Schism in the Democratic Congress over the Second Amendment

[Matt J]

Give 'em all guns and let god sort it out.

 

[30A Skunkape]

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."

Santiago, please give me an example of a useful/standard weapon that would be made illegal and greatly inconvenience LAWFUL gun users if we reenacted the assault weapons ban - it was quite specific, even spelling out certain models and brands (so a brick would definitely not qualify).

Now I am confused. Gun control was the norm in most colonies...OK, I will accept that statement at face value. But then Mr Cornell asserts that 'states' in the 'mid-eighteenth century' had tough as nails gun laws. Umm, I am no scholar, but the 'mid-eighteenth century' evokes the period of 1740-1760 in my mind, a full decade and a half before our revolution and a quarter century before anyone started codifying laws within the entities we now call 'states'. Is this guy actually arguing that there is a historic precedent in colonial gun laws that is relevant in some way, shape or form with what our founders were thinking after having a violent revolution against an oppressive government? Heck, George Washington was fighting for the British in the mid eighteenth century!

 

[WhoDat1]

the brick is actually a very effective deadly weapon. It makes the killing part WAY more personal, though.

Anyhow, I AM not a NRA guy. I do believe in some common sense restrictions, (such as mandatory classes for concealed weapons permits, felon restrictions, waiting periods and age limits)but not banning weapons based on names or cosmetics. I promise you, I can dispatch with a hand gun or shotgun much more effectively than the average citizen could with what congress calls "assault rifles". So should we rerstrict certain guns based on level of experience and training? I don't think so.....

 

[hnooe]

an auto sear for an ak is both cheap and easy to install

bob, your killing me, stop.

 

[6thGen]

Two quick things -
1. What is an assault weapon?
2. DC and NYC have overbearingly strict gun control laws. How's that working for them?

 

[traderx]

Two quick things -
1. What is an assault weapon?
2. DC and NYC have overbearingly strict gun control laws. How's that working for them?

In the past, liberals defined assault weapon as a semi-automatic. Hence, a .22 semi rifle would be an assault weapon. I mean, after all, it's only .003 smaller than an M-16.

 

[6thGen]

I was trying to lead the witness.

 

[Santiago]

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."

Santiago, please give me an example of a useful/standard weapon that would be made illegal and greatly inconvenience LAWFUL gun users if we reenacted the assault weapons ban - it was quite specific, even spelling out certain models and brands (so a brick would definitely not qualify).

It does the anti-gun people no good to just ban "AK-47's". They are smart enough to just go for a chink in the armor and then proceed to step 2, hand guns or whatever. They aren't going to take previous legislation and just re-pass it without tinkering with it. It's never happened that way and never will. A useful/standard weapon that will get caught up in this would be an semi automatic rifle commonly used for deer hunting. You can take basically any rifle with a standard clip that will hold 3 or 4 cartridges and add a larger magazine. Shazam, this would put it into another category. I don't have a lot of guns but I damn well want the right to own them. And hnooe, this doesn't make Harry Reid a moderate democrat, just a politician. He couldn't give a damn about gun owners, he just likes being a limp wristed senator.

 

[traderx]

I was trying to lead the witness.

I know but I wouldn't worry. Your snare is set and someone will still find it irresistible.

 

[traderx]

Plus Harry "Paying Taxes is Voluntary" Reid is from a western state where vestiges of the old west persist. He wants to stay in his hotel in Washington not be called back to dusty, arid Nevada where folks tote guns and such.