"A well regulated militia"

Rivalry Side A | World | News

"the right to keep and bear arms."

Rivalry Side B | World | News

In the wake of the tragedy at Aurora, CO some have suggested that this discussion is too early, but when should it be discussed? Is now not the time? Two days, two months, two years? After, God forbid, it happens again?

Posted by in World / News on 7/24/12
Debate Leaders
  1. big ben (17 votes)
  1. Kazzy (15 votes)
  1. Sarah Forester (1 votes)

Side A fans: (2)

Neutral Fans: (1)


View

Side A Comment

LIBERAL - 7/29/12 @ 4:05 PM:
-1

All right. While I found the title of this particular article a little ridiculous concerning Justice Scalia's appearance on FOX today, I am posting it for a good reason. Please watch the video before commenting on it. Basically Scalia admits that while the Second Amendment does give us the right to bear arms it also provides for certain limitations as well. As he expertly explains certain weapons were in fact excluded for various reasons even during the time the Constitution itself was written. Now the question comes as to whether it should now include such arms like "assault rifles", 100+ round clip weapons, etc. He explains that it will be decided, as it should be, on a case by case basis. It is clear that our weaponry has advanced since the times of daggers and muskets. With this technology has come the creation of far more lethal weapons. The question is, at what point do we finally draw the limitation, and say "this is well beyond the scope of hunting or personal protection"? These weapons are far too dangerous and completely unnecessary for the protection of a person or their property. When will we admit that there should be a reasonable limitation for weaponry of this kind in order to better secure the safety of our own citizenry?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/29/scalia-handheld-rocket-launchers-could-be-constitutional/
Kazzy - 7/29/12 @ 5:17 PM: Rival | Side B
0
I watched the video and let's just say you're reaching a bit on Scalia saying certain weapons were limited. What he actually said was it was a misdemeanor to carry around really horrific weapons just to scare people. Let's understand what you're legally allowed to do with your weapon has been strictly regulated and to some degree it should be. What he didn't say is what illegal to own really horrific weapons.

So let me be clear (Stole that line from Obama), Scalia is speaking of prohibited actions (locations as well) not restricted ownership. Currently I can own an Assault rifle but I can't trot around town with it pointing it at people just to scare them. BIG difference. Only time will tell but I definitely interpreted this interview in a completely different light.
LIBERAL - 7/29/12 @ 6:42 PM: Ally | Side A
-2
I'm afraid Ryan I'm not reaching at all. These types of weapons were in fact banned from being carried on their person. This particular tort would actually lead to many "concealed weapon" laws eventually passed in numerous states across the south during the early to mid 1800's. That is that they were in fact banned from being carried. My point is exactly the point that Justice Scalia made which was to say that the government can in fact make certain limitations on weapons without restricting the right of the individual's right to bear arms. Case in fact: The assault weapons ban of 1994. This mandate was constitutional and remained in effect until its expiration in September of 2004. So, let me be clear. ;-P Justice Scalia did in fact state that the right to limit certain weapons is and can be deemed constitutional because it does not interfere wholly with the right to bear arms. It only places a regulation on the right. It does not strip it away entirely. His point earlier about the frighting tort was to explain the legality of placing certain limitations on the right itself as called for during that time, and as recent times may call for further limitations as necessary.

Side A Comment

LIBERAL - 7/27/12 @ 3:43 PM:
0
Well, just read about this on the ABC page. Another "Joker" appeared. This is exactly what I was afraid of happening. I'm just glad they caught him before something happened. http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Home-Searched-After-Alleged-Threats-Made-164018366.html?live
LIBERAL - 7/28/12 @ 3:32 PM: Ally | Side A
-2
It's one thing to be a collector or an enthusiast, or to simply enjoy firing some weapons for sport, but this just seems a little ridiculous. Why did it really require someone alerting the police to this person? There should be some sort of red flag for law enforcement to follow in order to at least investigate matters like these before they turn deadly. Would it really be so bad to have someone question gun owners as to their recent purchases instead of sorting through evidence after another massacre? If you don't have anything to hide then you really shouldn't care. I know I wouldn't mind it happening to me as long as it could possibly deter horrible events like these from ever happening again.
LIBERAL - 7/28/12 @ 4:02 PM: Ally | Side A
-1
Here is a link to the latest news on this particular individual, what he said to his boss, and a few more details about him. Apparently Deputy Chief Henry Stawinski has filed for an emergency petition to have the suspect undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/joker-threats-lead-to-arrest-of-maryland-man-1.895983
Kazzy - 7/28/12 @ 5:08 PM: Rival | Side B
2
This guy must have been paid pretty damn good to afford an arsenal like that. The only thing keeping me from purchasing an ar-15 is the fact that the cheapest one you can purchase is $600. By the looks of the photo he had upwards and possibly beyond 12k in weapons. Certainly glad they stopped him before doing something similar to the other shooter.
LIBERAL - 7/28/12 @ 5:20 PM: Ally | Side A
-1
He worked apparently for a subcontractor of Pitney Bowes. I don't know exactly what he did there, but it obviously did pay very well. Another aspect attributable to these types of crimes seem to be the possibility of mental health issues. As scary as that seems, how does one go about placing preventitive measures against such things? You really can't. If in fact the same can be said of the Aurora, CO incident with Mr. Holmes, that is, if he is found to be suffering from schizophrenia as they believe how do we take that into account? The onset of this type of illness usually takes place right around his age group. There are even reports that he was supposed to see or had recently seen a psychiatrist. I'm getting a little off track here. Perhaps this belongs on the other rivalry or another altogether, but seriously it does have to be taken into account in these situations. People have been too quick to judge in my opinion, and it may take more time before we really know more. I've already seen one discussion on Facebook concerning Mr. Holmes where almost half, if not more than those who commented, pretty much stated he should be put to death. I'll save the rest for the death penalty conversation.
Kazzy - 7/28/12 @ 5:25 PM: Rival | Side B
2
In discussions with my wife I've mentioned the movie Minority Report in that the police utilize gifted physics to preempt crime. Even if this was available it wouldn't be just. There's no way to know if a crime would have been committed. In this latest case there's currently no evidence that this man wasn't just talking $#? because he was angry about losing his job. Sure we can say he may be loony but we don't know. Do we even know if any of the weapons he possessed were illegally acquired? Bottom line, this one needs some more time before we know what's really going on. Sure, it likely was a good piece of police work but we just don't know.
LIBERAL - 7/28/12 @ 5:32 PM: Ally | Side A
0
Actually Ryan the first statement we both keep replying to on my name states that the law enforcement are pretty certain all of his weapons were purchased legally. Now, that's not to say they may not find out later a weapon or two was gained illegally, but they all appear to have been legitimately purchased through legal means. I'm not assuming anything at this point for either men. You're right, the Maryland case could very well be someone caught just running off at the mouth. We just don't know yet.

Side B Comment

big ben - 7/26/12 @ 6:05 PM:
3
Thoughts and prayers for the victims of the shootings:)
Kazzy - 7/26/12 @ 6:47 PM: Ally | Side B
3
Big Ben, Don't forget you can up vote your own comments once and just in case you didn't know you can inflate and deflate the authority of rivalries by clicking on the up or down arrows to the right of the rivalry description.

Side B Comment

big ben - 7/26/12 @ 6:03 PM:
3
There is much confusion with this, and I think that the confusion is used to take advantage of Americans and their understanding. To make it simple, think of every able bodied citizen as the militia. Think of the national gauard and military as organzied government units who pool from the militia which is the whole US able bodied population. I hope this helps.
LIBERAL - 7/26/12 @ 6:25 PM: Rival | Side A
0
That's not confusing in the least. You are correct. That's exactly what I was saying. What I'm also saying is that though there were many factors in the tragedy, one of which was gun related, that we seriously need to as a society and nation discuss what has become a very serious problem. Even if we agree or disagree, it should be discussed.

