Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Gun laws

  1. #41
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LenMiyata
    Grumble Grumble Grumble

    Actually, this statement is debatable, as it was the position of the US Justice Dept. (that is, up until the current administration) that the constitution only refers to the state rights to form their own militia/national guard and not for individual gun ownership rights.. The incident with the midnight ride of Paul Revere was to warn about the British attempt to seize the state militia armory, not the seizer of rifles from individual gun owners. Personal guns were kept seperated from the militia armory because of the issues over the misuse/theft of militia property. And that there is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent a state from controlling/restricting gun ownership for the citizens within it's borders. State and local laws restricting the ownership of guns have been declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court....
    You are right, it is often debated. Policy in interpetation is set by the head of the US Justice Dept. which is replaced with each presidency. Thereby it tends to be interpeted differently. If there hadn't been a dissagreements as to the meaning it wouldn't have had to be clarified.

    The result being that according to the 2nd amendment individuals have the right to bear arms (excepting criminals and those concidered mentally incompetant) and under the commerce clause the states have the right to regulate the commerce or sales of guns. The 2nd amendment says that
    "[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."
    Those who claim it is not an individual right quote the first half of the article and ignore the second half all together. A mistake considering that the first half of the statment is a subordinate clause to the second and is defining the reason for it. The phrase "the right of the people" is significant because it is used in The Bill of Rights (as well as the preamble to the Constitution) to specifically outline rights retained to individuals and not the government. This was actually noted by the Supreme Court in 1990 (in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ). The most significant point however is the fact that the 2nd Amendment is a part of The Bill of Rights, a document outlining the right's of individual citisens, and again, not the government.

    The fascinating part of all this is that the tradition of a citisens right to bear arms comes from our historical background with England. England not only traditionally had this right, at times it required it. Removing a right to bear arms was considered tyrany and the restoration of those rights to Prodestants who had been oppressed by Charles II and later James II was accomplished by the English Parliment in 1689 in a Bill of Rights that codified not only the right of individuals to bear arms but for Prodestants to specifically do so "suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". This Bill of Right's was not only practised by the colonists in America they were in fact encouraged to practice it by the British military.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boston Evening Post April 3, 1769
    It is certainly beyond human art and sophistry, to prove the British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms as expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights, and who live in a province where the law requires them to be equipped with arms, are guilty of an illegal act, in calling upon one another to be provided with them, as the law directs.
    In fact it wasn't until that same military began confiscating their arms and banned the import of any weapons to the America's that the Minutemen were formed.

    For a historical veiw on the subject:

    Quote Originally Posted by Noah Webster 1787
    Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
    Quote Originally Posted by "M.T. Cicero" 1788
    Whenever, therefore, the profession of arms becomes a distinct order in the state . . . the end of the social compact is defeated . . . .

    No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and the soldier in those destined for the defence of the state . . . . Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Mason 1863
    "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."..."Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison, "The Federalist No. 46" JANUARY 29, 1788
    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "[A] government resting on a minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
    And finally the origonal draft of the second amendment written by James Madison which was origonally intended to be placed in the Consitution in "Article 1st, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4." (Along with freedom of speech, the press, and religion.)
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
    I think it can be safely said that the interpetation of the second amendment as an individual right is not a new one.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON(warning: heavy, laborous, and well documented writting)
    It is also significant that in the only recent case to come before the Surpreme Court concerning the right to bear arms vs interstate commerce (United States v. Miller, 1939) the Supreme Court unanimously came down on the side of individual ownership.

    All that said my question was what do you think of:
    "There are two thought's on that. One that the "militia", a citizens military, is an important defense of the country. At any time, if an officer of the law feels it to be necessary, they may call upon and "deputise" citizens to support them. That would include invasion. The second thought is that the men who created the US government did not trust governments. An armed citisenry could be considered a deterent from tyrany. A concept that is easy to believe since historically one of the first things that happens when a government is being corupted and overcome from within is that those taking power remove the right of common citisens to own or use weapons. (Hitler did it in Germany and it was a tactic used for centeries in many parts of Asia and the Orient, for just a few examples.)"

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  2. #42
    Materials Master KnightofNi may be famous one day KnightofNi may be famous one day KnightofNi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Guns are a tool nothing more than that. Its another tool we used to kill somebody more efficienctly and quickly, I believe outlawing guns is a good idea, however whats a better idea is to try and stop the motive behind those who wish to kill. If a gun is taken away, those will malicious attempts will just find another way to kill somebody.

    Clan orders: Wear the signature of defeat with pride.

  3. #43
    Newbie RAve master may be famous one day RAve master may be famous one day RAve master's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Town of Konoha
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I think that we Don't need gun but if it is urgent just keep them but remember to use it in a good way not bad way or talk to covince them to stop them
    The Strong Shall Live And The Weak Shall Die

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts