right to bear arms?

[Morning Glory]

this one's for bohoki,
I believe that the term "arms" is a shortened version of the word armament. an armament is basically any tool or weapon used for warfare. It's typically applied in military terms because there have been very few civilizations where people who were not part of an army owned weapons. Usually there was not one army controlled by the government, but several private armies that were basically owned by people who may or may not be members of the government. Sometimes the government or the general of an army would provide weapons, but usually the soldiers had to purchase their own arms and armor. For this reason most people simply couldn't afford to buy weapons, and they had little use for them because they left it up to the army to protect them.

Well, around the time of the American revolution, the drafters of the constitution figured out that if the majority of people don't have weapons, it's pretty easy for the one's that do to control everyone. They created the second amendment with the intention of having a society where the people were self-reliant and there wasn't a minority that ruled everything, and that the people could prevent that from happening if someone tried to.

It's my understanding that they intended for citizens to have use of all available arms. The thing to understand here is that at the time the two most powerful weapons were the cannon and the musket. Despite this, I don't think there were hardly any private citizens that owned cannons. the musket fired a single shot that could travel about 100 yards with less then wonderful accuracy and took 60 seconds to reload. In other words, they never intended for people to own machine guns and missile launchers and grenades.

I still feel that there intentions are relevant today, but that the proliferation of weapons has become an out of control problem. There's another thread about guns that discusses this at length, so you should check that out if you want. hope this maybe answers some of your questions.

[bohoki]

yes but at the time of the first amendment never thought of the internet tv,radio,or even teeshirts

we can only judge with the intentions they had at the time did they want the populus to have free speach and own weapons or not

because the first amendment only refers to congress not any other government agency why expand one amendment and limit another?

ok lets forget about modern weapons

how about sword nunchaku,shruken,
brass knuckles,crossbows,or even flintlock pistols there are laws against all these items and they were arms at the time

all i want is a clearly defined ruling to what it means

why is this not an important freedom? to those who claim to be for civil liberties?

[TheDeathKnight]

ok lets forget about modern weapons
how about sword nunchaku,shruken,
brass knuckles,crossbows,or even flintlock pistols there are laws against all these items and they were arms at the time

Good point...

"Arms" is relegated in most laws to mean only firearms,
when it comes to discussions about "the right the bear arms".

But yes, if we are following the founder's desires,
I ought to be able to own a cannon, etc...

And personally, I think they were not talking about these things
as individual laws, about long-arms, handguns, etc. They were not
that specific. Nor were they specific about all the other details
about the rights of the people. Therefore I think they did indeed
intend for the population to be armed. And armed enough
to overthrow a corrupt government. And I seriously doubt
that the government is going to let people have the kind
of weaponry to make the population equally as armed as
the military.

But hell, considering Iraq, if people wanted to rebel against
a corrupt government, they would not need all kinds of high
tech stuff, to make it really painful for the military.

In some ways I really respect the founding laws and rights
of this country. But just like religion is out of date with
modern concerns, so are the outdated laws of our founders.
As time goes on, there will be more and more strange
technology, and social structures, that may be completely
incompatible with laws that were made hundreds of years ago.
So I think some adjustments to laws are required as time goes on.

I don't think it's wise to have millions of people running around
with machine guns and cannons. But I also think the idea of
keeping the government in check, is a good idea, and not one
to be thrown away in favor of safety. If the laws about freedom
were stronger, and I saw that the government was really much
weaker than people's personal freedoms, then I would not worry
as much about disarming. But because our government seems
to see fit to imprison people without trial, possibly start banning
abortions, and imprisioning people over things like drug use,
euthenasia, etc, I am leery about giving up our right to own
weapons.

[bohoki]

then the second amendment needs to be amended through an act of congress and ratified by the states

not via unconstitutional laws that the supreme court refuses to hear

screw modern firearms just about every where it is illegal bear a loaded flintlock pistol on your person is that an unconstitutional law?

its like the debaters want it both ways when it comes to the first amendment just about every thin is considered free speach (even mooning someone) but when it comes to arms they want to limit it to what they had at the time or when i bring up what they had at the time thre are laws against then they shuck and jive me about how our rights should change

is it a right or not?

[bohoki]

abortions are illegal most of the time

let me explain can a woman 8 months pregnant have an abortion? how about 7 what about 6 ,5 ,4 ,3,2,1

when should the cuttoff be and who decides?

so if abortions can only be had during the first third of the pregnancy then the majority of the pregnancy it is illegal to have an abortion

what if a woman wants to have an abortion before going into labor because she doesnt want to go through labor and the responsibilit of dealing with the fetus

[OliX]

If I was a politician I would consider ejaculation a genocide

[Mr Karl]

I live in canada, it's a crime to carry arms here, if you actually legaly own a gun, or whatever, encase it in a few cubic yards of concrete, and if someone were to figure out a way to steal it even then, and then used it in a crime you'd be liable. which forces us to engage the enemy on spiritual frontiers(you pick your poison), in other words he who can afford the best bullshit wins.

I do envy the simplicity of the states

[bohoki]

man that was irrelevant also i'm pretty sure that third tri-mester are not illegal just regulated

every sperm is not sacred

[Mr Karl]

every sperm is not sacred[/QUOTE]

Amen

[Amelia G]

then the second amendment needs to be amended through an act of congress and ratified by the states

not via unconstitutional laws that the supreme court refuses to hear

screw modern firearms just about every where it is illegal bear a loaded flintlock pistol on your person is that an unconstitutional law?

its like the debaters want it both ways when it comes to the first amendment just about every thin is considered free speach (even mooning someone) but when it comes to arms they want to limit it to what they had at the time or when i bring up what they had at the time thre are laws against then they shuck and jive me about how our rights should change

is it a right or not?

I'm a fan of the documents our founding fathers drew up. I'd like to be permitted to speak my mind and carry a big gun. Or a dainty feminine one.

[ForrestBlack]

I think that the flintlock/cannon debate point is kinda just silly.
I mean, take a look at the first amendment:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If you used the same logic, freedom of the press would only cover primative mechanical printing presses and hand scribed documents, since electronic communication as we know it today was probably not what our forefathers had in mind.


Edit: Oh, wow, I totally skipped over reading above where bohoki made pretty much the same point.

[mollycase]

man that was irrelevant also i'm pretty sure that third tri-mester are not illegal just regulated

every sperm is not sacred

Now I shall be humming Monty Python all night.

[Agent Vicious Vivaldi]

The second amendment also makes mention of, "a well regulated militia." It's rather unclear if it means being the right to be armed is supposed be relegated only to those serving in a military capacitiy. (Clearly American soldiers are armed.) Even so the second Amendment doesn't say people are free to bear weapons. There is a differenence between free and, "the right to not being infringed." People (short of convicted criminals and minors) can easily and freely buy a weapon there's just a lot of paperwork before hand. Not only that but aren't people able to get conceal and carry permits?

I would also find it very hard to beleive that the founding fathers would find much use in personally owning a cannon or something of superflous power like that. I can't imagine what purpose a civilian would have for a .50 cal anti-material rifle or an automatic rifle with a c-mag to shoot off 100 rounds in seconds. Admittedly, it seems fun to just go shoot, "stuff" but as a civilian I don't see much use for it.

With that being said...lately I think gun violence in America is more of a cultural issue rather than an issue of gun legality.

[bohoki]

sorry i blew it spoutin off about abortions

that would put the confundus curse on anybody

man i'm getting addicted to this place the opportunity to slap wit with models and photograpic artists

to find out the models are not brainless bimbos and the photographers are not perverted letches is keen

[Morning Glory]

yeah Forrest, I wasn't saying that we should only be able to own primitive weapons, just that at the time they weren't able to even concieve of the types of modern weaponry that we have today. really, people throughout history always think the way that they are doing things is the way that it's always going to be, because if they could imagine a more advanced way of doing things, then they would do it. and they do do it, that's why technology is always changing. it's really hard to say how they would feel about the way things are today. that's really what the debate is about.