Side B Comment

big ben - 7/26/12 @ 6:00 PM:
4
I understand your point about militia. I will clarify that the militia in the constitution is reffering to all able bodied citizens. This is therefore giving the right to bear arms to everyone, not just the citizens who are called up to serve in the militia. The citizens are all part of the militia, they are only activated to that roll when needed. I do want to clarify one misconception. Many people today have been misslead in regards to the national gaurd. This is not the militia, this is a unit adopted by the states in time of calling by the governor. Please do not confuse the national guard with the militia in the constitution. They are totally different and the national gauard was not established until many many years after the constitution. We the people, are the true militia. Thank you
LIBERAL - 7/26/12 @ 6:31 PM: Rival | Side A
1
Well, while we might agree on the above I have to disagree to a point on this matter. Although a militia was something different then, it is not now. The Militia Act of 1792 was only the first of many that allowed our very own founding fathers to establish what they considered to be a true militia and the regulations that they would follow as law. This didn't just happen recently. Our forefathers did so only 5 years after signing the Constitution. The Militia Act of 1903 adopted the state militias into the organization as we now know it to be the National Guard. It became governmental by state and federal funding soon after. I know you may not consider that a "true" militia, but it is what is. I assume you know what I'm referring to as well. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Side B Comment

big ben - 7/25/12 @ 7:52 PM:
2
Rick, thank you for the history lesson on the milltia, but it has nothing to do with gun rights of civilians.
LIBERAL - 7/25/12 @ 10:08 PM: Rival | Side A
0
Big Ben, I don't think you were following the gist of the conversation. Ryan suggested that there was an enormous difference between the two, a militia and the people. The people of this nation during the Revolutionary War were the militias. So, basically when it stated that there should be regulation of arms it meant both the people and those who served in militias as well. I appreciate your remarks, but please read the full text so that you have a full understanding of the matter. By the way, the history of the militias of this country by the people is completely relevant due to the fact that once they returned home as civilians they were still expected to follow certain regulations of the law, and that included the right to bear arms as well as many others.

Side B Comment

big ben - 7/25/12 @ 7:38 PM:
2
"those who give up freedom for security, deserve neither."
LIBERAL - 7/25/12 @ 10:35 PM: Rival | Side A
0
”Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”

Side B Comment

big ben - 7/25/12 @ 7:33 PM:
3
"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."

This says people, not militia!

Making assumptions is not the educated way to do things. You need to read further into the writings of the founding fathers. They clearly state that the right to bear arms is the last line in the sand to protect against a tyrannical government. Why do you think it states in the Declaration of Independence that:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Did they say that you will have to use bb guns and bow and arrows so that the tyrannical government will have an unfair advantage? Use logic and turn off your television sets. The founding fathers would of not stated the following if they did not want the citizens to be well armed!!
Think about it people, the right to bear arms is designed clearly for the people of the USA to use as a last resort to throw out tryannical government. Do you think the founding fathers would of liked to make this right handicapped? Please think logically people, and please turn off your corporate mind control media and think for yourself. The time for denial is over. Please also read the Declaration of Independence. It is not only our right, it is our DUTY to throw out such government! For those who have taken the oath, you are also bound to a second clear demand. You are to protect your fellow citizens from enemies :"foreign and domestic"
When a government is no longer following the rule of the land, you are obligated to keep your oath or you are a traitor to your fellow freedom loving Americans, are you not????

I do understand the concerns of Americans who fear other crazy people. The answer to this problem is not fear and more government. It is giving more law abiding citizens more guns. The bat man crisis could of been stopped with less damage if someone there was armed to resist him.

Think back to the shooting in Louisiana. It was at a bar. The movie theaters and bars have gun restrictions for even legal concealed weapon carriers. Why do you think the criminals go to these types of places? Guns are not allowed in these places!! I do agree that alcohol and guns do not mix. I never drink when I carry (against the law). If I was fearful, the best option would be to not go to bars where I would not be able to defend myself from psychos.

Why do some Americans not get it? I do not hate people under mind control. I feel sorry for them and pray for them.

I.E.: why do people think that America will never have the threat of a tyrannical government? Is it cognitive dissonance? Is it stockholm syndrome? Is it all of the prescription drugs and flouride in the water? Is it a combination of all of the above? Why do some think that America is immune to any evil in factions of our government. Why????? There are evil people who go shoot up theaters, but there are not evil people in our government? Government should have all of the guns, but citizens should have none? I am just trying to get people to think critically. I know it is hard. It does feel good to realize that reality under mind control is false reality. People need to look at history and realize that government was the biggest killer of people in the world by far in the 20th century.

Here are some examples of our current major crisis in this country:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

CONTROL OVER ALL RESOURCES EXECUTIVE ORDER

"Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency."

Another example:

NSPD-51

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-51.htm

This gives the president complete authoritarian control during any time he or she sees fit. It was started by Bush and restarted by Obama.

The following is the SEC DEF declaring that congress is no longer needed in approval for unilateral war!!!! You cannot make this up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84

What about the following which considers people who like the constitution terror suspects??!! I wish this was a scam!

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/lexicon.pdf

section

"(U) patriot movement (U//FOUO) A term used by rightwing extremists to link their
beliefs to those commonly associated with the American
Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises
violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign
citizens.
(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,
Constitutionist)"

What about the MIAC report:

This report which was issued to a fusion center classifies people who support Ron Paul, Bob Bar, or Chuck Baldwin (preacher!!) as terror threats. WOW!!!! This is the government raging war on people who are law abiding and freedom loving!!

http://constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf

I would be happy to give more examples of how we are no longer free in this country if anyone cares. The question is, does anyone care about the loss of our freedoms?
LIBERAL - 7/25/12 @ 10:27 PM: Rival | Side A
0
Big Ben, did you read any of my previous comments? Clearly you didn't or else you would have understood the argument. I'm not being rude or sarcastic, but seriously, I don't need to be reminded of what the Declaration of Independence contains or means. And stop using the term "Tyrannical Government". What tyrannical government has ever had to be "thrown off" in the United States? Name one. You cannot name one, because there never has been. The term limits placed on politicians makes the conspiracy and follow through impractical and laughable at best.

The only thing you and I can agree on is that particular Executive Order and the NDAA/AUMF. I don't like them in the least, but I'm afraid you totally missed the point on everything else.

If you want to discuss the other matters then please start a different rivalry. This particular rivalry should try to stay on track. Thanks.

Side B Comment

Grace Agnew - 7/25/12 @ 2:39 PM:
-2
I believe the idea that if everyone is armed, fewer people will get hurt is an absolute myth. People involved in an unexpected shooting, panic, don't know where the shots are coming from, and can't read the scene accurately. The one person with a gun at the Gabby Gifford event almost killed one of the rescuers. Fortunately, he had sense to realize he didn't know enough about where the shooting was coming from to use his weapon. The attacker was brought down by a 60+ YO woman when he stopped to reload. The worst aspect of the Aurora situation was the shooter had a 100 bullet clip. He never had to reload and the bullets were going everywhere. Lots of people were wearing costumes. The victims had no idea at first who the shooter was or how many there were. If he had had to stop to reload, everyone in the place would have rushed him and brought him down. If other people had pulled out guns, there would have been a lot more injuries and deaths and a lot of people living with that guilt. The simple fact is we don't need assault rifles or hundred bullet clips. You don't need that firepower to hunt, to defend your family or even to bear arms against a tyrannical government. You can say that banning assault weapons and hundred bullet clips impacts your freedom. What about MY freedom to go the movies without going through a metal detector. If one more such incident happens, I guarantee that we will be looking at xrays and metal detectors at the movie theater, at the grocery store. Sometimes a few must have their freedom restricted for legitimate reasons (because they own a lethal weapon), so the rest of us can remain free. I don't believe that the 2nd amendment trumps the pursuit of happiness and the idea of getting my purse and body screened everywhere I go does not make me happy.
LIBERAL - 7/25/12 @ 3:20 PM: Rival | Side A
0
Grace, I couldn't agree more. I believe you're absolutely right. Thank you for sharing your opinion. I know others may not agree, but I do. Also, thank you for pointing out the fact that had someone else actually had a weapon in an auditorium full of people, that the number of injured and dead could have been higher. More guns does not necessarily equal more safety. Especially in these types of situations.

