal use" is a very broad term. That would be a direct violation of health privacy and would include nearly the entire country. Eve if you are just talking about mental health drugs, it is a privacy violation and seems to punish a guy who had a temporary case of depression after a death or losing a job.

I don't think that most gun owners are irresponsible, but at least some of them are. If you really want to own a gun I think it's totally okay to do so. Though I really think there has to be some proof that you can handle a gun. Good citizenship and a certificate from the shooting range (shooting lessons) is not the end of the world. Maybe I went a little far with regular check ups but that's the law here so for me it's pretty normal.

I think it's not smart to expect people to handle how you would or what is expected from them. As I read many posts in here, it seems like you (the people in the US) think guns are as normal as sunrise. That is weird for me to understand but couldn't that be part of the problem? As example, I grew up with the thought that guns were not for the public. Guns are here for our safety and should be only carried by people who live their daily lives protecting us. I understand that is not your point of view, but I do think you should at least have some kind of training otherwise you are just as dangerous as the criminal shooting at you..

 

[Danoff]

otherwise you are just as dangerous as the criminal shooting at you..

Ridiculous.... that someone with the intent to kill you is as much a threat as someone who simply doesn't have training.

Yes, training is important. Yes you are more dangerous without training that with. No, that doesn't put you on the level of someone shooting at you.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't think that most gun owners are irresponsible, but at least some of them are. If you really want to own a gun I think it's totally okay to do so. Though I really think there has to be some proof that you can handle a gun. Good citizenship and a certificate from the shooting range (shooting lessons) is not the end of the world. Maybe I went a little far with regular check ups but that's the law here so for me it's pretty normal.

I think it's not smart to expect people to handle how you would or what is expected from them. As I read many posts in here, it seems like you (the people in the US) think guns are as normal as sunrise. That is weird for me to understand but couldn't that be part of the problem? As example, I grew up with the thought that guns were not for the public. Guns are here for our safety and should be only carried by people who live their daily lives protecting us. I understand that is not your point of view, but I do think you should at least have some kind of training otherwise you are just as dangerous as the criminal shooting at you..

I think that one thing Europeans forget is that the US is about the size of Europe with about half the population, so many people are spread out. The people who dedicate their lives to protecting us here, at their best, can't respond as fast as the average crime takes place. That is assuming you get one of the ones who weren't high school bullies or military dropouts going on a power trip.

 

[Carlos]

Ridiculous.... that someone with the intent to kill you is as much a threat as someone who simply doesn't have training.

Yes, training is important. Yes you are more dangerous without training that with. No, that doesn't put you on the level of someone shooting at you.

That's why I think training should be a must have if you claim to have a gun for self defence.. If I claim to have a gun as self defence, but then not had any training to actually defend myself, wouldn't that be hypocrite?

I think that one thing Europeans forget is that the US is about the size of Europe with about half the population, so many people are spread out. The people who dedicate their lives to protecting us here, at their best, can't respond as fast as the average crime takes place. That is assuming you get one of the ones who weren't high school bullies or military dropouts going on a power trip.

That's right, I did not think of this. If you live in the open yeah I can totally understand. But I still not really understand how this would make it acceptable for everyone to own a gun.

 

[Azuremen]

That's right, I did not think of this. If you live in the open yeah I can totally understand. But I still not really understand how this would make it acceptable for everyone to own a gun.

Because equal rights to citizens.

 

[a6m5]

That's why I think training should be a must have if you claim to have a gun for self defence.. If I claim to have a gun as self defence, but then not had any training to actually defend myself, wouldn't that be hypocrite?

Training is a sensible suggestion. Knowing the U.S. Government though, that would be the beginning of the end.

That's right, I did not think of this. If you live in the open yeah I can totally understand. But I still not really understand how this would make it acceptable for everyone to own a gun.

As explained, it's not that simple. Things like history, culture do come into play, also the Constitution. It is your guaranteed right, if you reside(permanently) here in good legal standing.

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but I don't see how effectively international member could argue gun control, culture in the U.S. with lack of grasp on history, laws & life in America. By my observation, tight gun control is unrealistic in the U.S. There are millions of guns already in possession & level of smuggling that takes place in this country is just unreal, from all sorts of routing taking place in all sorts of area. People here are also skilled enough to put together firearms. I'm Japanese, you can tell me how gun control can be effective. As for how effective tighter gun control would be in the U.S., everything I've ever read & heard on the subject is full of holes.

