California: Gun Registration

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Funny thing is, you arent really a democracy and further, there are much purer democracies which do not have an armed populace to the extent the US does.

Irrelevant. We are discussing THIS Country and how the FF's set it up.

Point on the "Democracy" thing... But I am using it as THEY did.

Quote

Furthermore, there are countries presently and in history where a dictator rules over a heavily armed populace.

And there are places like the US where the insurgents used the arms they had to throw out the people that were trying to rule them.

And that trend tends to continue in places like Iraq.

If you don't like it.... That does not change that the FF's put it into place as a way to keep the Govt in check. And the fact is it has been used to create this country, and has been used INSIDE this country (Civil War) and in other Country's.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Every Wednesday my dogs are proudly convinced they won their argument with the garbage truck by hurling a constant stream of threatening verbalizations.

I have made no threats... I have just debunked your position over and over.

You claimed three people didn't approve the use of arms... Yet I showed they did. You failed.

You claimed that I used "phony" quotes.... Yet you were unable to show them as fake. You failed again.

You are not using personal attacks and emotion instead of trying to debate. Third fail.

Don't blame me for your failures and errors in logic.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Funny thing is, you arent really a democracy and further, there are much purer democracies which do not have an armed populace to the extent the US does.

Furthermore, there are countries presently and in history where a dictator rules over a heavily armed populace.

interesting points

For me, I don't really care about some overwhelming societal need for people to own guns. What I believe is that I have the right own property. If I want a gun and I have not previously demonstrated an inability to own it responsibly, then no OTHER person should have the ability to remove my right to own and use that property.

Beyond that, my reasons are my own and I have absolutely no need to rationalize it under someone else's standards. Either with a societal, or personal protection, or hobby, or any other reason or justification.

it's pretty simple


seriously, if I wished to pass a law to confiscate all the butter knives or all the ball point pens in the country, it would be ridiculous. Same with guns, but pro-gunners seem to feel they need to state they are saving the country with the guns and "that's why they need them".

I think ownership of property is what defines personal freedom - and RESPONSIBLE ownership of property defines personal responsibility - so any government intrusion into responsibly property ownership is a bigger threat to our way of life than any specific topic or class of item. I own my labor, I own my stuff, every time the government takes those things away from me or anyone else, that's another crack in the structure.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

What I believe is that I have the right own property. If I want a gun and I have not previously demonstrated an inability to own it responsibly, then no OTHER person should have the ability to remove my right to own and use that property.

And I have no issue with that. I also agree that the 2nd Amendment in the US grants you that right.

I have one other question though, how is militia defined as used in the 2nd Amendment?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Funny thing is, you arent really a democracy and further, there are much purer democracies which do not have an armed populace to the extent the US does.

Furthermore, there are countries presently and in history where a dictator rules over a heavily armed populace.

interesting points

For me, I don't really care about some overwhelming societal need for people to own guns. What I believe is that I have the right own property. If I want a gun and I have not previously demonstrated an inability to own it responsibly, then no OTHER person should have the ability to remove my right to own and use that property.

Beyond that, my reasons are my own and I have absolutely no need to rationalize it under someone else's standards. Either with a societal, or personal protection, or hobby, or any other reason or justification.

it's pretty simple


seriously, if I wished to pass a law to confiscate all the butter knives or all the ball point pens in the country, it would be ridiculous. Same with guns, but pro-gunners seem to feel they need to state they are saving the country with the guns and "that's why they need them".

I think ownership of property is what defines personal freedom - and RESPONSIBLE ownership of property defines personal responsibility - so any government intrusion into responsibly property ownership is a bigger threat to our way of life than any specific topic or class of item. I own my labor, I own my stuff, every time the government takes those things away from me or anyone else, that's another crack in the structure.

Wow, this is one of the best posts I have seen in a long time!

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have one other question though, how is militia defined as used in the 2nd Amendment?

Since that clause is explanatory, it's nearly irrelevant. The FF gave a clear definition and Congress has updated it much more recently. The vast majority of Americans on this forum are members of the militia.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

The founding fathers disagree with you... They seem to think the most dangerous thing to a Democracy is a guy like you.

Thanks for the personal attack.

BUG OFF!

what's wrong? he hitting a little too close to the truth?

and to consider the above a PA you're making several assumptions that aren't stated in the post.

keep going... this is fun to watch.

--
Rob

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The vast majority of Americans on this forum are members of the militia.

I had heard that. But doesn't that mean that the vast majority of Americans do not have to be indicted by a Grand Jury if accused of a federal crime?

I have never understood why the militia in the 2nd amendment is different from the militia in the 5th amendment.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

I have one other question though, how is militia defined as used in the 2nd Amendment?

Since that clause is explanatory, it's nearly irrelevant. The FF gave a clear definition and Congress has updated it much more recently. The vast majority of Americans on this forum are members of the militia.

That would be the unregulated militia, correct?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The vast majority of Americans on this forum are members of the militia.

I had heard that. But doesn't that mean that the vast majority of Americans do not have to be indicted by a Grand Jury if accused of a federal crime?

I have never understood why the militia in the 2nd amendment is different from the militia in the 5th amendment.

The 5th may or may not be different in capitalization of Militia (2nd has both versions, and also includes:
"when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"

Also, grand juries are not required in the US for state criminal trials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurtado_v._California

[Andy9o8 3]

Here's an informative article on the history and definition(s) of "the militia" in the US.

http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp

The 2nd Amendment expressly refers to the miltia, but it does not define it. "The Militia" is not defined by the Constitution; it is defined by statute, the most recent incarnation being the Militia Act of 1903 found at 10 USC § 311. It reads:

10 USCS [Armed Forces]
"311. MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age [which deals with
membership in theNational Guard] who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of
the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the Naval Militia."

Arguably, under this definition, all people under age 17, as well as adult females and/or males over age 45 who are not in any US military or state national guard, are not members of any Reserve, are not sworn law enforcement officers, and are not otherwise defined by an individual state's laws as being part of that state's militia (example: the Texas Militia) are not members of the militia.

Skydekker, the 2nd and 5th Amendments do refer to the same militia - each refers to whatever form of "militia" may exist from time to time under applicable Federal and/or state law.

An important point is that it does NOT take a new amendment of the Constitution to change the definition of the word "militia" as that word is contemplated by the 2nd Amendment; all it takes is an act of Congress re: the Federal militia, or an act of a state legislature re: the militia of that state.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have one other question though, how is militia defined as used in the 2nd Amendment?

Since that clause is explanatory, it's nearly irrelevant. The FF gave a clear definition and Congress has updated it much more recently. The vast majority of Americans on this forum are members of the militia.

That would be the unregulated militia, correct?

Yes; but it is important to note that adult females are probably not members of the unregulated militia. Also, males over 45 who are not in the Reserves, nor current sworn LEOs, nor in any state militia, nor in any Reserve component, are also probably not part of the unregulated militia.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The founding fathers disagree with you... They seem to think the most dangerous thing to a Democracy is a guy like you.

Thanks for the personal attack.

BUG OFF!

what's wrong? he hitting a little too close to the truth?

and to consider the above a PA you're making several assumptions that aren't stated in the post.

keep going... this is fun to watch.

You're right it IS fun to watch

The above was a personal attack. It was a bullshit statement about me, addressed to me.


This thread is about gun regulation. I submitted that the government has the right to regulate guns. I backed it up.

Several posters didn't like it, so they made personal attacks against me, brought in a bunch of irrelevant phony quotes, tried to change the subject so that now the argument is about perceived discrepancies in some statements that I made, and now they are frothing at the mouth spewing the same old nonsense about the Founding Fathers that I can read anytime in the propaganda that the NRA has been putting out forever.

I am a gun owner. I believe the government has every right to and should regulate guns. I believe that people who think that they will be able to win their freedom, in this day and age, by threatening the government with their gun collections are NUTS.

I also believe that the 2nd amendment is intended, as it says, to allow the states to maintain well "regulated" militias. I think the biggest threat to our freedom comes not from the U.S. government, but from "unregulated" militias consisting of paranoid hillbillies and angry Wingnuts who would justify domestic terrorism with phony "Founding Father" quotes taken out of context and dressed up.

[kelpdiver 2]

you can define the militia as clowns on unicycles and the 2nd will still read: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I thought Congress had included a definition in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, but apparently not.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I am a gun owner. I believe the government has every right to and should regulate guns. I believe that people who think that they will be able to win their freedom, in this day and age, by threatening the government with their gun collections are NUTS.

