Gun and gun control

[Osborn F Enready]

Then you don't understand individual rights, as the lines draw themselves if you apply logic to the how rights are applied.

[Winter wind]

Then you don't understand individual rights, as the lines draw themselves if you apply logic to the how rights are applied.

The lines don't draw themselves to you the same way they do to me. You can't just say there is a common idea about where usefulness out weights danger. You have to prove it.

[TRIGGER]

I haven't been on this site in a long time but oh my god!!!! I'm sorry that I haven't been here in a long time but holy crap I started reading this thread and I can't beleave how many times, Winter wind, sonart. Kamehameha34, and HeiloPrime contradicted them selves and that graph that shows gun deaths droping and every other crime sky rocketing out of control and how Kamehameha34 patted him self on the back over that find. I would have been embarrassed to sign my name to that. And most all of your #s are wrong. And I can't beleave all the misleading HS/BS you guys spewed.You guys don't have a clue I wish I'd been here for this I'd of chewed you guys up.

[Sonart]

.


Nice rant, TRIGGER. Care to point out anything specific or is your argument simply "You're all wrong, so there!"?


.

[TRIGGER]

Sonart I am sorry that I lumped you in with the others since you only posted once and as I looked for your posts I realized you shouldn't have been mentioned in my rant. I apologize. I'll just address your post since this thread is so long for me to address it all at once would add quite a few more pages to it and take allot of time. I hope the rest will read this and I will address theirs as well, or as time dictates I'll pop in and address more of this thread. Unless you see something in this thread that you think is valid let me know and I’ll address it.

Quote:
Quote by: Osborn F Enready
Even though we have a standing army, and national guard, we still have the right to a militia, though the government no longer recognizes this militia as an official arm of its defense, except in foreign invasion of our homeland, in which case you would see a national call to arms.

Quote:
Quote by: Sonart
According to whom?

According to the founding fathers in the federalist papers. They (the founding fathers) defined that the militia is to be made up of the whole people except for a few public officials and also that the militia was to be made up of free men. A free man would be someone who is not in the military. Why? A solder is considered government property, no freedom of will. The reason that the militia is to be comprised of the people and not the military is that the people won't use their arms to strip themselves of their own rights and freedoms, but the military would. " It is dangerous to liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them over which they have no control." This is why the National Guard is an army not a militia by the founder’s definition.

Quote:
Quote by: Osborn F Enready
If a weapon is an individually operated weapon that is not WMD, it is legal. Therefore, a suitcase nuke would be illegal, but any individual weapons that are not WMD would be legal, with responsible use.

Quote:
Quote by: Sonart
So what would be considered the responsible, private use of a claymore mine? An anti-tank mine? A daisy-cutter Blu-82? A TOW missile?

A claymore, anti-tank mine, or a daisy-cutter are basically just explosives that can be easily improvised. Example? Timothy McVeigh, Unabomber, suicide bomber, come to mind. A TOW missile? No. Why? It would be considered sensitive technology. Anything that a solder can and or would carry in to battle? Yes.

[Chris the Chees]

You were told that the cultures are different.

Please outline the exactly what makes up this supposedly radical difference in cultures.

You're the one making the positive claim

Wrong, citing culture as the cause of an unprecidentedly high murder rate is making a positive claim.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: TRIGGER According to the founding fathers in the federalist papers.

Which Federalist paper would that be... Madison's No. 46 where he argues that state militias would be more than adequate to resist a federal standing army? Maybe, in 1788. Do you actually think an armed insurrection could succeed against todays U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines?

Interestingly enough, in that same paper, Madison dramatically makes the exact WRONG prediction regarding what would follow a mere 4 score years later... the Civil War, where it became clear that the Federal government and their standing federal military would not allow armed insurrections, even by states, to succeed.

Besides, the Federalist Papers have no standing in law; the resulting Constitution does, and the Constitution makes the status of the Militias quite clear...

Article I Section 8: -- Congress shall have the power...

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II Section 2: -- The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Quote by: TRIGGER They (the founding fathers) defined...

They (the founding fathers) also declared slavery to be perfectly acceptable and denied equal rights to women, making the promises of equaltiy in the Declaration of Independence a lie.

