You suggest away you! Perhaps you can save me the time by pointing to where in the definition it says a preface has nothing to do with the thing you're about to talk about.
Well that wouldn't be very well regulated then would it?
Upvote
0
Let's Talk Second Amendment
- Thread starter Ringo84
- Start date
You suggest away you! Perhaps you can save me the time by pointing to where in the definition it says a preface has nothing to do with the thing you're about to talk about.
GondwanaLand
Newbie
A prefatory clause announces a purpose or reason for the operative clause (right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed), but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
Sounds like you're still not getting that well-regulated meant something different then than the government shoving its nose into thingsand setting up regulations and restrictions.
Upvote
0
Thanks for saving me the trouble! So you now agree that the prefatory clause is in reference to the operative clause? That the peoples right to bear arms is in regards to a well regulated militia?
Could it be that "regulated" had more than one meaning? Maybe you could help me out by clarifying what the founders meant here in Article I section 8
"[The Congress shall have the power]To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
And just what in heavens name did they mean by regulation here in Article III section 2
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Upvote
0
GondwanaLand
Newbie
It is in reference, as an example of a reason for the right expressed in the operative clause. I never said anything to the contrary. I disagreed with your implication that the right only had to do with a militia. The militia is with regard to the right to keep and bear arms, no the other way around like you tried to say.
"regulations" =/= "well-regulated". they're not the same word, and not the same thing. Nice try though. Try going to texts from the 1700s and 1800s and looking at at their use of "Well-regulated". It doesn't mean what you're trying to make it mean. An example of the use: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
Upvote
0
Next time you should disagree with the things I say instead of the things you think I'm implying. Just a suggestion
And how do you mean it's not the other way around. They are in regards to each other.
Really? You can't see how they might relate? At all?
I don't think I have to go back to the 1700's. For example, if I say my sleep cycle is pretty well regulated, you might ask a question about circadian rhythms, not whether congress has passed a law. If I say marriage is well regulated on the other hand...
See? Same words, different context.
Maybe the Articles of Confederation can help. What do you suppose they meant by disciplined here...?
"but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
Upvote
0
GondwanaLand
Newbie
I disagreed with what you said and what you impliedNext time you should disagree with the things I say instead of the things you think I'm implying. Just a suggestion
The prefatory clause is with regard to the right to bear arms. Not the other way around.
You do, in fact, to see the common meaning and usage of the word at the time.
Again, well regulated means in good working order.Since you seem to be deliberately ignoring that and continuing on off on wild tangents I think we are done here.
Upvote
0
In that case, you disagree with your own definition as well as the supreme court who said the prefatory clause announces a purpose for the operative clause. Conversely, the purpose of the operative clause can be found in the announcement of the prefatory clause.
Why would you believe the two have nothing to do with each other?
I just disagree.
1. There are plenty of examples of regulation meaning regulation in the constitution
2. Our governments power to regulate is specifically enumerated in Article I section 8
3. The Articles of Confederation which discuss a disciplined militia in the same sentence as "well regulated" (and then goes on to describe some of those regulations).
But if you don't feel you have an adequate defense for your position, by all means, you're dismissed.
Upvote
0
You grossly underestimate the potential and power of an armed populace.
Has Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan taught nothing?
Call them wins if you like, I'd say at least two were losses and they were all largely guerilla warfare and insurgencies.
Either way, I guess I'm against the current state of gun ownership in the United States. With great power comes great responsibility... Something that seemingly needs to be forced, but it isn't. That and forced accountability.
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
It's not really possible to have a reasonable discussion about gun rights, but, as you probably noticed we are already having an unreasonable one.
The important question is, why do we need to have this discussion? Is there a problem?
Upvote
0
TerranceL
Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?
Got that far and stopped reading, our constitutional rights are violated all the time. Take a read of the patriot act, there goes your fourth amendment rights right there.
Here's a nice little graphic showing just how the government is more than happy to butcher our "inalienable" rights.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SepiaAndDust
There's a FISH in the percolator
No, I really don't.
I didn't call them anything, and I'll thank you not to imply that I did. I did say, though, an armed populace may be able to hold off or delay an invasion until the real military arrives.
But for a group of armed Americans to take on the massed might of the US military? Forget about it.
