World

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/

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

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

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.