I’ve scanned some of the posts made on this thread, and I certainly would like to add my two cents worth since the subject has touched a raw nerve. Pardon me while I get up on my soap box, and please understand I’m not lashing out at anyone specifically.
Topic 1:
2nd Amendment: 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.
I find it hard to believe that some can not grasp the meaning. So, let’s begin with quotes from the founding fathers and approved commentators on the right to keep and bear arms to help explain what they meant.
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
“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 pretence, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia 1787.
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“Whereas, 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; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” -Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” –George Mason, Virginia Delegation, Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788
“The great object is that every man be armed…” –Patrick Henry, Virginia Delegation, Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788
This just a small sample of evidence that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to enumerate, not grant, an inherent right to arms for defense of the nation against enemies domestic and foreign and self defense at home. U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs. Cruikshank clearly states that our rights are in no way dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. Hunting and sport shooting are consequences of the second amendment, not primaries. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or has trouble with the definition of the word “is”. The clam by the anti-gunners that the second amendment must be restricted or otherwise people will claim that there’s a right to nuclear arms, missiles, tanks, etc, is nothing short of just trying to whip up hysteria and scare people. The second amendment was intended to ensure that the citizen was armed equal to the infantryman. Tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons are not standard issue to the infantryman. U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs. Miller (1939) made this very clear. The court stated: “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.”
Topic 2
Assault weapons:
The AR-15 and AK-47 (semi-auto version) or any other semi-auto rifle or semi-auto shotguns are not assault weapons. They have nothing more to do with “assault weapons” than the cars we drive have anything to do with NASCAR. A full-auto select fire M-16, H&K MP5, AK-47 (full-auto version) can fit this definition. Every type of weapon has its niche to fill. Will an upland hunter use an AR-15 to hunt quail? Of course not, but that is no reason to ban the AR-15 since the 2nd amendment states there is an inherent right to keep and bear arms, not just fowling pieces. The Georgia State Supreme made an interesting ruling in regards to this that is almost prophetic with the issue of banning so-called “assault weapons” in the case Nunn vs. State 1846: The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution and void, which contravenes this right...
These semi-auto guns have their place just as any other rifle, shotgun, handgun, or machine gun. Just in case anyone believes that letting civilians own machine guns is dangerous, consider this: Since 1939 there has been only one crime reported with a lawfully owned machine gun, and it was committed by a police officer against his own family. I trust no one will claim that if machine guns were banned, this would have never happened.
General Comments:
Anti-gunners love to claim that we need "reasonable restrictions" on the 2nd amendment. The first question is reasonable to whom? Reasonable is a fluid term, not a concrete principle. I think we should put "reasonable restrictions" on the 1st amendment and abortion too. Let's apply the catch phrase "the founders could not have imagined machine guns" to "the founders could not have imagined television, movies, video games, the internet, or abortion" as justification for restrictions on the 1st amendment. If it does not violate one amendment (inspite of the shall not be infringed statement), it certainly can not violate another, right? Of course, the liberal establishment would go nuts along with the media who profits from the violece and pornography they pimp on our culture and fund the liberals who assault our rights for the violence they help create. There are thousands of independent academic studies showing long term exposure to violent media causes violence in our society.
I noticed a few remarks about firearms registration. The next time the anti-gunners claim that we need firearms registration and licensing to reduce crime or that gun control only targets criminals and not lawful citizens, remind them of this: No criminal can ever be charged with NOT having a firearms license or registered gun per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Haynes vs. U.S. (390, U.S. 85, 1968) on 5th amendment grounds, meaning these laws can only be enforced against lawful citizens. This begs the question, what do you call a government that recognizes Constitutional rights for criminals, but can not grasp the definition of “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” for lawful citizens?
Last edited by JM; 02/23/07 05:48 PM.
