Very nice interview about gun control - Page 2

**CingularDuality** · 08-06-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

That is what I meant by regulated. Controlled, organized, trained, managed, disciplined. But to do those things you must have rules that can be enforced. You could not regulate a group of people without the ability to create and enforce rules of conduct.

A soldier cannot be disciplined without a set of standards to which they are held, no?

Discipline has next to NOTHING to do with rules. But that gets almost philosophical... You're right, someone that follows a set of rules will appear to be disciplined.

Anyway, you see my point about the difference between "well regulated" using today's definitions and the definitions from over 200 years ago... And you see how the definition has come to change.

What's next?

xTYBALTx · 08-06-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

What's next?

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

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-06-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Discipline has next to NOTHING to do with rules. But that gets almost philosophical... You're right, someone that follows a set of rules will appear to be disciplined.

Anyway, you see my point about the difference between "well regulated" using today's definitions and the definitions from over 200 years ago... And you see how the definition has come to change.

What's next?

I see the difference in that today "regulated" is sometimes thought of as a bureaucratic system of rules and procedures overseen by self serving politicos trying to gain favor with higher ups or advancing their own career. And I agree that that is not what the writers meant.

In fact this ties into the next part of the sentence. ", being necessary to the security of a free State".

This says to me that the writers didn't think the militia is important or nice to have. It is necessary. Necessary means that without it there is no security for a free state.

I think this has two implications. First that, obviously, the militia is important and everybody should understand this importance. Second that a standing army is not enough to secure a free state. That a standing army can, and in their experience often was, used by those in power not to secure free will of the people but instead was used to restrict the will of the people.

I say this because after reading the constitution over again I did not see any place where a standing army is forbidden. Not even discouraged. But yet the writers put in the second amendment. (The interview also points out that the leaders of the time were fearful of a standing army.)

So this well regulated militia is not even a right of the people. It is a necessary part of maintaining a free country that can guarantee the rights of the people.

(BTW I disagree on the discipline statement. Discipline is nothing but rules/limits, whether self imposed or imposed upon the individual. But that is indeed going outside what we are discussing at this moment.)

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-06-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

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

Sorry but no cigar ", being necessary to the security of a free State" is next.

**CingularDuality** · 08-06-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

In fact this ties into the next part of the sentence. ", being necessary to the security of a free State".

This says to me that the writers didn't think the militia is important or nice to have. It is necessary. Necessary means that without it there is no security for a free state.

I think this has two implications. First that, obviously, the militia is important and everybody should understand this importance. Second that a standing army is not enough to secure a free state. That a standing army can, and in their experience often was, used by those in power not to secure free will of the people but instead was used to restrict the will of the people.

I say this because after reading the constitution over again I did not see any place where a standing army is forbidden. Not even discouraged. But yet the writers put in the second amendment. (The interview also points out that the leaders of the time were fearful of a standing army.)

You really hit the nail on the head with those comments!

Quote:

So this well regulated militia is not even a right of the people. It is a necessary part of maintaining a free country that can guarantee the rights of the people.

Yes, but militias are volunteers only. Also, this concept only serves to amplify the fact that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be closely guarded, as "the people" make up the entire militia.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-08-2006, 09:40 AM

Apologize for the delayed response. Got a software release and school is starting, fun times.

xTYBALTx · 08-08-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Sorry but no cigar ", being necessary to the security of a free State" is next.

That phrase is attached to the first. The right of the people to bear arms is a bit seperate.

**leejo** · 08-08-2006, 12:16 PM

If you hold that gun ownership rights are tied to militia, then you must also hold that the Federal Government, in the form of the judiciary, gets to decide which militia qualify and which do not. Of course that process takes a decade to litigate. No class of weapon is protected, and no class is not protected.

The 2nd amendment's story is more subtle and complex. I'm not on the SCOTUS, but I believe that a careful review of "2nd amendment supreme court decisions" at google will leave almost any reader with the impression that 200-plus years of statute and judicial review has created a 2nd amendment that generally recognizes individuals right to own a gun, generally recognizes states' rights to make decisions about which citizens may or may not own guns and under what circumstances, and generally tolerates Congress passing laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

I don't see that changing.

**CingularDuality** · 08-08-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

If you hold that gun ownership rights are tied to militia, then you must also hold that the Federal Government, in the form of the judiciary, gets to decide which militia qualify and which do not. Of course that process takes a decade to litigate. No class of weapon is protected, and no class is not protected.

The SCOTUS has ruled that every man of fighting age is what makes up the militia referred to in the second amendment.

But I don't think anyone here is tying the right to keep and bear arms to a militia. A militia is the reason why everyone has that right, according to our forefathers.

**Strag** · 08-08-2006, 02:25 PM

An interesting case is United States v. Miller, from 1939, in which was stated:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Here the SCOTUS is saying that the NFA-regulated shotgun in question isn't protected by the Second Amendment for use by the militia because it's neither part of "ordinary military equipment" nor could "its use....contribute to the common defense." This is debatable, since our military has used -- and still uses -- shotguns in military service, but, as the opinion makes clear, nobody was present during the hearings to argue this point. Nevertheless, this opinion is important because it implies that weapons such as M16s, M249s, and M240s, which ARE part of the "ordinary military equipment" of our day, are indeed protected by the Second Amendment for use by the militia. In effect, we in the militia should all be able to keep and bear these weapons.

**TheFeniX** · 08-08-2006, 04:22 PM

The problem with shotguns with sawed-off barrels is that it makes the firearm useless for almost any situation, besides concealment and robbery. A full-size shotgun will outperform a sawed-off version in any area except concealability.

Basically (and this is my only opinion) is that the a sawed-off shotgun has no legitimate use, and is therefore illegal. And before anyone jumps on it: handguns do have legitimate uses.

But I do agree that many anti-gun lobbyists routinely make hypocrits of themselves. Why shouldn't a "militia" be granted access to full-auto assault-rifles if it's for militia uses?

xTYBALTx · 08-08-2006, 04:34 PM

Why aren't 'the militia' and 'the right to keep and bear arms' seperate clauses within the same sentence?

**CingularDuality** · 08-09-2006, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Why aren't 'the militia' and 'the right to keep and bear arms' seperate clauses within the same sentence?

A clause must have a subject and a verb. So, the two phrases that you quoted can't be clauses. But if you were shortening the two parts of the amendment for the sake of brevity, then they are. And "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the main clause.

**CingularDuality** · 08-09-2006, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

The problem with shotguns with sawed-off barrels is that it makes the firearm useless for almost any situation, besides concealment and robbery. A full-size shotgun will outperform a sawed-off version in any area except concealability.

Hijack!

Ever thought about what it would take to clear your home? Would you rather turn the corner into your bedroom with a 21" barrel that you have to swing around, or with a 10" barrel that requires no effort? The spread will not matter in most people's homes, where most shots would be around 5 yards...

It's the same reason that I'm going to build a short barreled AR15 to keep in my truck when I win the lottery... Easier to swing around in confined quarters.

I'm not much of a shotgun guy, though, so I have zero desire to own a sawed off shotgun.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-09-2006, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

A clause must have a subject and a verb. So, the two phrases that you quoted can't be clauses. But if you were shortening the two parts of the amendment for the sake of brevity, then they are. And "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the main clause.

Quick one.

I am currectly trying to do do some research about Preambles and the term "bear arms".

In the interview the author points out that at the time preambles where very important and taken very seriously.

08-08-2006, 09:40 AM	#21 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 40 Posts: 2,861	Re: Very nice interview about gun control Apologize for the delayed response. Got a software release and school is starting, fun times. __________________ I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

08-08-2006, 12:16 PM	#23 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Very nice interview about gun control If you hold that gun ownership rights are tied to militia, then you must also hold that the Federal Government, in the form of the judiciary, gets to decide which militia qualify and which do not. Of course that process takes a decade to litigate. No class of weapon is protected, and no class is not protected. The 2nd amendment's story is more subtle and complex. I'm not on the SCOTUS, but I believe that a careful review of "2nd amendment supreme court decisions" at google will leave almost any reader with the impression that 200-plus years of statute and judicial review has created a 2nd amendment that generally recognizes individuals right to own a gun, generally recognizes states' rights to make decisions about which citizens may or may not own guns and under what circumstances, and generally tolerates Congress passing laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. I don't see that changing.

08-08-2006, 02:25 PM	#25 (permalink)
Strag Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Columbus, OH, USA Age: 34 Posts: 5,004	Re: Very nice interview about gun control An interesting case is United States v. Miller, from 1939, in which was stated: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Here the SCOTUS is saying that the NFA-regulated shotgun in question isn't protected by the Second Amendment for use by the militia because it's neither part of "ordinary military equipment" nor could "its use....contribute to the common defense." This is debatable, since our military has used -- and still uses -- shotguns in military service, but, as the opinion makes clear, nobody was present during the hearings to argue this point. Nevertheless, this opinion is important because it implies that weapons such as M16s, M249s, and M240s, which ARE part of the "ordinary military equipment" of our day, are indeed protected by the Second Amendment for use by the militia. In effect, we in the militia should all be able to keep and bear these weapons. Last edited by Strag; 08-08-2006 at 02:45 PM.

08-08-2006, 04:22 PM	#26 (permalink)
TheFeniX Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 26 Posts: 4,478	Re: Very nice interview about gun control The problem with shotguns with sawed-off barrels is that it makes the firearm useless for almost any situation, besides concealment and robbery. A full-size shotgun will outperform a sawed-off version in any area except concealability. Basically (and this is my only opinion) is that the a sawed-off shotgun has no legitimate use, and is therefore illegal. And before anyone jumps on it: handguns do have legitimate uses. But I do agree that many anti-gun lobbyists routinely make hypocrits of themselves. Why shouldn't a "militia" be granted access to full-auto assault-rifles if it's for militia uses? __________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TheFeniX's Steam Profile TG's Team Fortress 2 Steam Group

08-08-2006, 04:34 PM	#27 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,919	Re: Very nice interview about gun control Why aren't 'the militia' and 'the right to keep and bear arms' seperate clauses within the same sentence? __________________ A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Catalyst v5.8 Drivers Out Today	FishRoy	Hardware & Software Discussion	1	09-17-2005 09:31 PM
Control Monger (free FPS)	draconus	First Person Shooters (FPS)	5	08-02-2005 11:37 AM
Detecting and controlling Control Freaks	shroompicker	General Discussion	5	05-01-2005 02:02 PM
Lirix Logic : Crowd Control	Lirix	World of Warcraft - General Discussion	2	04-08-2005 01:07 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links