NRA

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A free society, one worthy of our Constitution, is a virtuous society. The Founders understood that without virtue, neither the Constitution nor freedom would be viable. The only way to reduce the frequency of abominations is to instill, instruct, and raise a people who cherish honor, virtue, and righteous lives.

The abandonment of the Constitution (and its insistance that we govern ourselves--that our inalienable right to liberty is also an undeniable duty to be responsible which requires the ultimate virtue) is a stepping stone to the destruction of that virtue as we forgo our rights and responsibilities by transferring those duties to the government. In having lost control of those rights and responsibilities, we must be controlled by government. The ultimate control is not gun control. It is control of the people.

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

If the Constitution is silent on something that does not fall under the purview of the Federal Government's enumerated powers, it means that the Federal Government has no power to regulate or legislate re that thing.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

I don't think that anyone denies that "assault-type" or automatic weapons allow you to kill mass numbers more quickly than non-automatic hand guns. If we can get the conversation beyond that point it might be meaningful. If that IS the point the discussion is not only creepy, but rather indeterminate.

[JohnnyD]

I apologize for not being able to really commit to discussion and hate having to do these drive-by posts...

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

It's easy to support your argument with "Ifs", but the fact of the matter is that your scenario just isn't accurate. The shooter had multiple weapons on him (has there been clarity yet on exactly which?). Let's go with the last report I remember and say he had a rifle and two pistols on him. Pistols provide a level of protection for exactly the situation you bring up. When the piece of trash had to stop and reload, his pistol could be used as protection until he was able to do so.

There is little benefit to the mentality of "long enough for the cavalry to arrive." As I have stated before, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?

(quick side story)I think it was General Pershing that said "The deadliest weapon in battle is a Marine and his rifle." I type this quote because, well for one I like it and for two, it demonstrates that a rifle is useless without a Marine behind it, just as a gun does not go bang without someone pulling the trigger. (end side story)

The Marines are issued rifles because that is the tool best suited for the job - shooting at distance.

For situations like close-quarters clearing of building, the weapon of choice is a severely modified rifle, known as a short-barreled rifle. A short-barreled rifle is illegal for a typical citizen to own without submitting an application to the ATF, paying a $200 tax and fulfilling all other requirements of the National Firearms Act.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

While I'm not nearly smart enough or pretentious enough to be a lawyer it is my understanding that in law, it is taught that there is a requirement to look at "intent" when there is not 100% clarity.

Yes, the Constitution states that I have a Right to bear arms. If we interpret that literally, that could mean the government would be within the Constitution to limit people to black powder rifles and no more. However, there is a need to look at context and intent.

The Revolutionaries had just rebelled against an oppressive regime. The British were exploitative of the Colonists, over-taxed them without representation, under-supported them and had an overall disregard for a colony that was increasing the riches of the Crown (sounds familiar to being a small business owner today), not to mention the constant involuntary quartering of British troops. Publications were mostly limited to those that were sponsored by the throne. People were sentenced to imprisonment or death by a Throne-appointed magistrate.

In order to fight the oppressive regime, the colonists needed to "take arms" and fight in the face of tyranny.

Now, let's look at our Bill of Rights. Trial by jury of peers, Freedom of Speech/Religion/Press, prohibition of peacetime quartering of troops, security against unreasonable searches and seizures, a well regulated Militia, right to keep and bear arms.

All of these items are to prevent the wrongs which were committed by the British. The Revolutionaries feared a central government with too much power(hence why their first attempt to create one failed) and tried to do whatever possible to keep that central government in check when drafting the Constitution.

With the above long-winded preface in mind, the intent of the law becomes clear. The intent of the Second Amendment isn't "everyone gets to have a gun", it's that the citizens be allowed to own weapons to fight against another tyrannical government or any other regime that would get out of control. I have read speculation that the reason the right to bear arms immediately follows the First Amendment is because the Second Amendment provides a means of protection for the First Amendment.

I tend to be offended when people claim "well the Second Amendment doesn't state the type of gun", somewhat because it's the irrational response of many liberals I talk to, but mostly because it demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the principles for which this country was founded on. The claim would be no different than saying "the First Amendment states you have freedom of speech, but it doesn't state where you can speak freely," a ludicrous claim if it were ever to be made.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

Here you are dead wrong, because it was implied and meant to be that the people were armed as equally as any threat both foreign and domestic. If they only had pitch forks going up against musket we would all be kissing Elizabeths ass today, and have #^&#^&#^&#^&ty teeth to boot...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Here you are dead wrong, because it was implied and meant to be that the people were armed as equally as any threat both foreign and domestic. If they only had pitch forks going up against musket we would all be kissing Elizabeths ass today, and have #^&#^&#^&#^&ty teeth to boot...

First, the one adult who was wounded and survived, said that the principal and psychologist were killed as they ran right at the shooter.

Second, you cannot say I am dead wrong because of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I based my opinion on what the document actually says. You cannot possibly know what was "meant to be", we have been debating that for 200 years.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

First, the one adult who was wounded and survived, said that the principal and psychologist were killed as they ran right at the shooter.

Second, you cannot say I am dead wrong because of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I based my opinion on what the document actually says. You cannot possibly know what was "meant to be", we have been debating that for 200 years.

More than one state had opinions prior to the introduction of the amendments to the Constitution, and here in Vermont we had and have the right to bear arms for our own defense
Early Gun Rights Legislation: Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution. The following states included an arms-rights provision in their state constitutions:
VIRGINIA
(June 12, 1776)
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
DELAWARE
(September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
PENNSYLVANIA
(September 28, 1776)
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
MARYLAND
(November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
NORTH CAROLINA
(December 18, 1776)
XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
VERMONT
(July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …
MASSACHUSETTS
(October 25, 1780)
XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
(June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
In addition to these legislative enactments of bills or declarations of rights, there were numerous other proclamations being promulgated at the time. For example:
INSTRUCTIONS OF TOWN MEETING, PRESTON, CONNECTICUT
(November 26, 1787)
It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."
MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION
(December 12, 1787)


That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.
DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION
(February 6, 1788)
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(June 21, 1788)
Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
VIRGINIA CONVENTION
(June 27, 1788)
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 7,1788)
That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.


NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 26,1788)
That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(May 29, 1790)
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.