HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » good for blank stares fro...

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:09 PM

good for blank stares from 2nd amendment LUVAHS: the RKBA is in the Declaration, 2nd is CONTROL!!!

makes perfect sense to me- you might 'need' a gun to:

pursue (protect ) life,

liberty (from OTHER governments and terrorists, INCLUDING domestic),

and happiness (hunting with your kid).

verb (used without object)
2.to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.
Origin:1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2 + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break


'shall not be infringed' means 'not taken away'.

it doesn't say 'shall be limitless', in fact it recognizes that there WILL be 'regulation' and is designed to LIMIT IT.

NOT to infringe the regulations themselves.

guarantee the 'right to own' through law.

it is completely impossible to have a limitless law!

in the below, community means the nation; law and order does NOT mean 'MOR GUNZ'




law
1 Show IPA
noun
1.
the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2.
any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
3.
the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.
4.
a system or collection of such rules.
5.
the department of knowledge concerned with these rules; jurisprudence: to study law.

28 replies, 2174 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply good for blank stares from 2nd amendment LUVAHS: the RKBA is in the Declaration, 2nd is CONTROL!!! (Original post)
farminator3000 Feb 2013 OP
Bay Boy Feb 2013 #1
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #3
beevul Feb 2013 #6
tjnite Feb 2013 #7
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #10
Agschmid Feb 2013 #14
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #9
dairydog91 Feb 2013 #17
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #20
jmg257 Feb 2013 #2
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #4
jmg257 Feb 2013 #8
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #12
jmg257 Feb 2013 #13
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #21
jmg257 Feb 2013 #22
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #23
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #19
jmg257 Feb 2013 #24
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #25
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #5
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #11
SQUEE Feb 2013 #16
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #18
slackmaster Feb 2013 #15
jberryhill Feb 2013 #26
Loudly Feb 2013 #27
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #28

Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:15 PM

1. That was rather rambling....

...what was your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:13 PM

3. the 2nd amendment was the 1st instance of gun control.

and has nothing to do with freedom of guns.

get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:16 AM

6. No. Just no.

The second amendment wasn't an example of gun control, it was an example of government control:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

Read it some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:16 AM

7. perfect.

 

The bill of rights did not grant Americans any rights. We already had rights. The bill of rights was put in place to ensure the Govt doesnt erode those rights. Most folks dont understand that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tjnite (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:28 AM

10. you are repeating the NRA's BS, why?

check out #9. try some reading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tjnite (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:29 PM

14. So you must have just paid your NRA dues huh? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:27 AM

9. well, yes. lots of reseasonablr people agree- just the NRA's BS messing up the dialogue

Indeed, media bias in favor of the NRA's view of the Second Amendment (as protecting individual gun ownership) is so pervasive that even many gun-control supporters seem unaware that the federal high courts have never found a gun law to have violated the Second Amendment....skip
In complaining about bias, conservatives point to surveys indicating that most reporters are personally pro-gun control. But so are most Americans. A more revealing survey finding -- from the anti-gun control Second Amendment Foundation -- indicated that 69 percent of daily newspapers subscribed to the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

If mainstream journalism were intent on biasing the news in favor of gun control, would reporters be so credulous in accepting the NRA's view of the Second Amendment?
http://fair.org/article/gun-control-the-nra-and-the-second-amendment/


Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

But the right to bear arms is granted only in the context of a well-regulated militia and thus the security of a free state.

A National Guard, yes. Heavily-armed lunatics roaming the streets unregulated... never!

Lawyers and the courts have been fighting over guns for 220 years, since that great day in 1791 when this magnificent document was ratified. The essence of the Founders' intent was embodied in the Supreme Court's 1939 Miller decision, the prevailing judicial view until the recent coming of a hard right NRA-based court very much out of synch with the sane balance our nation has tried to maintain between gun rights and the public good.
As we've just seen in Tucson, these faux "conservatives" have allowed renegade ownership of rapid-firing instruments of wholesale slaughter.
This imbalance clearly threatens "the security of a free state." The Second Amendment says access to these weapons must be strictly regulated.
As a free and lawful people, we have the legal duty to end this unconstitutional madness.

