The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Jiggyfly]

Because there's nothing of substance in the first part. There's nothing there to make actual black letter law out of. Like I said there's no directive there.

It's like saying, because of X, then Y. Y is the only part that has substance. X is explanatory.

There is something of substance in the 1st part, "Well regulated militia"

You are acting like that is a throwaway line, they both have meaning or it would not be there.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Interesting, I haven't heard any discussions on the danger of a Glock. What shows are you watching?

Every report mentioned he had 2 weapons and one of them was a handgun.

I don't know how you missed that.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Every report mentioned he had 2 weapons and one of them was a handgun.

I don't know how you missed that.

Haha because they are always very specific that it is an assault rifle and mention all kinds of stuff about that weapon and then at the end of the the sentence it gives some bland throw in "and a pistol."

Description by CNN and a perfect example of what I'm talking about "Salman is coming under increasing scrutiny as police investigate the killing of 49 people and wounding of at least 50 at the gay nightclub in Orlando. Authorities say Mateen carried out the killing with a Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic assault-style rifle and a pistol."

 

[Genghis Khan]

There is something of substance in the 1st part, "Well regulated militia"

You are acting like that is a throwaway line, they both have meaning or it would not be there.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"


What LEGAL substance is there? You can't make a law out of the first part.

It's essentially saying in more layman's terms, "a trained militia is necessary for the security of a free country."

What law are you trying to assert should come of this clause? There's no directive there.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Basically what that amendment is trying to say is, "We want citizens to have guns because we don't trust standing armies."

Breaking it down further:

"We love liberty and freedom.

Therefore we must protect ourselves from foreign governments with arms.

However, we don't trust standing armies or our own government.

So, our citizens must have the ability to arm themselves."

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Basically what that amendment is trying to say is, "We want citizens to have guns because we don't trust standing armies."

Breaking it down further:

"We love liberty and freedom.

Therefore we must protect ourselves from foreign governments with arms.

However, we don't trust standing armies or our own government.

So, our citizens must have the ability to arm themselves."

Exactly correct.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Exactly correct.

I don't get the implication of distrust of Standing Armies , Militias , etc. It seems to me that it's saying even with Military that is well drilled they cannot be everywhere to protect the citizenry therefore there is a need to be well armed to protect themselves.

If you look t the circumstances at the time much of the population were not centered in townships nor was there a standing army ready and available. In addition there was still the threat of another country that might want to try to take over. It seems to center on encouraging citizens to keep themselves armed.

 

[L.T. Fan]

To what extent, though? Does this mean citizens should be buying grenades/explosives at Big 5? Why can't we carry guns on airplanes - f'n box cutters took 9/11

if citizens are to defend ourselves against our own military and foreign military, we need more than guns. Ferguson riots would've been more interesting.

That's the jist of the debates. There are those that say the need for everyone to arm themselves to the hilt is no longer necessary because of all the layers of law enforcement and the standing military. They feel that is generally sufficient to protect the citizenry.

The opposing side says that they have a constitutional right to arm themselves regardless of the provisions of protection available. Even with that they can still be in danger from domestic threats and have every right to self protection.

It's has been at an impasse for years and will continue to be so. The citizens have usually taken the position of the political position which is conservative or liberal and we know how that shakes out.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I don't get the implication of distrust of Standing Armies , Militias , etc. It seems to me that it's saying even with Military that is well drilled they cannot be everywhere to protect the citizenry therefore there is a need to be well armed to protect themselves.

If you look t the circumstances at the time much of the population were not centered in townships nor was there a standing army ready and available. In addition there was still the threat of another country that might want to try to take over. It seems to center on encouraging citizens to keep themselves armed.

It's in the context.

A) The founders directly said these things about mistrust of government and standing armies in other outlets.

B) If you look at many of the state constitutions and conventions at the time with right to bear arms provisions it's much clearer where they were coming from.

To wit:

VIRGINIA

(June 12, 1776)

13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

DELAWARE

(September 11, 1776)

18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

PENNSYLVANIA

(September 28, 1776)

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

MARYLAND

(November 11, 1776)

XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NORTH CAROLINA

(December 18, 1776)

XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

VERMONT

(July 8, 1777)

XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …

MASSACHUSETTS

(October 25, 1780)

XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

(June 2, 1784)

XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

In addition to these legislative enactments of bills or declarations of rights, there were numerous other proclamations being promulgated at the time. For example:

INSTRUCTIONS OF TOWN MEETING, PRESTON, CONNECTICUT

(November 26, 1787)

It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."

MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION

(December 12, 1787)

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.

DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION

(February 6, 1788)

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION

(June 21, 1788)

Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

VIRGINIA CONVENTION

(June 27, 1788)

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

NEW YORK CONVENTION

(July 7,1788)

That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.

NEW YORK CONVENTION

(July 26,1788)

That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION

(May 29, 1790)

XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

 

[Cotton]

Hey [MENTION=21]Iamtdg[/MENTION] This is exactly what I was talking about in my first post.

I know, man. It's frustrating.

 

[L.T. Fan]

It's in the context.

A) The founders directly said these things about mistrust of government and standing armies in other outlets.

B) If you look at many of the state constitutions and conventions at the time with right to bear arms provisions it's much clearer where they were coming from.

To wit:

VIRGINIA

(June 12, 1776)

13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

DELAWARE

(September 11, 1776)

18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

PENNSYLVANIA

(September 28, 1776)

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

MARYLAND

(November 11, 1776)

XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NORTH CAROLINA

(December 18, 1776)

XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

VERMONT

(July 8, 1777)

XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …

MASSACHUSETTS

(October 25, 1780)

XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

(June 2, 1784)

XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

In addition to these legislative enactments of bills or declarations of rights, there were numerous other proclamations being promulgated at the time. For example:

INSTRUCTIONS OF TOWN MEETING, PRESTON, CONNECTICUT

(November 26, 1787)

It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."

MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION

(December 12, 1787)

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.

DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION

(February 6, 1788)

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION

(June 21, 1788)

Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

VIRGINIA CONVENTION

(June 27, 1788)

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

NEW YORK CONVENTION

(July 7,1788)

That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.

NEW YORK CONVENTION

(July 26,1788)

That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION

(May 29, 1790)

XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

Calf Rope. . (Concede )

 

[fortsbest]

http://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/06/hawaii-governor-puts-all-legal-gun-owners-into-fbi-criminal-watch-list-database/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=gunsnfreedom

This is scary. Someone there had better take this crap to court and fast!

 

[L.T. Fan]

http://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/06/hawaii-governor-puts-all-legal-gun-owners-into-fbi-criminal-watch-list-database/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=gunsnfreedom

This is scary. Someone there had better take this crap to court and fast!

What is there about this that disturbs you? As far as I can see it is a data base of gun owners. I may be missing something but how different is it from a data base of automobile owners?

 

[fortsbest]

When was the last time half the politicians in the country wanted to come and take your cars away from you. Despite the fact more people are killed with them than guns?

 

[fortsbest]

In addition, most if not all states already have laws that make gun ownership illegal if a gun owner commits certain offenses. felonies, and family violence for instance. A criminal history i( which is national) is already checked as part of a regular back ground check so why is there a need to put people in a federal database, and what offenses get you put on this list? And how will it be used? Obama has recently eliminated the need for felons to fess up on federal applications. Can that FBI list be used to single folk out like IRS dos for him? I'm in law enforcement and I have several issues with this LT.

 

[boozeman]

When was the last time half the politicians in the country wanted to come and take your cars away from you. Despite the fact more people are killed with them than guns?

An incredibly stupid analogy. Guns have a different purpose than automobiles.

 

[Cotton]

An incredibly stupid analogy. Guns have a different purpose than automobiles.

Knives don't, and they kill people, too. As does fertilizer. The analogy holds.

 

[boozeman]

Knives don't, and they kill people, too. As does fertilizer. The analogy holds.

It actually doesn't but whatever.

 

[Cotton]

It actually doesn't but whatever.

So, where do you draw the line in what kills people? McVay killed 160+ people with fertilizer. Where is the ban?

BTW, there have been quite a few incidents lately of people driving through crowds of people and killing many. The analogy holds.

 

[L.T. Fan]

In addition, most if not all states already have laws that make gun ownership illegal if a gun owner commits certain offenses. felonies, and family violence for instance. A criminal history i( which is national) is already checked as part of a regular back ground check so why is there a need to put people in a federal database, and what offenses get you put on this list? And how will it be used? Obama has recently eliminated the need for felons to fess up on federal applications. Can that FBI list be used to single folk out like IRS dos for him? I'm in law enforcement and I have several issues with this LT.

I'm cool with that. I am not passionate one way or another about guns. I guess I would feel differently if I was an enthusiast.