The Latest Shooting Victim
on January 17, 2013 at 6:54 amThe Constitution. Even the gun grabber’s own ignorant words tell the tale of how stupid their hoped-for prohibition is: they call them “military-style” weapons. In other words, it has nothing to do with function, but is about fashion. And such a ban is unconstitutional, because as many have pointed out, it was exactly militarily useful weapons that the Founders wanted to protect.
[Update a couple minutes later]
When only the police are armed, or they outgun the citizenry, it’s called a “police state.” Which is what leftist regimes always turn into, because it’s their goal.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Here’s another casualty of the war on guns: the truth. The kind of CDC “research” that Obama wants to see is almost invariably fraudulent anti-gun propaganda. Guns are not a disease.
I think yesterday showed more fear of the Right than support of the Left. The only thing Obumble did was make the anti-gun know nothings ‘feel’ better about removing guns from the country. There are too many people watching this right now for the WH to do anything. And I think he really was worried about the Impeachment charges being filed.
Agreed. I’d bet cash that the list of Executive Orders Obama had had in mind when Biden announced the issue was a lot different and filled with words like “ban”, “confiscate”, and “disband”.
OTOH, some of that list that didn’t look like Kabuki stuck me as attempts to work around the restrictions on using the NFA database as a backdoor registry… and this is just what Obama was willing to publicly commit to, from behind his human shield of children.
Game’s not over yet.
Rand, in your opinion, what do the words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” mean?
In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is responsible for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” the militia. In your opinion, what constitutes “organizing, arming, and disciplining?”
Note that it says “arming”, not “disarming”…
It also says “disciplining” and “well-regulated.” What do those words mean in this context?
Well, that’s an interesting question. But there’s one thing we can say in advance, it does not mean disarming.
I’d be interesting to hear people’s opinions on whether the Swiss rules as described in the Wiki link I posted earlier are or should be legal under the US Constitution:
Gun politics in Switzerland
Strange country when the both require people in the militia to keep guns in the home but not give them ammunition and then have requirements like this to carry in public, “stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger”
Some states here have a similar need based requirement which is kinda of BS because the same people who put those laws in place don’t think anyone needs a gun. Consequently, very few people qualify for a permit.
“Rand, in your opinion, what do the words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” mean? ”
If you study, read, digest the writing contemporary to the times, you will see that the “well regulated” part clearly means “smoothly functioning”.
I won’t speak for Rand, but here’s a few people’s opinion.
Obama thinks free birth control is a right and he said in his speech that he believes in the 2nd amendment. So if the 2nd amendment calls for arming the populace then when I can expect my free Obama gun?
Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? Now you know how the rest of us feel about Obama’s mandates.
Rand, in your opinion, what do the words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” mean?
I think it was a justification for the subsequent part, ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Apparently, some of the founders believed that wide spread ownership and use of firearms was necessarily in order to have a well-regulated militia, which in turn was necessary to have a secure free state. That makes sense, considering that “militia” meant at the time any able bodied person (together with an appropriate set of gear). and a population of people who don’t know anything about guns isn’t going to make a useful militia.
And remember, people, that in the context of the Second Amendment, “regulated” didn’t have the modern meaning. Look at definition #4 here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated
What part of “the right of the people … shall not be infringed” is difficult to understand?
My guess: the word “not.”
Chris, in your opinion, what do the words “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” mean?
Well, that word “people” apparently means “state,” in opposition to everywhere else in the document.
To gerrib, Cuomo, and the people of the State of New York, I ask again:
“Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?”
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism.
Uncanny how Hamilton had the likes of gerrib pegged over 200 years ago.
They guy who shot up a school in Connecticut was somebody’s son, brother and neighbor. As was the guy who shot up firefighters come to put out a fire he started in New York. As was the guy who shot up a movie theater in Colorado.
Are these fellow-citizens worthy of our trust?
Well, you’re certainly not.
Yes, as a friend of mine once put it, the pro-gun-control (actually, pro-people-control) crowd don’t trust the unregulated individual, which indicates that at heart they don’t trust themselves, so why should we trust them?
