Finally, a solution to the 2nd Amendment

[Smuckatelli]

Become a victim.....

The police officer added that, "This is a mayor who, as chair of the Council, cut 400 police positions and failed to enact tougher laws for repeat offenders.  Now we know why. His crime fighting strategy apparently involves giving up and just living with being scared. Accepting violent crime and victimization is not an acceptable trade-off for living in the District."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/1/dcs-crime-solution-be-a-victim/

My three children aren't gun nutts...they would rather read books but they will go to the range in between library visits.....they will never be victims......

When Smuckette turned 18 last January...her first point was that she was an adult...before I could counter her statement she asked: The rifle is now mine? Correct?....to which I said: Yes, it has always been yours, now you can legally own it but...I ain't gunna let you keep it in the trunk of your car. Until you can properly secure it..it stays in the family safe when not being used.

[Martok]

This is why I'm dearly hoping my legislature's "Stand Your Ground" bill gets passed and signed into law. 

[LongBlade]

Smuck, I hearken back to one of my favorite quotes by Abe Lincoln:

The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it strictly.

Disarming the residents of DC and then cutting the police force will go a good distance to prove the point that the 2nd Amendment was really a good idea, local shenanigans notwithstanding.

[Toonces]

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.



Why is it that whenever you all start discussing the second ammendment, you skip the first half of the statement:

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

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of forming and maintaining a well regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

You guys just focus on the last half and ignore the first part which delineates the purpose for the second part.

[Smuckatelli]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of forming and maintaining a well regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

Toonces, the 2nd reads as below, not as you posted above:

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

The Senate specifically rejected "For the common defense"

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".


Some more info:

"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." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . 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." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

Not sure if you got the word, Smuckette was accepted for a NROTC Scholarship at GWU. She's going blue side intell field....

With that being said, what sidearm do you guys use; the 1911 or the M-9?

I'm trying to figureout what Jarhead is going to give her for her High School graduation present in June.

[son_of_montfort]

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.



Why is it that whenever you all start discussing the second ammendment, you skip the first half of the statement:

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

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of forming and maintaining a well regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

You guys just focus on the last half and ignore the first part which delineates the purpose for the second part.

Oh brother... I've argued this point. Prepare for artillery fire, Toonces!  ;)

[LongBlade]

I'm trying to figureout what Jarhead is going to give her for her High School graduation present in June.

I hear he has a nice Springfield rifle that needs a good home.

[Toonces]

The first sentence in my post, in bold, is how it is written, correct?

I understand what all the following people said shortly after it was accepted in the form in which it was accepted and published.  I suppose that, if during the first Gulf War, as the war kicked off we had all gone into our homes and pulled the M-16 down from mantle above the fireplace, and today we wrote a Bill of Rights to our Constitution to govern our new country that we just formed in 1990 or so, I might feel the same way.

Having said that, the ammendment says what it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." and, something tells me that those folks you quoted above didn't imagine fighting wars with a permanent military that eats something like 20% of our country's budget annually.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, but really, I wish guns rights folks would stop holding up the second ammendment as the beginning and end of "why" they should be allowed to possess guns.  The ammendment, as written, gives us the right to bear arms for a specific purpose.  If you're going to throw out what they wrote in order to argue what they "meant", then I'd still argue my argument makes more sense than yours.

So there.

[son_of_montfort]

Having said that, the ammendment says what it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." and, something tells me that those folks you quoted above didn't imagine fighting wars with a permanent military that eats something like 20% of our country's budget annually.

Actually, there were fairly paranoid about too large of a standing army. Standing armies were seen as tools of oppression. See the whole thing with Charles I and Charles II of England.

[Smuckatelli]

Having said that, the ammendment says what it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." and, something tells me that those folks you quoted above didn't imagine fighting wars with a permanent military that eats something like 20% of our country's budget annually.

Actually, there were fairly paranoid about too large of a standing army. Standing armies were seen as tools of oppression. See the whole thing with Charles I and Charles II of England.

That is exactly why there was a comma separating the two thoughts; A militia being necessary and as a counter to the militia all citizens have the right to bear arms.

[Toonces]

I don't see how you can read it that way...it doesn't say anything to even imply "as a counter to a militia". 

[Smuckatelli]

The first sentence in my post, in bold, is how it is written, correct?

Your first sentence is correct, it is what you added that isn't part of the 2nd Amendment:

"for the purpose of forming and maintaining a well regulated militia"

The senate specifically by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".

[LongBlade]

Having said that, the ammendment says what it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." and, something tells me that those folks you quoted above didn't imagine fighting wars with a permanent military that eats something like 20% of our country's budget annually.

Actually, there were fairly paranoid about too large of a standing army. Standing armies were seen as tools of oppression. See the whole thing with Charles I and Charles II of England.

Yes, initially the vision was that the states would supply the troops for the army. However, we quickly realized that was too fragmented and inefficient. Gradually a centralized army was accepted, but only after it became clear there was no practical alternative.

It's been a while since I was reading up on the topic. I'd recommend For The Common Defense. It's good stuff.

And Toonces, I'd recommend reading up on all the contemporary writings you can. The Founding Fathers left a lot of letters and articles all over the place to help clarify precisely what they wanted and why.

You're also a little late to the party, but Hillsdale College is offering a free lecture series on the Constitution, and we've not come anywhere close to interpreting the Amendments yet. It might be worth your time if you're interested in learning more.

[son_of_montfort]

I think the pre-independence notion of British rights is fascinating. The whole Glorious Revolution and William and Mary is pretty cool stuff. And the chucking of James II was done, in part, for his attempts to get a standing army up and running.

I think, LB, you would like the book The Sinews of Power, by John Brewer. It is deep and dense academia, but has some very cool stuff about English state building in it. Best yet, you can get it on the Kindle!
http://www.amazon.com/Sinews-Power-Money-English-1688-1783/dp/0674809300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331093217&sr=8-1

I may read it again once my draft is done and I finish this book on the Mediterranean.

[Windigo]

....the answer to extremism on both sides