Obama supports new bid to ban assault weapons.

[Javier h]

I heard on the radio AM640 a few minutes ago

Sales for bullet proof backpacks have tripled!

Assuming this is true, what kinda nonsense is this turning into where you kiss your first grader good bye and send him along in a bullet proof vest of sorts!

I have no doubts if this continues, we'll all be living in a different world 30 years from now ala no guns.

The flip side of discussion on the radio was having teachers trained in using guns etc.

Does this mean we'll all be inclined to hiring younger males as teacher since they'll be quicker on the draw than someone who is less capable?

[CorvallisBMW]

"Shall not be infriged." Seems pretty cut and dry.

You forgot the first half of that sentence, the part that says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

[slammin.e28]

You forgot the first half of that sentence, the part that says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

So, therefore, the confiscation of firearms shall, in essence, take the "free" part away from the "state".

This is not a good thing.

[NV325i]

Good. Ban them both (assault weapons and hi-cap mags) and make them illegal to own, buy, sell, trade or operate.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia. They've got lots of automatic weapons, no taxes and very little government. You'll love it.

Banning them doesn't change anything. All it does is prevent the normal\legal ownership of these items. Bad guys will always find ways to get guns, this bill will not stop them from getting them.

[CorvallisBMW]

My point is that the constitution clearly lays out those for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, namely "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Think National Guard, etc. You, me, and Joe the Plumber don't count as well-regulated militias, and that's how the law was interpreted for over 250 years until a majority of partisan-elected justices decided to change it. Do I disagree with SCOTUS? Sure I do. I believe their ruling was politically motivated, just like Citizens United was. They are not above lining the pockets of those that got them their positions.

[$hane]

You forgot the first half of that sentence, the part that says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

I chose to leave it out because so many here fail to recognize its true meaning. Whereas "shall not be infringed" can be understood by anyone.

[joshh]

My point is that the constitution clearly lays out those for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, namely "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Think National Guard, etc. You, me, and Joe the Plumber don't count as well-regulated militias, and that's how the law was interpreted for over 250 years until a majority of partisan-elected justices decided to change it. Do I disagree with SCOTUS? Sure I do. I believe their ruling was politically motivated, just like Citizens United was. They are not above lining the pockets of those that got them their positions.

Were the founders confiscating guns from those who clearly couldn't serve in the militia? You have not a shred of valid point.

[rattfink81]

Who regulates the militia? The federal government? It was written to protect joe the plumber from a over bearing intrusive government if need be. There are shit loads of "militia's" out there that are well trained and self regulated, not my cup of tea but I think they match the model of the minute men when the constitution was written.

[CorvallisBMW]

There are shit loads of "militia's" out there that are well trained and self regulated, not my cup of tea but I think they match the model of the minute men when the constitution was written.

You mean there are a bunch of right-wing, racist, neo-nazi psychos who hoard guns and ammo and wait to defend us against the impending UN invasion (Or a minority president. Take your pick).

The minutemen were developed to protect against a foreign power that was actually on our soil, actively trying to take over the land. They're NOTHING alike.

[mrsleeve]

My point is that the constitution clearly lays out those for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, namely "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Think National Guard, etc. You, me, and Joe the Plumber don't count as well-regulated militias, and that's how the law was interpreted for over 250 years until a majority of partisan-elected justices decided to change it. Do I disagree with SCOTUS? Sure I do. I believe their ruling was politically motivated, just like Citizens United was. They are not above lining the pockets of those that got them their positions.

Are you sure you want to take this approach to quantify the 2a you might be kinda surprised to where it leads

Since I have already typed all this out before I am going to quote myself .

the militia and shall not be infringed.

The feds define all able bodied men 17-45 and not in the military and former military up to age 64 as part of the Militia. There for if shit hits the fan an organization is called every one in that demographic is expected to show up "Bearing ARMS" You must provide your own weapons. And since you have been called up it would not be a good Idea to show up with a fucking musket when the forces you will be facing have modern weaponry to the time. This is why its implied that we have the ability to own what ever is available to the modern foot solider, as during the revolution, the Patriots had arguably better arms than did the British, Rifles in many cases vs the brits and their smooth bore muskets.

