Got the local gun entusiasts riled up today.

[bakpakr]

I went on a local forum today and made a comment.

Here is the forum.

Here is my post;

Everyone who is interpreting the second amendment to mean that they can own any type of weapon that they wish including so called "Assault Weapons" are TOTALLY wrong.

All they are seeing are the words "shall not be infringed". That is well and good. It means that as citizens we are well within our rights to own guns and the government can't stop that. From everything I have seen the government has no intention of stopping qualified citizens from owning guns.

What they are missing or as I think refusing to see, though are two very important words right at the beginning of the second amendment. These are two words that arr just as important as the above quoted words if not more important. Those two VERY important words are "WELL REGULATED" What those tow words mean and do is allow the government to set and decree regulations as to which type of firearm a citizen may possess. Along with any other pertinent regulation.

Do those two words say that the government may stop qualified citizens from owning guns? NO!! All they say is that guns, and owners may and must be regulated.

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.

[RobertEarl]

1. It is that simple: Well Regulated

Maybe we need to define some weapons as "Militia weapons".

Then they'd get it thru their heads that those type weapons are going to be well regulated.

[sarisataka]

5. So to open a can of worms

which weapons would be militia weapons? Ones that are the same as those used by the armed forces or 'civilianized' equivalents?

Once the militia weapons are identified are they going to be regulated or are they the ones protected by shall not be infringed? Consider- if those are the weapons necessary to the militia should not the people have the right to keep and bear them?

There may be unintended consequences down your path

[RobertEarl]

7. What does well regulated mean to you?

As it is the only 'well regulated' are the most dangerous weapons - machine guns, missiles, etc.

[sarisataka]

10. My take is

less important than SCOTUS, but IMO the well regulated meant well functioning or effective to the writers. This does not preclude the modern concept of regulations as the regulations would define the proper functioning.

About everyone tries to conflate the two clauses and while I believe they are related they are not one and the same.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Pretty straight forward, the only question being arms. The common understanding being arms that a typical foot soldier would carry fits just fine. In the 18th century it would have been a musket, in the 21st, a repeating rifle. Cannons, frigates, RPGs and F-15s may also be arms but held/hold special roles in combat so the foot soldier would not be expected to routinely bear such.

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

Not as definitive but the spirit is clear. A free state must have a military defense that is effective.
This clause states the militia is what should be regulated. It says nothing about the weapons. As the definition of the militia is the people laws pertaining to whom may own weapons are covered. Our restricted classes prohibited from owning guns meet this test. To extend it, Congress may pass further regulations to define regulated. Under this aegis, I can see back ground checks, possibly mandatory training, testing and registration could be Constitutional. I do not care for all of these but see them meeting the test of 'regulated'.

So to sum up- we are allowed a militia. Law defines a militia very loosely and does not require any military membership. The people are allowed to keep and bear arms, presumably for militia duty. The militia must be well regulated, on in another word effective. Laws (regulations) will define what shall be a well regulated (effective) militia.

I see regulations on the arms less Constitutional than regulations on the people who will use the arms.

[RobertEarl]

12. Hardly

".... regulations on the arms less Constitutional than regulations on the people....."

Arms have no constitutional basis. Only people do.

So we can't regulate people, except when it comes to being in a militia.

What we can do is to regulate the weapons and if it takes defining the weapons as "Militia-type" it will ease the poor, poor gunnies to roll over and play dead and allow the rest of the country to make progress on maybe never having to endure seeing another 20 kids mowed down by some gunnie.

[sarisataka]

15. The RIGHT

-of the people peaceably to assemble- we can require permits, we cannot say no assembly in an urban area
-of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures- government needs to show just cause for a search (note how a right can be eroded and not restored by those who we believed would adhere to the meaning of this). Technology is included, but the courts have ruled how it may be used far more than prohibiting the technology
-to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed- we disqualify jurors who are impartial

all these rights relate to the people, limitations are imposed on the people

why treat this one different
-of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
?

What we can do is to regulate the weapons and if it takes defining the weapons as "Militia-type"

The NRA would love this- if a weapon is 'militia type' and the people are the unorganized militia, these are exactly the weapons people should be allowed to own (see future case law National Rifle Association v. U.S. 2015; Elmer Fudd v. State of Illinois, 2016; etc.)

[RobertEarl]

18. Ho, boy

Round and round we go.

