NRA

[Patler]

Article VII, Amendment II

"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."

Your point???

My point is, we have the National Guard, we do not need a 'well regulated militia'. At the time of the writing or the Constitution this was paramount. It was taken for granted guns were needed for hunting.......and defense.

Try as I might, I just don't see where the Constitution says those rights evaporate because of the existence of the National Guard, or because we as a society no longer rely on hunting and gathering for daily sustenance.
Some may argue the need for defensive purposes exits to this day. It also can be argued that the National Guard is more governmental armed forces than it is a militia of the citizenry.

[Patler]

Article VII, Amendment II

"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."

Your point???

My point is, we have the National Guard, we do not need a 'well regulated militia'. At the time of the writing or the Constitution this was paramount. It was taken for granted guns were needed for hunting.......and defense.

The right expressed, "...of the people to keep and bear Arms" is very clear. Any "qualifier" is specifically excluded by the phrase, "shall not be infringed". Any limitation, for the reasons you expressed or for others, is an infringement of the basic right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, the change requires a Constitutional Amendment.

[packinpatland]

I am not disputing the 'right'. I am simply saying the type of arms needs to revisited.

[crosbiegrad]

I am British and have only lived in America for the last 3 years, gun laws in Britian are extremely strict. Do you think that prevents psycho's and criminals from obtaining them?No. It does prevent honest law abiding citizens from having them though, leaving one of those two groups vulnerable.
When I say British, I actually mean I am Scottish, have a lookat the fall out after the Scots had their rebellion in 1744-45, first thing the English set about doing was banning Scots from having any weaponry, subduing the Scots under English control.
Also, nowhere in the constitution does it imply the right to bear arms is for the purpose of hunting. Having dealings with the redcoats does make you want to be able to defend yourself though.

[Patler]

I am not disputing the 'right'. I am simply saying the type of arms needs to revisited.

Our Founding Fathers included many ingenious individuals, inventors and developers of various types, so much so that the original documents provided for the protection of inventors' inventions by patent rights. In no way shape or form did they expect that "Arms" would forever be limited to the muzzle-loaders that existed that day. They prepared a document intended to exist for the ages, into a time they could not even dream of. They knew that changes would be needed as society and mankind changed, so they provided for a procedure of Amendment.

So, what is meant by "Arms"? Should the rights granted by the Second Amendment be interpreted as broadly as those under the First Amendment? A literal approach to interpretation would lead one to the conclusion "Arms" means any and all weaponry. It did at the time the Constitution was written and amended. I believe that is what was meant at the time, but I also believe our Founding Fathers would not now want the result that occurs, because applying that to today allows "the people" to own tanks, missiles, even nuclear weapons.

Our Founding Fathers, being pretty clever, forward-thinking guys, realized they could not foresee the result of all they wrote. So... we get back to the idea of an Amendment. Limiting rights under the Constitution fits nicely with all those purposes listed in the Preamble, "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." Basically, it tells us what we all know, that in a civilized society, most rights are not absolute and unbounded.

Some of those rights are limited by other factors. The inherent dangers of certain materials limits the unregulated right to own those materials and the nuclear weapons that can be created from them. But for others, like perhaps howitzers, .50 cal. machine guns, missile launchers and the like, we get back to a properly passed Amendment, not judicial or legislative applied limits on the Constitutional Rights granted, as the best solution to deal with it.

[MJZiggy]

Patler, are you sure that's not the very thing she's suggesting?

[Patler]

Patler, are you sure that's not the very thing she's suggesting?

She suggested a need for limitations, cited existing language in the constitution for support, and offered an interpretation of that language. That leads me to the conclusion that she is looking for a fast resolution via legislation or judicial interpretation based on the existing language, not an Amendment. I recognize that she may be unwilling to admit that now, or that I may have been wrong in my conclusion. However, if I am wrong in my conclusion, and she really does favor an Amendment, in my opinion there is an analytic disconnect in her arguments in this thread.

[packinpatland]

Patler, are you sure that's not the very thing she's suggesting?

She suggested a need for limitations, cited existing language in the constitution for support, and offered an interpretation of that language. That leads me to the conclusion that she is looking for a fast resolution via legislation or judicial interpretation based on the existing language, not an Amendment. I recognize that she may be unwilling to admit that now, or that I may have been wrong in my conclusion. However, if I am wrong in my conclusion, and she really does favor an Amendment, in my opinion there is an analytic disconnect in her arguments in this thread.