So it seems the founding fathers were neither all wise or all knowing, since the Constitution has been revisited a number of times as our society has evolved.

Fortunately, no such amending was required for the Second Amendment, since it's very language and the obsolescence of the militia has made it meaningless, as determined by the Constitutional arbitors of what is and isn't constitutional... Article III, Section 1: -- "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Quote by: TRIGGER A claymore, anti-tank mine, or a daisy-cutter are basically just explosives that can be easily improvised. Example? Timothy McVeigh, Unabomber, suicide bomber, come to mind. A TOW missile? No. Why? It would be considered sensitive technology. Anything that a solder can and or would carry in to battle? Yes.

That's nice, but it didn't answer my question, did it? What would be considered the responsible use of such weapons by a private citizen?


.

[Baconup]

Sometimes reality means more then any number or statistic.

In November of 1997 just after thanksgiving at around 3:00 in the morning my father was awakened by someone trying to get in through my basement window.

I was 17 at the time and My father woke me up to get my gun. Yes, my gun I was am still am an avid hunter. With no small children I kept it relatively easy to access. He took my gun ran to the bottom of my stairs and fired 3 shots into the wall.

We heard the intruder quickly bolt back from where he came without ever even make a confrontation all because he knew we were armed.

That is why I want the right to have a weopon. I don't need any numbers to back my reasoning up. My life experiences are better.

[Winter wind]

I can't beleave how many times, Winter wind, sonart. Kamehameha34, and HeiloPrime

uh oh. The police have come. Is it time for my 9:00 spanking?

I do wait for the next post (i don't remember half the things I wrote and did most in between classes, so you've probably got some lovely posts on me.)

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Baconup Sometimes reality means more then any number or statistic. In November of 1997 just after thanksgiving at around 3:00 in the morning my father was awakened by someone trying to get in through my basement window. I was 17 at the time and My father woke me up to get my gun. Yes, my gun I was am still am an avid hunter. With no small children I kept it relatively easy to access. He took my gun ran to the bottom of my stairs and fired 3 shots into the wall. We heard the intruder quickly bolt back from where he came without ever even make a confrontation all because he knew we were armed. That is why I want the right to have a weopon. I don't need any numbers to back my reasoning up. My life experiences are better.

That's a real nice story an' all, Baconup, but if our country weren't already armed to the teeth you'd have been less worried that your intruder was armed.

ONCE AGAIN, we're the most violent advanced nation on earth. Is the glee of having scared off that intruder with a gun worth that fact and the fatalities that fact implies??

.

[TRIGGER]

Sonart here is #46.

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops . . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

I think you should read it again. I see no mention of state Militias. It talks of "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation",
Americans arms not state arms. Being that the population of the US was approx. 800,000 back then, Madison meant by a militia half a million strong that militia would be every able bodied man.

Lets not forget Hamilton #29 you should read the whole thing. Here’s some of it.

“But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

George Mason in the debate on the ratification of the Constitution before the Virginia assembly said: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." Mason was also the co-author of the second amendment. In his Fairfax County Militia plan wrote " A well-regulated militia, comprised of Gentlemen, Free-holders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army...And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively promise and engage to keep a good Fire-lock in proper order& to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep with us one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gun flints, and a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouche box or powder horn and a bag of balls."

In Pennsylvania patriot and statesmen Noah Webster wrote, in advocating the ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. 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 that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

You see the people had just finished fighting a bloody war to throw off a tyrannical government. The armed public is what made that victory possible; do you really think they would give up that leverage that made their freedom possible and leave the door open for another to take it’s place?

Even though the federalist papers have no standing in law they are the communication of the founders with the people who had to vote to ratify the constitution. The papers give the people the affirmation of their rights and responsibilities to the nation.

Slavery was acceptable when the constitution was ratified. Some of the Fathers didn’t agree with it. Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Since slaves were considered property the fathers by leaving out the words slave and slavery from the language of the constitution didn’t condemn them to stay slaves but were allowing for their inevitable assention from it. Which happened less than a half century later. As far as the women’s vote that was the culture of most nations back then. Which does continue in some cultures to today as does slavery. Your mention of these facts doesn’t detract from the constitution or it’s framers.

In the first 10 amendments of the constitution are the affirmation of the rights of the people. The militia in the second amendment is the whole people as Mason stated in his debate on ratification.

That's nice, but it didn't answer my question, did it? What would be considered the responsible use of such weapons by a private citizen?


If nothing else as a deterrent to tyranny. Besides you don’t have to have a responsible use for anything else you would possess, do you? All the weapons you mentioned are not really practical to be privately owned since they degrade over time and become unstable. But that shouldn’t prevent you from owning them if you chose to. But don’t for get that the people are the masters of this house not the government.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: TRIGGER I think you should read it again. I see no mention of state Militias. It talks of "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation",

Oh goodie... so it's a disorganized armed rabble that's going to defeat the United States military and overthrow the government. Yeah, I believe that's gonna happen.

Quote by: TRIGGER Hamilton -- "This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

Ok... and so? Is this what we have today? No, not even the National Guard... it's a part the U.S. Army.

And ALL of this, Trigger, fits NOT into the individual right argument, but into the Miller, collective right argument, that the founders distrusted a standing Federal army and so intended for citizens to be armed, not because they had a right to own guns for the sake of owning them, but FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING A WELL REGULATED MILITIA!

Read Hamilton again...

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia."

By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it."

(A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,)

This, on the otherhand...

"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

...is simply a libertarian wet dream. "LIttle, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms," That sound like your armed rabble? Little, if at all, inferior to the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps? To say nothing of just the nations various SWAT teams.

Completely absurd!

Quote by: TRIGGER 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 that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

Since our founding, name ONE armed insurrection against the Federal Government that has succeeded. Just name one!

The ONLY resistance that has succeeded in reforming unjust laws has been PEACEFUL civil disobedience, in the model of Gandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Quote by: TRIGGER You see the people had just finished fighting a bloody war to throw off a tyrannical government.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!

They had just succeeded in an armed rebellion, therefore armed rebellion was, fresh in their minds, very justifiable. But who among the founders, when it became THEIR TURN TO GOVERN -- Washington, Adams, Jeffereson, Madison, etc. -- would have allowed an armed rebellion to succeed against THEIR governments on THEIR watch? None of them. Because, for all their romantic embracing of their glorious revolution, no legitimate government can allow an armed rebellion to succeed against them.

The ever popular...

Toranaga: - "There is no mitigating factor for rebellion against your liege lord."

Blackthorne: - "Unless you win."

Toranaga: - (stares at Blackthorne for a moment, and then laughs) "Very well, you may have named the one mitigating factor."

Quote by: TRIGGER In the first 10 amendments of the constitution are the affirmation of the rights of the people. The militia in the second amendment is the whole people as Mason stated in his debate on ratification.

No, it's not... it's the "Well-Regulated Militia" as defined by the Constitution and by Hamilton...

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need."

How clear does it have to be???

Quote by: TRIGGER Slavery was acceptable when the constitution was ratified. Some of the Fathers didn’t agree with it.

So? It's still right there in the Constitution.

Quote by: TRIGGER although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document.

Oh please, don't play semantics with me... the Nazis didn't use the terms "murder" or "extermination" in their memos either, but there was no mistaking what they meant, any more than we don't understand what the Constitution meant by "other persons".

Quote by: TRIGGER Since slaves were considered property the fathers by leaving out the words slave and slavery from the language of the constitution didn’t condemn them to stay slaves but were allowing for their inevitable assention from it.

Really? Based on what? Let's not forget Article IV, Section 2.

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

They're talking about escaped slaves, Trigger.

Quote by: TRIGGER If nothing else as a deterrent to tyranny. Besides you don’t have to have a responsible use for anything else you would possess, do you?

If it's only reason for existing is to cause massive injury and death, you bet your frigging ass I'd need a responsible reason for it.

Beyond that, after 200 years, the U.S. is no closer to tyranny than any of dozens of other successful, modern, peaceful and gun-controlled democracies around the world. The difference is that WE are by far the most violent of all of them. So the only thing our proliferation of deadly weapons has done is turn us into a sick, murderous society which, despite supposedly being armed just for that purpose, couldn't defeat the mightiest standing army in the world -- the U.S. military -- if it wanted to.

