dahermit

After reading Presluc and friends ideas of what the second amendment intends and interpreted (by one ruling of the supreme court), I have decided that there indeed be some moderate control of civilian ownership of guns. Therefore, I propose that inasmuch as the second amendment refers to militia and military arms, not sporting arms, a total ban on sporting arms be enacted. All shotguns, deer rifles, muzzle loaders, and sporting pistols be surrendered to the government forthwith. This measure will eliminate the pool of firearms stolen and purchased by crimianls...who could object to that?
I am sure that all the police agencies will agree that this measure will result in fewer unnecessary deaths.
Before responding to this post, please review my previous posts on gun issues.
Regards,
dahermit

top gun

dahermit... you're attempting humor. Very good! What dahermit really wants is any & all guns legally sold... he's cracking a joke. Of course the 2nd Amendment doesn't actually say "millitary" arms it says simply arms. And we know what you're going to say next. A militia would have millitary arms. But tell the truth... keep reading... you're leaving something out aren't you? Come on... ok I'll go look it up. Be right back.

Here it is... 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. That well regulated part always gets you doesn't it?

I think most people see that there's a differing need in regulation between a fully automatic UZZI or a semi-automatic version of a Kalashnikov AK47 millitary assault weapon... compared to a Remmington 1100 semi-auto 12 gauge shot gun, Winchester 30-06 deer rifle or personal protection hand gun for it's regular law abiding citizens.

There's no well regulated militia in Joe citizen going to the gun shop and buying a 50 caliber machine gun. I guess you're better at this humor stuff than I thought... LoL!!!

dahermit

Note: The common usage of words has changed to a great extent from 1700's to now. For instance the word "slut" had no sexual conitation in those days; it ment an unkempt (slovernly, untidy)person. Likewise the words "well regulated" ment well trained and well drilled, practiced. It did not have anything to do with laws controling the purchase of firearms.
dahermit

top gun

[quote=dahermit;24849]Note: The common usage of words has changed to a great extent from 1700's to now. For instance the word "slut" had no sexual conitation in those days; it ment an unkempt (slovernly, untidy)person.

As was the interpretation of many words or phrases even "bear arms". Swords and knives even coat of arms were all multiple interpretations of the day.

Right to bear arms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article refers to the right to bear 'arms' (weapons) and 'bear arms'(military service). For the rights of an individual to possess a coat of arms, see the article on heraldry.

A collective or an individual right?
Throughout the history of the country the courts have broadly and uniformly interpreted the right to bear arms in United States as a collective right, not an individual right, with two exceptions in the lower courts: The 2001 Fifth Circuit court ruling United States v. Emerson and the Ninth Circuit court 2007 ruling Parker v. District of Columbia, both of which introduce principles of an individual right to firearms.

Likewise the words "well regulated" ment well trained and well drilled, practiced. It did not have anything to do with laws controling the purchase of firearms.

Killing us with semantics. There's nothing "well trained and well drilled, practiced" in Joe citizen going to a gun shop and buying a 50 caliber machine gun either. It's not that we don't understand how you're reaching your conclusion. You are breaking the second half of the 2nd Amendment away from the full text. I don't.

dahermit

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is a matter of being educated in the English language. I do not "...break[ing] the second half of the 2nd Amendment away from the full text..." There is a comma that breaks it in two. People who are educated in English know that the comma separates the first part, a subordinate clause, from the second part. The subordinate clause explains why they did what they did, the main clause explains the intent.

Furthermore, despite what you say about the "...only one supreme court ruling that says it is an individual right..." the link I put in a previous post references MANY supreme court rulings where it was interpreted as an individual right.

Also, note that the constitution only mentions three entities: The Federal Government. The States. The People. Which one is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?

dahermit

I am in 100% agreement with you here. The Second Amendment surely had to do with carrying a coat of arms. That has got to be why it is in the Bill of Rights. Right!

top gun

[quote=dahermit;24907]"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is a matter of being educated in the English language. I do not "...break[ing] the second half of the 2nd Amendment away from the full text..." There is a comma that breaks it in two. People who are educated in English know that the comma separates the first part, a subordinate clause, from the second part. The subordinate clause explains why they did what they did, the main clause explains the intent.

Well I'm glad to know I'm not the only person that's not as smart as you. I guess you have a debate with me, Timm Russert & the encyclopedia.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Commas in the Second Amendment
There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia," and a parallel debate as to whether the presence or lack of this comma influences the overall meaning of the Amendment.[citation needed] In the twentieth century, it became unusual to separate a subject and verb or verb and object with a comma. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, commas were used to indicate rhetorical pauses; in the twentieth century, commas were generally used to differentiate between restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers. This practice continues in the early twenty-first century.

On March 4, 1789, the completed, hand-written Bill of Rights was approved by the first Federal Congress, and attested to (signed) by Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and John Adams, the Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate, as well as the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate. [6]. In this original signed document, now held by the National Archives, the commas were present. Some of the later type-cast printings of the Constitution, such as those in the National Annals, delete the commas from the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Government is inconsistent in the use of the comma in publications. The Statutes at Large (the official permanent record of all laws enacted) does not include the comma.[22] The Government Printing Office (GPO) has produced versions both with and without this comma.

A second comma, after the word "State," is generally seen in printed versions. It is not controversial.

The third comma, after the phrase "to keep and bear arms," is also an example of changing customs. It is generally seen in contemporary reprints of the Amendment, but it would not appear if the Amendment had been drafted and enacted recently.

Furthermore, despite what you say about the "...only one supreme court ruling that says it is an individual right..." the link I put in a previous post references MANY supreme court rulings where it was interpreted as an individual right.

There is no need for the furthermore because the proofs in the pudding as to how the 2nd Amendment is upheld in the Supreme Court as we speak. Infringement is infringement. Are there infringements on guns right now? Of course there are. Can't buy a machine gun. Waiting periods & background checks. Many localities have restricted sales of semi-automatic assault rifles. Felons cannot own a gun... and many more.

So unless you want to come back and argue that there are no current infringements on gun ownership... On the standing interpretation of the Supreme Court... Poke your arguement with a fork because it's done.

Also, note that the constitution only mentions three entities: The Federal Government. The States. The People. Which one is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?

Again linking "militia" & people yes or no has a debateable context. But we do know how it is interpreted today. It's interpreted in a way that allows for some infringement!

top gun

dahermit

You make some good points in your posts...food for my research.

In reference to your post above, we then are in agreement that "to bear arms" means to carry firearms?

dahermit

Oh, I agree that there is infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Nevertheless, as to the "...standing interpretation of the Supreme Court..." With the conservative judges appointed by Bush and those he will likely appoint (O'Connor says she will retire), that could change at anytime.