American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;431398]The Second Amendment talks about a well armed Militia, not individuals.[snip][/QUOTE]Really?

[quote][b]The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an [u]individual right[/u] to possess and carry firearms.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller. 554 USA 570 (2008) , the Court ruled that the Second Amendment [u]protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[/u] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago. 561 USA 3025 (2010) , the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. [/b]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url][/quote]Who to believe?

[QUOTE=Esten; 431397]We only need ask ourselves 2 questions:

[i]What would be the impact on society if we were to ban private ownership of cars? [/i]

[i]What would be the impact on society if we were to ban private ownership of guns? [/i]

[snip][/quote]IMHO both would be devastating. Remember driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right, apples and oranges.

[QUOTE=Esten; 431397]We regulate a freedom according to the necessity, and the positive vs. negative impacts of each freedom. In the case of cars vs. guns, there is simply no comparison.[snip][/QUOTE]When 'regulating' becomes 'banning' (you speak of both) we are no longer talking about freedom. BTW who is 'we', are you speaking of we the people or we the government?

The way I read the definition of freedom once you start regulating it it's no longer freedom. But perhaps you could tell us which of the following definition would apply to 'regulated freedom'?

Free·dom [free-duhm]

1. The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.

2. Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3. The power to determine action without restraint.

4. Political or national independence.

5. Personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery.



[i]"The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect."[/i]

[url]http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 431402]Really?

Who to believe?[/QUOTE]

[quote][QUOTE=WorldTravel69;431398]The Second Amendment talks about a well armed Militia, not individuals.[snip][/QUOTE][QUOTE=WorldTravel69;431408][url]http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html[/url][/QUOTE][/quote]I don't have an ax to grind if you say the Second Amendment speaks of Militia, the rub comes when you say 'not individuals'. Read your own link, here are some snips from [u]your[/u] Link.

[quote]However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an[highlight] individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. [/highlight]Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.[snip][/quote]Seems clear to me.

[quote]In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.[snip][/quote]Isn't this ruling going to make it hard to ban all guns or groups of guns 'chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense'?

[quote]"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' [highlight]concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.[/highlight][snip][/quote]Should we have the same concerns today, should we trust the federal government? WT69 do you trust them, and did you trust them under Bush?

[quote]The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that[u]self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present[/u], and Heller held that [highlight]individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right.[/highlight] Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.[snip][/quote]Which do you prefer 'regulated freedom' dictated by some elitist hypocrites 'critical thinking' or 'ordered liberty'? I'm willing to fight for liberty, how about you?

The militia issue is silly. Historically, at the time the US Constitution was written, a militia was nothing more than a group from the community that came together in order to protect their families, their freedoms and their way of life. This concept started the National Guard, but was not replaced by the National Guard. Throughout history during times of war and unrest the US civilian population has formed small organized militias to aid the people of their community. In many areas, these groups were funded by the wealthy in the community, and they were often awarded titles, etc. The Civil Air Patrol, neighborhood watch groups, and historically even aspects of the Boy Scouts would meet the definition of a well-regulated militia. Our founding fathers would have supported the individual's right to own arms, because if it weren't for this very thing the US would not exist and all of the signatories of the Bill of Rights would have been executed.

BTW Sweden gives real assault rifles to all males of age and females who want them. Training is required. They even supply ammo. Their gun-related death rate is very low. The US death rate due to pseudo-assault rifles is extraordinarily low as well, but our criminal on criminal and criminal on citizen pistol killing absolute numbers top the numbers of soldiers killed in hostile lands every year. We need criminal and nut control not more gun control in the US, in my opinion. Furthermore, the argument that a pseudo-assault rifle allows the killing of more people than a pistol just shows that the people talking have no experience in close quarter combat. A large caliber hand gun at close range (45 or 40) is just as deadly as a 223 but more easily manageable. If this were really the issue, then we should outlaw shotguns which at close range are far more deadly than semi-automatic rifles. Put another way, if you walked in a room with a 223 to harm its inhabitants, a reasonably good shot with a concealed carry permit and a 45 could drop you before you even got the scope to your eye. These nut jobs aren't shooting people at 200 yds but rather at 1-2 yds. The arguments being made, at the expense of the poor victims of our societal meltdown and PC bullshit-fest, are just foolish. If more laws make us so safe, then why does Chicago have the highest per-capita death rate due to guns and more gun laws than just about any other municipality? I say put a retired special forces operator in every school with a few select weapons and you could stop a lot of drugs and nearly every nut job with a weapon from harming the lawful inhabitants, or you could stick with the current Plan A which is put up a sign saying no weapons allowed as an advertisement to the cowardly criminals who commit these crimes: Feel free to come in without risk.

Pete

Punter I thought you were in paradise, steeped in pussy?