Make no mistake: this murder and mayhem has been made possible by the claim to a Constitutional right that is not there.

The assassins and mass murderers who continue to threaten our national security make ever so clear the reason for the Founders' demand that gun ownership be regulated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/the-second-amendment-dema_b_808384.html

This will be the first time in nearly 70 years that the court has considered the Second Amendment. The outcome of the case is difficult to handicap, mainly because so little is known about the justices’ views on the lethal device at the center of the controversy: the comma. That’s right, the “small crooked point,” as Richard Mulcaster described this punctuation upstart in 1582. The official version of the Second Amendment has three of the little blighters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:32 PM

17. Um, what?

even many gun-control supporters seem unaware that the federal high courts have never found a gun law to have violated the Second Amendment

What? SCOTUS found two such laws to be unconstitutional, D.C.'s law in Heller and Chicago's in McDonald. Other laws have been found unconstitutional by Circuit Courts.


The essence of the Founders' intent was embodied in the Supreme Court's 1939 Miller decision

What, that the Second does not protect the right to possess specific types of guns that would have no purpose in a militia context?


The assassins and mass murderers who continue to threaten our national security make ever so clear the reason for the Founders' demand that gun ownership be regulated.

If the Founders were "demanding" that the Federal government have the authority to regulate gun ownership, why didn't they do something wacky like, say, specifically authorizing that power in Article One?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:11 PM

20. you heard me.

even many gun-control supporters seem unaware that the federal high courts have never found a gun law to have violated the Second Amendment

What? SCOTUS found two such laws to be unconstitutional, D.C.'s law in Heller and Chicago's in McDonald. Other laws have been found unconstitutional by Circuit Courts.

unaware that the federal high courts

not circuit courts. also that article was from 13 years ago. and yes, there's heller, McDonald said that heller applies to the states.

The essence of the Founders' intent was embodied in the Supreme Court's 1939 Miller decision

What, that the Second does not protect the right to possess specific types of guns that would have no purpose in a militia context?

well, yes. exactly. there you have it.


The assassins and mass murderers who continue to threaten our national security make ever so clear the reason for the Founders' demand that gun ownership be regulated.


If the Founders were "demanding" that the Federal government have the authority to regulate gun ownership, why didn't they do something wacky like, say, specifically authorizing that power in Article One?


apparently they did, check Sec. 8.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:46 PM

2. I think that would draw a blank stare from most people...

can you clarify what it is you are trying to show by comparing the Declaration's example of unalienable rights with the 2nd amendment's control on govt, and the addition of a dictionary meaning of law?




Anyway, I think you might be better off comparing the preamble of the constitution with the 2nd amendment, since that is mostly the role the militias were to serve, and so the primary reason the right was secured.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:27 PM

4. true. most people don't really think about the 2nd amendment much, i guess!

the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders.

yes, i realize the Declaration is just a piece of paper- it still has meaning and intent.

so the domestic tranquility part is life, liberty and happiness.

Justice is obvious.

the common defense is the RKBA.

the general welfare is the right NOT to KBA

we have the largest military in the world- the common defense is an outdated concept, here in "posterity". meaning the present, from their viewpoint.

the general welfare is taking a pretty serious hit from the RKBA, i'd say.

the law definition was for people who don't seem to get it.

i can't see how current 'gun laws' are having a positive effect on law and order.

the 2nd amendment is about gun regulations, why else would they use the word?

they didn't say 'secret' or 'unhinged' or 'free-for-all' militia...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:42 AM

8. I think plenty of people think about the 2nd. The thing is, no one should think about

the 2nd without thinking very hard about the Militia.

We see how important they will be as we get from the preamble to A1 S8

"Establish Justice" will become "enforce the laws".
"Insure Domestic Tranquility" will become "surpress insurrections".
"provide for the Common Defense" will become "repel invasions"

ALL of these to be the role served, at least initially, by the Militias of the several States. (federal Armies and Navies provide defence eventually; while states cannot keep troops - they do have Militias)

As in:

"Congress shall have the power:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"


Congress can raise Armies and maintain Navies, but only the Militias have specific duties mandated.

and more when we get to A4S4

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."


Where we further 'Secure the Blessings of Liberty for...posterity' - where a free State is guaranteed, freedom from tryanny & despotism, from invasion & violence, again all via the very vital role of the Militias.

SO of course the Militias had to be well-regulated....uniformly organized, armed and disciplined - trained under the authority of States per the regulations prescribed by Congress. Our liberties & freedom depend on it!


The 2nd is about securing the Militias - period. They are vital, they are NECCESSARY for our freedom. They must be well-regulated...they must be well armed, well disciplined and well trained. Only then can they serve effectively as mandated, AND reduce the need for that bane of liberty & arm of tryants - a standing army.

The existence of Militias - THIS is the intent of 'the right to keep and bear arms' - the ability of the people to serve, to enjoy their right and privilege and duty to be part of the Militias...secured from govt infringement to keep the Militias from being destroyed.


Yes the people have allowed Congress to re-create the Militias of the several States into the federally controlled National Guard. Yes we have ignored the intent of the 2nd and now provide for a HUGE standing army. Both of these things reduce the need for the security of the 2nd amendment, as the people's role in the militias has been severally reduced. But do not look to the 2nd for the ability of government to regulate arms, its intent was to prevent the people - the Militia - from being DISarmed.

That power to control exists for the governments, but it is certainly not granted in the 2nd.



On a side note, The Militia has served it's role numerous times when they were called forth over the years. Look for them to do so again when these jackass bubba militias' start resisting any enacted attempts to control their arms.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:42 AM

12. yes!

On a side note, The Militia has served it's role numerous times when they were called forth over the years. Look for them to do so again when these jackass bubba militias' start resisting any enacted attempts to control their arms.

i'll respond more later, but thanks! you understand!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:12 PM

13. Cheers - looking forward to it. I also enjoyed reading #9. Also, in this matter,

People should not ignore the debates in Congress re: the article that became the 2nd amend. Several days worth of debate and NOT ONE mention of 'the right to keep and bear arms' outside of a militia purpose.

'keeping arms' is rendering militia service.

'bearing arms' is rendering militia service.

'Compelled to bear arms' means forced to turn out, to fight.


17 Aug. 1789

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. ...

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
...
Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
...

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
...
Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
...

20 Aug.

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:56 PM

21. it depends which dictionary you use, in a way...

'keeping arms' is rendering militia service.

'bearing arms' is rendering militia service.


i think a lot of people are all 'keep' and not so much with the 'bear'

oxford dictionary-

keep-
put/store
6 keep something + adverb/preposition to put or store something in a particular place.Keep your passport (gun) in a safe place.

bear-
be responsible for something
3 bear something (formal) to take responsibility for something

or...

carry
8 bear somebody/something (old-fashioned or formal) to carry somebody/something, especially while moving

OR...
Idioms
bear arms
(old use) to be a soldier; to fight

is it just one of those? 'militia' is mentioned before 'bear' so the idiom would be redundant.

and 'carry' would be kind of silly, why would one keep a gun, but not be allowed to carry it?

i like the 'take responsibility' definition! it IS #3, and carry is #8...

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

i would think we'd go with the modern definition of the word, not the meaning at the time?

here are 30+ definitions of 'bear' from 1755:
http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=2513

what does it mean in article 14, for instance?
, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

i'm still trying to decipher ye olde language there! pretty cool, is there a link for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:37 PM

22. Ha..that dictionary would make it easier! But at least we have examples

Of common usage. That's why I like the contemporary debates so much. Unfortunately there always seems to be a wrench thrown in...something that goes against the grain. Then, like now, everyone had there own priorities I guess.