So, define arms. Back in the day, anything and everything known as 'arms' was legal. Cannons, bombs, missiles, all legal.

Today, it is illegal for people to bear those arms, except in a militia and as a militia member, i.e, a member of the military. A member who is well regulated. Meaning he/she can't walk off base with said arm or possess said arms.

So, define modern arms.

[sarisataka]

20. Could you tell me

when it was legal to own everything, my history class missed that. As I understand is cannon were under government control and there were precious few missiles in the Revolution.

Today, it is illegal for people to bear those arms, except in a militia and as a militia member, i.e, a member of the military. A member who is well regulated. Meaning he/she can't walk off base with said arm or possess said arms.

Correct outside of equating the military i.e. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and National Guard with militia. These are the standing army the militia was supposed to prevent.

So, define modern arms.

Now we are getting somewhere; I will assume small arms.
Basic definition, a weapon the uses rifling to impart spin to a projectile. Expanded, it means a magazine fed, self loading weapon usually operated with a gas or blowback system. It includes handguns, rifles, carbines, shotguns in semi automatic and machine guns, sub-machineguns, personal defense weapons, automatic rifles and assault rifles in automatic.
It is problematic as a given weapon may fit into more than one category, a new weapon may not be a 'modern weapon' or a very old weapon may be a 'modern weapon.'

Trying to define a weapon by appearance has as much effect as identifying a vehicle by its color. To make an effective law, it would be necessary to precisely define a weapon by its operational system, potential rate of fire and capacity, effective range, weight, length and a myriad of other details. As the definitions would be precise, it would be extremely easy to make minute changes to comply with the law yet be functionally identical.
I suppose it is possible to write a law that would cover most contingencies but the gun control side would have to enlist the help or the gun rights side to write such legislation. The inflammatory rhetoric and demonizing of the opposing viewpoints has all but eliminated this from happening.
Two other options- ban everything, still not 100% effective and political suicide.
-regulate the operator

[RobertEarl]

22. Really?

Your history class didn't cover it so it must not be true? There were no laws governing arms of any kind back when the BOR was written. But since then as arms were invented some arms became regulated. Some well, some not.

What needs to be well regulated is the automatics, etc. I am sure you can envision all that that means.

[sarisataka]

30. It seems there were laws governing arms

From the second Militia Act of 1792

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Note the members were to provide arms themselves.

on other arms:

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

The members must provide swords, pistols, horses etc. but not cannon.

[JanMichael]

14. ALL of them; from the .38 lady smith revolver

to Grandpappies old war rifle, right up to the semi-auto ugly things that are in the news all the time now. Every.single.one. Frankly, if you want to toss in Red Ryder BB rifles, and slingshots, that's fine with me too

[sarisataka]

16. Consider case law

US v. Miller said sawed off shotguns could be prohibited because they had no militia use. So in everything up to pumpkin chunkin shooters is a militia weapon then per Miller, they will be allowed...

[brewens]

2. By constantly omitting the first part of the second amendment in posts and

debates, they are admitting it's their weakness. They do not like that first part at all!

It's kind of like the "you didn't build that" quote. The whole paragraph made it clear what was being said. Some claim that the whole thing in context makes "you didn't build that" sound even worse. Yeah right! That's why FOX "News" and everyone else refused to ever let people hear it. If you only watch FOX "News" or listen to hate radio, you never heard the whole thing in context.

[TheKentuckian]

31. Like some folks like to stick on the militia rationale and ignore that the right of the people

to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms whether they participate in a militia or not.

No question that militia should be well equipped and trained. I even think that everyone of military age should participate but the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed either way.

Shall not be infringed is pretty precise language, I'd say the machine gun "ban" is even unconstitutional, taxes and red tape sure sounds like infringement to me but that was a semantical side step by defining the class as destructive devices rather than "arms". I call nonsense but due to lack of common use and and high profile crime use spawned by prohibition it flew. The argument doesn't work for a modern semiautomatic, we are way past the common use threshold by decades. Nobody is taking out a bridge or knocking down a building. There is no pushing a button and wiping out hundreds, thousands, or millions.

[patrice]

3. I like how you stated that, "Do those two words say that the government may stop qualified

citizens from owning guns? NO!! All they say is that guns, and owners may and must be regulated."

I will be using this if you don't mind, bakpakr.

[hack89]

4. And the public gets the final say on those regulations

via the political process. Bounded of course by Supreme Court decisions.

