Gun Ban struck down

[corndog]

In the simplest of terms, "well-regulated" means that when the time came, the folks knew how to use a gun. Regulated doesn't mean as in government regulations, it means drilled or trained.

So to translate the amendment:

People should be allowed to have guns so they know how to use them when/if the time comes.

 

[basas]

I welcome this decision and our Constitution lives on!!!

 

[GeorgeG]

For something that was supposedly intended to be easily understood by the people we certainly have a lot of confusion and argument.

To address one argument concerning the interpretation of "invasion" versus "terrorist attack," we might consider that technology over that past few centuries has changed most concepts the founding fathers held. Back in the days of muzzleloading flintlock rifles and pistols, about the only difference between the military and the people would have been uniforms and cannons. An invasion in those days would have been a military maneuver and that concept has changed drastically in recent decades.

Today, we are not looking at a handful of yahoos trying to overthrow the government with deer rifles. We're talking about an individual freedom to defend ourselves one-on-one against a domestic violator. Such freedom was probably simply taken for granted back then, as it should be today.

I'm guessing that if the founding fathers had even a clue what things would be like today, the Bill of Rights may well have been enough to fill a library. In any form of government there will be those who thrive on power and control. In many ways, a democracy can end up much like a dictatorship with no single ruler.

If we don't have individual rights, we have none at all.

 

[dcentity2000]

In the simplest of terms, "well-regulated" means that when the time came, the folks knew how to use a gun. Regulated doesn't mean as in government regulations, it means drilled or trained.

So to translate the amendment:

People should be allowed to have guns so they know how to use them when/if the time comes.

That certainly is one interpretation.

Me, I take the language a little more literally. For example, I take the term "militia" to mean "a military force ... to supplement a regular army in an emergency" and the term and the phrase "necessary to the security of a free State" to mean, well, needed to defend the nation as a whole when said nation is specifically threatened on a fundamental level".

But that's just an interpretation.

What's needed is a CLEAR and PRECISE piece of legislation - NOT common law - that clarifies the issue one way or the other.

In the absence of any clear cut clarification, the amendment retains it's shroud of mystery to me.



Rich::

 

[corndog]

Me, I take the language a little more literally. For example, I take the term "militia" to mean "a military force ... to supplement a regular army in an emergency" and the term and the phrase "necessary to the security of a free State" to mean, well, needed to defend the nation as a whole when said nation is specifically threatened on a fundamental level".

That is exactly how I take it as well. Such definition is not at all at odds with my explanation. And if our militia (if needed) is going to be worth a squat, they had better know how to use a gun.

 

[dcentity2000]

That is exactly how I take it as well. Such definition is not at all at odds with my explanation. And if our militia (if needed) is going to be worth a squat, they had better know how to use a gun.

I just wish that the amendment had been phrased like "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

It would make things a lot easier Instead there's all this ambiguity!



Rich::

 

[corndog]

If you understand the language and context of 1789 in the USA, there is no ambiguity. If you don't like guns, you'll find ambiguity no matter the words said.

It's like our 1st Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, . . . ." Could there be a less ambiguous statement than that? But yet it has stopped opponents of religion and speech from enacting laws that are diametrically opposed to that language.

 

[dcentity2000]

If you understand the language and context of 1789 in the USA, there is no ambiguity. If you don't like guns, you'll find ambiguity no matter the words said.

It's like our 1st Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, . . . ." Could there be a less ambiguous statement than that? But yet it has stopped opponents of religion and speech from enacting laws that are diametrically opposed to that language.

*Shrugs*

We just have different opinions. There's no shame in that



Rich::

 

[corndog]

If you understand the language and context of 1789 in the USA, there is no ambiguity. If you don't like guns, you'll find ambiguity no matter the words said.

It's like our 1st Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, . . . ." Could there be a less ambiguous statement than that? But yet it has stopped opponents of religion and speech from enacting laws that are diametrically opposed to that language.

Make that 1791, not 1789.

 

[Chicago526]

For something that was supposedly intended to be easily understood by the people we certainly have a lot of confusion and argument.

To address one argument concerning the interpretation of "invasion" versus "terrorist attack," we might consider that technology over that past few centuries has changed most concepts the founding fathers held. Back in the days of muzzleloading flintlock rifles and pistols, about the only difference between the military and the people would have been uniforms and cannons. An invasion in those days would have been a military maneuver and that concept has changed drastically in recent decades.

Today, we are not looking at a handful of yahoos trying to overthrow the government with deer rifles. We're talking about an individual freedom to defend ourselves one-on-one against a domestic violator. Such freedom was probably simply taken for granted back then, as it should be today.

I'm guessing that if the founding fathers had even a clue what things would be like today, the Bill of Rights may well have been enough to fill a library. In any form of government there will be those who thrive on power and control. In many ways, a democracy can end up much like a dictatorship with no single ruler.

If we don't have individual rights, we have none at all.

But if we are willing to change our definition of "invasion", why can't we change our definition of "regulated" as well?

I've taken the middle road when it comes to gun ownership. The general public should be able to own fire arms, but I've got no issue with the government (local, state, federal) saying that certain types of people can't own guns (those with criminal records or history of mental illness) or that you can't own certain typs of guns (fully automatic assault riffels).

