Gun control supporters - Local gun control

[MODU]

if that interpretation was correct, which for the sake of argument I'm conceding it is, it would stil make illegal to ban guns used by the organized militia.

If that's the case, I want the right to own a Howitzer and a Bazooka, and maybe a SAM too, just in case.    But no, it still wouldn't be illegal to ban certain types of weapons since the Amendment doesn't not state that the government cannot ban certain weapons.  It says that the right to possess weapons (in general) shall not be infringed. 

[Bono]

if that interpretation was correct, which for the sake of argument I'm conceding it is, it would stil make illegal to ban guns used by the organized militia.

If that's the case, I want the right to own a Howitzer and a Bazooka, and maybe a SAM too, just in case.    But no, it still wouldn't be illegal to ban certain types of weapons since the Amendment doesn't not state that the government cannot ban certain weapons.  It says that the right to possess weapons (in general) shall not be infringed. 

If they were to ban them, they would have to ban the organized militia from possessing them.

[MODU]

If they were to ban them, they would have to ban the organized militia from possessing them.

hahaha . . . maybe.   

(Actually, I've ran out of time today, need to finish this thing up here before heading home.  I'll respond later.)

[The Constitarian]

    I am against all gun control.  The second ammendment not only was made to prevent the national government from passing gun control but the constitution also says that if a state passes a law that contradicts the constitution that law is void.

Sorry, but that's wrong.

The Second Amendment:  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.

I'm tired of people misreading the Second Amendment.  The Amendment refers to allowing people to own guns to protect the nation since the first citizens of the new nation were to form a militia in the case of war.  Back when the Constitution was drafted, the standing Army of the US was very small and built of very few professional soldiers.  In order to meet the manpower demand to protect the nation, yet at the same time not bankrupt the poor young country, the nation needed militias. 

Additionally, the Amendment does not say that the government has no right to put limits on the types of weapons a citizen can possess.  It says the government cannot deny you the right to own a weapon, since, referencing above, the government needed armed citizens to protect the new nation. 

So, if the government says "ok, you can't own fully automatic weapons," your Second Amendment right is not being infringed upon, since you can still own all other non-banned weapons.

The reason for the second ammendment was so that the people could protect themselves against tyranny in government, as Thomas Jefferson and numerous other founding fathers said.  The whole reason is for the people to be well armed enough to protect themselves from the millitary.

About your later post, sniper is actually one of the most dangerous jobs in war.  The enemy singles you out as a target and in many cases puts a bounty on your head to ensure your demise.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If that "interpretation" was true, the only weapon the government couldn't make illegal would be auto weapons.

I'd much rather have a sniper rifle.  Much more effective, less likely to be killed (since auto weapons require closer combat and are less accurate), and decreases your chance of being noticed.

But no, the fact that we have a large standing army plus state guard units, the need for the militia is gone.  That's why people need to do the research into why these things were included originally, and not to put a 21st Century bias upon them.  The Amendment clearly deals with national defense (at that time, in the form of militias).  It does not deal with sport hunters, home self defense, or drug dealers.

You are incorrect Modu.

The founding fathers were rather learned about the history of government.

They were quite aware that nation states could be defended by a professional army, BUT, the militia (meaning at that time the adult white male population, now the adult population) was a guarantee against oppressive government, not merely against external enemies.

[Hatman 🍁]

Gun control on any level is good, which is why I voted yes. However, it would work best on an international scale if it were possible.

were you born yesterday or something?

I'm walking down the streets in the middle of night, a man points a gun at me and tells me to give him all the money in my wallet.  Of course in my city I cannot have a gun.  How does he have a gun?  He's a f'ucking criminal that doesn't obey the law.  So because gun control is such a great idea I'm out all my money.

You've got to understand that in Earl's ideal state, (picture North Korea) we will all be so poor that that none of us will have any money to steal.

What Earl didn't count on is that in totalitarian socities like North Korea, a criminal might simply choose to use the firearm to make you his next meal.

North Korea lacks many of the qualities of my ideal state. Democracy being the biggest one on a long list.

[MODU]

They were quite aware that nation states could be defended by a professional army, BUT, the militia (meaning at that time the adult white male population, now the adult population) was a guarantee against oppressive government, not merely against external enemies.

That's true (and I think I mentioned that earlier in the thread), however, today it's not the threat as it was feared back in the 1700's.  The separation of powers in both modern government and our military is so great that no one group can consolidate enough power to take over the nation from the inside through military might without severe resistance.

[John Dibble]

They were quite aware that nation states could be defended by a professional army, BUT, the militia (meaning at that time the adult white male population, now the adult population) was a guarantee against oppressive government, not merely against external enemies.

That's true (and I think I mentioned that earlier in the thread), however, today it's not the threat as it was feared back in the 1700's.  The separation of powers in both modern government and our military is so great that no one group can consolidate enough power to take over the nation from the inside through military might without severe resistance.