I do like your examples though...especially the lack of 'bearing' these days.



Mason's original Master draft seemed to lean more heavily on the the RKBA as a seperate notion...still related but more stand alone. By the time of ratification, the need for the militia justifies the right. The Senate would have made all this debate meaningless if the motion to add 'for the common defence' at the end of "the right to keep and bear arms" had been approved.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:49 PM

23. ha! check this one out!

The Senate would have made all this debate meaningless if the motion to add 'for the common defence' at the end of "the right to keep and bear arms" had been approved.

Colbert then turned the conversation to the Second Amendment, asking if Sotomayor believes “we have the right to own any weapon that we want.”

Perhaps previewing the upcoming fight on gun control in the Supreme Court, she laughed and said, “You’ll find out soon enough, when a case comes up.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sotomayor-comes-out-as-independent-teases-2nd-amendment-case-in-candid-colbert-interview/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:09 PM

19. true, some think, some GROUPthink, i guess! here's some stuff-

Last edited Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:25 PM - Edit history (1)

"Congress shall have the power:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"


Congress can raise Armies and maintain Navies, but only the Militias have specific duties mandated.


article-

In fact, if we restored the Second Amendment to its original meaning, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare. Invoking the Second Amendment ought to be a more effective argument for increased regulation than it is against it.

-skip-

In 1776, most of the original state constitutions did not even include an arms-bearing provision. The few states that did usually also included a clause protecting the right not to bear arms. Why? Because, in contrast to other cherished rights such as freedom of speech or religion, the state could not compel you to speak or pray. It could force you to bear arms.

The founders had a simple reason for curbing this right: Quakers and other religious pacifists were opposed to bearing arms, and wished to be exempt from an obligation that could be made incumbent on all male citizens at the time.

When the Second Amendment is discussed today, we tend to think of those “militias” as just a bunch of ordinary guys with guns, empowering themselves to resist authority when and if necessary. Nothing could be further from the founders’ vision.

-skip-

States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.

These laws also defined what type of guns you had to buy — a form of taxation levied on individual households. Yes, long before Obamacare, the state made you buy something, even if you did not want to purchase it.

-skip-

The founders had a word for a bunch of farmers marching with guns without government sanction: a mob.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900

this is funny, because i'm a farmer AND a Quaker!

***

While American leaders were contemplating calling a convention to revise the Articles, violent resistance to traditional law enforcement¾most notably Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts¾underscored the sense of crisis that many Americans felt. Farmers led by Captain Daniel Shays marched on local courthouses in western Massachusetts, shutting down the courts and intimidating judges and others. Eventually militia companies from eastern Massachusetts dispersed Shays and his followers.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm

***

ok, about A4 S4-
and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."


silly question, but the 'executive' means the governor of said state, or the Pres.?

thanks, i didn't even realize the domestic violence part was there!
also interesting- the slavery part left there for people to see. like a reminder. good idea!

***

now, don't Sec 1+2 sort of say-
'if one state has a gun law that protects people, other states might want to think about doing the same'?

Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

***
(going off on a tanget here)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/executive-order-nra-should-fear-most/61004/
President Obama is looking at issuing 19 executive actions on gun control, and while gun enthusiasts fear a gun ban that can't happen by executive order, there is one proposal that should make the gun lobby plenty nervous: allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/16/obama_gun_control_executive_orders_call_for_cdc_gun_violence_research_17.html
Better understand how and when firearms are used in violent death: To research gun violence prevention, we also need better data. When firearms are used in homicides or suicides, the National Violent Death Reporting System collects anonymous data, including the type of firearm used, whether the firearm was stored loaded or locked, and details on youth gun access. Congress should invest an additional $20 million to expand this system from the 18 states currently participating to all 50 states, helping Americans better understand how and when firearms are used in a violent death and informing future research and prevention strategies.

so this is the culprit- (it took a few minutes to find, it needs a 'catchier name')
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill. HR 3610
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470#ref-jvp120140-4

how do we do away with these ^^^ types of things (Tiahrt, the next link)?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text
is crumpling them up and chucking them an option? just start over?

interesting! this is the guy who wrote that blob in bold 5 lines up- he changed his mind!!!
http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/post/90244/jay-dickey-on-obamas-order-to-ease-research-on-gun-violence

Others are more cautious. The Union of Concerned Scientists said the White House's view that the law does not ban gun research is helpful, but not enough to clarify the situation for scientists, and that congressional action is needed.
http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/90243/will-obamas-order-lead-to-surge-in-gun-research?page=all

(i'll be back)

thanks!







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:45 AM

24. Hey - real quick on this...I finally found more info on A4 S4...

THis is from the Virginia Ratifying Convention

Mr Pendelton:

They say that the state governments have no power at all over the militia. The power of the general government to provide for arming and organizing the militia is to introduce a uniform system of discipline to pervade the United States of America. But the power of governing the militia, so far as it is in Congress, extends only to such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. When not in their service, Congress has no power to govern them. The states then have the sole government of them; and though Congress may provide for arming them, and prescribe the mode of discipline, yet the states have the authority of training them, according to the uniform discipline prescribed by Congress. But there is nothing to preclude them from arming and disciplining them, should Congress neglect to, do it. As to calling the militia to execute the laws of the Union, I think the fair construction is directly opposite to what the honorable member says. The 4th section ofthe 4th article contains nothing to warrant the supposition that the states cannot call them forth to suppress domestic insurrections. All the restraint here contained is, that Congress may, at their pleasure, on application of the state legislature, or (in vacation) of the executive, protect each of the states against domestic violence. This is a restraint on the general government not to interpose. The state is in full possession of the power of using its own militia to protect itself against domestic violence; and the power in the general government cannot be exercised, or interposed, without the application of the state itself. This appears to me to be the obvious and fair construction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:37 PM

25. interesting!

domestic and violence both still mean the same thing...

On Oct. 22, 1786, in a letter seeking more information from a friend in Connecticut, Washington wrote: “I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe.”

In another letter on Nov. 7, 1786, Washington questioned Gen. Lincoln about the spreading unrest. “What is the cause of all these commotions? When and how will they end?” Lincoln responded: “Many of them appear to be absolutely so if an attempt to annihilate our present constitution and dissolve the present government can be considered as evidence of insanity.”

However, the U.S. government lacked the means to restore order, so wealthy Bostonians financed their own force under Gen. Lincoln to crush the uprising in February 1787. Afterwards, Washington expressed satisfaction at the outcome but remained concerned the rebellion might be a sign that European predictions about American chaos were coming true.

“If three years ago any person had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws & constitutions of our own making as now appears I should have thought him a bedlamite – a fit subject for a mad house,” Washington wrote to Knox on Feb. 3, 1787, adding that if the government “shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws … anarchy & confusion must prevail.”

-skip-

So, it would be counterintuitive – as well as anti-historical – to believe that Madison and Washington wanted to arm the population so the discontented could resist the constitutionally elected government. In reality, the Framers wanted to arm the people – at least the white males – so uprisings, whether economic clashes like Shays’ Rebellion, anti-tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or slave revolts, could be repulsed.

However, the Right has invested heavily during the last several decades in fabricating a different national narrative, one that ignores both logic and the historical record. In this right-wing fantasy, the Framers wanted everyone to have a gun so they could violently resist their own government. To that end, a few incendiary quotes are cherry-picked or taken out of context.

This “history” has then been amplified through the Right’s powerful propaganda apparatus – Fox News, talk radio, the Internet and ideological publications – to persuade millions of Americans that their possession of semi-automatic assault rifles and other powerful firearms is what the Framers intended, that today’s gun-owners are fulfilling some centuries-old American duty.

