"I could care less if Snookie wore the same dress as J-Lo to the Quad-Annual "BlowMe" awards."

Unfortunately, you're unlike most people. Jersey Shore is still on because people care about what Snookie wore to the "Blow-Mes."
The corporate media is responsible for blurring the line between entertainment and news. But viewers and readers are also responsible because they want too much of the former and not enough of the latter.
If we're slowly becoming an Idiocracy, we have to share some of that blame.

alz wrote:

The right to bear arms has been almost annihilated entirely. It's amendment number 2... That's how important our founders thought it was.

What is your reasoning behind this comment?....Just wondering.

artie_fufkin wrote:

And it's certainly absurd for Sarah Palin to suggest the framers' intent was to allow people to arm themselves against the government they were trying to establish.

I dont think that is absurd at all.  In reality America couldnt overturn their own government through civil war today.  The US military would laugh at my 22 rifle.  Still think about the mind frame of the framers at that time.  They just fought and won a civil war.  If Britian had it to do over again they would have started going door to door and taking firearms at the first hint of civil war.  I think that was in the minds of these men.  There are civil wars going on around the world today.  At some point people have to take a stand.  Wasnt it Jefferson that said the people shouldnt fear the government.  The government should fear the people.  Now I dont believe that statement should be taken to mean in todays world that people need to start walking the streets of DC with ARs.  But at the time of the framers that is just what they got done doing.  I believe they wanted to impower the people to overturn the government if the same mistakes were made that GB forced upon the colonies.  What they didnt invision was the large technology armed military of today.

Sorry AP I missed it.

We are allowed to own guns, but there is almost always either a firearms owner registration, or a firearms registration, maybe both. We cannot always bear arms. Municipalities alone will ban this. Concealed carry involves a special permit, or is outright illegal in a lot of the United States. Not saying I agree or disagree with this, but if you have a criminal record will find it amazingly difficult to legally own a gun at all.

I don't believe for a second that our founding fathers were only okay with us bearing arms as long as the government knew exactly who owned what firepower. Quite the opposite, the ability to throw off an oppressive government (should it arise) was a fundamental reason for this rights existence in the first place, and that would be like giving your battleplan to the enemy. This is my opinion, but I believe it strongly. I own no guns, but walking down the street, I don't want anyone to know I don't own a gun. I want that knowledge to be secret, just for the crime deterrent. Some people believe in gun control, I am not one of them. I believe that gun control is only going to take guns away from people I don't mind being armed. No murderer is going to turn in his weapons because it's now illegal to own it... I want robbers to have no idea about the weapons in a place when they attempt a break-in to a home or mug someone on the city street.

It is most certainly not my decision, but I would believe that in most places in public, the best solution is for a man to look at another man and have no damned idea whether he's armed or not. I think we probably would treat our fellow humans with more courtesy if we thought they could be armed. I think violent crime would have an additional risk/concern and possibly deter a portion of it, though this last belief may be nothing more than a pipe dream, I will admit that freely.

This is really all just my opinion. Of all of the rights we are given as citizens, the right to bear arms allows us some capability of protecting every other right we have, and is the most important to me.

"It doesn't seem much of a stretch, especially given what the framers had just gone through, to suggest that the 2nd Amendment means that in order to ensure that the government doesn't abuse its power (using the military to facilitate that abuse), it is necessary for the citizens to maintain their own weaponry in order to have the ability to rise up against that abuse."

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The notion that a bunch of guys who just fought their asses off so they could form their own goverment would give an out clause that essentially tells the citizenry "Hey, if we suck, don't be afraid to shoot at us" doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me.

artie_fufkin wrote:

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The notion that a bunch of guys who just fought their asses off so they could form their own goverment would give an out clause that essentially tells the citizenry "Hey, if we suck, don't be afraid to shoot at us" doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me.

Disagreement noted, but I think that's exactly what they intended. 

For one thing, they had just done that very thing to the British. 

Secondly, the Constitution wasn't the first crack at forming a new government.  The first shot was the Articles of the Confederation in which the colonies chose not to create a sovereign nation, but chose instead to try to maintain the sovereignty of the individual states in a loose framework of unity.  The Constitution only came about after it became apparent this structure wouldn't work

The Constitution was not without its skeptics and there were plenty of concerns among those charged with achieving its final version about placing too much power in a centralized federal government.  In that setting, I don't find it difficult to conclude that one of the compromises between those who supported the idea of a national government and those who opposed it was to include a small reminder that the national government could be overthrown by force if it got a bit big for its britches.

Understanding that we disagree, I'd be curious as to how you would otherwise interpret the amendment.

Last edited by forsberg_us (4/13/2012 12:16 pm)

artie_fufkin wrote:

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The notion that a bunch of guys who just fought their asses off so they could form their own goverment would give an out clause that essentially tells the citizenry "Hey, if we suck, don't be afraid to shoot at us" doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me.

"Democracy - Form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people"

Taxation with representation is what started revolutionary war.  I believe that the framers thought if Democracy wasnt unheld over the years it was up to the people to correct it.

"I'd be curious as to how you would otherwise interpret the amendment."

I think the term "well-regulated" is important. And in the context of a militia, I don't think it means individual gun ownership is a right. And I certainly don't think it applies to a bunch of nuts in Michigan who camp out in the woods and arm themselves like a regiment because they're too old to play Cowboys and Indians anymore.

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

What I'm saying is you have to look at the Second Amendment in its entirety, not just parse out the parts someone wants to read as justification for carrying a gun wherever and whenever they want.

I dont think anyone has that right now as Alz has pointed out.

I was elbaorating about an earlier post in which I referenced Ted Nugent. I was watching one of those "Behind the Music" shows about him a few years ago and the interviewer asked him if he had a permit for his guns. His reply was that his permit was the Second Amendment.

I wouldnt put to much value in what he says.

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The notion that a bunch of guys who just fought their asses off so they could form their own goverment would give an out clause that essentially tells the citizenry "Hey, if we suck, don't be afraid to shoot at us" doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me.

"Democracy - Form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people"

Taxation with representation is what started revolutionary war.  I believe that the framers thought if Democracy wasnt unheld over the years it was up to the people to correct it.

But we have representation, AP. If we don't like the people who are making the laws, we have the right to vote them out of office.
I don't know what the answers are. If I did, I'd run for king. But I do know that we have too many gun deaths in this country. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but I recall reading we have 100 times as many gun deaths per year as there are in Europe. And no one can say it's because we've got a more violent society. Europe has been involved in almost every major war for the past millinneum.
I realize this is a bit simplistic, but if that Neighborhood Watch Captain isn't armed, the worst thing that happens is - depending on whose story you believe - someone is in the hospital getting stitches.

artie_fufkin wrote:

But we have representation, AP. If we don't like the people who are making the laws, we have the right to vote them out of office.

But what if that changes?  What options would we have then?  To move?

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

I was elbaorating about an earlier post in which I referenced Ted Nugent. I was watching one of those "Behind the Music" shows about him a few years ago and the interviewer asked him if he had a permit for his guns. His reply was that his permit was the Second Amendment.

I wouldnt put to much value in what he says.

He's become a pretty staunch advocate for gun ownership, AP. I think he was even thinking about running for governor of Michigan.

He runs off at the mouth.  He isnt a bad guy I just dont think he should be the advocate second admendment needs.  There are alot of normal everyday responsible people out there.  The Nug isnt one of those.  He gets headlines because he was in a 70s band and played a bunch of shitty music and he says extrem things.  He is also an advocate for hunting and has had charges brought against him for poaching.

Oh and I am sure he is following whatever gun laws Michigan has in place.

Last edited by APIAD (4/13/2012 7:53 pm)

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I'd be curious as to how you would otherwise interpret the amendment."

I think the term "well-regulated" is important. And in the context of a militia, I don't think it means individual gun ownership is a right. And I certainly don't think it applies to a bunch of nuts in Michigan who camp out in the woods and arm themselves like a regiment because they're too old to play Cowboys and Indians anymore.

It isnt a complete right because it can be taken away.  It doesnt apply to felons or the mentaly ill.  As for the nut jobs you speak of it has to apply to them unless they fall into the previous cases.  You cant disallow something just because you dont like their line of thinking.

I wrote that poorly. I'm not being selective. If we limit arms to the military and law enforcement - the "well-regulated" types - then we're consistent.

If "well regulated militia" is a reference to the military and/or law enforcement, why can't "the people's" right to keep and bear arms not be infringed upon?  The only way the clauses make sense together is if "the people" are intended to become the "well regulated militia."

Note that the 3rd Amendment speaks about quartering "soldiers" not members of the "militia." 

During the Revolutionary War, several "well regulated militias" fought alongside Washington's armies. They weren't soldiers, they were simply citizens with a stake in the outcome.

Finally (and I'm leaving the issue alone after this post) given that average citizens needed their weapons for a variety of things such as hunting and protection from indians and others, I can't imagine any way to suggest that the Framers intended to disarm the citizens of the new nation.  A good rifle was probably as important in 1787 as was a good plow. 

If you want to maintain that the recent scarcity of Indian attacks, coupled with the fact that most people now buy their food from the local grocery has reduced the need for the average citizen to own guns, I would agree.  But the Amendment doesn't limit one's right to keep and bear arms based upon need.