 

[Danoff]

That's why I think training should be a must have if you claim to have a gun for self defence.. If I claim to have a gun as self defence, but then not had any training to actually defend myself, wouldn't that be hypocrite?

Yes, training is important. Yes you are more dangerous without training tha[n] with. No, that doesn't put you on the level of someone shooting at you.

 

[ledhed]

We used to teach fitearm safety in public school . Then we liberalized our education and took the content out and added new content .
.Back when Firearm safety and the danrger and respect was taught . We had little or no gun crime outside of gangsters and gangs and a mass killing was six or eight people in Texas by an adult . Society changed and no one thought to keep the good stuff . So we are a society that now glorifies violence and life is YOLO and worthless to a large minority. But for political purposes its not ok to not SOLVE the issue , unfortunate for us all they use placebo .

 

[FoolKiller]

That's right, I did not think of this. If you live in the open yeah I can totally understand. But I still not really understand how this would make it acceptable for everyone to own a gun.

Well, there is equal treatment under the law to consider. Also, there is a huge dose of liberty and defense written into the founding documents of our country. To you, being stopped just to have your papers/ID checked, or being forced to allow a home inspection of something like a gun is normal. Here, ID can only be demanded if you are operating a motor vehicle, and that cannot be a reason for being pulled over. Reasonable suspicion of a crime must exist first. Same with home inspections. Unless a cop hears a scream, gunshot, or witnesses an emergency or crime through a window or smells smoke, they cannot enter your home without a warrant. An inspection of proper gun handling would be thrown out in court immediately. Even if it were required to store a gun a certain way, they would need a reason to suspect that you aren't storing it properly.

See, this country was founded on the basis that governments can, and do, violate the rights of their citizens. There must be legal protections against such things. In fact, much of our Bill of Rights is based on what the British were doing to silence the colonists. Free press: Ben Franklin was once jailed for criticizing the king in his newspaper. Right to own a firearm: The first shots of the American Revolution were because the British tried to confiscate all the guns. So on and so forth.

If you think of America as some anarchistic savage land, blame the British government of the time. They showed us how government power can be abused, so we stripped government of that power altogether. But don't worry, we are trending toward more government power everyday.

We used to teach fitearm safety in public school . Then we liberalized our education and took the content out and added new content .
.Back when Firearm safety and the danrger and respect was taught . We had little or no gun crime outside of gangsters and gangs and a mass killing was six or eight people in Texas by an adult . Society changed and no one thought to keep the good stuff . So we are a society that now glorifies violence and life is YOLO and worthless to a large minority. But for political purposes its not ok to not SOLVE the issue , unfortunate for us all they use placebo .

We didn't have it as part of school, but when I was about 12 they had the government run Conservation Camp, where we learned about gun safety, shooting, bow and arrow, and could even earn our pre-16 hunting license, as the safety course is required for anyone that young. Of course,
I had no problem with that because I was doing 4-H camp from about 8 or 9 on.

That is likely whyI assume anyone scared of guns and their dangers have little to no experience, or very bad experiences. I have always seen guns in homes, used properly and safely. The worst issue is that I the case of accidents, most are caused by things that shouldn't even need to be taught. Fortunately, those are very few.

 

[ledhed]

In the USA it is a Right and not a privilege to keep and bear arms .
So the argument is not about regulate or ban .
Its. " when does the regulation infringe " and is it reasonable?
You can't by law restrict the ability to purchase a firearm here.
Ownership is a right . So we start with this and somehow must use logic and reason to regulate firearms without infringing on lawful use and ownership.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In the USA it is a Right and not a privilege to keep and bear arms .

Not according to the wording; it has to be as a "well-regulated militia", it's a limited legalese right.

 

[Zenith]

Not according to the wording; it has to be as a "well-regulated militia", it's a limited legalese right.

No.

"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"

Does it say it is the right of the people or the right of the militia?

 

[a6m5]

I'm new to this discussion, but going by just that sentence alone, it seems pretty clear cut that it is definitely a right. Of course, it also says that we are to join National Guards or something, but that part isn't as clearly defined as the part that states the authorities can not disarm civilians.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No.

"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"

Does it say it is the right of the people or the right of the militia?

It says "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 commatic order is very clear, remember that this is written in British English of the time. The Militia (as necessary to a free State's security) shall not (as a right of those people to keep, and in turn bear, arms) shall not be infringed. That militia is defined as having good, clear rules (that is the normal definition of well-regulated).

