Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.

I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period. After the Civil War the NRA was founded not because of individual liberties but because Union generals were disgusted with poor marksmanship skills. It really wasn't until the 1960s/70s and Civil Rights movement that the NRA got political seeking to get attention for the Second Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights was being pushed by a more progressive agenda.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period. After the Civil War the NRA was founded not because of individual liberties but because Union generals were disgusted with poor marksmanship skills. It really wasn't until the 1960s/70s and Civil Rights movement that the NRA got political seeking to get attention for the Second Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights was being pushed by a more progressive agenda.

As you so eloquently put it, what a crock.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period.

which means what? "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ....is somehow affected or diluted by that?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

which means what? "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ....is somehow affected or diluted by that?

It places the right in context of the purpose.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It places the right in context of the purpose.

You don't seem to know the purpose. Nor its context.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

It places the right in context of the purpose.

Actually you have stumbled over the truth but not in the way you intended . . .

SCOTUS has filtered the right to arms through the "object" of the 2nd Amendment -- the "why" the framers secured the right from government interference. That is of course to preserve the general militia concept, the political philosophy that the mass of private citizens having their personal, military useful arms in their hands, without regulation of law or permission of authorities, stands as a barrier to domestic tyrants and foreign invaders.

That intent has informed the Court on what types of arms are protected for possession and use by private citizen.

US v Miller articulated those protection criteria (or tests) that the Supreme Court uses to determine if an arm is beyond the reach of government. The arm must be shown to be of the type:

• In common use at the time and/or
• that constitute the ordinary military equipment / are usually employed in civilized warfare and/or
• that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

If the type of arm meets any one of these criteria the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and the authority claimed by government to restrict its possession must be repelled or invalidated.

That protection criteria, based solely on how effective an arm is in killing people, demands that those types of arms known as "assault weapons" be recognized as fitting the protection criteria better than any other type of arm.

So, thanks for trying so hard to link the right to arms to a militia intent, it is the left's unending pressure to that end, that will preserve those weapons in private hands.


.