First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[Sparko]

That they weren't giving us that right doesn't mean that they believed, or that that right was, somehow inherent. It simply meant that there was no law against it at the time. And the reason that they raised the issue at all had to do with the perceived need of a well regulated militia. As far as infringed goes, they obviously had in mind its application to the common weapons of the time, not to nuclear weapons. But I do realize that common sense is necessary in order to understand that and that perhaps due to the lack thereof we may have to amend the 2nd amendment.

Does an infant have the right to bear arms, a 4 year old, an insane person, a murderer, a felon in prison? These things weren't spelled out for you either, the founding fathers assumed common sense would prevail I guess.

You obviously have no idea what a right is. And yes, the fact that they acknowledge we have the right to bear arms and they didn't grant it means that they can't take it away. And the 2nd amendment doesn't just mean there was no law against it at the time, it says the government can't make any law against it at ANY time.

Again, Jim, and no more dodging.


Do you know what infringe means? Please explain it to us.

[Roy]

You said have another amendment. You can't use a new amendment to just cancel an old one.

The twenty-first amendment did exactly that, Sparko.

Section1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2...

How do you not know this?

Once the government tries to take away rights that they never granted in the first place they have destroyed the constitution and all of our freedoms are in jeopardy. They could take away the freedom of the press or freedom of speech or religion just as easily.

They took away the right to distil spirits.

[Sparko]

The twenty-first amendment did exactly that, Sparko.

Section1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2...

How do you not know this? They took away the right to distil spirits.

They had to repeal the 18th as part of it, but point taken.

Show me where distilling spirits is a right? But then they repealed it didn't they, so maybe it is.

The right to protect your life and property is a fundamental human right recognized by most civilizations throughout time. And the concept of the right to bear arms to do so is based on English common law.

[rogue06]

I ask again to the pro-gun right people here. If the police comes to your door, is it a good idea to wave a loaded gun in their face and refuse to put it down?

Do you think that anyone would say yes?

[rogue06]

Our Constitution was written by imperfect men, not by god, and so they weren't thinking 200 years into the future, they were thinking about the common weapons of the time, i.e. they were talking about muskets and such.

This crap has been pounded into a fine pink mist over and over again and again and trotting it out yet again will not change that fact. For instance:

As I've repeatedly noted in previous threads the Founding Fathers also had no conception of TV, radio, telephones or the internet but nobody would seriously argue that they shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment.

And they didn't conceive of houses built with modern building materials complete with indoor toilets, electricity, air conditioning and central heating but nobody would seriously maintain that such structures aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment's provision against unlawful searches.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33192[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]33193[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]33194[/ATTACH]

The whole they only had muskets back then nonsense has repeatedly been beaten into a fine pink mist several times so please do try to keep up. Rifles had been around for a hundred years or so before the 2A was penned. In fact during the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress authorized the establishment of ten companies of riflemen.

Furthermore, there was an assortment of repeating and/or high capacity firearms available in 1787 (when the Constitution was written) and even well before that. Sparko posted a list of some:

btw, muskets were not the only weapons available at the time the second amendment was written.

Behold the the assault rifles of the time,

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/201...t-musket-myth/

At least one of them existed nearly 140 years prior to the Constitution. Moreover that list is hardly exhaustive and some were around before the dates given (the earliest Cookson repeating flintlock rifle dates to 1690 for instance).

There was the 32mm Puckle gun patented in 1718 by James Puckle over 7 decades before the Second Amendment. It was a flintlock revolver that was the first firearm to be designated a "machine gun."

There was the high capacity Girandoni air rifle invented in 1779 which had a magazine holding twenty .46 caliber projectiles with an effective range of 150 yards similar to the range of a musket. Lewis and Clark took them on their journey and praised them as being their most effective tool on their cross continental trek.

There was the Kalthoff repeater which was used in the Siege of Copenhagen (1659) during the Second Northern War and remained unmatched in its fire rate until the mid-19th century being capable of firing every couple of seconds. Oops. That's on Sparko's list

There was also the a 40-Bore Flintlock 8-shot repeating magazine Pistol manufactured in the first half of the 1790s but used a system invented around 1660.

Further, "volley guns" which fire a number of shots, either simultaneously or in succession, date back to Medieval times when they were called "organ guns" or a "Ribauldequin." The Nock gun mentioned by Sparko is a type of volley gun. Another type is the "duck's foot" handgun (see below) designed for facing multiple hostile opponents charging in at you (it was a favorite of prison guards and sea captains facing a mutinous crew).

00000000000000ar0000.jpg
This 4 barreled .52 caliber flintlock pistol dates from c. 1780
With it's 2" long barrels it was made for concealability

00000000000000ar00000.jpg
Talk about your "assault weapon" this 8-barreled flintlock
also sported a spiked butt and a barbed blade for use
after all the rounds have been fired.

[Sparko]

Since Jimmy is so keen to tell us what the founding fathers really thought about the 2nd amendment, I decided to look it up.


"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-...unding-fathers

[JimL]

You obviously have no idea what a right is. And yes, the fact that they acknowledge we have the right to bear arms and they didn't grant it means that they can't take it away. And the 2nd amendment doesn't just mean there was no law against it at the time, it says the government can't make any law against it at ANY time.