as far as the subject of comparing legislation between the first and second ammendment, It's kind of like apples and oranges. they don't really go together, and you shouldn't use one as a basis for the others. actaully they did think of that very argument, that's why the (something like 7th?) one is That you can't use the conditions of one right to infringe upon another. I personally think that they are obligated to follow them as they are written and they don't have the authority to regulate them. that was really my point in bringing it up in the other thread. the 1st says that you have the right to complain against the government. it doesn't say that you have the right to complain against the government ONLY if you have a permit that is authorized by the government telling you when and where. that pretty much defies the entire point. if the government has the ability to stop you from speaking out against them, then you don't really have that right at all.

from what I know about the character of the founding fathers it's pretty much my understanding that they created the constitution to be purposely vague and open to interpretation. this is so that they could use it as a means to overthrow the british, but to ensure that no one else would use it to overthrow them.

[bohoki]

i got a question
how did congress come to mean all government agencys federal, state,and local

so anybody think there is a court case because my right to nunchucks and ninja stars is being infringed by CA

you have to baby step it a little before you can buy an uzi at walmart

[Agent Vicious Vivaldi]

i got a question
how did congress come to mean all government agencys federal, state,and local

so anybody think there is a court case because my right to nunchucks and ninja stars is being infringed by CA

you have to baby step it a little before you can buy an uzi at walmart

United States v. Cruikshank

In this case, the high court made the following statement: "The right [claimed in this case] is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States."

The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the States to violate "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". The court in Cruikshank argues that because the right to bear arms belongs to all humanity, regardless of whether the Bill of Rights had ever been written, it is not a "privilege ... of citizens of the United States" and therefore not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Such an argument has since been contradicted many times by decisions holding that other clauses of the Bill of Rights, which also merely forbid Congress to violate certain rights rather than creating them, apply to all levels of government.

So it appears that the Second Amendment is directed towards the national government as opposed to specific state laws. Though it seems this holding is contridicted...

and...

The US Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the meaning of the Second Amendment, despite having had a variety of opportunities to do so. This has left supporters of all sides of the debate open to interpret the actions of the court as they see fit.

The federal circuit courts have not agreed upon any single interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Fifth and Ninth circuits represent two extremes of judicial thinking, having embraced the individual and collective rights models respectively.

Despite this inconsistency between the lower courts, the Supreme Court has not granted certiorari to any recent case hinging on the Second Amendment.

The primary Supreme Court cases that address Second Amendment issues are U.S. v. Miller [1939] and U.S. v. Cruikshank [1875]. Both cases have been cited by supporters of both sides of the firearms debate to support their positions.

[Agent Vicious Vivaldi]

i got a question
how did congress come to mean all government agencys federal, state,and local

so anybody think there is a court case because my right to nunchucks and ninja stars is being infringed by CA

you have to baby step it a little before you can buy an uzi at walmart

Come to think of it there's another case dealing with that...

United States v. Miller

Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for transporting an unregistered short-barreled (sawed-off) shotgun across state lines, in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Layton made a plea bargain, but Miller moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the National Firearms Act violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The District Court agreed with Miller and quashed his indictment, and this decision was in turn appealed to the Supreme Court.

In Miller, the Court sustained the statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns and reversed the ruling of the lower court. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that "[w]ith 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 with that end in view." The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Therefore, "[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Crucial to understanding this ruling is the specific wording "in the absence of any evidence". Neither Miller, his co-defendent Frank Layton, nor their attorney, appeared before the court; the justice department attorneys presented their case without any opposition from the appellants. Lacking evidence, the court could not make any emphatic statements in their ruling. The court could not say that the weapon was protected by the Second Amendment, because no case was presented in support of that position.[5]

The case was remanded to the lower court for further consideration. However, as Miller was deceased by this time, no further action was taken, and the question of whether a short-barreled shotgun had actual military purpose was unresolved.

Supporters of the standard model read Miller to support the right of individuals to privately possess and bear their own firearms, while supporters of the States' right model read Miller as endorsing the view that the Second Amendment exists specifically to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia.

It seems effectiveness in a militia is part of the critera for weapons protected by the second Amendment. It seems like ninja stars would have little military purpose...

[Evilbink]

"I like guns, and guns like me." - D.I.

[TheDeathKnight]

It seems effectiveness in a militia is part of the critera for weapons protected by the second Amendment.

So if that is the case, fully-automatic weapons are a very much needed part of an effective militia. If "the people" are supposed to be able to fight against oppression, or invaders, then we would need effective and modern weaponry. Allowing people to only own swords, in the days of muskets, would not be fair, nor would it be fair to put hunting guns up against foreign or domestic oppressors with military weaponry.

I think people really ought to be able to own whatever weapons they want.
But there should be much more regulation of them.
They should be required to be totally secured.
No chance of criminals getting ahold of them.
And MASSIVE penalties for using a gun in an inappropriate way.
Use of a gun in a crime should result in a HUGE sentence.
But if you want to keep them at home, in your gun safe,
"just in case" they are needed, that should be fine.
And the fact that people have them, ought to be enough
to remind the government not to get out of hand...

[Agent Vicious Vivaldi]

I'm not really sure what the holdings were really trying to say to be truthful. It seems rather confusing. It also seems the supreme court hasn't really passed many specific holdings considering the second amendment.

I think people should be able to own whatever they want within reason. I personally read "well regulated milita" as in being a part of a military force. I don't see the point in having a militia that isn't part of the American military. The idea that they'd protect against the tyrany of the government is laughable. Plus America has numerous protections to make that sort of milita unnecessary. Anyways...

I don't think people should be able to buy gernades or rocket launchers or anything of that insane sort...or anti material weapons...A fully automatic rifle? As long as you're willing to go through the paper work, wait times, and proper registration, why not? I beleive in gun control to some extent...more as a matter of economics and supply and demand.

[Toe Cutter]

How absolutely adorable is this pict? Shes got her dress up shoes on and everything.

[Mr Karl]

That is fucking adorable

[Morning Glory]

I like that part in red dawn when it shows a trucks bumper sticker that says "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands." and then it zooms out to a shot of the guys dead body lying next to the truck holding his gun and someone comes over and picks it up and walks away. hahaha. genius.

[bohoki]

my motto is they can have my gun ,but later that night they will have an arrow in the back

[Morning Glory]

I like the way you think.

[skintwisterman]

I maintain the right to arm bears.

Feel my grizzly wrath-- with uzis.

[P I L O T]

this one's for bohoki,
I believe that the term "arms" is a shortened version of the word armament. an armament is basically any tool or weapon used for warfare. It's typically applied in military terms because there have been very few civilizations where people who were not part of an army owned weapons. Usually there was not one army controlled by the government, but several private armies that were basically owned by people who may or may not be members of the government. Sometimes the government or the general of an army would provide weapons, but usually the soldiers had to purchase their own arms and armor. For this reason most people simply couldn't afford to buy weapons, and they had little use for them because they left it up to the army to protect them.

Well, around the time of the American revolution, the drafters of the constitution figured out that if the majority of people don't have weapons, it's pretty easy for the one's that do to control everyone. They created the second amendment with the intention of having a society where the people were self-reliant and there wasn't a minority that ruled everything, and that the people could prevent that from happening if someone tried to.

It's my understanding that they intended for citizens to have use of all available arms. The thing to understand here is that at the time the two most powerful weapons were the cannon and the musket. Despite this, I don't think there were hardly any private citizens that owned cannons. the musket fired a single shot that could travel about 100 yards with less then wonderful accuracy and took 60 seconds to reload. In other words, they never intended for people to own machine guns and missile launchers and grenades.

I still feel that there intentions are relevant today, but that the proliferation of weapons has become an out of control problem. There's another thread about guns that discusses this at length, so you should check that out if you want. hope this maybe answers some of your questions.

I take it your trying to get permits for those missle luanchers in your basement,.. dude I told you already keep the tank out of sight and cover the top of it so they can't take satelite photos and you'll be fine,.. no refunds no exchanges after 30 days you know the rules :P