Later US English translations use "bear" to mean "carry" rather than "suffer", that's one of the now-untranslatable differences that causes much ire.

I'm anti-gun but pro-gun rights (ie realistic enough to believe that the utopian gun-control fix isn't appropriate for where the US is societally). I don't feel the 2nd Amendment gives the support to random gun ownership that some cordite-heads think it does. Some judges seem to agree, some seem to disagree

 

[a6m5]

@TenEightyOne Can you clarify "random gun ownership"?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@TenEightyOne Can you clarify "random gun ownership"?

I meant to say that the the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the right of absolutely anyone to procure, obtain or otherwise own a firearm. It calls for regulation (by the State) in such matters.

Whether or not the State sees that engenderment as the facilitation of a Militia is, I guess, a State matter.

 

[Zenith]

I don't feel the 2nd Amendment gives the support to random gun ownership that some cordite-heads think it does. Some judges seem to agree, some seem to disagree

You can feel however you want, the text remains unchanged.

It is made clear in plain English that the 2nd Amendment supports the right of the people. If it supported the right of only the militia, it would say that.

Supreme Court judges are also extremely poor supporting evidence for Constitutional interpretation. They are selected by politicians and often are ignorant or purposely incorrect about the text of the constitution. Look up some of Sotomayor's writing some time. It's hilarious.

 

[a6m5]

I meant to say that the the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the right of absolutely anyone to procure, obtain or otherwise own a firearm. It calls for regulation (by the State) in such matters.

Whether or not the State sees that engenderment as the facilitation of a Militia is, I guess, a State matter.

OK, thanks. 👍

 

[TenEightyOne]

You can feel however you want, the text remains unchanged.

It is made clear in plain English that the 2nd Amendment supports the right of the people. If it supported the right of only the militia, it would say that.

You have to be careful which Plain English you use, of course, in this case you have to use the Plain English in which the phrase was written.

It supports, in order of commatic importance; A Well-Regulated Milita (most important consideration), as Necessary To The Security of a Free State (putting validation, legislation and regulation of that militia into State context), shall not be infringed (limits Government's right to meddle in the State's judgment of the previous comma) where those people keep arms.

The definition of "bear" arms is a very difficult one; in the 17th Century it meant equally to suffer or to carry. Either way the definition in context of the 2nd Amendment is less important given its commatic minority.

The right of the people as a basis is clear but the right of the State to exercise regulatory authority over that right (and the exclusion of Government to intervene) is clearly provided.

 

[Zenith]

You have to be careful which Plain English you use, of course, in this case you have to use the Plain English in which the phrase was written.

You're trying to introduce ambiguity where it does not exist.

It supports, in order of commatic importance; A Well-Regulated Milita (most important consideration), as Necessary To The Security of a Free State (putting validation, legislation and regulation of that militia into State context), shall not be infringed (limits Government's right to meddle in the State's judgment of the previous comma) where those people keep arms.

Does it say "those people in militias" or does it say "the people" who it is referring to in the Bill of Rights?

It's strange how in order to support your perceived meaning of the second amendment you need to add words to the text while I do not.

The definition of "bear" arms is a very difficult one; in the 17th Century it meant equally to suffer or to carry. Either way the definition in context of the 2nd Amendment is less important given its commatic minority.

What other version of "bear" makes any sense whatsoever in this context?

The right of the people as a basis is clear but the right of the State to exercise regulatory authority over that right (and the exclusion of Government to intervene) is clearly provided.

Where is the exclusion of government to intervene provided?

 

[FoolKiller]

I think an important thing to ask, if you are going to try to break it down the way @TenEightyOne is trying, is; what is a militia? The most recent one at that time was colonists grabbing their personal guns and joining in the fight against the British military. They were not uniformed soldiers in an organized military. That existed too. The militia did contain the well trained and organized groups know as Minute Men, but they were not the entire militia.

It wasn't until 1903, with the Militia Act, that militia became defined as groups such as the National Guard. Before then militia was:

historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services).

So, try to impose the militia definition how you want. It refers to all able-bodied men who aren't in the military. I believe that would ultimately refer to "the people."

 

[TenEightyOne]

You're trying to introduce ambiguity where it does not exist.

Er, sorry? Subjective/objective ambiguity is one of the biggest discussion when disseminating law from any constitution, I'm not sure what makes you think the US constitution differs from that.

Certainly in this context we can go all the way back to the 1689 Bill of Rights to see the seeding and discussion of some of the ideas.

I read your comment as "you disagree with how I've explained it to be". Yes, I think we could definitely agree on that

Does it say "those people in militias" or does it say "the people" who it is referring to in the Bill of Rights?

It says neither. EDIT: That was a grumpy and obtuse answer. It says "the people" but you can't pull it from the third comma to the first, it wasn't written in that order... so I answered "neither" because when you previously emboldened "the people" (as a phrase at least ) I felt you were trying to claim an absolute 2A right despite it being commatically relegated.

It's strange how in order to support your perceived meaning of the second amendment you need to add words to the text while I do not.

Really Zenith? That's how explanations work. If anything I ultimately removed something, as you'll note.

The commatic definition is the thing.

Well Regulated Militia > As Necessary to Free State > Rights of The People To Bear Arms > Shall Not Be Infringed.

So you see that the first point you need to clarify (as @FoolKiller notes) is what a Well-Regulated Militia is. Or "A Militia With Good/Strong Rules" dependant on which definition of "Well-" you want to use.

If you use or impose regulation then you remove automatic "membership", therefore the 2nd Amendment does not give a blanket right to the people from the top-down, that right can only be given by the State. The people (already selected in commas one and two) don't get a say until comma 3.

A sentence like this goes way back even before the 1689 Bill of Rights, one of the most common interpretations quoted is that it gives "a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".

The modern question is, therefore, does the necessity still exist to keep a State free? That has to be answered at State level by those eligible in Comma 1 and Comma 2.

 

[FoolKiller]

It says "the people" but you can't pull it from the third comma to the first, it wasn't written in that order... so I answered "neither" because when you previously emboldened "the people" (as a phrase at least ) I felt you were trying to claim an absolute 2A right despite it being commatically relegated.

Unless it is used as a prefatory phrase, separated by a comma, to explain why it is important that the people have this right.

Or you can look at every other reference to rights given to the people in the Bill of Rights. Oddly, it seems to mean the people up until people find an amendment they disagree with. Odd how that works.

If you use or impose regulation then you remove automatic "membership", therefore the 2nd Amendment does not give a blanket right to the people from the top-down, that right can only be given by the State.

Since we are from different countries, could you define "the state" in this context? Considering that the in the United States something given by the state means an individual state, I want to be sure we are understanding each other. It is important because the Bill of Rights also explains when it becomes an issue for the states.

The modern question is, therefore, does the necessity still exist to keep a State free? That has to be answered at State level by those eligible in Comma 1 and Comma 2.

Um, no. The point of the Constitution is to put the limits on government power. No government is Constitutionally allowed to step outside those bounds, no matter if they think it is necessary. The only way they can do that is by creating another amendment, and no one is going to get a 2/3 majority of the states to agree on this one.



Of course, I think you are unintentionally obfuscating the issue. The founding fathers had a clear meaning. Richard Henry Lee even went on to define militia:

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms.

There is your well-formed militia; the people themselves - as described by a founder.

So, by saying the right is for militias, not the people, you are contradicting yourself. Militias are the people.

Or, apply your teacher's red pen to the rough draft of the second 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.

Weird. Madison's original intent seems kind of obvious.

I know that is just the guy who physically authored the Constitution, but do I need to start quoting other founding fathers statements on the individual right to bear arms?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Weird. Madison's original intent seems kind of obvious.

I know that is just the guy who physically authored the Constitution, but do I need to start quoting other founding fathers statements on the individual right to bear arms?

You need to go way back to the Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights to get your answers on that, I linked a much earlier author in my previous post. Don't be suckered into thinking that this Constitution or its Amendments were a new idea based in a new age... its really the summary of the anti-French separationist movement in England/Britain of the time. That's the very reason that some of us love the Constitution so much (and others hate it so passionately), it's a natural (and documented) extension of much of our important legislative history from MC to the Bill of Rights.

apply your teacher's red pen to the rough draft of the second amendment.

That wasn't it, it was a selection of quotes from people involved. The Pennsylvanian quote is interesting and shows exactly why other parties may have commaed "the people" down. Restrictive commas are placed very specifically in legal terms now, just as they were then. These people weren't (for the most part) linguistic or legal amateurs.

Now the problem. There isn't just one copy of the 1789 Bill of Rights and they don't all, apparently, say the same thing. Some have more commas in the Second Amendment than others. However the main display copy IS commaed as above and therefore the meaning in Plain British English (the language of the time) is very clear.

I don't know the answer to this one; which version is "real", the one on display I presume?

There is your well-formed militia; the people themselves - as described by a founder.

You need more than one line from one person to stack up against history. Even courts have found that definition of the militia overrides the named 'right' meaning that definition of militia is primary in settling cases. That's because of the commas, they give the order of entitlement in a legal sentence... which is why many legals senten,ces use none.

Since we are from different countries, could you define "the state" in this context? Considering that the in the United States something given by the state means an individual state, I want to be sure we are understanding each other. It is important because the Bill of Rights also explains when it becomes an issue for the states.

Happy to... I was talking about States of the Union as opposed to The Country As A State, I realised afterwards that I hadn't made that so clear. I believe that 2A gives individual states the right to regulate, "gun control" is effectively in their hands. The DC case I last linked shows that the peoples' rights aren't ignored, but it does show that the court's first consideration was (as it commatically had to be) the definition of militia. Note the "enrollment" sentence, that was a surprise

As I keep saying, I might be anti-gun but I'm pro-legal rights, I just think it's a misconception that the right to carry arms is presumed to be absolutely provided in 2A, it isn't. I haven't yet found a court ruling that ignores or postpones the first two commas in favour of the third.

 

[FoolKiller]

You need more than one line from one person to stack up against history.

I offered that, and you decided to reject it for people who weren't there writing, editing and voting on the final document.

You need to go way back to the Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights to get your answers on that,

So, as I see it, you choose to ignore clarifying statements made by the men who created the Bill of Rights for people who were dead by then. It sounds to me like you are using an assumption to defend your belief, without any proof that your assumption was the actual intent of the document. You actually linked an article about British law from the same time the colonies were disagreeing with British law enough to go to war over it.

Even courts have found that definition of the militia overrides the named 'right' meaning that definition of militia is primary in settling cases. That's because of the commas, they give the order of entitlement in a legal sentence... which is why many legals senten,ces use none.

Before or after militia was redefined by the 1903 Militia Act?

Let me put it this way: Explain to me why any of these interpretations mean more than what these men say.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton

I bolded the more direct quotes as it applies to this conversation.

Ultimately, I will trust the words of the men who wrote and approved the Constitution over implied meaning taken from past documents or modernized interpretation.

Happy to... I was talking about States of the Union as opposed to The Country As A State, I realised afterwards that I hadn't made that so clear. I believe that 2A gives individual states the right to regulate, "gun control" is effectively in their hands.

Then what is the point of the 10th Amendment? As I said, the Bill of Rights clearly states when things are and aren't to be a state issue. "Shall not be infringed" means shall not be infringed, and combined with the 10th Amendment does not leave room for states to apply their own infringements.

The DC case I last linked shows that the peoples' rights aren't ignored, but it does show that the court's first consideration was (as it commatically had to be) the definition of militia. Note the "enrollment" sentence, that was a surprise

Good thing courts, and their appointed judges, are never more about politics than justice. Hint: that's sarcasm.

I just think it's a misconception that the right to carry arms is presumed to be absolutely provided in 2A, it isn't. I haven't yet found a court ruling that ignores or postpones the first two commas in favour of the third.

That is easy to do when you ignore the author's statements on it for ones made over 100-200 years later.

You still have yet to actually refute the meaning of militia that I gave, which contradicts your commaed meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Until you can show that, as defined by the author's on multiple occasions, is incorrect, no amount of commas or semantics makes it not an individual right.

 

[A2K78]

Fundamentally there isn't anything wrong with background checks. You no longer have the right to buy a gun if you've violated someone else's rights in the past (you lose all kinds of rights when you do that).

The problem with background checks...its nothing but a barrier to lawful gun ownership. Tell me this also, but do you honestly believe criminals are going to submit to a background check when they could just steal a gun or buy one off the street...the same deal with individuals like Eric Harris, Lanza, etc....??

 

[Danoff]

The problem with background checks...its nothing but a barrier to lawful gun ownership. Tell me this also, but do you honestly believe criminals are going to submit to a background check when they could just steal a gun or buy one off the street...the same deal with individuals like Eric Harris, Lanza, etc....??

None of that matters.

We should not be allowing legal gun ownership to people who have violated the rights of others - especially violently. End of story. Next question.

 

[TenEightyOne]

do you honestly believe criminals are going to submit to a background check...?

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

Criminals operate outside the law (committing crimes, it's in their name)