Doesn't matter. It may be difficult to consolidate power in our system, but it's possible. Just because we don't have an oppressive government today doesn't mean we won't have one years from now. I'd rather maintain the check on government by allowing the people to be armed so that is less likely to occur.

[CARLHAYDEN]

They were quite aware that nation states could be defended by a professional army, BUT, the militia (meaning at that time the adult white male population, now the adult population) was a guarantee against oppressive government, not merely against external enemies.

That's true (and I think I mentioned that earlier in the thread), however, today it's not the threat as it was feared back in the 1700's.  The separation of powers in both modern government and our military is so great that no one group can consolidate enough power to take over the nation from the inside through military might without severe resistance.

Lets keep our people armed so that there can be 'severe' resistance!

[Bono]

They were quite aware that nation states could be defended by a professional army, BUT, the militia (meaning at that time the adult white male population, now the adult population) was a guarantee against oppressive government, not merely against external enemies.

That's true (and I think I mentioned that earlier in the thread), however, today it's not the threat as it was feared back in the 1700's.  The separation of powers in both modern government and our military is so great that no one group can consolidate enough power to take over the nation from the inside through military might without severe resistance.

actually, after the civil war thereare much less checks and balances than there were before.

[MODU]

They were quite aware that nation states could be defended by a professional army, BUT, the militia (meaning at that time the adult white male population, now the adult population) was a guarantee against oppressive government, not merely against external enemies.

That's true (and I think I mentioned that earlier in the thread), however, today it's not the threat as it was feared back in the 1700's.  The separation of powers in both modern government and our military is so great that no one group can consolidate enough power to take over the nation from the inside through military might without severe resistance.

actually, after the civil war thereare much less checks and balances than there were before.

I'll get all three of you in one response (since you've all said basically the same thing).  Something right out of war college:  in order for someone (being a sole individual or a group) in the military to take over the US by military force today, they would need at a minimum to have a strong control over the military across the entire country and have those underneath them to be 100% loyal as to not question the actions of the leader.  The control would have to span more than one branch of the military, and have to have control of key installations and personnel across the country.  All of these things would have to fall neatly into place in order to have even the slightest chance of success due to the incredible decentralization of the modern military.  Otherwise, it fail from the inside while being pounded by the remaining US forces from the outside.  However, since most of our military is made up of patriots, a military coup is next to impossible, and has been that way for most of the history of the US.  The only case I would give on is during the civil war, but that wasn't really a coup as more of a revolt.

So, going back to the Amendment, while there were guarded concerns about an earlier oppressive use of force in the new Republic, the militia in discussion was more to protect the nation from outside threats than internal, and also, that with the creation of the professional army and state guard units, the individual minuteman militia has all but disappeared.  Additionally, going back to the text (and back to the question at hand), there is nothing there that says the government cannot limit the kinds of weapons an individual may hold, no matter how out of context you try to take it.

[The Constitarian]

They were quite aware that nation states could be defended by a professional army, BUT, the militia (meaning at that time the adult white male population, now the adult population) was a guarantee against oppressive government, not merely against external enemies.

That's true (and I think I mentioned that earlier in the thread), however, today it's not the threat as it was feared back in the 1700's.  The separation of powers in both modern government and our military is so great that no one group can consolidate enough power to take over the nation from the inside through military might without severe resistance.

actually, after the civil war thereare much less checks and balances than there were before.

I have posted on this before, I agree completely, Lincoln gave the first executive order during the civil war and since then the executive branch has had far more power than it was intended to have.

[Bono]

They were quite aware that nation states could be defended by a professional army, BUT, the militia (meaning at that time the adult white male population, now the adult population) was a guarantee against oppressive government, not merely against external enemies.

That's true (and I think I mentioned that earlier in the thread), however, today it's not the threat as it was feared back in the 1700's.  The separation of powers in both modern government and our military is so great that no one group can consolidate enough power to take over the nation from the inside through military might without severe resistance.

actually, after the civil war thereare much less checks and balances than there were before.

I'll get all three of you in one response (since you've all said basically the same thing).  Something right out of war college:  in order for someone (being a sole individual or a group) in the military to take over the US by military force today, they would need at a minimum to have a strong control over the military across the entire country and have those underneath them to be 100% loyal as to not question the actions of the leader.  The control would have to span more than one branch of the military, and have to have control of key installations and personnel across the country.  All of these things would have to fall neatly into place in order to have even the slightest chance of success due to the incredible decentralization of the modern military.  Otherwise, it fail from the inside while being pounded by the remaining US forces from the outside.  However, since most of our military is made up of patriots, a military coup is next to impossible, and has been that way for most of the history of the US.  The only case I would give on is during the civil war, but that wasn't really a coup as more of a revolt.