Not quite what the founders had in mind, methinks.

Quote by: TRIGGER But don’t for get that the people are the masters of this house not the government.

Not by force of arms we're not. By the power of the vote.

.

[TRIGGER]

Quote by: Sonart . Oh goodie... so it's a disorganized armed rabble that's going to defeat the United States military and overthrow the government. Yeah, I believe that's gonna happen. .

Well lest you forget there are more veterans of our armed forces in the public than are presently serving. And don’t forget that you will have an exodus of soldiers that would leave the military, were they ordered to turn their guns on the American public. Not to mention those in the government and military who would sympathize with the revolutionaries. I am not saying that our military isn’t the greatest fighting force ever assembled but remember they will be turning their guns on their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands and children that will not sit well with them. Our military is not a mindless killing machine.

So this rabble may be disorganized at first as were the militias in the first revolution, but they won’t be for long. Also consider that what the revolt would look like, the rabble as you call it wouldn’t be an army it would be gorillas blending in to the public taking advantage of every weakness as they organize. The vets and those who resign their commissions won’t be sitting on their hands, they will be organizing the public in to small fast moving teams that will strike and then escape by blending back in to the back ground of the public. And you also cannot ignore the possibility of some of the states could succeed from the union and join the revolt. Also consider that during this unlike the American Revolution where the politicians and leaders were safe in England here they will be surrounded by this rabble that is looking for any opportunity to assonate them.

Also you may want to consider other factors remember the American public is 300 million strong and growing that, could make it up to as much as 200 to 1 that is a numerical advantage that cannot be ignored. All depending on how egregiously the government violates the public trust. Remember the Boston massacre. Only five died there but was one of the major contributing factors to the start of revolution in the north.

Quote by: Sonart .Ok... and so? Is this what we have today? No, not even the National Guard... it's a part the U.S. Army. .

Remember that Samuel Adams reassured the colonists with this “It is dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control. The militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own rights, or suffering others to invade them.” Adams also wrote this “ rights are sacred when the beneficiaries of those rights are entrusted with their safekeeping, and have the means to do so.”

Patrick Henry proclaimed, “ They tell us that we are weak-unable to cope with such a formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? 3 million people armed in a holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”

Quote by: Sonart .And ALL of this, Trigger, fits NOT into the individual right argument, but into the Miller, collective right argument, that the founders distrusted a standing Federal army and so intended for citizens to be armed, not because they had a right to own guns for the sake of owning them, but FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING A WELL REGULATED MILITIA! .

I think you may want to retract your argument on Miller. Obviously you haven’t read it.
The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

This case Miller V The United States was about The National Fire Arms act not the second amendment. It was whether NFA violated the second amendment or not. Since Miller, Layton or their legal counsel did not appeared before the court it is debatable whether the decision was anything more than a default decision. Do you know anything about NFA? NFA is about regulations involving short-barreled rifles; short barreled shotguns and machine guns.

Quote by: Sonart .Read Hamilton again... "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable ; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia ." By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it ." ( A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, )

.

Quote by: Sonart .This, on the other hand... "This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. ...is simply a libertarian wet dream. "Little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms," that sound like your armed rabble? Little, if at all, inferior to the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps? To say nothing of just the nations various SWAT teams. Completely absurd!

Well true, but consider this how would you propose the Air Force and Navy would be useful in this type of fight. It would be an imposable task for them to engage the revolt with out amassing huge civilian casualties in the process. Even the Army and Marines would be limited to mostly ground assaults any weapons that would create extensive collateral damage would put the civilian population at risk as well as fuel the flames of rebellion. Police and swat since they are not the military would be out gunned since the public is better armed than they are. The public has high-powered hunting and sniper rifles going up to and including the 50 cal. bmg rounds that will cut through any body armor and most armored vehicle except heavy armor.

[TRIGGER]

Quote by: Sonart .Since our founding, name ONE armed insurrection against the Federal Government that has succeeded. Just name one!

.

I don’t have to there have been no insurrections, although there was a succession from the US by the Confederate states, which is sanctioned by the constitution. But what happened was an aggressive act by the United States on the Confederacy, which I would call an invasion of a sovereign nation not an insurrection.

