Schism in the Democratic Congress over the Second Amendment

[Mango]

The Second Amendment reads "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 intent of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the newly formed Congress from taking away the states' rights to have a militia - not to make sure that Frank the wack-a-doo can more efficiently shoot up a campus or office building or that Bubba can turn a duck or deer into confetti.

From Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

"The Second Amendment was never intended to provide a constitutional right for individuals to own any and all firearms. In fact, as historian Michael Bellesiles has noted, when the Second Amendment was drafted, gun control laws were the norm in most of the colonies. Contrary to the image portrayed by the gun lobby, guns in those days were rare and expensive. As a result, colonial legislatures from New Hampshire to South Carolina imposed communal storage of firearms and permitted them to be removed only in times of crisis or for "muster day" - the day when the militia would perform its drills. The newly formed states implemented strict laws on gun possession - and historian Saul Cornell has recognized that in most states only the adult, white male population was allowed to own firearms, and even then they were subject to further restriction. In the mid-eighteenth century, Maryland forbade ownership of guns by Catholics and seized the weapons of any eligible male who refused to serve in the militia. In Pennsylvania, over half of the eligible gun-owning population, meaning free, white adult males, were deemed to lack the virtue necessary for the possession of firearms. Again, contrary to the public's understanding, the history is clear that our founding fathers lived during a time of strict gun control."

That is how linguists view the 2nd Amendment. However, the right to bear arms was brought forth by the Founders from England where it was lawful to bear arms to defend your family and property.
James Wilson , who signed the Declaration of Independence, was a lawyer and a major Contributor to the drafting of the Constitution, in the following passage from his Lectures on Law, he equates the passage in the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania protecting the right "to bear arms in the defense of themselves" with the right of personal defense of one's self or house.

An example discussed by both sides comes from a proposed amendment to the draft of the Constitution proposed by dissenting Pennsylvania delegates to the convention to ratify the US Constitution:

the people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game
​

There can be no question that bear arms here is not limited to military activity on the part of a militia.

While I certainly do not want guns of any type falling into the hands of nut jobs, I am no proponent of bigger government and taking away liberties afforded by Americans within the Constitution. Frankly, though, I do not understand the need for these assault weapons or rapid firing firearms? If a gun is truly for protection and one knows how to use it, then why the need for something that fires in rapid succession? Pardon me, I know nothing about guns, I just think of AK47's and what I see in violent movies. Because it's your Constitutional right? It just doesn't make sense to me. If someone feels the need to own that, at that point, society would be out the window and life would be pretty grim.

 

[WhoDat1]

That is how linguists view the 2nd Amendment. However, the right to bear arms was brought forth by the Founders from England where it was lawful to bear arms to defend your family and property.
James Wilson , who signed the Declaration of Independence, was a lawyer and a major Contributor to the drafting of the Constitution, in the following passage from his Lectures on Law, he equates the passage in the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania protecting the right "to bear arms in the defense of themselves" with the right of personal defense of one's self or house.

An example discussed by both sides comes from a proposed amendment to the draft of the Constitution proposed by dissenting Pennsylvania delegates to the convention to ratify the US Constitution:

the people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game
​

There can be no question that bear arms here is not limited to military activity on the part of a militia.

While I certainly do not want guns of any type falling into the hands of nut jobs, I am no proponent of bigger government and taking away liberties afforded by Americans within the Constitution. Frankly, though, I do not understand the need for these assault weapons or rapid firing firearms? If a gun is truly for protection and one knows how to use it, then why the need for something that fires in rapid succession? Pardon me, I know nothing about guns, I just think of AK47's and what I see in violent movies. Because it's your Constitutional right? It just doesn't make sense to me. If someone feels the need to own that, at that point, society would be out the window and life would be pretty grim.

I don't think for most folks that it's a "need" to own kind of thing. It's a "want" situation.

I agree with you on the rapid fire comment. If you know how to use it, a semi-auto would do the job.

 

[6thGen]

That is how linguists view the 2nd Amendment. However, the right to bear arms was brought forth by the Founders from England where it was lawful to bear arms to defend your family and property.
James Wilson , who signed the Declaration of Independence, was a lawyer and a major Contributor to the drafting of the Constitution, in the following passage from his Lectures on Law, he equates the passage in the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania protecting the right "to bear arms in the defense of themselves" with the right of personal defense of one's self or house.

An example discussed by both sides comes from a proposed amendment to the draft of the Constitution proposed by dissenting Pennsylvania delegates to the convention to ratify the US Constitution:

the people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game
​

There can be no question that bear arms here is not limited to military activity on the part of a militia.

While I certainly do not want guns of any type falling into the hands of nut jobs, I am no proponent of bigger government and taking away liberties afforded by Americans within the Constitution. Frankly, though, I do not understand the need for these assault weapons or rapid firing firearms? If a gun is truly for protection and one knows how to use it, then why the need for something that fires in rapid succession? Pardon me, I know nothing about guns, I just think of AK47's and what I see in violent movies. Because it's your Constitutional right? It just doesn't make sense to me. If someone feels the need to own that, at that point, society would be out the window and life would be pretty grim.

To expand, the Bill of Rights was written to enumerate certain rights of the people, and it would not follow that one of the amendments, if read a certain way and distorting intent, would enumerate a power to the government. The term "militia" is the people themselves, not an organized federal standing army. That is completely separate from the militia exercised by Congress and the President in service of the Union. This is a check on that militia. As you all know, the Founders just lived through an armed rebellion against a standing army that disarmed the people, so it would be incongruous to assert that, in the second amendment to their governing document that was written to enumerate rights of the people, they would disarm the people if they are not in the (not a) militia acting in the interest of the state. Alexander Hamilton wrote "if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a
large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights". While I can live with certain limitations on the type of weapons citizens can own given the age we live in and the advancement of weaponry, you should be able to clearly see that the Founders did not want such restrictions if we look at their intent when writing the amendment.

As an aside, quoting the Brady Center on the 2nd Amendment is like quoting Marlboro on the effects of tobacco.

 

[Lynnie]

Assault weapons seem over the top, certainly. But, someone pointed out here (can't remember who), that in defining an assault weapon, a high powered hunting rifle could easily fall into that category.

What I am hearing is 'BUY AMMO,' as this is a grey area which could have limitations posed in the future.

Shotgun requires no permit.

 

[WhoDat1]

yeah....I hear heavier taxes on ammunition are in the works....

 

[scooterbug44]

A shotgun beats the heck out of a semi or fully automatic for self/home defense - much less accuracy required - a common problem in stressful/sleepy situations.

 

[Lynnie]

yeah....I hear heavier taxes on ammunition are in the works....

Might even try to restrict how much you can buy in one year. Could be different if you have a hunting license, etc....... they will certainly try to sneak something in.

 

[6thGen]

A shotgun beats the heck out of a semi or fully automatic for self/home defense - much less accuracy required - a common problem in stressful/sleepy situations.

Messier cleanup, much less range, and not near as comfortable under a pillow. And since you are eliminating semi automatic, you eith better be accurate with an over under or you better be quick since they know where you are when they hear the pump load.

 

[scooterbug44]

If I have reached the point where I am shooting a gun at someone inside my house, cleanup is the least of my worries. :roll:

Since I also prefer to actually be able to see what I am shooting at (this apparently distinguishes me from many gun owners) range and the noise of reloading giving away my location are non-issues.

Anyone w/ a gun under their pillow is apesheet crazy!

 

[6thGen]

If I have reached the point where I am shooting a gun at someone inside my house, cleanup is the least of my worries. :roll:

Since I also prefer to actually be able to see what I am shooting at (this apparently distinguishes me from many gun owners) range and the noise of reloading giving away my location are non-issues.

Anyone w/ a gun under their pillow is apesheet crazy!

The first and last were a joke. I thought that was obvious. As for range, I'd rather be as far away as accurately possible when I fire to lessen their chances of accurately firing upon me, For noise, if someone sneaks up behind me, I don't want to have to then load my weapon with the potential that one is pointed at my temple.

Do what you will with your guns, I just don't want people like you who quote the Brady Group limiting what I can do with mine.