Such a person exists. He is the president. ´
And what are you descriving happened before twice, with protagonists Abraham lincoln and FDR.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's an infringment.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gun control on any level is good, which is why I voted yes. However, it would work best on an international scale if it were possible.

were you born yesterday or something?

I'm walking down the streets in the middle of night, a man points a gun at me and tells me to give him all the money in my wallet.  Of course in my city I cannot have a gun.  How does he have a gun?  He's a f'ucking criminal that doesn't obey the law.  So because gun control is such a great idea I'm out all my money.

You've got to understand that in Earl's ideal state, (picture North Korea) we will all be so poor that that none of us will have any money to steal.

What Earl didn't count on is that in totalitarian socities like North Korea, a criminal might simply choose to use the firearm to make you his next meal.

North Korea lacks many of the qualities of my ideal state. Democracy being the biggest one on a long list.

So, if fifty per cent (plus one) of the voters voted  for tyranny, that would be OK with you?

Earl, just be honest, you're opposed to freedom, and see gun control as a necessary step to eliminate freedom.

[The 2nd Constitarian]

    I am against all gun control.  The second ammendment not only was made to prevent the national government from passing gun control but the constitution also says that if a state passes a law that contradicts the constitution that law is void.

Sorry, but that's wrong.

The Second Amendment:  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.

I'm tired of people misreading the Second Amendment.  The Amendment refers to allowing people to own guns to protect the nation since the first citizens of the new nation were to form a militia in the case of war.  Back when the Constitution was drafted, the standing Army of the US was very small and built of very few professional soldiers.  In order to meet the manpower demand to protect the nation, yet at the same time not bankrupt the poor young country, the nation needed militias. 

Additionally, the Amendment does not say that the government has no right to put limits on the types of weapons a citizen can possess.  It says the government cannot deny you the right to own a weapon, since, referencing above, the government needed armed citizens to protect the new nation. 

So, if the government says "ok, you can't own fully automatic weapons," your Second Amendment right is not being infringed upon, since you can still own all other non-banned weapons.

The sencond amendment was put there so that is our government becomes tyrnanical we have the right to bear arms, as that would be the necessity to the secruity of the free state.  People seem to think that a tyranical government is one with a single despot ruling, but elected legislators can trample your freedoms just as easily.

[Emsworth]

I'm tired of people misreading the Second Amendment.  The Amendment refers to allowing people to own guns to protect the nation since the first citizens of the new nation were to form a militia in the case of war.

The first part of the sentence (which expresses the rationale) does not affect the second part of the sentence (which actually guarantees the right). The Second Amendment states, in absolute terms, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "right" in this case is not a collective right of militias, but the individual right of each person.

That said, federal gun control laws are unconstitutional simply for the reason that the Constitution does not enumerate the power to make them. When arguing about federal assault weapons bans, we need not trouble ourselves with the meaning of the Second Amendment; the case that there is no enumerated power is, I think, a much easier one to make.

[A18]

Gun control on any level is good, which is why I voted yes. However, it would work best on an international scale if it were possible.

You disgust me.

[MODU]

That said, federal gun control laws are unconstitutional simply for the reason that the Constitution does not enumerate the power to make them. When arguing about federal assault weapons bans, we need not trouble ourselves with the meaning of the Second Amendment; the case that there is no enumerated power is, I think, a much easier one to make.

I think that is the cheap way out of the debate.  Just because the Constitution does not mention a particular power or ability for the government doesn't mean the government cannot take action without being Constitutional.  So, in this case, laws regarding gun possession is Constitutional, since the right to own guns still stands.  There is a difference between having the right to own a gun, and the right to own any type of gun you want.  Just because you cannot own gun type A, doesn't mean you cannot own gun types B-Z.  The right to own a gun still exists.

[The 2nd Constitarian]

That said, federal gun control laws are unconstitutional simply for the reason that the Constitution does not enumerate the power to make them. When arguing about federal assault weapons bans, we need not trouble ourselves with the meaning of the Second Amendment; the case that there is no enumerated power is, I think, a much easier one to make.

I think that is the cheap way out of the debate.  Just because the Constitution does not mention a particular power or ability for the government doesn't mean the government cannot take action without being Constitutional.  So, in this case, laws regarding gun possession is Constitutional, since the right to own guns still stands.  There is a difference between having the right to own a gun, and the right to own any type of gun you want.  Just because you cannot own gun type A, doesn't mean you cannot own gun types B-Z.  The right to own a gun still exists.

What your saying is that if the government says you can not say word A it is not infringing on your freedom of speech because they allow you to say word B-Z

I am in favor of strict construction, anyone who agrees with loose construction agrees with a government who can pick and choose how to best interpret the constitution to coincide with their political beliefs.