Quote by: Sonart .The ONLY resistance that has succeeded in reforming unjust laws has been PEACEFUL civil disobedience, in the model of Gandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

.

· How about the American and French revolutions?
· There were also the Russian revolution and the Cuban revolution though they didn’t benefit the people.
· Of course there was the The Xinhai Revolution of 1911-1912.
· The 1913 Second Revolution.
· The 1917-1922 Constitutional Protection War or Third Revolution.
· The Northern Expidition of 1926-1928, also known as the Nationalist Revolution.
· The Chinese Civil War of 1927-1950. These were also to the detriment of the people ending with the Communist China.
· In Brazil, in a sugar cane region near the Atlantic ocean known as Pernambuco, a group of 40 enslave Africans rebelled against their master. They killed all the white employees and burned the houses and plantation. They headed to a very hostile area in the mountains, known as Palmares, because of its abundance of palm trees. In this place an African community was born which lasted for over 100 years. It was divided into eleven fortified sites. There, a population estimated to be about 20 000 free Africans created a new religion and a common language to bring together at least six different African cultures. It is argued that they organized the first socialist society in world. They also mobilized an army that could take over Pernambuco, if they wanted to. They defeated seven attacks from Brazilian military forces and from a Dutch army that had invaded and occupied that region for some years. They ignored a proposal of peace and freedom for all, from the king of Portugal. Zumbi of Palmares, today a hero for Brazilian blacks, was the name of a young acolyte who grew up and became the greatest leader of this African community. Also in this community the first forms of Capoeira which is a deadly martial art, were developed.
Of course these were not always the benefit of the people but they were still successful revolts nonetheless.

Quote by: Sonart .They had just succeeded in an armed rebellion, therefore armed rebellion was, fresh in their minds, very justifiable. But who among the founders, when it became THEIR TURN TO GOVERN -- Washington, Adams, Jeffereson, Madison, etc. -- would have allowed an armed rebellion to succeed against THEIR governments on THEIR watch? None of them. Because, for all their romantic embracing of their glorious revolution, no legitimate government can allow an armed rebellion to succeed against them.

When it comes to revolution I don’t think that the governing body may have the luxury of just winning as the successful revolutions I already have mentioned prove.

Quote by: Sonart .The ever popular... Toranaga: - "There is no mitigating factor for rebellion against your liege lord." Blackthorne: - "Unless you win." Toranaga: - (stares at Blackthorne for a moment, and then laughs) "Very well, you may have named the one mitigating factor."

.
It’s not clear to me how the loosely based writings of a Novelist have anything do with the Constitution or writings, debates, and speeches of our founding fathers.

Quote by: Sonart .No, it's not... it's the "Well-Regulated Militia" as defined by the Constitution and by Hamilton... But the other fathers as well as Hamilton made it quite clear the militia in the second is the whole people. I think that is quit clear with all the quotes I have given. "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need." How clear does it have to be???

Don’t forget the rest of it.

“By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

Quote by: Sonart .So? It's still right there in the Constitution.

I never said it wasn't.

Quote by: Sonart .Really? Based on what? Let's not forget Article IV, Section 2. "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." They're talking about escaped slaves, Trigger.

In my earlier post I should have made it clearer when I said they were property I was eluding to Article IV, Section 2. Sorry I’ll try to be more specific in the future. I would think that this would also apply to indentured servents don't you?

Quote by: Sonart .If it's only reason for existing is to cause massive injury and death, you bet your frigging ass I'd need a responsible reason for it.

Actually the government does not see it your way since there are those weapons in civilian hands; they are classified as destructive devices and are regulated by the federal government and over seen by BATFE. I think you need to get out more. I wish I had a smiley face to end this with. LOL

Quote by: Sonart .Beyond that, after 200 years, the U.S. is no closer to tyranny than any of dozens of other successful, modern, peaceful and gun-controlled democracies around the world. The difference is that WE are by far the most violent of all of them. So the only thing our proliferation of deadly weapons has done is turn us into a sick, murderous society which, despite supposedly being armed just for that purpose, couldn't defeat the mightiest standing army in the world -- the U.S. military -- if it wanted to.

In your opinion. You may trust this government but there are plenty of us out here that don’t. And we shouldn’t have to have our rights violated on your opinion.

