Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The constitution and so on don't have anything to say about safety. It is not a question that enters into things.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The constitution and so on don't have anything to say about safety. It is not a question that enters into things.

no the Constitution is about Rights and so forth.

Something about people waiting safety over liberty deserves neither comes to mind.

 Desubot wrote:
Something about people waiting safety over liberty deserves neither comes to mind.

yeah, also the Patriot Act comes to mind too, how long did that fly ?

 Desubot wrote:
Something about people waiting safety over liberty deserves neither comes to mind.

Guess the Tree of Liberty was getting thirsty for some more blood then.

Nothing'll change and we'll have the same argument in a few months when the next shooting happens

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The constitution and so on don't have anything to say about safety. It is not a question that enters into things.

Rosebuddy wrote:




Basically the benefits of having lots of firearms everywhere are outweighed by the negatives. Someone thinking that their revolver is pretty neat simply isn't worth it.

That statement has nothing to do with safety either. The federal constitution along with the marjority of state constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That puts a high value on right of people to own firearms and means that in theory every citizen in the country can own firearms and means that the people that wrote those constitutions and the people that still follow them and continue to preserve the right to own firearms value the widespread possession of firearms. That means to a great many people the benefits of widespread firearms ownership exceeds any and all of the negatives of widespread firearm ownership. That fact opposes Rosebuddy's opinion.

It has already begun a couple of threads down -- active shooter at a Walmart in Amarillo.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/693859.page

As for why the Bill of Rights protects the right to bear arms...

It was to put down slave revolts.

Yay, us.

One of the wonderful things about our forefathers - they kept records of what they were doing, and why they were doing it.

Which means that there are primary sources.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
As for why the Bill of Rights protects the right to bear arms...

It was to put down slave revolts.

Yay, us.

One of the wonderful things about our forefathers - they kept records of what they were doing, and why they were doing it.

Which means that there are primary sources.

The Auld Grump

Actually the right to bare arms was put in so that if the Government should ever become to powerful it is up to the people to revolt and tear it down. get it right.

Where does it say 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.[79]

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where does it say 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.[79]

its in the part of the security of a Free State, if a Government gets all too powerful and oppresive then this is no longer a free state but an oppresive regime.

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where does it say 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.[79]

its in the part of thesecurity of a Free State, if a Government gets all too powerful and oppresive then this is no longer a free state but an oppresive regime.

Or it could be that there wasnt an established Federal Military, they needed a well regulated militia to defend them selves, yknow with pesky ol Britain still smarting from losing their colonies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.

He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.

He has nominated one.

The Senate, in their "advise" role, stated that they'll wait till after the election.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where does it say 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.[79]

its in the part of thesecurity of a Free State, if a Government gets all too powerful and oppresive then this is no longer a free state but an oppresive regime.

Or it could be that there wasnt an established Federal Military, they needed a well regulated militia to defend them selves, yknow with pesky ol Britain still smarting from losing their colonies.

at the Time the US had a regular Army.

Asterios wrote:
at the Time the US had a regular Army.

The country did not have a permanent army, and the constitution provides no basis for one. It authorized the raising of an army for a war or conflict, and then at the end, that army would be disbanded. A permanent professional army is a relatively new thing in the US.

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
at the Time the US had a regular Army.

The country did not have a permanent army, and the constitution provides no basis for one. It authorized the raising of an army for a war or conflict, and then at the end, that army would be disbanded. A permanent professional army is a relatively new thing in the US.

but at the Time they did have a Regular army, they did not have a full time army like you said till 1784.

Wasn't there also a butt load of attacks by indigenous people around that time as well?

Prestor Jon wrote:
The federal constitution along with the marjority of state constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That puts a high value on right of people to own firearms and means that in theory every citizen in the country can own firearms and means that the people that wrote those constitutions and the people that still follow them and continue to preserve the right to own firearms value the widespread possession of firearms.

It doesn't say that, it says "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."

Emphasis on well regulated. The definition of "regulate" is:

1a: to govern or direct according to rule
1b: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority

2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to

3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of

So no, it's not stated anywhere in the constitution that US citizens have a right to unrestricted access to firearms. To the contrary, regulation is explicitly spelled out by the founding fathers as being a prerequisite for citizens having guns.

Putting down slave revolts, Indian uprisings, rebels, and other outlaws on a dangerous frontier seem to be the prime motive for the 2nd.

You will notice the few times citizens rose up with their arms the Feds were pretty quick to stomp that noise out. Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, John Brown's raid, the Confederacy, etc.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The federal constitution along with the marjority of state constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That puts a high value on right of people to own firearms and means that in theory every citizen in the country can own firearms and means that the people that wrote those constitutions and the people that still follow them and continue to preserve the right to own firearms value the widespread possession of firearms.

It doesn't say that, it says "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."

Emphasis on well regulated. The definition of "regulate" is:

1a: to govern or direct according to rule
1b: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority

2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to

3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of

So no, it's not stated anywhere in the constitution that US citizens have a right to unrestricted access to firearms. To the contrary, regulation is explicitly spelled out by the founding fathers as being a prerequisite for citizens having guns.

pay attention to the commas.

I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.

maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.

maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.

They can change their mind at any point in time, and the US can repeal the 2nd whenever they want.

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.

maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.

They can change their mind at any point in time, and the US can repeal the 2nd whenever they want.

problem is repealing the 2nd. Amendment would be like declaring a revolution right then and there, no Government official would even dream of trying since it would be the end of this country.

as to the Supreme court it has been thru too many trials now for them to overturn it this case has come before them with both sides in power and in power in the supreme court and has held steadfast, so doubt any would change it in the future.

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.

maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.