[QUOTE=Punter 127;431396]ROFLMAO, That's a trick we picked up from you.[/QUOTE]Anyways, not that I remember every single thing I've posted, but I really don't recall ever doing that. Taking someone's statement or argument, and just switching a word or two to turn it around. I've paid enough attention to know Jackson is the resident master at this. But I can't imagine I did it myself, because it's just so completely devoid of critical thinking. It's what you do when you've run out of arguments. Like when you were a child, and you said "I know you are but what am I".

So why don't you go ahead and show everyone where I did this. Just one example. I'll give you one week.

[QUOTE]IMHO both would be devastating. Remember driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right, apples and oranges.[/QUOTE]Devastating LOL! Only to those who equate freedom with gun ownership, perhaps. Most people wouldn't even notice if guns were banned, and some would likely see a positive impact over time. You needn't worry about an outright ban on all guns, however. Anyone following the debate knows this won't happen. But there is plenty of room for stricter regulation.

I have little interest in getting caught up in semantics, over the difference between privileges and rights, on the definition of freedom. This misses the point entirely. The issue at hand is the huge amount of violence and death that guns contribute to every day, every week and every year. Let's focus on what we can do about it.

Those who just continuously argue that their gun rights are protected come across as self-absorbed, just out for their own interests. Just like the second amendment activists shouting out at the father of a Sandy Hook victim yesterday, while he was testifying about his child's death. Just amazing! There is little to accomplish by attempting intelligent discussion with such people. They have dug in their heels, driven by ideology, just like those who refused to budge on taxes. Compromise and collaboration are not in their vocabulary. We must work to move our country forward, in spite of them.

Here is the point. It is my right to be able to protect my home, my family and my country. The word inalienable was used for a purpose as was the term self-evident in our founding father's writings. Not second amendment but even earlier. They wanted to get away from an imperial tyrant. How pleased they would be to know we just elected one to a second term.

In today's world this requires a firearm to level the playing field a bit. The vast majority of murders with guns in the US are by criminals, nearly always with a prior violent crimal record, and crazy people who 30 years ago would have been in state hospitals but who now for reasons of political correctness walk our streets and endanger others and themselves. Remember most of these people kill themselves as soon as there is the slightest confrontation with someone with a weapon. Note I am not talking about all mentally ill people, only those who are psychopaths. If you want to save lives stop drunk driving, stop smoking, decrease alcohol use, and put violent criminals (including child molesters and rapists) away for life without parole on the very first offense. This would cut the murder rate by 90+. A person is far more likely to be killed by a random car on the street, lightning, or even my car on the street than they are from my gun, unless they threaten my Family or country in which case the metric shifts. So we should spend time changing things that really matter instead of taking polls to see who we can disenfranchise this week to gain some political points with our base.

One other question to ponder. If they make guns illegal, do you think owners will just turn them in to be melted down? No, they will either sell them in which case they will likely eventually fall into criminal's hands or hide them. Reminds me a bit about history in the late 1930s.

Pete

[QUOTE=Peter Sideburn;431424]Here is the point. It is my right to be able to protect my home, my family and my country. The word inalienable was used for a purpose as was the term self-evident in our founding father's writings. Not second amendment but even earlier. They wanted to get away from an imperial tyrant. How pleased they would be to know we just elected one to a second term.[/QUOTE]You have the right to have a gun only because the gun movement got lucky in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision (with a very conservative-leaning court). The second amendment clearly makes reference to a militia. The right to bear arms was in the context of a regulated militia. If it had been intended as a broad right, independent of a militia, there would have been no reason to mention a militia. There was clear purpose here, which even the Supreme Court acknowledged. But the court ignored the purpose and only put weight on the part describing the right, which they called the [i]operative[/i] clause. You have to admit that's slick.

The founding fathers seem like they were smart guys. If they were here today, they would probably tell us the times have changed. They would ask us to think critically about whether the same need still exists for a regulated militia, especially since we haven't had them for a very long time. And they would encourage us to deal with our present issues, just like they did 200 years ago, rather than live in the past.

Just some of the stories today.

Phoenix, AZ. A 70 year-old man entered an office building and got into a dispute with someone, a conflict that escalated to the point where he drew a gun and shot three people. One dead, two wounded. The shooter got away. In addition to criminals and crazy people, maybe senility and loose tempers need to be looked at as well? That should be easy. Maybe if there was a guard at the local school, this could have been prevented.

Chicago, IL. Hadiya Pendleton, a student who performed with her school's marching band at the Obama inauguration, was shot dead in Chicago. Hadiya was hanging out with members of her volleyball team at Harsh Park on the south side of Chicago on Tuesday afternoon when a male jumped a fence in the park, ran towards them and started shooting, according to CBS News. Hadiya was shot in the back, dying in the hospital less than an hour later, and a boy was shot in the leg. The shooter jumped into a car and fled the scene. Maybe if there was a militia in that park at that time, right next to the volleyball team, this could have been prevented.