Quote by: Sonart .Not quite what the founders had in mind, methinks.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

Quote by: Sonart .Not by force of arms we're not. By the power of the vote.

A wise philosopher once said “It’s not those who vote that chose public officals. It’s those who count the votes.” Joseph Stalin

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: TRIGGER Well lest you forget there are more veterans of our armed forces in the public than are presently serving. And don’t forget that you will have an exodus of soldiers that would leave the military, were they ordered to turn their guns on the American public. Not to mention those in the government and military who would sympathize with the revolutionaries. I am not saying that our military isn’t the greatest fighting force ever assembled but remember they will be turning their guns on their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands and children that will not sit well with them. Our military is not a mindless killing machine.

My, you're certainly having fun inventing circumstances favorable to your fantasy. Let's see...

-- Veterans tend to be more conservative and more loyal to the government than most citizens.

-- Veterans still won't have access to the military's arsenal.

-- The Civil War has already proven that Americans are perfectly capable of doing just that and under the armed rebellion scenario, it's the rebels who have turned their guns on America and the military who's defending their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands and children from the rebels.

-- And yes, as much as they can possibly train them to be, the military is a mindless killing machine. That's why the more violent video games are so insidious... they use the same process of depersonalizing killing and violence that the military does.

But let's imagine your best case scenario, in which all across America millions of armed rebels take up against the military might of the U.S. government. What we're talking about is a bloodbath the likes of which you can't imagine. You really think that's what the founders had in mind?

Quote by: TRIGGER So this rabble may be disorganized at first as were the militias in the first revolution, but they won’t be for long. Also consider that what the revolt would look like, the rabble as you call it wouldn’t be an army it would be gorillas blending in to the public taking advantage of every weakness as they organize

Right... cuz it's working so well in Iraq.

Quote by: TRIGGER Also you may want to consider other factors remember the American public is 300 million strong and growing that, could make it up to as much as 200 to 1 that is a numerical advantage that cannot be ignored.

You're saying that if all 300 million Americans were opposed to the government, they couldn't find a better way to remove it than armed rebellion?? Jeez, we really are a sick society.

Quote by: TRIGGER Remember that Samuel Adams reassured the colonists with this “It is dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control. The militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own rights, or suffering others to invade them.”

I live in San Diego, California, home of one-third of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, MCRD and Camp Pendleton Marine Corp training center and Miramar Marine Corp Air Base.

And no militia anywhere to be seen. Yet the military, as it has been for the past 200 years, is under firm civilian control.

You're living in a dreamland, TRIGGER. Read where Adams discusses the militia in terms of the reality that the vast majority of the borders of the 13 states sit on wilderness frontier, far from the centers of political power, and therefore in desperate need of a militia that can be quickly called upon when needed.

That sound like the country you live in???

I think you may want to retract your argument on Miller. Obviously you haven’t read it.

I've read it many times, as well as the 8 Courts of Appeals the affirm and expand on it. For example...

9th Circuit Court, Silveira v Lockyer

--"Our court, like every other federal court of appeals to reach the issue except for the Fifth Circuit, has interpreted Miller as rejecting the traditional individual rights view. In Hickman v. Block, we held that "the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." 81 F.3d at 102 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Like the other courts, we reached our conclusion regarding the Second Amendment's scope largely on the basis of the rather cursory discussion in Miller, and touched only briefly on the merits of the debate over [*22] the force of the amendment. See id.

After conducting our analysis of the meaning of the words employed in the amendment's two clauses, and the effect of their relationship to each other, we concluded that the language and structure of the amendment strongly support the collective rights view. The preamble establishes that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the maintenance of effective state militias, and the amendment's operative clause establishes that this objective was to be attained by preserving the right of the people to "bear arms" -- to carry weapons in conjunction with their service in the militia. . . .

IV. [*106] CONCLUSION

Because the Second Amendment affords only a collective right to own or possess guns or other firearms, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims is AFFIRMED."--

3rd Circuit Court, United States v. Rybar

4th Circuit Court, Love v. Peppersack

6th Circuit Court, United States v. Warin

7th Circuit Court, Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis

8th Circuit Court,