Again, Jim, and no more dodging.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

The wording of the amendment makes obvious it's intent was the security of a free state. There is no such thing as a natural right to bear arms unless you want to argue that everything that isn't illegal is a natural right. The right to bear arms was a right because there was no law against it, not because there is some unwritten natural bill of rights making it so.

Do you know what infringe means? Please explain it to us.

Yes, of course, it means the right in general can not be taken away, it doesn't mean that the right so far enjoyed can not be regulated, and again, your own conservative SC agrees with me on that.

[JimL]

They had to repeal the 18th as part of it, but point taken.

Show me where distilling spirits is a right? But then they repealed it didn't they, so maybe it is.

The right to protect your life and property is a fundamental human right recognized by most civilizations throughout time. And the concept of the right to bear arms to do so is based on English common law.

Who has the right to bear arms Sparko? Does everybody, regardless, have the right? The 2nd amendment says "the people.", So, who are those people. Is there an age limit, can felons in prison bear arms, the mentally ill? Or can that right be regulated?

[Terraceth]

You said have another amendment. You can't use a new amendment to just cancel an old one. And the bill of rights was written to delineate rights WE ALREADY HAVE and to limit the government's interference. We have the right to bear arms. No amendment can take that away. Any attempt would be actually breaking the 2nd amendment.

By this logic, the 21st Amendment could never be passed, as it would be breaking the 18th amendment.

Perhaps your point is that someone couldn't straightforwardly pass an amendment to abridge the right to bear arms without first repealing the 2nd Amendment, but that's a bit of splitting hairs. If you got enough support to pass an amendment to allow for stricter gun control, you could get enough support to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Once the government tries to take away rights that they never granted in the first place they have destroyed the constitution and all of our freedoms are in jeopardy. They could take away the freedom of the press or freedom of speech or religion just as easily.

The government could do that the day the Bill of Rights were ratified. Every single part of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, can be adjusted through the amendment process "just as easily" as any other part of the Constitution. The only possible exception is equal representation in the Senate, which may require every state to agree rather than the normal 3/4, as the constitution uniquely says "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

If you think a repeal or reduction in the Second Amendment is bad policy, that's one thing, but it's silly to claim that the government is somehow forbidden from doing so when there's a process explicitly laid out in the constitution on how to do just that.

[Roy]

The only possible exception is equal representation in the Senate, which may require every state to agree rather than the normal 3/4, as the constitution uniquely says "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

But it'd take only 3/4 to remove that clause.

[rogue06]

But it'd take only 3/4 to remove that clause.

"only"

[Roy]

"only"

Yes, "only" 3/4 as compared to "every state".

[Sparko]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

The wording of the amendment makes obvious it's intent was the security of a free state. There is no such thing as a natural right to bear arms unless you want to argue that everything that isn't illegal is a natural right. The right to bear arms was a right because there was no law against it, not because there is some unwritten natural bill of rights making it so.

No Jim, the amendment just acknowledges we HAVE the right to bear arms, and it give a reason why it can't be infringed upon (security)

Yes, of course, it means the right in general can not be taken away, it doesn't mean that the right so far enjoyed can not be regulated, and again, your own conservative SC agrees with me on that.

Jim, it means the right cannot even be limited or encroached upon.

Infringe:
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"

Encroach - to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another. To trespass upon the property, domain, or rights of another, especially stealthily or by gradual advances.

[Sparko]

Who has the right to bear arms Sparko? Does everybody, regardless, have the right? The 2nd amendment says "the people.", So, who are those people. Is there an age limit, can felons in prison bear arms, the mentally ill? Or can that right be regulated?

The people are the citizens of the United States. No there is no age limit. I owned a shotgun when I was 12.

Felons have had their rights stripped from them when they were convicted with a fair trial.

Unless you want to try every citizen in the USA, you can't take away their rights without a fair trial.

[Sparko]

By this logic, the 21st Amendment could never be passed, as it would be breaking the 18th amendment.

Perhaps your point is that someone couldn't straightforwardly pass an amendment to abridge the right to bear arms without first repealing the 2nd Amendment, but that's a bit of splitting hairs. If you got enough support to pass an amendment to allow for stricter gun control, you could get enough support to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I already admitted I was wrong on that.

The government could do that the day the Bill of Rights were ratified. Every single part of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, can be adjusted through the amendment process "just as easily" as any other part of the Constitution. The only possible exception is equal representation in the Senate, which may require every state to agree rather than the normal 3/4, as the constitution uniquely says "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

If you think a repeal or reduction in the Second Amendment is bad policy, that's one thing, but it's silly to claim that the government is somehow forbidden from doing so when there's a process explicitly laid out in the constitution on how to do just that.

If they repealed the 2nd amendment, that still would not take away our right to bear arms. The 2nd doesn't grant that right, it just acknowledges it and says the government can't infringe on it.

The Bill of Rights was controversial when it was written. Some people didn't want the Bill of Rights because they said that the rights enumerated therein were already our rights and to write them down would allow them to be limited or compromised. Others argued that unless we wrote them down, the state might be able to take them away. So they wrote them down. But nowhere did they write that the constitution GRANTS those rights. They are natural rights that everyone has and the Bill of Rights shows that the Government cannot interfere with them.

http://www.history.org/foundation/jo...r09/rights.cfm