[Bono]

That said, federal gun control laws are unconstitutional simply for the reason that the Constitution does not enumerate the power to make them. When arguing about federal assault weapons bans, we need not trouble ourselves with the meaning of the Second Amendment; the case that there is no enumerated power is, I think, a much easier one to make.

I think that is the cheap way out of the debate.  Just because the Constitution does not mention a particular power or ability for the government doesn't mean the government cannot take action without being Constitutional.  So, in this case, laws regarding gun possession is Constitutional, since the right to own guns still stands.  There is a difference between having the right to own a gun, and the right to own any type of gun you want.  Just because you cannot own gun type A, doesn't mean you cannot own gun types B-Z.  The right to own a gun still exists.

YOu just admited to being totally ignorant of constitutional jurisprudence.

[Emsworth]

Just because the Constitution does not mention a particular power or ability for the government doesn't mean the government cannot take action without being Constitutional.

That line of reasoning completely ignores the Tenth Amendment.

[MODU]

What your saying is that if the government says you can not say word A it is not infringing on your freedom of speech because they allow you to say word B-Z

I am in favor of strict construction, anyone who agrees with loose construction agrees with a government who can pick and choose how to best interpret the constitution to coincide with their political beliefs.

It's not infringing on your right of speech.  If that were the case, freedom of the press would not have been included in the Amendment since it would have been redundant. 

And believe me, I'm quite the follower of the Constitution, and I don't believe it to be the strict, inflexible burden that many on here are trying to make it out to be.  Unfortunately, the wording is not the greatest in some sections, leading people to make assumptions of what it says (kinda like the Bible), and the second Amendment is a good example.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled on this in the US vs Miller case in 1939:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With 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 and applied with that end in view.
-  Justice McReynolds

So, according to the Court, we can posess weapons as members of the organized militia.  But why add the term militia to the Amendment, if it was to be a blanket right that everyone could own weapons?

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. -  Justice McReynolds

Ahhh, so the term militia limits those who can posess weapons, since the militia was to be made up of disciplined men.  So, already, women do not have the right to bear arms, since they could not be in the militia.  Also, children and the eldery could not bear arms since they are not disciplined or physically capable of fulfilling the role of the militia.

So, by taking the view of some here, that we should not have limited rights to own guns since we make up the militia are in fact limiting those who can own guns, since the militia is limited to a particular gender and age/physicial bracket.  Of course, that's not the case, is it?  But isn't that what the Amendment says?    Now we all know women are physically capable of using guns, and we currently have women proudly serving in the military and in the guard across the US.  So obviously, the Constitutionality of the amendment has matured with the country as it has grown and become more accepting of all of it's citizens. 

Which takes us back to the Amendment itself.  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.  Yup, we are meeting that requirement.  Our guard troops are trained and equipped properly to protect the state they are from and the country.  Their rights to arms to fulfill this mission are not being infringed.  But what about the common man who are not in the militia?  Well, let's go back to what the Court ruling was about:

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.'

A guy was carrying a sawed off shotgun, which was modified to be concealed, which falls under the National Firearms Act of 1934.  Anyone wishing to buy a weapon listed under the NFA had to obtain permission from both the federal and state level authorities.  "Isn't that against my right to own any gun I want?"  The DC court thought so, but in US vs Miller, the Supreme Court upheld the NFA and overturned the DC court.  Subsequently, the NFA gave way to Gun Control Act of 1968, which gave way to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 which banned the sale of new machine guns to the general public.  "But wouldn't a machine gun be the best weapon if I needed to protect my country?"  Yes, if you were in the organized malitia.  However, the general public is not considered to be a part of the malitia since the need of the state to have their well trained, disciplined "forces" (can't use men) are being met by the National Guard.

So, long story short, the Second Amendment pertains only to the militia, and not the general public, and therefore the blanket statement that all citizens have the right to own weapons without limitations is false.  To put limits on the types of weapons the general public may buy is not unconstitutional.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, if you bother to read the statute, the Militia is comprised of both organized and unorganized.

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA
 
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are--
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
    and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
    Militia.

Essentially what you are arguning for is a "select" militia, which was soundly rejected by the founding fathers.

[MODU]

First, if you bother to read the statute, the Militia is comprised of both organized and unorganized.

hehehe . . . believe me, I posted the statute earlier and discussed the two variations. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet, that is not what is written out in the Constitution.  And, since decade after decade, as the country grew and matured, laws for protecting the nation had to be upgraded and revised.  And, as the Supreme Court has endorsed, the existence of the organized militia and the professional army are Constitutionally sound, as well as the right to limit the types of weapons the general public can own.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Local gun control would be extremely ineffective.   Look at how many guns there are in DC.    There's no way to prevent people from bringing guns into the covered jurisdiction.  Any gun control must be done at the national level.