Side A Comment

LIBERAL - 7/25/12 @ 1:25 AM:
-1
This reply is for Ryan's earlier response. Now, Ryan, you have suggested that there is some sort of difference between the words “militia” and “people” as it is written and used in the Constitution and subsequent amendments known as the Bill of Rights. While there may in fact be a definitional difference between the two words there is no difference in how our founding fathers meant to use them in terms of constitutional language.

mi·li·tia
[mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

Oxford Dictionary of the US Military:
militia
n. 1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
3. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

The following is an excerpt from the United States section of the term “militia” from Wikipedia.org

“In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time of at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.”

The following is Section 4 of the Militia Act of 1792. It was ratified by Congress May 2, 1792 and signed by President George Washington. It specifically states the difference between the militia (a body of armed and trained citizens which may be called to regular service) as opposed to troops (the regular army of the United States also known as the Continental Army).

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.

This act was an immediate response to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 in which the Continental Army was not sufficient in arms to suppress the rebellion and required the additional services of the state militias (citizens aka “people“) in order to quell the protests. Unlike the regular standing armies these “people” were later relieved of their military duties and allowed to return to their civilian lives.

The fact is that a militia is a group of able bodied armed men who could be called into service by their state and federal governments to supplement the standing army. To further prove that point I will show the following excerpt from the Constitution of the United States Article II Section 2:

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States

When our founding fathers used the distinct language of the two terms in the same sentence of the Second Amendment they did so deliberately to cover both parties, but make no mistake, that they were in fact one in the same. Militia personnel did not grow on trees, magically appear, and to my knowledge were not commissioned by Darth Tyranus to be cloned by the Kaminoans. They were normal people and citizens called to service in times of emergency and impending war. Do not forget that the very same founding fathers that drafted, ratified, and signed these documents were also responsible for the very same language later used in the Militia Act.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia?s=t&ld=1065

http://www.answers.com/topic/militia

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#Twentieth_Century

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Side B Comment

Sarah Forester - 7/24/12 @ 11:02 PM:
1
All I really want to say is we choose to keep what is ours. We choose to be gun owners and don't want the government telling us we can't. If this was left up to we the people as a vote, it would not be an issue. There is a reason gun sales sky rocketed After the Colorado tragedy. People know that the bad guys will always find a way to do bad things and if we have no way to protect ourselves they will always win. I do agree that we need some stricter regulations on who purchases guns, how long the waiting period is and how many you can buy in a time period. Al. Maybe I don't fully understand the context of this debate.
LIBERAL - 7/24/12 @ 11:14 PM: Rival | Side A
0
Sarah, after reading yours and Grace's responses I see that I was a little vague in my rivalry description. Basically the left side is for those who do agree that some regulation is necessary to the safety of normal every day citizens. The right side is really for those who believe that less or very little regulation is necessary. I apologize for the confusion.

Side B Comment

Grace Agnew - 7/24/12 @ 10:13 PM:
-1
I'm not on the fence at all about the need to regulate firearms. We have basic needs for food and employment that are common to all and that almost always involves a car but because car use, if not properly regulated, is a dangerous weapon, we have regulations on their use and the driver must demonstrate basic mastery of the car. And yet someone mentally ill can purchase an assault weapon and six thousand rounds of ammunition. Demonstrating competency is not in conflict with the right to bear arms. An assault rifle can kill 12their and injure 57. You eon't kill that many with a car unless you run a bus off a cliff. You might argue that you shouldn't place conditions on a right, in which case I must ask, do you support votet ID to enjoy the right to vote. And how about the right to the oursuit of happiness, which is what gay couples are seeking in a legal marriage. What about the right to just go to a movie and not be a duck in a shooting gallery for a militia of one eho is bearing arms against the shadowy enemies from his own twisted mind?

Side B Comment

cutie122403 - 7/24/12 @ 9:43 PM:
0
I believe that we have a right to bear arms. I'm a little on the fence with assault rifles but I have the right to own a gun if I choose to do so. I've heard many people say "If the shooter in Colorado didn't have an assault rifle then he would have killed less people" and that may be true but what if the poor innocent people in that theater could have had a gun? I would feel much safer if I could carry a gun with me so I would have a better advantage of protecting myself. Whether or not they are banned guns will always end up in the wrong person's hands.