Everyone understands that guns can be regulated - now we are just squabbling over the details.

[Hoyt]

6. Only because gun culture is trying to confuse the issue to protect their access

to as lethal weapons as possible. If NRA and gun culture could actually accept that some guns just aren't good for society, this issue would be over. But those steeped in guns need their tricked out semi-autos in case they ever need to clear a room, or some other such irrational BS.

[Kolesar]

11. DU Gungeoneers advocate for every weakening of gun laws that the NRA advocates

Concealed carry, guns in bars,... etc

[hack89]

17. I support the President's EOs

as well as universal background.checks and .magazine size limits.

[hack89]

24. If you had public support it would not matter what the NRA says.

the fact of the matter is the 1994 AWB set off a wave of state level activism that gun control advocates can only dream about. Your biggest victory ultimately wrecked the gun control movement. There is no reason to believe America's views have shifted so far that you will have carte blanche to pass what laws you want. You will still need the help of gun owners to pass meaningful legislation.

[Paladin]

8. "Tactical modern sporting rifles"

I got to that phrase in the third paragraph of the article, and I knew I didn't need to read any further. The Gun Enthusiasts are turning themselves inside-out to avoid the use of the assault rifle description; it's gotten downright comical at this point. "Tactical modern sporting rifles, " my ass.

[SayWut]

9. At least two fairly recent SCOTUS decisions disagree with you.

District of Columbia v. Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

and McDonald v. Chicago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Of course, you're free to interpret "a well regulated militia..." as you see fit, but it would be irrelevant in todays world and carry no legal bearing or weight.

[jmg257]

13. Most people seem to be 'arguing' over the wrong phrases...

'a well regulated militia' had nothing to do with how the government could regulate the people's arms OUTSIDE of a militia right/duty. It refers to the Congress and States role in organizing arming and disciplining effective State Militias...period. This is well documented and well supported by the framers, the constitution, the 2nd, and the 1st Militia Acts.

'shall not be infringed' is pretty clear, as is 'of the people' - who are secure against government infringements.

Apparently what is most recently NOT so clear is 'the right to keep and bear arms'. In all the debates concerning the 2nd amendment, this exclusively was referred to in relation to militias, NOT an individual's ability to defend themselves, or hunt, or anything else.

And if there is any lack of clarity to exactly what this phrase means in the restriction, one only needs to look to the preamble clause..."a well regulated militia being necessary...".

In Heller the majority of the SCOTUS says otherwise...doesn't mean we need to agree.

[RobertEarl]

19. Well, then rights have been infringed

And rightfully so, according to who? According to the SCOTUS that has limited the right to bear 'SOME' arms.

So, were you to be correct, the precedent is set and the infringement can continue. Of course, you are not correct.

There are 'regulated arms' laws across the USA. We just need to tighten the regulations some more.

[jmg257]

21. AFIK, No one has ever infringed on anyone's right to serve in the Militia.

SCOTUS most recent decision aside - That is the intent of securing "the right to keep and bear arms" in the 2nd.

As for an individuals 'rights' to own arms for personal use, those are open to regulation the same as any other.

[RobertEarl]

23. Women, Blacks, couldn't serve.

Where are you going with this. At this point you are very confusing.

[jmg257]

25. My point is that the phrase "to keep and bear arms" is a right related to the

Militias....it basically meant the people's right to have the ability to serve.

But thank you - I do see that the word 'people' has taken on different meanings, and I do see that the right to serve in the militia for many has been infringed.

[RobertEarl]

26. It was so long ago...

King George wanted to seize all weapons from his subjects. Hence the right was to be not infringed so as to keep anyone from taking away people's arms.

All arms will not be seized, but some through regulation will be, well, well regulated. The theory with this OP is to use the militia idea as a way to placate the arms bearers to give up SOME arms for the better of the country. I think we can all agree it would be best for the country to make some real progress.

In the meantime, we can shame the bearers.

[jmg257]

27. Agreed...and agreed! I think the SCOTUS squashed my take...for the most part anyway; so

use whatever argument we can whenever we can!

Cheers!

[onethatcares]

28. You'd be a gas on a forum I frequent

the gunnutters there think any type of regulation is worse than having to deal with "liberal" programs.

It's amazing how easy it is to get them to step all over what they use for brains with just a few words though.

[Paulie]

29. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and single action revolvers

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Why anything more?