 

[beachblanket]

to translate the amendment:

People should be allowed to have guns so they know how to use them when/if the time comes.

 

[corndog]

But if we are willing to change our definition of "invasion", why can't we change our definition of "regulated" as well?

I've taken the middle road when it comes to gun ownership. The general public should be able to own fire arms, but I've got no issue with the government (local, state, federal) saying that certain types of people can't own guns (those with criminal records or history of mental illness) or that you can't own certain typs of guns (fully automatic assault riffels).

That's not changing the meaning of invasion. Rather, it's a recognition that an invasion can come in various forms. That's entirely different animal from saying that "trained" now means subject to complete government prohibition and control.

As for you "tak[ing] the middle road", that's nice and all, but you and I don't get to decide what the constitution means based on our personal policy preferences.

 

[GeorgeG]

But if we are willing to change our definition of "invasion", why can't we change our definition of "regulated" as well?
I've taken the middle road when it comes to gun ownership. The general public should be able to own fire arms, but I've got no issue with the government (local, state, federal) saying that certain types of people can't own guns (those with criminal records or history of mental illness) or that you can't own certain typs of guns (fully automatic assault riffels).

That's just it. The founding fathers didn't know (couldn't know) back then how the world would develope over the generations. Even their wildest guess couldn't even come close. Thus, we find ourselves struggling with interpretations that tend to fit the cause of the interpreter at any given moment. The same can be said to other amendments, at least to some extent. What were deemed rights or freedoms a few centuries ago is now taken for granted. If we start changing amendments we might accomplish a lot, or open an ugly can of worms. The players would surely be a mix of anti-gunners and pro-gunners, people who feel religion has no place in government and those who want religion to control government, and so on.

I think we just need to worry less about honest citizens and their guns and focus more on the dishonest and their crimes.

 

[dcentity2000]

That's just it. The founding fathers didn't know (couldn't know) back then how the world would develope over the generations. Even their wildest guess couldn't even come close. Thus, we find ourselves struggling with interpretations that tend to fit the cause of the interpreter at any given moment. The same can be said to other amendments, at least to some extent. What were deemed rights or freedoms a few centuries ago is now taken for granted. If we start changing amendments we might accomplish a lot, or open an ugly can of worms. The players would surely be a mix of anti-gunners and pro-gunners, people who feel religion has no place in government and those who want religion to control government, and so on.

I think we just need to worry less about honest citizens and their guns and focus more on the dishonest and their crimes.

That's a rather interesting take on it and one that hadn't crossed my mind.

I vote that the best thing to do would be for the US Government - or whatever is in control of legislation - to pass legislation that clarified and updated the situation. Either which way, it would shout twits like me up



Rich::

 

[Charade]

If you understand the language and context of 1789 in the USA, there is no ambiguity. If you don't like guns, you'll find ambiguity no matter the words said.

It's like our 1st Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, . . . ." Could there be a less ambiguous statement than that? But yet it has stopped opponents of religion and speech from enacting laws that are diametrically opposed to that language.

*cough* lemon test *cough*

 

[CowboyCO]

But if we are willing to change our definition of "invasion", why can't we change our definition of "regulated" as well?

I've taken the middle road when it comes to gun ownership. The general public should be able to own fire arms, but I've got no issue with the government (local, state, federal) saying that certain types of people can't own guns (those with criminal records or history of mental illness) or that you can't own certain typs of guns (fully automatic assault riffels).

Then for the most part, you should agree with the Scalia opinion. He has left open that state and local gov't can have regulations (such as registration) and limits to who can own guns. His opinion also stated that no restrictions could be placed on the type of guns that a person could own.

 

[Charade]

That's a rather interesting take on it and one that hadn't crossed my mind.

I vote that the best thing to do would be for the US Government - or whatever is in control of legislation - to pass legislation that clarified and updated the situation. Either which way, it would shout twits like me up



Rich::

That would require an amendment to our constitution. The general assembly can't do that by itself. It takes 3/4ths of the states to add and amendment to our consititution. That's a good thing. Just to show how hard that is, compare the number of amendents in 230 years vs. the number of regular laws. The total number of amendments is less than 30 while there are probably millions of other laws on the books throughout the US.

 

[corndog]

His opinion also stated that no restrictions could be placed on the type of guns that a person could own.

Well, that's entirely untrue:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [citations omitted]

 

[dcentity2000]

That would require an amendment to our constitution. The general assembly can't do that by itself. It takes 3/4ths of the states to add and amendment to our consititution. That's a good thing. Just to show how hard that is, compare the number of amendents in 230 years vs. the number of regular laws. The total number of amendments is less than 30 while there are probably millions of other laws on the books throughout the US.

See, I didn't know this. It certainly makes things more awkward.

Perhaps the second amendment could be subjected to common law? Perhaps it already has been and it is the subject of this thread? I honestly do not know



Rich::

 

[CowboyCO]

Well, that's entirely untrue:

Not entirely untrue -- My statement was too broad to reflect the court's finding and I admit that error in my paraphrasing. The point that I was trying to make is that it was found unconstitutional to restrict ownership of handguns, for example. If a gun is legally and commonly available, including so-called "assault-weapons", then it's ownership cannot be restricted except in cases such as mental health and convicted felons.