Then let me ask you something. In all seriousness.

If the government would simply crush any internal resistance by it's armed populace, why hasn't it done so in Iraq?

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

uh, regulated = trained. Not under the control of a government entity.

Not a common use of the word in our time, but if you want to be literal, you need to refer to usage at the time of writing.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

you can define the militia as clowns on unicycles and the 2nd will still read: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I thought Congress had included a definition in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, but apparently not.

The definition of militia does have relevance to the 2nd Amendment, because "militia" is expressly mentioned therein; and a basic principle of statutory/Constitutional construction is that express language in a statute, regulation or constitutional provision is there for a specific reason, and should not be dismissed as mere surplusage.

The 2nd Amendment is not just its last 14 words. It consists of 27 words, each of which is important, and reads as follows:

"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 the definitional task is at least twofold: to define "militia", but also (maybe more importantly) to define "the people". In other words, does it mean "the collective people", or "every individual person"? This remains an ambiguity under the law, and many judges and constitutional experts have disagreed with each other on the answer to this issue. Now, based on Heller, I would predict that a majority of a present-day SCOTUS would probably deem- by a split vote - that the rights under the Second are an individual, and not merely a collective right; but that remains to be seen.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

uh, regulated = trained. Not under the control of a government entity.

Not a common use of the word in our time, but if you want to be literal, you need to refer to usage at the time of writing.

An interesting point. Thanks.

At the time of writing, how would one know whether a gun owner was "trained"?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Skydekker, the 2nd and 5th Amendments do refer to the same militia - each refers to whatever form of "militia" may exist from time to time under applicable Federal and/or state law.

Does the judicial system in the US treat the Militia as mentioned in the 5th Amendment to only mean the organized militia as defined in the Militia Act you quoted above?

(Which based on the wording of the 5th would have some merit)

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

I am a gun owner. I believe the government has every right to and should regulate guns. I believe that people who think that they will be able to win their freedom, in this day and age, by threatening the government with their gun collections are NUTS.

Then let me ask you something. In all seriousness.

If the government would simply crush any internal resistance by it's armed populace, why hasn't it done so in Iraq?

Because the country is ungovernable, in large part, due to the fact that there are far too many armed NUTS in Iraq who believe that violence is the path to freedom and they are killing each other and us.

War is not the answer.

If the armed populace in Iraq prevails, do you really think that they would be free? Which "armed populace" are you referring to? The ones who think democratically or the one's who don't?

It's not the guns that make us free, it's how we think and relate to each other that makes us free.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Skydekker, the 2nd and 5th Amendments do refer to the same militia - each refers to whatever form of "militia" may exist from time to time under applicable Federal and/or state law.

Does the judicial system in the US treat the Militia as mentioned in the 5th Amendment to only mean the organized militia as defined in the Militia Act you quoted above?

(Which based on the wording of the 5th would have some merit)

The relevant passage reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; .... "

Based on this, without having researched-out any cases on this (if there are any), if I was a judge, I think I would focus not so much on whether the individual was part of the organized or unorganized militia, but on whether the person was or was not "in actual service in time of War or public danger". And then, yes, we'd probably, in turn, have to get into definitions of "war or public danger".

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

War is not the answer.

Ahhhh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VtaVXZMu-s

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I am a gun owner.

What do you own?

[billvon 3,133]

>and the 2nd will still read: "the right of the people to keep and
>bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No, it won't. You are leaving out the part of the second amendment that weakens your position. (Which is foolish, since it's pretty easy to look up.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

you can define the militia as clowns on unicycles and the 2nd will still read: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I thought Congress had included a definition in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, but apparently not.

The definition of militia does have relevance to the 2nd Amendment, because "militia" is expressly mentioned therein; and a basic principle of statutory/Constitutional construction is that express language in a statute, regulation or constitutional provision is there for a specific reason, and should not be dismissed as mere surplusage.

Yes, it's there for a specific reason - to explain the rationale. And that cannot be altered by a subsequent definition change to militia.

The individual versus collective right never should have been in doubt, and Heller did effectively end it. It's a shame that aspect is only 5-4 split when the evidence is overwhelming as to the intent.