The right to bare arms

[cyan]

The worst time of the sports year is now.  Basketball and hockey are over, football hasn't started yet, and baseball is in its midsummer lull.

Damn, I need a football fix!!!!

You need a football fix??? Come on man, EURO 2008 is on right now

OT, but I had to comment.

[JVides]

Nuttin' wrong with the Barrett 82A1 .50 Cal for a little light target practice.

In case anyone is curious what this little compact jem of a piece looks like, here it is:

It is a beaut...

[JVides]

How many people (even gun owners) actually carry a gun around with them, just in case a crime happens and they need to defend themselves?  In this sense, aren't we just like countries that don't allow guns?  If someone robs my bank branch at gunpoint, there aren't 6 cowboys in line reaching for their .357s; they're dropping to the floor with everyone else.  The self defense thing only makes sense to me from a home defense point of view.

As for the VT massacre, had 5 guys whipped out guns, they'd have shot a few people standing between themselves and the jackhole firing...almost guaranteed.  I'm not necessarily against gun ownership, but I think the weapons available for purchase far exceed anyone's need to protect themselves from intruders not wearing kevlar and sporting a little US flag on their sleeve.

'Stroke, I really wish you had video of the .50 Cal as house saw...

[Sunstroke]

I really wish you had video of this...

Me too...that was the most fun I had in basic training. I think the best part of the Doughboy City footage would have been watching our company XO slip while climbing up the Abrams (the .50 was turret-mounted) and falling face first into the mud.

[SCFinfan]

The trouble with the second amendment is that it's written oddly. No other amendment sounds like it's offering practical advice, except this one:

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.

So, the question is, should people be able to "keep and bear arms," just for the sake of having them? Or should they only be able to do so if it is in connection with some form of military or police service? Scalia, the author of the majority opinion, agrees with me: "[...]this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution[...]"

However, as he and the majority see it,

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English
as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

Notice the last few words. Professors of Linguistics and English as Amicus Curiae. It takes a batch of professors to unclog this unruly bit of text. I personally think they got it right, but, obviously from the closeness of the decision, I may be wrong.

[TonyB0D]

doesn't the problem come from the definition of a "well-regulated militia"?  citizens with guns are NOT a well-regulated militia.  those in the national guard, police force, or other types of "organized militias" are the ones it seems can have the guns; not the general populace

[fyo]

This was a stupid case in my opinion and before you string me up, let me explain:

We have no way of knowing for sure what the originally intended meaning was - and IT DOESN'T MATTER. (again, please wait with the noose)

What exists is more than a hundred years of established understanding that it meant exactly that, "the right of an individual to bear arms". This has been the law for a long time and changing it COMPLETELY just because the original phrasing was weak doesn't make sense. That would effectively be an end run around the Constitution and the measures in place to make changes difficult.

Think of it this way: What if some president you disagree with comes into power, happens to be in position to appoint some Supreme Court Justices... and all of a sudden they decide to redefine "religion", "free" or "peaceably", just because, well, you know, something else might have been meant 217 years ago.

No, what matters is solely the ESTABLISHED INTERPRETATION of the law / article. Any significant change in INTERPRETATION is effectively a change of law and should be considered as such.

Anything else is bullshit.

[SCFinfan]

^^^

Many justices have done that in the last 70 years,  and in times previous.

[fyo]

Many justices have done that in the last 70 years,  and in times previous.

Sure, but it's still bullshit. Courts shouldn't be allowed to change a law. Once the interpretation of the law (legal precedent) is established, that's it. No more wriggle-room. You want to change the law, you need to go through the legislative body. That's the way it's supposed to work.

[Defense54]

As a law abiding gun toting citizen I am glad this did not pass. Gun Control will only keep the average citizen from being able to defend themselves. The criminals will still get them.

Bingo.   As the owner of 16 hand guns last time I checked.........come rob my house......I dare ya. 

[Phishfan]

doesn't the problem come from the definition of a "well-regulated militia"?  citizens with guns are NOT a well-regulated militia.  those in the national guard, police force, or other types of "organized militias" are the ones it seems can have the guns; not the general populace

But that is exactly what the militia was at the time it was written. Citizens volunteering and arming themselves.

[run_to_win]

But that is exactly what the militia was at the time it was written. Citizens volunteering and arming themselves.

It even went past just volunteering.  Every able-bodied man was pretty much expected to be ready.

The founders would have considered the government funded and government outfitted National Guard a standing army. 

[AZ Fins Fan 55]

How many people (even gun owners) actually carry a gun around with them, just in case a crime happens and they need to defend themselves? 

I know I am probably the minority when it comes to this but I have a concealed weapons permit and I do in fact carry a gun with me most everywhere I go. I am not looking to go and prevent crime and I do not in fact make it known that I am carrying a weapon. I keep it for self defense. Road Rage shootings are on the rise big time for nothing. These asswipes shot a 70 year old grandmother and her 6 year old granddaughter 2 weeks ago for a minor fender bender. You so much as look at someone and you could get shot. I know it is like this in a lot of places, I am not saying that crime here is any worse than anywhere else. I have just noticed it is on the rise even more than in the past and I would at least like the chance to defend myself if for some reason I ever end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. I generally keep to myself when I am on the road but you know what.....shit happens sometimes. I would hate to get shot because I did not see some wacko in my blind spot. If I ever cut someone off accidentally or whatever I am the first to admit fault and apologize. 9 times out of 10 they say "no problem" but I have come across those people who call me everyname in the book and cut me back off to "even up the score". If they pull a gun I at least have a fighting chance.

[simeon]

I was watching a TV show this morning called Sunday Morning, they had to put a liberal spin on all of this, they had a little reporter rant over it, here are somethings she said.
I don't know why people need to go hunting when they can go to the store to buy meat.
Then she quoted the great philosopher Chris Rock.
Let everyone have a gun, just make bullets $5,000 each so nobody can afford them.

I am sure that would stop a thief from stealing them, now a regular citizen couldn't afford to protect themselves.
As far as hunting goes, many people love wild game meat you can't buy in a store, some people can't afford to load up on grocery meat and hunt to survive.

Why do these TV shows promote liberalism, they tell us how to live and what we can't have. Why not give the other side a chance to speak ?

doesn't the problem come from the definition of a "well-regulated militia"?  citizens with guns are NOT a well-regulated militia.  those in the national guard, police force, or other types of "organized militias" are the ones it seems can have the guns; not the general populace

Study your history my friend, when the revolutionary war started it was the citizens who picked up weapons to protect themselves and their land, this is why the fore fathers placed it in the constitution.

[Buddhagirl]

I was watching a TV show this morning called Sunday Morning...

Hmmm...I would think a bible thumper like you would be at church when Sunday Morning is on. Interesting... They have tv in church now?