Side B Comment

Kazzy - 7/24/12 @ 9:28 PM:
5
Constitution of the United States

Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Section 8
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

“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;”


United States Bill of Rights
Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

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.
Amendment III
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

My day has been entirely too crazy to even stand a chance of rebutting every claim in Rick’s well thought out response and would love for some other JealousBrother members to pick up what I’m starting with here. Since my time has been limited today I’m going to focus on my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and attempt to answer the question that is posed in the title of this rivalry.

I intentionally cited Section 8 of the Constitution for simple fact that the precursor to the Bill of Rights (Constitution) clearly lays out that the power the Congress has to “..provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia…”. Why is this significant? Why would there be any question of militia members being armed if the government itself was responsible for arming them? They had to emphasize this so the government wouldn’t send them to war with their bare hands?

Amendment II to the Bill of Rights is cited because it’s the underlying issue being discussed right now and it’s important to point out that while a well regulated militia is mentioned when it comes to mentioning the right to keep and bear arms the word “People” is specifically used, not Militia members but people. How does the constitution start again? “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…”. That’s right it’s “We the People” not “We the Militia”. Strange, it’s almost like they meant to address the right to bear arms to the masses not just those in the militias. Odd..

I cite Amendment III for a specific reason as well, it clearly distinguishes a difference between, the People, the Militia, and the Soldiers (Land and sea).
Now let’s pretend we’re back in the gentlemens war for a second and someone drops off a crate of AR-15 or the military brother M-16 assault rifles. Do you think they would have used it to shoot the idiots lining up waiting to be shot? Uhhmm Yup! Now when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and ratified do you think they would have said, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon except for the rapid fire assault rifles”.

I was fairly confident about the weaponry used in the revolutionary war but looked it up just to be sure; included are Muskets, Cannons, Flintlock Pistols, Swords and Sabres. Out of curiosity does it mention anywhere in the bill of rights or Constitution that The People can own weapons but not canons? I mean, canons are military weapons and if The People couldn’t own them then it might have been a good idea to mention that kind of thing.

I understand a lot of people think it’s irrational to want a assault rifle and I think it’s irrational for grown adults to own thousands of cabbage patch kids, name them all, and treat them like real children but guess what if they want to be a couple of dumb ass mother $$%!$% and spend thousands of dollars raising cabbage kids(Keeping them in HVAC climate controlled buildings) as children guess what that’s fine as long as they don’t send them off to conduct any kind of attack that hurts or kills others.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/my-crazy-obsession-cabbage-patch-kids-video_n_1331140.html (Frankly I’m surprised I’m sourcing something from the Huffington Post but even Hell freezes over apparently.)

As I get more time I’ll try and address more of Rick’s points but hope some other members step in and help me out. I’m mean come on folks, someone has to keep coding these sweet ass features!
Kazzy - 7/24/12 @ 9:37 PM: Ally | Side B
3
And Damn you Rick, I feel like I'm back in College having to research and cite my papers! Great rivalry and while Yes it is soon after a horrible event it does need to be discussed and the facts need to be laid out. Thank you by the way, it's been entirely too long since I've read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Side A Comment

LIBERAL - 7/24/12 @ 2:59 AM:
0
Hello, fellow Jealousbrother.com fans. I’m sure this rivalry will no doubt incite much argument, but I hope that it will at least leave some of you with a few thoughts with which to ponder. I know this response is quite lengthy, but please read the entirety before responding so that you may understand my full position. I am aware that a previous rivalry concerning this subject took place on this site a few years ago, but in light of recent events I am curious what some will think now. I would be remiss to claim that this has nothing to do with the events of the Aurora, CO massacre over the weekend. In fact, it has everything to do with this new rivalry. First, let me state that I mean no disrespect for the victims or their families in starting this rivalry. It is an awful tragedy. I am starting this rivalry while the events of last weekend are still fresh in our minds not to sway people’s opinions, but because it should be discussed now. I am certain there will be differing opinions. This is and has been a subject of very heated debate before, which I welcome, but please remember that we all mean well. That being said, here we go.

Despite what some of you may think of me personally, I do love my country. I loved it enough to serve in the armed forces, and love it still. I would fight for this country even to ensure the rights of those to speak heavily against me in defense of their own beliefs. I have, and would gladly continue doing so because I have a deeper love for this country I believe than most who would rather censor and deprive me of that right purely because it conflicts with their own beliefs. I am not stating that any of you would behave this way. So, please, do not assume that my previous statement is meant to identify anyone in particular on this website.

From the Bill or Rights
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.

I know we’ve all discussed the Bill of Rights at some point, but rarely has someone actually published the entire text of the Second Amendment on this website during a rivalry. I think it important that we all see it. Many times we all see the latter text of the amendment. We rarely see the beginning text of the Second Amendment. I wonder if there is a reason for this. Notice the very first four words: “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA”. Is there a reason why so few rarely see this text? Is it because our forefathers had sense enough to realize that an armed citizenry was somewhat dangerous, and that perhaps regulation might be the sensible thing? Of course, as I’ve stated myself in many arguments like these, a well regulated militia at the time of our forefathers was sought in order to protect a fledgling nation from foreign enemies. I know many would argue that it was also to protect the people from tyranny of the government, but let’s be a little honest about this. If we were to construct a giant scoreboard with Tyrannical American Governments Overthrown on one side, and Dead Innocent American Men/Women/Children on the other… …which side do you think would have the higher tally? I think we all know the answer to that one. That’s not just opinion. That’s fact. One could argue that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. True, but killing them was made much easier by their access to weapons like AR-15’s and TEC-DC9’s. The reason why most current gun laws are so ineffectual is because they do NOT cover a specific type of sale. Nearly all gun-show exhibits that take place across this country are totally exempt from any state or federal gun laws, including the infamous Brady Bill. At these types of exhibits nearly any citizen of legal age can enter and purchase the weapon of their choice without the normal 5 to 7 day waiting period or background check. Of course, the real question still lingers. Why? Why does any normal everyday citizen require the use of an assault rifle or semi-automatic handgun? Let’s consider this.

I have heard many arguments over the years. Phrases such as “Well, thousands of people die every year in car accidents. Why not place a ban on automobiles?” Or, for yet another example, “People die all the time in airplane accidents. Why not just ban flying?” Excuse me for a moment while I try not to be too sarcastic. You see the logic surrounding these statements is actually lacking in common sense. Automobiles and airplanes are not specifically manufactured for use as a weapon, though they have admittedly sometimes been used in such a manner. One has to ask the question though. Does anyone believe that the designers of the 2012 Ford Mustang or Boeing 787 at some point during their creative process asked themselves “yes, it gets great gas mileage, has several safety features, and is incredibly fast, but how many people can I possibly kill with this thing?” Chances are probably not. How far does the imagination have to stretch to believe that this was not one of the considerations during the design and manufacturing of weapons like the AR-15 and TEC-DC9? Probably not very far. Let’s just take actual weapons into further consideration.

When manufacturers of weapons like an ordinary hunting rifle decided on certain designs chances are they were concerned with accuracy. After all, when hunting rifles were first used by settlers they were used in order to kill animals whose meat provided food, skins provided clothing, and even in some instances provided shelter. When manufacturers produced handguns the main objective was to help citizens protect their families, protect themselves, their property, and their homes. When manufacturers produced repeating rifles, assault weapons, etc. it was to provide our military and armed forces with a means to kill more of the enemy, and more accurately, without having to reload as often. It was the latter type of these weapons which were once used in defense of our nation. They were never meant to be used by the general public, who were routinely unfamiliar with the proper handling and care of such weapons. Assault rifles and many types of semi-automatic weapons are specifically manufactured with a singular intent. They are meant to kill, as accurately as possible, as many as possible human beings with as little time possibly required for reloading. These are not weapons used to provide for the welfare and protection of a family. These are not weapons used to kill animals in order to provide food or shelter. These are weapons specifically commissioned and manufactured solely for the purpose of killing as many human beings as possible in one given moment. So, the question I ask is why? Why is it necessary, when there are plenty of other weapons with which to achieve the above objectives like protection, food, and shelter, does one require such a weapon? Who are you really expecting to invade your home? The Libyan Front? Al-Qaeda? The Afghani Taliban? Beyond even this scope let’s dig a little deeper.