The mythology about the Framers and the Second Amendment is, of course, only part of the fake history that the Right has created to persuade ill-informed Tea Partiers that they should dress up in Revolutionary War costumes and channel the spirits of men like Washington and Madison.

But this gun fable is particularly insidious because it obstructs efforts by today’s government to enact commonsense gun-control laws and thus the false narrative makes possible the kinds of slaughters that erupt periodically across the United States,

-skip-

Today’s American Right is drunk on some very bad history, which is as dangerous as it is false.
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/21/the-rights-second-amendment-lies/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:58 AM

5. Just because the words are all in english doesn't mean they resolve into coherence.

Especially when wholly dependent on your interpretation of a context that you declare.

I don't think my chemistry is aligned to follow this stream of consciousness far enough to glean a lot from it. Far as I get you are saying the right is inferred in the Declaration so by mentioning it directly it is by definition (not mine...but arguably) regulating them and as such is limiting them (which is closer to true but who is limited?) which in turn means LEZZ GUNZ or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:39 AM

11. try smoking a doobie, it might help! and thanks for the lack of snark...

I don't think my chemistry is aligned to follow this stream of consciousness far enough to glean a lot from it.

i'm just doing what the NRA does, making up my own version of the 2nd.

the idea being someone like yourself, who doesn't seem narrow-minded, might take a minute and realize that the absolutist position of 'we get any gun we want' actually has little to no basis in reality?

more concise- Heller said you can have "a gun" NOT "any gun you feel like having"

edit: and check out #9, if you can...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:39 PM

16. My keeping my firearms is based on not commiting crimes.

I wish we could smoke about this.. but nevertheless.

The BOR is set up to limit governments natural proclivity to overreach and grow at the expense of the individuals liberty.

I am comfortable with many of the restrictions, and recognize there are limits to what firearms are sensible to have in the posession of the citizen. This is unfortunately a sliding scale based on the individual. As is often the case, what I determine to be my right, may excede what you believe. To handle this conflict we, The People, have abricated part of our responsibility to the courts. To enforce we have also abricated and placed responsibility on LEO.

The NRA, and the even further right types that want to buy full auto's and MANPADS at a local gun store do not represent me, John sQuee Citizen any more than the ban everything types represent farminator3k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:08 PM

18. cheers! pass the dutchie to the LEFT!

This is unfortunately a sliding scale based on the individual.

nail, head , bang! (no pun intended)

uuuuuuuuuuunnnnm <--that is literally my cat's feelings on the subject!

To handle this conflict we, The People, have abricated part of our responsibility to the courts. To enforce we have also abricated and placed responsibility on LEO.

The NRA, and the even further right types that want to buy full auto's and MANPADS at a local gun store do not represent me, John sQuee Citizen any more than the ban everything types represent farminator3k.


keep it.....SQUEEL, bro!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:30 PM

15. Give It A Rest, farminator3000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:21 PM

26. Dilute! Dilute! Ok!

All eternally one, or none!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:45 AM

27. My opinion is that you're a poor excuse for a Democrat.

 

It's like you've crawled out of a cave and expect everyone to cater to your caveman values.

Please try to catch up. You are a throw back.

Slavery has been abolished and everything!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:33 AM

28. i'm glad you think that, i wouldn't want to be involved in any sort of 'groupthink'

i am simply typing words on the internet, i sure don't expect people to agree with me.

in fact, i expect disagreement, but a little more than you seem to be offering.

throwback? slavery abolished?

ever heard of the prison industrial complex?

The Prison-Industrial Complex - Eric Schlosser - The Atlantic
www.theatlantic.com/...prison-industrial-complex/304669/
Correctional officials see danger in prison overcrowding. Others see opportunity. The nearly two million Americans behind bars—the majority of them nonviolent ...

and non-white, so...

i thought democrats were supposed to be open minded?

you got a problem with Quakers, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread