Firearms proposal from da Basement

[JMHawkins]

At da same time, the right to vote doesn't kill or injure 100,000 Americans a year.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

[Stosh]

Any law that criminalizes the law-abiding citizen while having no effect on criminals is not the type of law this country needs, especially in the area of Constitutional rights.

 

Criminals don't care about what the laws say, that's why they are criminals. Law-abiding citizens, however, do take laws to heart. So it begs the question, who then is affected by restrictive legislature? Do these gun control bans really keep criminal activity at bay or just restrict law-abiding citizens from effectively defending themselves if necessary?

 

There will always be a universal howl if restrictions were imposed on free speech, religious beliefs and voting. All of which are identified in the Bill of Rights. Well, so is the right to bear arms. Why would anyone think it acceptable to ignore the howl of that right being imposed on?

 

Yes, I think that restricting voting in any sense of the word, is unacceptable. I think that restricting free speech or religious beliefs is unacceptable and I think restricting the right to bear arms, any arms of any sort, is unacceptable. I will stand against the people who propose such things, especially those who were sworn to uphold the Constitution as part of their responsibilities.

 

Are these people who swore to uphold the Constitution liars? Ignorant of the Constitutional law? or just didn't mean it when they took the oath of office. In any case, we really don't need elected officials who fall into any of those categories. Sure politicians lie during their campaigns, but once they take the oath of office, I expect them to honor their oath.

 

Stosh

[Cambridgeskip]

A bewlidered Englishman writes.....

 

I've watched the dozens of threads about gun ownership in recent weeks unfold with plenty of interest but until now decided not to join in. At the end of the day it's USA's problem to deal with. I'll keep out of it.

 

But......

 

I am confused.

 

And please don't take this the wrong way, this is not some snooty Brit looking down his nose at America. This is just a Brit being confused. So three questions for you.

 

Quite a few on here refer to the constitutional right to bare arms, alongside right to free speech, right to vote and also the fact that there is no constitutional right to a roof over your head.

 

Do you consider the right to own a fire arm as important as the right to vote or the right to free speech?

 

Second.... people keep saying a restruction is unconstitutional. If the majority of the population thought it needed changing couldn't you just change the constitution? Apologies if that seems a simplistic question.

 

Finally. Folks talk about freedom from tyranny. Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you mght become an Orwellian nightmare? We're talking about a country that is the ultimate democracy. From what I can see you vote on pretty much everything from The President through to your local Fire Chief. That is the culture you live in, or it is the one that I see as an outsider. Maybe the reality is different. So do you really fear government power?

[pchadbo]

Do you consider the right to own a fire arm as important as the right to vote or the right to free speech?

Yes I do, then again I value my right to a free press, my right to assemble peacfully and my right to uwarranted searches and seizures, and the others enumerated in the Constitution equally.

 

Second.... people keep saying a restruction is unconstitutional. If the majority of the population thought it needed changing couldn't you just change the constitution? Apologies if that seems a simplistic question.

Yes if the a congress were to propose a Constitutional amendment and it was ratified by 2/3 of the states then, yes the Constitution could be amended

 

Finally. Folks talk about freedom from tyranny. Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you mght become an Orwellian nightmare? We're talking about a country that is the ultimate democracy. From what I can see you vote on pretty much everything from The President through to your local Fire Chief. That is the culture you live in, or it is the one that I see as an outsider. Maybe the reality is different. So do you really fear government power?

Simply put, yes I fear Government power, I do not wish for my government to to cortol my actions if they do not infringe upon the rights of others. I recognize the need for protections from my fellow citizens that may not be "all there" but that does not mean that I am willing to trade my freedom for security.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin,

 

edited cuz I still can't type

 

I did leave out the point that Hitler was elected.

(This message has been edited by pchadbo)

[Stosh]

"And please don't take this the wrong way, this is not some snooty Brit looking down his nose at America. This is just a Brit being confused. So three questions for you."

 

Being of British ancestry and with relatives of British citizenry (British and Australian) and 50 years of studying American history, and trying to not be an arrogant Ugly American, I'll try and address your concerns.

 

"Quite a few on here refer to the constitutional right to bare arms, alongside right to free speech, right to vote and also the fact that there is no constitutional right to a roof over your head."

 

Yes, that is true, Manifest Destiny and the American Dream implies Americans are allowed to make whatever life they strive for. Everyone is supposed to be pulling their own weight in our society and be allowed to prosper from the toil of their own hands.

 

"Do you consider the right to own a fire arm as important as the right to vote or the right to free speech?"

 

The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution (Bill of Rights) are the irrevocable basic rights of every citizen. They as a whole are not to be infringed upon nor is one more or less important than any of the others.

 

"Second.... people keep saying a restruction is unconstitutional. If the majority of the population thought it needed changing couldn't you just change the constitution? Apologies if that seems a simplistic question."

 

There are those that feel the Bill of Rights are revokable, others feel they are not. Some assume that God given rights are not a votable issue.

 

"Finally. Folks talk about freedom from tyranny. Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you mght become an Orwellian nightmare? We're talking about a country that is the ultimate democracy. From what I can see you vote on pretty much everything from The President through to your local Fire Chief. That is the culture you live in, or it is the one that I see as an outsider. Maybe the reality is different. So do you really fear government power?"

 

When America was set up originally by our Founding Fathers (aka Damn Yankee Rebels in your parlance) they felt that the federal government was to never get into the hands of just a few, i.e. monarchy, dictatorship, etc.) The Constitution actually states more often than not what the minimal expectations are for the federal government and more importantly what it cannot/should not be doing. Each of the "united" States was far more autonomous than they are today. Originally not all 13 colonies were on the same page! States rights for the first 80 years ruled as supreme in America. When the US Civil War broke out there were only 14,000 US federal soldiers available to defend the country. After the Civil War, the power of the various states was broken and shifted to a strong federal government, something our Founding Fathers would have had a serious problem with. For 150 years the strength of the federal power has increased to the point where it has become bureaucratic and unwieldy. As you read in the news today, many of the States are once again flexing their muscles and wanting to go back to the original intent of the Constitution, something that is not going to happen overnight.

 

Can the US as a democracy ever become tyrannical? Like the frog in cold water, put on the stove and heated up slowly, YES! In the 1930's it happened in Germany, and evidence of such governments, even democratic governments, is obviously on the horizon.

 

While the rule by King George was intolerable to Americans in 1776, the tyranny of a strong federal government in American is always a threat today. Can the individual states, when they see this on the horizon rise up to defend themselves? Yes, and one can see that happening on an every increasing level today in America.

 

It's an interesting quote, but to give you an idea of the attitude of people 150 years ago, when the United States government offered Robert E. Lee a commission in the Army at the dawn of the Civil War, he turned it down, NOT so he could align himself with the Confederate States of American (Which almost word for word had the same Constitution as the US) but so that he could return home and defend his homeland...Virginia! Robert E. Lee held a commission from the Confederate States of America, but in reality he fought solely as the overall commanding general of the Army of Northern Virginia!!! U. S. Grant on the other hand was overall commanding general of all northern US forces regardless of what state they represented. That gives one the perspective of how important the state rule of the US Constitution really means to some American today. Texas and Arizona are fighting the federal government on immigration issues. Kansas threw down the gauntlet on the oil pipeline, Washington tossed their hat in the ring on the marijuana issue, and one is seeing a movement towards returning to the intent of the original Constitution because they are seeing an ever increasing tyranny of a power hungry Washington federal government.

 

I hope this offers you clarification on maybe just one perspective of your concerns.

 

Stosh

[OldGreyEagle]

"We're talking about a country that is the ultimate democracy."

 

Actually we are a Republic, perhaps semantical, but I had to say it

[RememberSchiff]

Well speaking for myself

Do you consider the right to own a fire arm as important as the right to vote or the right to free speech?

Yes. Maybe because I have been a crime victim more than once, I consider the right to self defense (life) most important.

 

Second.... people keep saying a restriction is unconstitutional. If the majority of the population thought it needed changing couldn't you just change the constitution?

Our constitution can be amended/ratified only by our elected federal and state legislatures. We the people cannot vote for a Constitutional Amendment. Our Founding Fathers had concerns about majority rule, in particular, an uneducated, emotional majority rule so they wanted the Constitutional to be rather difficult to amend at least without some heavy consideration.

 

Finally. Folks talk about freedom from tyranny. Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you might become an Orwellian nightmare? We're talking about a country that is the ultimate democracy. From what I can see you vote on pretty much everything from The President through to your local Fire Chief. That is the culture you live in, or it is the one that I see as an outsider. Maybe the reality is different. So do you really fear government power?

Well we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic which elects its representatives and obeys its constitution. Some fifty years ago, I learned in Civics class, that we are a nation of laws, the same law applies to everyone and that the distinction between a right and a privilege is that you cannot forfeit your rights and government cannot take your rights away. I am less sure about that.

 

In my lifetime, the US has been in many wars. None were declared by Congress as required by the Constitution. There were Congressional authorization of funds for these undeclared wars. Even the War Powers Act was not followed in our recent attack on Libya. Our Constitution also requires that treaties be approved by Congress but that occurs less and less. Checks and balances among our three government branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) is vanishing.

 

If the IRS "thinks" you ran afoul with your federal taxes, you are presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent. IRS now there is tyranny.

 

Speaking of tyranny, there is the Patriot Act allowing indefinite detention if someone rightly or wrongly is labeled a terrorist. Whatever happened to due process?

 

So that's just some points. Hope this helps.

 

(This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)

[click23]

I have given up on this argument with most in the pro gun control crowd. Here how it normally goes:

 

Me: The Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Pro Gun Control Person(PGCP): (insert favorite pro gun control talking point)

Me: But the Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

PGCP: (insert second favorite pro gun control talking point)

Me: But the Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

PGCP: (insert third favorite pro gun control talking point)

Me: You really don't care what the Constitution states?

PGCP: Guns are evil

 

 

 

 

On another note, as you all know the 2nd amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. What most people do not know is that the Bill of Right contained a preamble, that was passed along with the 10 amendments,

 

"...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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution..."

 

Sounds like to me that the original states feared that the federal government would overstep its Constitutional authority, so they passes the Bill of Rights in to prevent abuse of power by the government.

 

 

"Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" seems to me to mean just about the same thing.

[pchadbo]

"Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" seems to me to mean just about the same thing.

 

I would argue that "shall not be infringed" goes further than "Congress shall make no law". one states that Congress can make no law, other rules and restrictions may be placed by others than congress, the other states that it cannot be infringed, by anyone.

[Basementdweller]

Cambridge.....some very good points and very similar to my line of thought.

 

 

The constitution says you can have arms......Honestly, are we speaking of fire arms???? dropping back 200 years....a fire arm was a single shot affair that took some time to reload.

 

I am not talking about a complete ban on firearms, just ones that are mean for people killing thats all. No semiautomatics with detachable magazines....just that simple. as brew, blake and eagle bragged about it takes just a split second to slap another 10 round magazine .

 

It is clear that these mass shootings are not an United States only problem. But we are the only Country that the Politicians are intimidated in to inactivity by the NRA.

 

I have formed a local group with several churches and other scout leaders to put pressure on our Congress man and Senators for change. We have drafted a letter and asked for a meeting with them thru our church minister.

 

 

[Beavah]

I would argue that "shall not be infringed" goes further than "Congress shall make no law".

 

Yeh could argue that, but you would be dead wrong. If yeh were to actually read anything da Founding Fathers wrote, yeh would know that in every document there was near universal agreement about da provisions of the first amendment. What you are mistakingly relying on is a modern change in da definition of "infringed" which adds a form of "trespassed upon". That definition did not exist at da time of da founders. It just meant "broken" or "substantially weakened."

 

Da first amendment also doesn't contain da qualifiers about well-regulated militia, which yeh seem to ignore.

 

It's fine to make an argument that da amendment should be treated more broadly, or that we should have a new amendment to protect da right to keep and bear arms more broadly than the 2nd Amendment currently does. But let's not make up nonsense.

 

Cambridgeskip, here are mine:

 

Do you consider the right to own a fire arm as important as the right to vote or the right to free speech?

Personally? No. It's a bit of an anachronism like da prohibition on quartering troops in homes during peacetime, eh? It's still a right of course, we should be opposed to quartering troops in peacetime. But as yeh can see, there is a minority of our population that gets themselves riled up about this sort of thing and starts to talk about da evil federal government movin' troops into your home. That view is most strongly present in da former Confederate States, who are da only ones who ever had federal troops present as an occupying army. Folks in my neck of the woods (an da rest of America) just roll our eyes at that nonsense. However, a majority of Americans believe pretty firmly in a right to personal gun ownership for hunting or protection if need be, and I'd be among that group. Not an unregulated, unrestricted right, but one that is still strongly secured.

 

If the majority of the population thought it needed changing couldn't you just change the constitution? Apologies if that seems a simplistic question.

Constitutional change requires 2/3 vote of both houses of congress, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the full legislatures of the states. So it's not an easy process. Practically speakin', on this issue, it would be impossible to either weaken or strengthen da 2nd Amendment protections. That's why yeh get some of da folks mentioned in question #1 who try to make ridiculously broad, expansive interpretations of da 2nd Amendment, and some on the other side who try to make far too narrow an interpretation. Da Supreme Court ruling in Heller tried to get to a proper interpretation; it protected a right to gun ownership in the home, but left open reasonable regulation.

 

Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you mght become an Orwellian nightmare?

This is a staple of modern American political rhetoric, particularly among less-well-educated rural folk of the former Confederate states. In a lot of cases it's unsophisticated folks being taken advantage of by political operatives who know what works best to generate donations. Yah, some people really do believe it, though I reckon it's more that they get caught up in da emotion and self-righteousness of the argument rather than actually have that as an intellectual belief.

 

That having been said, there is a long tradition of fringe apocalypticism in evangelical Christian groups in America. We have groups predictin' da end of da world or da end of da nation on an ongoing basis. Some apocalyptic literature (like the "Left Behind" series) is quite popular, and an over-emphasis on da Book of Revelation is common in many of da evangelical churches. Again, particularly in da states of da former Confederacy, extending west to "survivalist" types who hide out in da eastern Rockies.

 

Yeh have to add to that long-standin' cultural phenomenon modern economics. Da reality here in America is that small-town rural farm communities are dying. Modern mechanized agriculture means that the demand for farm labor is less than ever, so da population move to urban/suburban areas has accelerated. Even our traditional farm belt states like Nebraska have crossed da threshold where a majority of the population now lives in urban centers. So for older folks in da small-town farm belt, and for others in places like coal mining districts, this really does feel apocalyptic, eh? They feel like da America they knew is being slowly eroded and goin' away. That's leadin' to a lot of fear, and a lot of blaming of centralized "government" (or illegal immigrants, or...) that is takin' their America away. It's nonsense; most of those areas are net recipients of federal dollars, eh? Da rest of America is propping them up with subsidies for farming and roads and electricity and telecommunications and schools. But that's not what it feels like to them. Hence yeh get da core of the Tea Party phenomenon.

 

So yah, there are some folks who genuinely believe it, but it's a combination of culture and economics, with a healthy dose of cynical self-serving politicians and lobbyists exploiting those trends for their own purposes.

 

You're quite right, though, from any objective view from outside it's hysterical. Culturally, we are the most rabidly democratic and disobedient lot on the planet. Da path downward for us isn't federal tyranny, it's social fragmentation.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[pchadbo]

"Da first amendment also doesn't contain da qualifiers about well-regulated militia, which yeh seem to ignore.

 

It's fine to make an argument that da amendment should be treated more broadly, or that we should have a new amendment to protect da right to keep and bear arms more broadly than the 2nd Amendment currently does. But let's not make up nonsense."

 

First, I am not making up nonsense, and having read quite a bit about and by our Founding Fathers, I like to think I am fairly well educated on the subject.

 

Second, I am not ignoring the clause "a well-regulated Miliitia being neccessary for the protection of a free state," it is just that in the context of the times and currently, in this debate it is an irrelevant point.

According to 10 USC 311

the militia is defined as:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

 

Since this was originally adopted in 1791 and updated as recently as 2012, and since I meet these criteria, I am a member of the "militia" therefore, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

I don't see where it is up for interpretation. The national guard is not our Milita, it is a Federal force, the Militia is us "folks"

 

 

I will also concede the point about the differences between the clauses as I am not familiar with the etymological evolution of the word "infringed"

 

 

---must learn to type---(This message has been edited by pchadbo)

[Papadaddy]

Not to pick nits, but the National Guard is a state force under control of the several Governors unless Federalized by the POTUS.

 

So, basement wants us restricted to single shot bolt action .22s, like 11 year old Boy Scouts. Let me know how that works against a home invasion. I'm keeping what I have until they haul me off to jail.

[Beavah]

I don't think that's what BD said, Papadaddy. I think he was OK with semi-autos with fixed magazines, like a pump-action shotgun. Just no removable clips for fast reloading, like da Glock he owns. If yeh can't deal with da home invasion with a bunch of rounds from your shotgun yeh probably shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, eh?

[Stosh]

It might be interesting to have a poll of those who have never had their home invaded and are pro-gun vs. those who have and are pro-gun people.

 

I'm guessing there would be a significant difference in the numbers.

 

As one who has had a bad experience as a kid, it ain't no fun realizing you are totally incapable of defending yourself, your family and your home. However, with that being said, I've done a lot to make sure it never happens again.

 

And what even more astonishes me more is the number of people even this past week who have said that they now have weapons in their homes. My Ex-wife even told me she how has had the training and keeps a gun in the house. This from a woman 30 years ago would not allow any gun in the home under any circumstances. They had to be locked up and squirreled away in the garage. My niece announced yesterday she went to the firing range for handgun training for the first time in her life.

 

With all the hype of having guns potentially taken away, why are so many people getting them? Gun dealers are having a hay-maker day! I'm thinking all this anti-gun political hype is making us a society of pro-gun citizens.

 

Stosh