Upvote
0
You can probably at least half the military numbers in the event of anything close to what we're talking about. They're human beings at the end of the day and I really doubt they're just going to go to war against citizens when there's very likely an obvious an legitimate reason for insurrection.
Either way, I still think the cons far outweigh the pros.
Upvote
0
SepiaAndDust
There's a FISH in the percolator
Today's military, no.
But consider what it would take to get to the tyrannical government the American people rise up against. By that point, the military arm of that government would be hard and cold and would do exactly as they're told.
Or else, it might not go so well for thier families and associates.
Upvote
0
- Jul 31, 2006
- 19,228
- 5,252
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I don't disagree with your broader point about the Patriot Act, but you're missing my point.
The gun rights debate nowadays has been reduced to some on one side of the debate having a tendency to characterize ANY regulation of guns or gun ownership - no matter how milquetoast - as "gun grabbing".
It's almost as if the Second Amendment is venerated as absolutely unimpeachable - the government can't regulate guns at all. But this viewpoint is not supported by how rights work in this country. The Bill of Rights does limit what the government can do, but it also necessarily limitsthe citizenry as well - in order to live in a just and orderly society, we surrender a portion of our free speech to respect the rights of others.
The Second Amendment is no different. I would argue that to live in a peaceful society, we surrender a portion of our right to keep and bear arms - perhaps the right to carry in certain areas, or the right to buy a gun without reasonable ID checks.
I have never understood why that viewpoint is controversial, except that the gun rights debate has moved so far to the right nowadays that it's fallen off the cliff of common sense.
Ringo
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
katautumn
Prodigal Daughter
- May 14, 2015
- 7,497
- 157
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I think the problem with most of what are referred to as "common sense gun control" measures is that they are proposed policies that are almost always rammed through Congress by totally anti-gun zealots. It's a gun-grab, because they can't come right out and say, "okay, we're taking away your guns."
No, instead it's a trickle down effect. One piece of legislation may be a federal tax hike imposed of ammunition sales that make purchasing bullets cost prohibitive for many. The next may be a law saying you can only purchase 20 rounds of ammo per month. Well, that's all fine and good for home defense, but what if you like to bone up on your marksmanship by going to the range? You can easily blow through a box of bullets in one session at the range. The next law may disarm law-abiding citizens who only own a firearm for home defense, but enacting laws that force gun owners to practically disassemble their firearm and place each individual component in a separate lock box. Oh, and no bullets in the magazine, either. That renders your firearm completely useless in a home invasion scenario.
Common sense gun control should be just that - common sense. You don't give guns to felons or known rapists and physical abusers. You don't give guns to those diagnosed as criminally insane. You don't have small children and sleep with a loaded gun under the pillow and just hope you've scared them against touching it enough times to make sure they don't accidentally shoot themselves.
It isn't common sense to make a box of bullets cost $50. It isn't common sense to tell people who live in certain cities they cannot own a gun. It doesn't make sense to tell people they can't carry conceal to church. Will you need your gun in church? One would hope not, but shootings do happen at churches. Oftentimes it's the unfortunate carrying over a domestic dispute, or an attempted robbery since churches have cash in them on Sundays. You should never own a firearm hoping you'll get to use it. You always hope and pray you never need to, but you realize you don't ever want to be in that position and be defenseless.
No, instead it's a trickle down effect. One piece of legislation may be a federal tax hike imposed of ammunition sales that make purchasing bullets cost prohibitive for many. The next may be a law saying you can only purchase 20 rounds of ammo per month. Well, that's all fine and good for home defense, but what if you like to bone up on your marksmanship by going to the range? You can easily blow through a box of bullets in one session at the range. The next law may disarm law-abiding citizens who only own a firearm for home defense, but enacting laws that force gun owners to practically disassemble their firearm and place each individual component in a separate lock box. Oh, and no bullets in the magazine, either. That renders your firearm completely useless in a home invasion scenario.
Common sense gun control should be just that - common sense. You don't give guns to felons or known rapists and physical abusers. You don't give guns to those diagnosed as criminally insane. You don't have small children and sleep with a loaded gun under the pillow and just hope you've scared them against touching it enough times to make sure they don't accidentally shoot themselves.