Good God!
Patler, don't read into this more than I intended.
There was no way in the 1700's that those men could have forseen the weapons that now exist.
I am simply saying that laws must change to accomodate change.

[Patler]

Patler, are you sure that's not the very thing she's suggesting?

She suggested a need for limitations, cited existing language in the constitution for support, and offered an interpretation of that language. That leads me to the conclusion that she is looking for a fast resolution via legislation or judicial interpretation based on the existing language, not an Amendment. I recognize that she may be unwilling to admit that now, or that I may have been wrong in my conclusion. However, if I am wrong in my conclusion, and she really does favor an Amendment, in my opinion there is an analytic disconnect in her arguments in this thread.

Good God!
Patler, don't read into this more than I intended.
There was no way in the 1700's that those men could have forseen the weapons that now exist.
I am simply saying that laws must change to accomodate change.

I'm trying not to read anything into it, just understand your position.

You started this thread with an anti-NRA comment, and transitioned into a Constitutional commentary. I stayed out of it for nearly two pages, until you had posted 11 comments on those two pages. Now you accuse me of trying to read too much into it?

[packinpatland]

Patler, are you sure that's not the very thing she's suggesting?

She suggested a need for limitations, cited existing language in the constitution for support, and offered an interpretation of that language. That leads me to the conclusion that she is looking for a fast resolution via legislation or judicial interpretation based on the existing language, not an Amendment. I recognize that she may be unwilling to admit that now, or that I may have been wrong in my conclusion. However, if I am wrong in my conclusion, and she really does favor an Amendment, in my opinion there is an analytic disconnect in her arguments in this thread.

Good God!
Patler, don't read into this more than I intended.
There was no way in the 1700's that those men could have forseen the weapons that now exist.
I am simply saying that laws must change to accomodate change.

I'm trying not to read anything into it, just understand your position.

You started this thread with an anti-NRA comment, and transitioned into a Constitutional commentary. I stayed out of it for nearly two pages, until you had posted 11 comments on those two pages. Now you accuse me of trying to read too much into it?

Patler, TravisWilliams23 brought up the Bill of Rights.
And since when is it not OK for members to voice an opinion on this site?
My opinion is that the NRA needs to be revamped. That there is no justification for assualt weapons. No one has even come close to coming up with anything other than 'it's my right'. Well, it should be my right to not wear a seat belt, but the law says I have to. So I do. If I don't, I only hurt myself.....that's not the case with assault weapons.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Personally, I don't think you should have to wear a seatbelt, but that's another law that liberals crammed down our throats. They love to pass laws protecting you from yourself, and they don't know when to stop.

[Patler]

Patler, TravisWilliams23 brought up the Bill of Rights.
And since when is it not OK for members to voice an opinion on this site?
My opinion is that the NRA needs to be revamped. That there is no justification for assualt weapons. No one has even come close to coming up with anything other than 'it's my right'. Well, it should be my right to not wear a seat belt, but the law says I have to. So I do. If I don't, I only hurt myself.....that's not the case with assault weapons.

You then quoted the Second Amendment, with no comment.
I asked what you meant by that quotation.
Did I ever, in any way suggest you should not express an opinion?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Instead, I tried to find out what you were getting at.
Once you expressed it, (the National Guard, hunting, defense explanation) I replied, disagreeing. You brought up revisiting what arms should be allowed, and I proposed a way of doing that, by Amendment.

Why are you so blasted defensive about my comments? Because I suggested you were most likely looking for a more immediate solution like legislation or judicial interpretation? Am I allowed to respond to you only if I agree with you?

Now you confuse me even more. You quoted, commented on and interpreted the Second Amendment. Now you say, "My opinion is that the NRA needs to be revamped." I honest to God do not understand what you mean by that. How would revamping the NRA address the right to bear arms, if the right itself is not properly limited? The NRA does not define the right.

Just to be clear, I am not disputing your right to hold that opinion. I am trying to understand what that opinion is so that we might discuss it. Isn't that what this board is for????

[Patler]

Personally, I don't think you should have to wear a seatbelt, but that's another law that liberals crammed down our throats. They love to pass laws protecting you from yourself, and they don't know when to stop.

