The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-18-2012, 11:14 AM   #1
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
It is not, in my opinion, acceptable or desirable for people to be allowed to drive tanks down the public highway willynilly. They weren't made for use in that setting. Doesn't mean i want to ban all motor vehicles.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 11:17 AM   #2
orthodoc
Not Suspicious, Merely Canadian
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
It is not, in my opinion, acceptable or desirable for people to be allowed to drive tanks down the public highway willynilly. They weren't made for use in that setting. Doesn't mean i want to ban all motor vehicles.
I like your analogy, Dana, and I agree with your balanced view on the subject.
__________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. - Ghandi
orthodoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 11:37 AM   #3
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Our Forefathers envisioned a "well regulated militia" for the common good.
It seems to me that if you are making the argument that guns are only protected under the Constitution for militias, then you need to allow machine guns. After all, they are military weapons for a military organization. So if we want to restrict guns that look like machine guns, what we need to do is to change the interpretation of the Constitution so that the Constitutional purpose of guns is not to arm militias. Ironically, the Supreme Court did just that when they overturned the DC handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 08:55 AM   #4
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post
It seems to me that if you are making the argument
that guns are only protected under the Constitution for militias, then you need to allow machine guns.
After all, they are military weapons for a military organization.
So if we want to restrict guns that look like machine guns,
what we need to do is to change the interpretation of the Constitution
so that the Constitutional purpose of guns is not to arm militias.<snip>
Ummmm.... there are two issues here.

What was the wording of the original "2nd Amendment ratified by the States ?
To wit:

Quote:
CONGRESS of the UNITED STATES
Begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday,
the
Fourth of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine.


Article the first [Not Ratified]
Article the second [Not Ratified - until 1992, as the 27th Amendment]
Article the third [1st Amendment]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Article the fourth [2nd 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 laws passed by Congress after the States ratified
the Constitution and Bill of Rights are worded differently.

A great deal is made of the Federalist Papers regarding the intentions of our Forefathers.
John Jay's writings there on the 2nd Amendment (before ratification)
specifically discuss the need to give up some "rights"
in order to gain other benefits gained from the new federal government.


The "militia" of our Forefathers is not one of individuals with guns,
but of independent (non-federal) communities formally calling up individuals,
even to the point of a draft to meet quotas, to defend against foreign forces.
---

Second, our Forefathers could not have envisioned the machine gun,
or much of any gun we now call an "automatic firearm",
which came 50 to 100 years after ratification...

from Wikipedia:
The History of the Firearm
Quote:
<snip>
A repeating firearm or "repeater" is a firearm that holds more
than one cartridge and can be fired more than once between chargings.
Springfield rifles were among the very first breech-loading rifles, starting production in 1865.

The most well-known repeater is the American Springfield Model 1892-99

The earliest repeating firearms were revolvers (revolving rifles were sometimes called "turret guns")
and were "single action" in that they could only be fired one way: by manually cocking the mechanism
(drawing the hammer to the rear with the thumb) before each shot.
This design dates from 1836, with the introduction of the Colt Paterson,

The first successful rapid-fire firearm is the Gatling Gun, invented by Richard Gatling
and fielded by the Union forces during the American Civil War in the 1860s.
Thus, it only takes 5 USSC Justices to re-interpret "well regulated" to end gun violence.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 09:45 AM   #5
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Yeah, that's all interesting, but the Supreme Court already removed the whole militia part of the 2nd amendment. So a new Supreme Court would have to change that ruling to bring militias back into it, and then go on to do what you suggest.

The Wikipedia summary of the Supreme Court's holding in D.C. v. Heller:
Quote:
The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 09:52 AM   #6
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Exactly.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.