I’d also like to know what crystal ball or psychic powers Gerrib would have his beloved Big Brother use to determine, before the fact, who should be trusted and who should not. Had the shootists in the examples he gave shown any indication, before the fact, that we would be justified in disarming them? Certainly Gerrib himself doesn’t seem smart enough to figure it out, and if he had psychic powers he could see what the US economy will look like when statism does it’s usual thing. Maybe he’s waiting for the future shown in that Tom Cruise movie where the State could see into the future who would commit crimes and who not.
The question I asked and you keep dodging is “what does ‘well-regulated’ mean?” What level of regulation is acceptable?
what does ‘well-regulated’ mean?”
The answer is found in the source for my quote. Yes, I didn’t provide a link to the source, but I gave one hell of a clue. I figure someone that claims to be historical scholar would know how to do research, but I suspect too much. As I read the source, the answer is closer to wodun’s comment at 9:24a.
Leland – Hamilton, in Federalist #29 (your source) is talking about using the militia to defend against invasion. He therefore defends “confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.”
So “well-regulated” by your definition means that the Federal government can require you to buy a gun and gear, attend training and be called out to serve. That’s what the Militia Act of 1792 required – written by the same people who passed the amendment.
If Congress can compel you to attend training and discipline you as a militia member, and being part of the militia is the reason for a right to own a gun, what part of Obama’s proposal violates the Constitution?
That’s neither mine nor Hamilton’s definition of “well-regulated”. Hamilton refers to organization and training. Your definition refers to arming, but it still incorrect. Also, Congress couldn’t compel you to attend training. That was a state issue.
gerrib just because you trusted Jose Padilla, and Obama trusts Bill Ayers, doesn’t mean the rest of us do. That’s why we like the fact that intrust, we are all allowed to keep and bear arms.
And how pray tell would any of Obama’s “Presidential actions” or the removal of 3 rounds from a clip have done anything to avert the action of those two people. If it was known that the guy that STOLE a gun and shot the firemen was so untrustworthy, then why did they let him out of jail to begin with? He was already imprisoned for beating his own mother to a bloody pulp with a hammer (quick someone blame the HAMMER). I’d say he already ranked pretty low on the scale of trust. Yet the New York correctional services seemed to think it was okay to let him free. No talk of investigations into the guidelines for releasing criminals because that would make it uncomfortable for people inside the government. But for the rest of us little people it’s all about unconditional sacrifice in the name of the greater good. Why? because shut up that’s why or else your advocating the mass murder of children!
“Are these fellow-citizens worthy of our trust?”
Observe the plaintive cry of the totalitarian: “we cannot trust some of the people; therefore, we must distrust all of them!”
The reason “that guy” got away with shooting up that school was the lack of trust the state showed in law abiding people by declaring the school a “gun free zone” thus making it impossible for them to defend themselves yet doing nothing to deter “that guy”.
Even the gun grabber’s own ignorant words tell the tale of how stupid their hoped-for prohibition is: they call them “military-style” weapons. In other words, it has nothing to do with function, but is about fashion.
As others have pointed out, the earlier “Assault Weapon Ban” concentrated on features like flash suppressors, pistol grips and bayonet mounts. It was a ban on “scary looking weapons” written by people who knew little or nothing about weapons. The law was a failure because all it required the manufacturers to do was remove the scary features and change the name to make the weapons fully legal. Now, they want to do it again. As Einstein noted, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different outcome. By this definition, the would-be gun controllers are insane. But then, I’m becoming more convinced of a former co-worker’s opinion that liberals are indeed insane as well as morally deficient.
If you knew nothing else about conflicting interpretations of the Second Amendment, the fact that addicted State-fellators such as Gerrib always choose the statist intepretation tells you a whole heckuva lot.
It’s funny that nobody seems to have an answer to what would appear to be a simple question: what does “well-regulated” mean? What level of regulation is acceptable?
Me, I’m open to suggestions. But mainly from people I can trust: that is, people who DON’T like to live on their knees. *(That lets you out, CG.)In the immortal words of Leonard Read. “Anything that’s peaceful” (i.e., anything not entailing the use of aggressive force). Personally the question is academic to me because I don’t believe my rights are granted to me by the State; so even if you could prove that the writers of the Constitution were as anti-liberty as you and your gang are, and intended only people in State militias to own firearms, I would say, “Okay, let’s change the wording to make it more explictly pro-feedom.” That’s a “living constitution” I could get behind.
And as far as dodging questions go, I’df still like to know what magic your beloved, all-knowing Big Brother can determing before the fact who will commit a crime with a firearm and who won’t. Since (unlike Gerrib’s beloved State) about 99% of the gun-owners in this country don’t and haven’t used their guns aggressively, it would seem that it’s pretty safe a gun-owner is innocent until proven guilty.
A history of mental illness or a felony conviction – two things that a universal background check would reveal.
Your turn.
And a universal background check would have stopped zero of the last four mass shootings.
Yep. What George notes shows why gerrib’s glib response fails to answer Bilwick’s question. Heck, Hasan was the psychiatrist that determined if someone was mentally stable.
And speaking of unanswered questions, I’m still waiting to learn why A attacking B gives C [which in this case, I guess, stands for "Chris"] the right to attack–i.e., initate force–against D. I guess Gerrib believes the mere possibility of A attacking B gives C the right to attack D.
I’m also waiting to hear why Smith’s desire to feel safe from Jones gives Smith the right to infringe on Brown’s liberty.
My state used to maintain a well-regulated militia. Twice a year the men in the counties would pile into the fields for a day or two of drill and practice, similar to the two-weeks a year people give to the National Guard. If they didn’t bring a gun they had to use a stick as a practice dummy for learning to march, present arms, at-ease, and such.
The “well regulated” part, along with other provisions, meant that the state appointed officers for all the regiments. Many of my state’s counties are named after early militia officers, and I have a book an inch thick listing every officer who ever served, down to ensigns (and why did we have ensigns when we didn’t even have a lake, much less a navy?).
Famously during the War of 1812, when our militia was sent to New Orleans, they left their guns at home with their wives (for defense against attack on the home front) and showed up at the battle unarmed, expecting that guns would be issued to them there. That hadn’t been the plan, and a lot of bad blood ensued.
What that indicates is that not only couldn’t they take your guns, they couldn’t actually make you bring your gun to drill or to battle if your wife needed it at home.
The main thrust of the 2nd amendment is affirm the right of the people to establish a counter balancing force to an overbearing standing arming. It’s doesn’t extend that right to a group of people forming a militia to take down the NFL commissioners office because they don’t like the replacement refs. So, “well regulated” sets a strict standard to which a group of armed citizens can be formally recognized as a self organized militia. The latter would just be consider a riot.
The term “well regulated”, I have read, meant “well supplied” back in the Founders’s day and has nothing to do with government regulations. The phrase about a “well-regulated militia” is a prefatory phrase and is subordinate to the operative phrase in the 2nd ammendment. The operative phrase is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and it overrides the “militia” phrase. The “militia” phrase is therefore irrelevant.
Complete agreement with Mr. Breeding’s statement.
I didn’ t answer CB’ s question about an acceptable level of regulation. That would be a LOT less than we have today. I’ d suggest rolling back regulations to what they were a hundred years ago, then deal with the mental health issues.
To meet the important purpose of the 2nd everyone should be able to own machine guns, RPGs, body armor, tanks, whatever.
I don’ t own any firearms but I understand their importance to our freedom. I have been thinking about buying a gun. Since I’m in Kalofornia I should try to get a unregistered one.
I think the government could regulate the militia by supplying individuals with ammo to maintain their gun control proficiency. I suspect Martijn to chime in along those lines…
Gerrib writes:
“It’s funny that nobody seems to have an answer to what would appear to be a simple question: what does “well-regulated” mean? What level of regulation is acceptable?”
It’s funny but you have been given the definition here in this thread and in dozens of gun threads in the past.
you simply don’t like the answer, or it’s beyond your ability to comprehend. I’ll try one more time:
In the lexicon of the times, it meant “smoothly functioning”.