"I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting. "
Yes you did.
Printable View
"I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting. "
Yes you did.
I know, right? The OP reminds me of Bruce Willis in Harlem in Die Hard 3 lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldVet
That should be required reading for our grand representatives, if they could focus attention long enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by OD*
Noun: the innermost and strongest structure or central tower of a medieval castle.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaGunny
There... cleared that up.
Yikes! Sounds like just exactly what our government wants- let's let them decide when protection of our families is important enough, or god forbid, WHO is important enough to receive protection. Yes, keep, keep, keep!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by DaGunny
:danceban: This......................Quote:
Originally Posted by Exacto
OP, welcome to the forum. The issue you raise was partially litigated in the Heller case and the remaining part of hte issue will likely be resolved when Moore, et al. v. Madigan, from the 7th Circuit reaches the SC.
In Heller, Justice Stevens in his dissent claimed that the 2A only applied to official militia activities (which presumably could limit the right to guns stored in an armory). This argument was refuted by Justice Scalia in the majority opinion wherein the court found that the 2A included a right to self defense and that right required that citizens be permitted to maintain loaded firearms at home to accomplish this. In the Moore case, just decided by the 7th Circuit in December, the court held that a right to self defense includes the right to defend oneself in places outside the home, so it found a constitutional right to carry. The Moore case will undoubtedly end up in the Supreme Court.
The point of this is that if you have a right to defend yourself , that right is effectively eliminated if you must first go to an armory to get your weapon. So even though the right to buy a weapon and store it at home or carry it is not explicitly stated in the 2A, it is impossible to be able to defend oneself without first buying a firearm and them being able to keep it loaded at home and outside the home. There is a strong precept in law that requires laws to be given a 'natural' rather than an 'artificial' reading. This means that if a law is construed to prohibit its natural function, that construction is invalid. So for example, you cannot give people the right to vote and then effectively prohibit them from voting by requiring the payment of a poll tax. THe same principle applies to the question of the purchase and carrying of firearms. BTW, the issue of the poll tax is also applicable to the issue of taxes on firearms and ammunition. You cannot have a right to keep and bear arms be subject to a punitive tax on guns and ammo that effectively bars citizens from owning guns and ammo to which they are entitled under the 2A.
Hope that answers your question
No question - individual right, recognized as pre-existing by 2A.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington
GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment
(much more in the link than just this snip below...,and if you really want to get froggy, do a search on Dick Act 1902)
Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
Introduction
The Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
The armory is exactly what the founding fathers were against.
The British first went for the weapon's stores, and ammo stores, because prior to the Revolutionary War many towns did exactly that -- stored things for a fight in a central location.
The fallacy of this thinking became apparent during the occupation years, 1768 - 1769, when citizens began to be alarmed by the presence of troops and they realized they had no means to defend themselves. After the King Street massacre -- and massacre is exactly the correct word, troops fired on citizens that were not armed with firearms -- in 1770, the end of the central, local armory was sealed.
This event was referred to in the drafting of the Bill of Rights, and in my opinion is exactly why there is a comma in the 2A. A militia yes, and also each individual free person, has the right to bear arms. The literal meaning of the 2A is that the government cannot disarm the people.
A central lock-up is a very bad idea.
I suggest that you need to re-read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuft
While you're at it, you'd do well to pick up a copy of the following book by David Young: The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms. It's a short (but dense) book on the history of the RKBA, from the Founders' point of view, the first systematic evaluation of period documents from the years between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification votes in the several states for the Constitution.
No, it couldn't (and doesn't) mean that.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuft
Yes, citizens could each opt to determine that a given location/manner of storage was preferable, assuming it's voluntarily agreed to by each citizen.
But the primary and obvious detriment to such a thing would be that such a single, centralized spot would be astoundingly more easily attacked and taken over by opposing forces in time of war or tyrannical threat, to say nothing of the fact that in time of rapidly-moving threats (such as every other instance of threat beyond war that could be somewhat predicted) each citizen would be bereft of his arms until he could travel to that central spot and become armed again. That's tantamount to asking a robber for a time-out sufficiently long to call 911 and await arrival of the cavalry. Ain't gonna happen, in practice.
Which is THE WHOLE POINT of leaving it up to each citizen to determine for himself how he's going to keep his arms and bear (carry/use) his arms. THAT is the true meaning of "shall not be infringed."
I think it's dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuft
The Second Amendment is an extremely broadly protected right of the People. It says, basically, that given having a capable and effective armed citizenry is important in order for us to remain secure as a People the right to both keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (adulterated, watered-down, limited, impeded, gotten in the way of, eviscerated or whatever other euphemism you choose to use).
Beyond which, the mere idea of questioning it presupposes that the People did not actually believe it their right to remain armed against threats, that the people did not reserve this right to themselves as preexisting and inviolable. That just isn't so.
IMHO.
To answer your question, NO!Quote:
Originally Posted by tuft
For reference (just so you are clear on what we are discussing):
You said:Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Actually it does: ",the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"Quote:
...but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a gun and privately keep it in their home forever...
Every single one of these words^^^^^^have one and only one specific meaning and the commas are there for a reason. You cannot redefine words or substitute improper meanings of the words nor can you ignore commas in an effort to imply that the 2nd amendment agrees with your uneducated interpretation of its meaning.Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You may have read the words but you failed to understand the collective meaning of the words and punctuation.
By the way, welcome to the forum. I hope you learn a few things while you are here.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmacque
"Central lock-up" is no different than Registration and Confiscation.
Registration, Confiscation, Extermination - a tried and true recipe for all dictators across the centuries. Take a look at this link:
Death by "Gun Control"
You know how you can't withdraw more than $600 at the ATM? Same deal. Your money right? If you don't hold it you don't own it.
"Sorry sir, you have withdrawn your ammo quota for today. What? Yes I know that it is yours, but we have our rules. It is for the safety of the system. We need to preserve liquidity and orderly controls".
Not that anything like a "Bank Holiday" ever happened in our history. Not like we'd ever see an "Armory Holiday". You know, kind of like a law that says there is a waiting period related to firearm purchases.
We know what it (2A) means because we were told in the recent Supreme Court Heller ruling.
Nothing else counts, no more than some convoluted viewpoint that income taxes are unconstitutional
or Brown v Board of Education isn't the law of the land counts.
I don't agree with big parts of the Heller decision. From the start I stated here it was the wrong case from the
wrong jurisdiction, on too narrow an issue, and the results would not be good for us. They weren't.
The issues argued here have been settled and the ruling is not going to be changed
even if Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy sit on The Supreme Court till they are each 110 years old. If the
interpretation supported by most participants here couldn't be sold to Scalia, it can't be sold to the
population at large.
So, the smart thing for us is to stop moaning about it, stop pretending there will be widespread civil disobedience
and law breaking from people who otherwise insist they are law abiding and peaceful.
A different approach then threats is needed. A smart political strategy is needed. And we won't get that
from the most vocal activist organizations which have to now harmed gun owners more than helped, by taking
thoroughly stupid positions. (It goes the same for Brady, and the most ardent anti folks- they won't get what they
want either).
Good policy and good law come from smart politics, not a refusal to uphold laws or from threats of violence and
resistance. (Ask the ghost of Lester Maddox how well that worked out for him.) This latter course produces chaos
and anarchy and will destroy our " One Nation Indivisible" from within. No sane person should want that.
Hopyard is your real name Neville Chamberlain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
OK, so what part of "keep" is limited as to location and duration?Quote:
Originally Posted by tuft
Have you done your research to understand that the "militia" as of 1786 was every able-bodied male? (Which we extend to women by modern Constitutional law.)
Go read both the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. You'll see that what survived in our Constitution is a watered-down version of what a lot of the Founders wanted.