It isn't common sense to make a box of bullets cost $50. It isn't common sense to tell people who live in certain cities they cannot own a gun. It doesn't make sense to tell people they can't carry conceal to church. Will you need your gun in church? One would hope not, but shootings do happen at churches. Oftentimes it's the unfortunate carrying over a domestic dispute, or an attempted robbery since churches have cash in them on Sundays. You should never own a firearm hoping you'll get to use it. You always hope and pray you never need to, but you realize you don't ever want to be in that position and be defenseless.
Upvote
0
Remember there is still a very significant and genuine distribution of power in the US. It is still true that Washington DC could get nuked and the nation would not be reduced to anarchy...some would argue that it might run better. Compared to nearly all other nations, power is still very decentralized in the US (which is, btw, one of this nation's safeguards against terrorism).
You're describing a point at which all three federal branches and all or most of the state governments would have to be on the same page--or at least acquiescent. But if that comes to be the case, the vast majority of "the American people" would be on the same page...and it would only be a tiny minority easily identified as "terrorists" and "anarchists" that "rose up."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jul 31, 2006
- 19,228
- 5,252
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Are there truly "anti-gun zealots"? I hear that bandied about quite a bit in the gun control debate, but I don't know of many people who truly want to ban ALL guns.
I actually disagree with my grandfather on this issue; he's more conservative on the topic of guns than I am. While he thinks pistols ought to be banned, since their only purpose is to kill, I don't have a problem with handguns. My problem mostly comes from private citizens owning military-grade weaponry, which I think should be kept in the hands of trained professionals.
With respect, though: nobody is "taking away" your guns. Background checks and limits on carrying in certain places isn't taking away the right to own guns, but simply regulating your use of them.
That's a pretty steep slippery slope. Taxing ammunition is a far cry from banning all gun ownership outright. I'm not saying that making bullets cost more is necessarily the right solution; I haven't formed an opinion on the issue. But it's not "gun grabbing".
Well unfortunately, trying to implement such common sense measures into law like requiring gun safety classes or the like will probably cause the ire of the NRA.
The NRA - though not necessarily those who are members, mind you - is an extreme organization. It claims to be all for reasonable gun safety measures, but its actions belie its rhetoric.
Maybe....but how often do shootings in churches actually occur? I just fear that this is another slippery slope: "Well, a shooting could occur at a daycare center, so we should be armed there. And a shooting could occur at the park, so we should pack heat there as well.....".
It's like the old joke: A guy comes across someone wearing their pants on their head.
"Why are you wearing your pants on your head?"
"To ward off wild elephants"
"But there aren't any wild elephants around here!"
"See? It works!"
Ringo
Upvote
0
Nithavela
our world is happy and mundane
- Apr 14, 2007
- 28,113
- 19,544
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
I would really love to see this 'well-regulated milita' you have there try its hand against a modern military. Forget cruise missles and tanks, they would get their backsides handed to them by concentional infantry, too, because most of them have no idea about military tactics, there is no command structure, it is just a bunch of guys with guns, most likely each of them only intent on defending his own home.
They'd be gunned down like hares.
(I'm not advocating a war, by the way, just a little war excercise between voluntary militia men/women and a company of soldiers, with practice weapons)
They'd be gunned down like hares.
(I'm not advocating a war, by the way, just a little war excercise between voluntary militia men/women and a company of soldiers, with practice weapons)
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I love this train of thought. Since the jack booted thugs out class militia in every way. Just roll over and make it easy for them.
The gun control movement's inane rhetoric and warped idea of compromise has pushed the gun rights movement to be equally unyielding. Im in support for mental health checks and a system much like the dmv. But when someone like California Senator de Leon runs around making stupid stories about ghost guns its all off. When the gun control movement belches forth "reasonable" measures but doesn't consult gun owners and instead goes right to the legislation. No.
So yeah its possible to have reasonable discussion. But reasonable requires the introspection to ask yourself. Is this reasonable for the other guy?
The gun control movement's inane rhetoric and warped idea of compromise has pushed the gun rights movement to be equally unyielding. Im in support for mental health checks and a system much like the dmv. But when someone like California Senator de Leon runs around making stupid stories about ghost guns its all off. When the gun control movement belches forth "reasonable" measures but doesn't consult gun owners and instead goes right to the legislation. No.
So yeah its possible to have reasonable discussion. But reasonable requires the introspection to ask yourself. Is this reasonable for the other guy?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