Now as to the "regulated" part. This does not mean you go out a play army in the woods of southern MI with your buddies on the week end. Regulated in the instance of the 2a, as written means disciplined in the use of your own arms, or proficient
and know how to use them. ( Regulate 3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <IE regulate the pressure of a tire> - Websters)

So to close "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Means that Personal gun owner ship is necessary right for with out it there would be no Militia at all, and you argue that a Militia is NECESSARY to a free state so there for personal gun ownership is necessary to the security of a free state right. These provisions go hand in hand for with out one there would not be the other and Vice Versa.



Both historicity and constitutionally the militia argument both you and the gun grabbers are trying to use to quantify the 2a holds no water what so ever, Please try again

Also the national guard is not the Militia, do the national guard get to take and keep their arms at home. NO, the National Guard is nothing more than a standby branch of the regular military. Again with the good try

[CorvallisBMW]

You forgot the first half of that sentence, the part that says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

I chose to leave it out because so many here fail to recognize its true meaning. Whereas "shall not be infringed" can be understood by anyone.

You don't get to just leave off the part of the sentence you don't agree with. This is the English language and a sentence is a sentence. Note how "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." is the Noun form, and "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the Verb form. Noun + Verb = sentence. You can't cherry-pick the words you want to hear and ignore the rest that proceed them.

If the Founding Fathers had intended for anyone and everyone to have unlimited access to all arms, why would they use the qualifier in the first half of the sentence? The answer is that they didn't. Had they wanted what you all claim they wanted, they would have said so. But they didn't. They put that qualifier in for a very good reason, a reason that the gun nuts seem to either ignore (case in point) or simply pretend they qualify as part of.

[rattfink81]

So I see your all about stero typing. Makes for much simpler arguements on your part. Not every militia is based around hate and extremist views just like not ever one driving a e30 is a want to be hipster. If your arguement is going to be blinded by your extreme views to the subject then it's a pointless arguement. Finding middle ground and trying to understand various pieces of the problem is the only way to something resembling a solution.

[Cronopoulos]

Time to stock up on ammo and more guns that may potentially go away here soon.

[frankenbeemer]

You mean there are a bunch of right-wing, racist, neo-nazi psychos who hoard guns and ammo and wait to defend us against the impending UN invasion (Or a minority president. Take your pick).

The minutemen were developed to protect against a foreign power that was actually on our soil, actively trying to take over the land. They're NOTHING alike.

You forgot misogynist. And you are wrong. The second amendment is also about tyranny, not just invasion. I doubt you were unaware of this.

On the matter of militia:

Tenche Coxe: “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.

Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Edit I don't believe the G. Washington quote above is correct. My apologies. I stand by the others, and the original assertion that the militia is the whole people, not the national guard.

And for those who scoff at the militia's chances vs the regular military I give you Sanford Levinson:

The private keeping of hand-held personal firearms is within the constitutional design for a counter to government run amok... As the Tianamen Square tragedy showed so graphically, AK 47's fall into that category of weapons, and that is why they are protected by the Second Amendment." It is simply silly to respond that small arms are irrelevant against nuclear armed states; Witness contemporary Northern Ireland and the territories occupied by Israel, where the sophisticated weaponry of Great Britain and Israel have proved almost totally beside the point. The fact that these may not be pleasant examples does not affect the principal point, that a state facing a totally disarmed population is in a far better position, for good or ill, to suppress popular demonstrations and uprisings than one that must calculate the possibilities of its soldiers and officials being injured or killed.

[mrsleeve]

You don't get to just leave off the part of the sentence you don't agree with. This is the English language and a sentence is a sentence. Note how "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." is the Noun form, and "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the Verb form. Noun + Verb = sentence. You can't cherry-pick the words you want to hear and ignore the rest that proceed them.

If the Founding Fathers had intended for anyone and everyone to have unlimited access to all arms, why would they use the qualifier in the first half of the sentence? The answer is that they didn't. Had they wanted what you all claim they wanted, they would have said so. But they didn't. They put that qualifier in for a very good reason, a reason that the gun nuts seem to either ignore (case in point) or simply pretend they qualify as part of.

please see the post above this one for the answer's to your questions or am I on your ignore list.

Or do you just care not to debate this topic with me. Becuase I keep handing you your ass on a platter with every attempt you make