I suspect they have met me. I probably need to be protected from myself!

[3irty1]

PIP, you know that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is just a non profit organization right? Are you suggesting that they need to pay their lobbyists less or what?

Like I said before, it is already illegal to buy, sell, or own fully automatic assault rifles and machine guns like the one used by this clown in your story. Its also illegal to shoot and/or murder people. Is that not enough laws? Are the existing laws not enforced with the appropriate penalties in order to deter criminals who break them? Spell out for us exactly what you'd like to see changed.

[Patler]

PIP, you know that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is just a non profit organization right? Are you suggesting that they need to pay their lobbyists less or what?

Like I said before, it is already illegal to buy, sell, or own fully automatic assault rifles and machine guns like the one used by this clown in your story. Its also illegal to shoot and/or murder people. Is that not enough laws? Are the existing laws not enforced with the appropriate penalties in order to deter criminals who break them? Spell out for us exactly what you'd like to see changed.

I am not a member of the NRA, although I was a long time ago when I was a member of a competitive rifle team as a teenager (no, we didn't shoot flint-locks!). I could be wrong, but I think there remains a lot of confusion when people discuss weapons bans because of inconsistent and inaccurate use of terminology. Too often appearance alone seems to dictate. Semi-automatic rifles with folding or open stocks, pistol grips and the like, in weapon-function terms are no different than the "deer rifle" people say they have no intention of banning. Yet seeing the weapon adorned in camouflage paint they scream "assault rifle" and argue that it should be banned.

[Dylan McKay]

Personally, I don't think you should have to wear a seatbelt, but that's another law that liberals crammed down our throats. They love to pass laws protecting you from yourself, and they don't know when to stop.

I cut the seatbelts out of my car and replaced them with fully automatic
rifles.

[Little Whiskey]

I'm not sure what laws will do to keep this from happening. Lawbreakers (ie criminals/murders) do exactly what their title says, break laws.

If the gov't wants to take away our RIGHT to have firarms then make them do it the right way and put there name on an ammendment.

to say that the founding fathers didn't mean "assault rifles" or any more than flint locks is just as absurd as saying that freedom of press or speach doesn't include internet, tv, or alike.

a militia is a "army of citizens" if citizens don't have access to weapons they cannot forma militia.

just be careful of the RIGHTS you want them to take away. the gov't may just take away one that you care about.

[mraynrand]

Be careful what you add to the Reichsgesetzblatt.

[packinpatland]

PIP, you know that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is just a non profit organization right? Are you suggesting that they need to pay their lobbyists less or what?

Like I said before, it is already illegal to buy, sell, or own fully automatic assault rifles and machine guns like the one used by this clown in your story. Its also illegal to shoot and/or murder people. Is that not enough laws? Are the existing laws not enforced with the appropriate penalties in order to deter criminals who break them? Spell out for us exactly what you'd like to see changed.

I am not a member of the NRA, although I was a long time ago when I was a member of a competitive rifle team as a teenager (no, we didn't shoot flint-locks!). I could be wrong, but I think there remains a lot of confusion when people discuss weapons bans because of inconsistent and inaccurate use of terminology. Too often appearance alone seems to dictate. Semi-automatic rifles with folding or open stocks, pistol grips and the like, in weapon-function terms are no different than the "deer rifle" people say they have no intention of banning. Yet seeing the weapon adorned in camouflage paint they scream "assault rifle" and argue that it should be banned.

Patler, the killer of the 3 police officers used an AK-47.
These are the kinds of guns I wish were banned. I just can't see what pupose they serve. 40 rounds a minute........
http://www.proguns.com/ak47-assaultrifles.asp

[Patler]

Patler, the killer of the 3 police officers used an AK-47.
These are the kinds of guns I wish were banned. I just can't see what pupose they serve. 40 rounds a minute........
http://www.proguns.com/ak47-assaultrifles.asp

I understand that, and I wasn't suggesting there was confusion with respect to the one incident. I think there is some confusion when people try to discuss the issue generally.

Per the information provided by 3irty1, buying, selling or owning that particular weapon is already illegal. So, I will ask again in another way, what are you suggesting in stating that it should be "banned"?

I am not arguing with you, I am trying to understand your position so that we might discuss it. If it is already illegal to buy, sell or own it, what more do you think should be done?