They can change their mind at any point in time, and the US can repeal the 2nd whenever they want.

problem is repealing the 2nd. Amendment would be like declaring a revolution right then and there, no Government official would even dream of trying since it would be the end of this country.

If the 2nd ever gets repealed, it will be because enough people wanted it repealed and they voted for politicians willing to repeal it. It wouldn't be the end of the country any more than repealing slavery was.

The only people who will refuse to obey it are people who love their guns more than the constitution.

as to the Supreme court it has been thru too many trials now for them to overturn it this case has come before them with both sides in power and in power in the supreme court and has held steadfast, so doubt any would change it in the future.

There really has only been one case that settled the "punctuation" question, and the number of rulings doesn't always serve as an indication for future rulings. Segregation was ruled constitutional many times, until it wasn't. Bans on interracial marriage were ruled legal, until it wasn't. Gun rulings have gone back and forth. The SCOTUS is always free to change their mind, and whatever their ruling is it will be constitutional since that is how rulings work.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The federal constitution along with the marjority of state constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That puts a high value on right of people to own firearms and means that in theory every citizen in the country can own firearms and means that the people that wrote those constitutions and the people that still follow them and continue to preserve the right to own firearms value the widespread possession of firearms.

It doesn't say that, it says "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."

Emphasis on well regulated. The definition of "regulate" is:

1a: to govern or direct according to rule
1b: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority

2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to

3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of

So no, it's not stated anywhere in the constitution that US citizens have a right to unrestricted access to firearms. To the contrary, regulation is explicitly spelled out by the founding fathers as being a prerequisite for citizens having guns.

You created that argument out of nothing it's a complete straw man. At no point in my post did I ever make the claim that the 2A granted unlimited access to firearms. My post makes factual statements that the federal constitution, the majority of state constitutions and SCotUS all guarantee the right of US citizens to own firearms. It is an incontrovertible truth that the 2A and state constitutions enshrine the right of individual ownership firearms and therefore they support the widespread and ubiquitous ownership if firearms. Those documents and the people who wrote them and continue to abide by them all agree that the benefits of firearms ownership outweighs the negatives. That truth opposes Rosebudy's opinion that was presented as a declarative statement.

The amount of regulation imposed on private firearm ownership that is constitutional is a wholly separate issue that was not addressed in my post.

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.

maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.

They can change their mind at any point in time, and the US can repeal the 2nd whenever they want.

problem is repealing the 2nd. Amendment would be like declaring a revolution right then and there, no Government official would even dream of trying since it would be the end of this country.

If the 2nd ever gets repealed, it will be because enough people wanted it repealed and they voted for politicians willing to repeal it. It wouldn't be the end of the country any more than repealing slavery was.

The only people who will refuse to obey it are people who love their guns more than the constitution.

as to the Supreme court it has been thru too many trials now for them to overturn it this case has come before them with both sides in power and in power in the supreme court and has held steadfast, so doubt any would change it in the future.

There really has only been one case that settled the "punctuation" question, and the number of rulings doesn't always serve as an indication for future rulings. Segregation was ruled constitutional many times, until it wasn't. Bans on interracial marriage were ruled legal, until it wasn't. Gun rulings have gone back and forth. The SCOTUS is always free to change their mind, and whatever their ruling is it will be constitutional since that is how rulings work.

Slaves were never part of the Constitution only the freeing of them, and I repeat we saw how the alcohol ban went, it got repealed really fast. another thing that was not a constitutional amendment that granted us a right to drink, and when slaves were talked about freeing that still started a civil war, i repeat i do not see any Government nor the people removing the 2nd. amendment it would lead to all out war. and one the Government would not win. also segregation was not a constitutional amendment either.

Asterios wrote:


Slaves were never part of the Constitution only the freeing of them

Have you tried reading the thing, or studied any of the history of the thing?

There are quite a number of things that are only in the constitution strictly because of slavery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
, i repeat i do not see any Government nor the people removing the 2nd. amendment it would lead to all out war. and one the Government would not win.

I'm just going to assume you don't realize how amendments get passed, so I'll help you out.

If the 2nd ever gets repealed, it will be because enough people voted for pro-repeal politicians that 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate voted in favor of this amendment and enough people voted in state elections to elect enough pro-repeal legislators that 38 state legislatures voted in favor of the amendment.

So if it ever gets repealed, it will be because there is widespread popular support in favor of repeal.

Do I think it's going to happen anytime soon? Heck no. But it's silly to pretend it couldn't happen or that it would be the result of a mandate by a very clear majority of the public if it did.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The federal constitution along with the marjority of state constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That puts a high value on right of people to own firearms and means that in theory every citizen in the country can own firearms and means that the people that wrote those constitutions and the people that still follow them and continue to preserve the right to own firearms value the widespread possession of firearms.

It doesn't say that, it says "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."

Emphasis on well regulated. The definition of "regulate" is:

1a: to govern or direct according to rule
1b: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority

2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to

3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of

So no, it's not stated anywhere in the constitution that US citizens have a right to unrestricted access to firearms. To the contrary, regulation is explicitly spelled out by the founding fathers as being a prerequisite for citizens having guns.

Again...that is incorrect.

By LEGAL STATUTE... 'militia' is indistinguishable to 'the people'.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.

I finally watched it.

I fething despise Obama more than ever...

He's more angry at Trump that he is at the death of those 50 victims.

That whole speech can be distilled to:

America... I'm am disappointed in you.

feth him. He's now making me reconsider my #NeverTrump stance just to fething spite Obama. FETH!

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:


Slaves were never part of the Constitution only the freeing of them

Have you tried reading the thing, or studied any of the history of the thing?

There are quite a number of things that are only in the constitution strictly because of slavery.

ok then show me, what Constitutional Amendments said we have a right to slaves? what Constitutional laws are there because of slaves?