Guns

[ThomWV]

I do not know how to say this without stirring up a hornet's nest of differing opinion but as one of the people who has an informed belief that the 2nd Amendment is protective of a personal freedom and not, as has been argued, a ploy to check the power of state's militias or one to empower them either I am pleased that the question is going to come before the current Court. On this matter in which no militia is in play but just the right of the individual to be armed if they so choose the Court will finally have to make the choice. I think the current Court will get this one right.

In a Court so interested in the original intent of the Founding Fathers when the document was written the version of the Amendment first to mention the right to bear arms will certainly be of interest. Predating even George Mason's Master Draft of the Bill of Rights (June 9, 1788) we have the Amendments proposed by Pennsylvania Minority (December 12, 1787) which reads:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense 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 injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."

Hard to beat that one for a clear definition of what the Founding Fathers had in mind. I hope the Court agrees.

[NYVet]

1. Thank you for this Gem...

I had never seen this information before.

[derby378]

2. Now this one's a keeper...

"...and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."

Amen to that as well.

[Donkeykick]

3. I do not think that guns are going to be...

taken away.

I receive email from Congress.org, and (Congress.org) tells me that (it) expects this to be going on right up until 2008 election. I do not think that one needs a degree to figure out why this is going on here. :think:

The religious right will not be so strong this time--just think how much the GOP let them down the last time.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Yeah, well, that's not the version that was ratified, is it? Back...

in the eighteenth century the local militia was the presumed protector from France, Spain, Canada, other states, enraged Indians, and others who might want to do nasty things to a very few and small United States.

The talk of standing armies alone says where this guy is coming from. As in Switzerland, gun ownership and membership in the militia is not so much a right as a civic obligation.

So, now that we have a huge standing army, along with a navy, air force, and Homeland Security, what is the need for a militia? And with little need for a militia, what is the need for private gun ownership?

And, back in the 1700s, what was the prevailing attitude toward any existing local gun control?

[derby378]

5. Take a look at the Bush administration, and you have your answer

We've been cowed into thinking that we are powerless against our own government. This is exceedingly dangerous.

[ThomWV]

6. Since you asked ...

The prevailing attitude toward gun control back then wasn't much different than it is now. People who lived in cities who had not particular need for guns for purposes other than self protection didn't care much and people in the country considered the right to bear arms not only a protection against a runaway Government but also a means of self preservation in both the protection and feeding sense.

As to the version we ended up on I would suggest you go read the history of the amendment for yourself. I have and it is what brought me to the opinion that the right is a personal one and not, as a few have tried to argue, somehow a plot to divert militia powers from enforcing slavery in the south (bet you didn't know about that argument) or one to empower the Federal Government in the ability to keep a standing Army by virtue of mandatory arming of the various state's militias. There have been some arguments made that would simply astound you on both sides of the issue but any reading to follow the intent of the framers and their reasoning leads you to understand that the Amendment itself is as it is for a combined purpose. First to insure the freedom of the individual to arm himself and second to check the power of the state's militias. Do the reading, the information is not all that difficult to find.

[two gun sid]

7. In my opinion the court will give a ruling...

that will neither uphold or strike down private gun ownership. It will be vague enough to allow the goddamn right wing and the NRA to use it as an issue in the election. Another election cycle dominated by abortion, gun control and gay marriage. Forget our shitty economy, National Health Care, the Iraqi War and real discussion and peace in the Middle East.

[CK_John]

9. I agree, they will say it is a right reserved to the states, and the ruling is designed to cause

chaos in the campaign.

[CK_John]

8. Also not the one accepted by the Continental Congress, rejected right out of the box. n/t