One may argue that “Well, if someone like Mr. Holmes had really wanted a weapon like the one he used in the massacre he could have gotten it by illegal means. So, what good would it have done for assault weapons to be have been banned in the first place?” Perhaps this is true. On the other hand, why must we make it so much easier to obtain weapons like these? Why do we allow a group like the NRA to have such a stranglehold on American politics as to dictate legislation? Why not make laws a little stricter if only for the chance to stop such horrible acts of violence. It would only be regulation of a smaller more particular area of the market, not the entire market itself. Is the desire to own such lethal weaponry by some civilians really worth the chance that they may in fact fall into the wrong hands? I’ll speculate. What if Congress had continued the ban on assault weapons? Maybe he would have decided to use illegal means to obtain an AR-15 through the black market or other illegal channels that might have been monitored. Perhaps then he would have been caught and the lives of 12 people would not have been lost. We don’t know, and unfortunately now, we will never know. Are the lives of those 12 people and many others like them not worth the consideration? I would suggest that the ownership of such lethal weapons by civilians is unnecessary. Let us not forget that weapons like these should only be in the possession of someone who is well trained to handle and use them. By that rationale, who besides an officer of the law or soldier should really be in possession of such weapons? I believe the answer should be a resounding ‘no’, but we are all entitled to our opinion. I may be a liberal, but that does not mean I do not cherish the Bill of Rights or even the Second Amendment. I’m quite glad it’s there for our protection. Among my immediate family including my parents and two brothers we own a total of 17 firearms (9 rifles/4 shotguns/and 4 handguns). I personally am now in the process of acquiring a Texas Concealed Handgun License. I believe every American should have the right to protect themselves, their family, and their property. However, at what point do we realize that our forefathers were correct in the very specific language they used in the Second Amendment. Although it states quite perfectly that Americans should have the right to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed. They also stated that it should be well regulated.

Let us take another view into consideration. In the aftermath of the events of 9/11 the FAA made new regulations and laws concerning what items a passenger could and could not carry aboard an aircraft. Specifically the banning of knives and box-cutters. Were these regulations and laws such an infringement upon the passengers of airliners that many felt as though they could never safely travel aboard an airplane again? Did you ever hear someone complain that they felt violated by such laws that they could not carry their knives during a flight from Atlanta to San Diego? I did, and was much happier to realize that I was sitting several aisles away from the individual upon boarding. With regards to gun regulations, why is it such an infringement and appalling matter to only be allowed to purchase handguns, shotguns, and various other weapons other than assault rifles for protection? Even if it only stopped that one individual like Mr. Holmes from purchasing such a deadly weapon, is it not worth the regulation? One should never have to fear the ability to protect their loved ones, their home, and their property. Then again, they should never have to fear enjoying a movie with their friends without someone bursting into an auditorium with a civilian modified version of the military’s M-16 either. To put it plainly, I do not believe in the propagation of these types of weapons. They are in fact not guaranteed or protected under the amendments of the Bill of Rights. These weapons belong in the accountable hands of trained individuals who are in fact in the service of the military. A militia. If one can argue the need for an assault rifle, then why not an RPG, IED, chemical or biological weapon under the guise of being a militia?

Here is a suggestion. Why can we not have a serious discussion about this issue in order to try to prevent tragedies like the one in Aurora, CO from ever happening again? Why is this not a consideration? Certainly we cannot prevent every condition or tragedy, but are the lives of others not worth the consideration? If in fact we cannot stop someone who is possibly mentally unstable from committing such acts as they are clearly unaware of their immoral actions, why is it such an infringement upon others to somehow not enable their ability to acquire the deadliest of weapons with which to cause such substantial detriment to others? I am only asking these questions in order to obtain your opinions.
LIBERAL - 7/24/12 @ 11:57 AM: Ally | Side A
0
I apologize for any typos. I was up late, and although I used spellcheck it unfortunately did not catch the two or three mistakes I found later, but I'm certain you will all get the gist of it.
Add new comment:

You must either login or register before you can comment.

Side B fans: (8)

You need to be logged in to do that!
Login with Your Facebook Account:
Already have a JealousBrother account? Login
Register for a JealousBrother Account! Register