With due respect, your view does not fit with US history or specifically, the history of our founding father's life experience. The regulated militia in the sense that you believe existed was their intent was held by the British, not the common subjects living on the land. It was the very tyranny of these military and police forces under the name of the King, that led to the creation of bands of common people who wanted to be citizens instead of subjects. In fact, in this era, the term militia referred to a group of men who could be called into service if needed for the reasons I noted previously. They did not and typically were not in service at all times, even during the revolutionary war. They came and went with harvest, etc. In some cases. These were common folks such as myself who would respond if our country or community was threatened. After WWII there was just such an occurrence in TN, I believe, where WWII vets armed themselves with National Guard weapons and rooted out the mayor and police chief who were cooking the books and elections. They gathered and became well regulated under the highest ranking officer and then relinquished their "borrowed" and cleaned weapons to the armory as soon as the state police and State National Guard Troops arrived. They could not have done this without weapons.

Take a look at Article 1 Section 8 where it even defines when the Federal Govt. Can call forth the militia. Now with time our country realized it could not afford to keep a massive standing army but the educational needs of the troops in tactics, etc. Demanded some training. Hence the "Minute Men" or the current National Guard was created. It was not the model upon which the Second amendment was created. In fact, much the converse is true.

You also confuse the meaning of "Well Regulated" which actually meant trained and under guidance when called to duty and under the proper authority when acting on behalf of the government. In fact, private militias which would not come under the fold of a local, state, or federal government would have been viewed as subversive or pirate-like. This is still the case today. If you don't believe this, and you think the liberals understand the ideas of our forefathers better than the historical facts demonstrate then take the time to read in its entirety Pennsylvania's 1776 Declarations of Rights, from which the founding father's relied. Article thirteen, for example."That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." You see, much like now people could not always rely upon the police or the military to come to their aid in time. When threatened or under attack, the individual has an inalienable right to the pursuit of life even if that means taking an agressor's life to protect their right. It is unfortunate that we don't spend our time putting criminals away forever instead of worrying about what kind of rifle Johnny Citizen wants to shoot varmints with. Would you agree that all convicted felons found with a gun should be put away for life? Currently, there are thousands of gun laws and a few things are clear. Violent criminals don't respect human life or the law. Violent criminals get three strikes but their victims only get one: why? Mental health is an oxymoron in the US and anyone who is a direct threat to others, in my opinion, should be removed from society until they are no longer a threat to society. Like the socialists of the 30s our current administration believes and has even bragged about the fact that if you repeat a lie enough times people will believe it. Most of what is said on TV now about "Gun Control" is non-sense. We have laws against crack, yet people keep using it and killing for it and dying from it. Do we need more laws against crack or do we need to enforce the ones we have and stop the revolving door to our prisons? Far more people die due to crack than "assault rifles" yet where is the outcry? In fact, more people die from stabbings and beatings related to crack than from all rifle-related injuries combined.

It makes good press but is stupid from the standpoint of changing societal life expectancy.

Pete

Did you watch Mrs. Giffords Speach.

I hope you did, because this is how she talks now and before she was shot.

Today's Speach:

[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gabby-giffords-senate-gun-control-hearing-report-article-1.1251013[/url]

Before she was shot.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFEtqV8WnXY[/url]

Maybe the NRA should be shot in the Head.

NRA (aka GUN MAKERS). Follow the Money!

[QUOTE=Peter Sideburn;431449]You also confuse the meaning of "Well Regulated" which actually meant trained and under guidance when called to duty and under the proper authority when acting on behalf of the government.[/QUOTE]I didn't confuse anything, because I simply stated these words were in the second amendment. Regardless, this clearly doesn't refer to broad gun ownership then, independent of such training, guidance and authority. You've just bolstered my argument.

[QUOTE]If you don't believe this, and you think the liberals understand the ideas of our forefathers better than the historical facts demonstrate then take the time to read in its entirety Pennsylvania's 1776 Declarations of Rights, from which the founding father's relied. Article thirteen, for example."That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state."[/QUOTE]Interesting. So [i][b]why[/b][/i] didn't the authors of the second amendment just use the same wording? Why did they feel the need to add the language about the regulated militia? It appears they applied some critical thinking, and deliberately specified the scope of the right. Once again, you've just bolstered my argument.

Esten,

I am sorry I can't cover all this from time perspective, but there are many reasons why they didn't copy verbatim. Back then the leaders of our country weren't trying to just get elected, they were trying to break free from tyranny and start a new land with freedom for its inhabitants, not more laws. The weren't flipping their views and moral positions every time the latest poll returned either. The Constitution is not a document of oppression for the populus but rather one specifically designed to limit federal government to a few tasks and areas of responsibility. It was written to prevent a monarchy and cast system. The fathers would not support what it has become or is becoming, might I add. Regarding the terms, it is important to understand the meaning of the words and not just the fact that letters were combined into words, most of which have a number of definitions. Please do a little research or at least take a look at some of the research that is easily available from groups that disagree with your point of view like the NRA and gunsite. Org which have their own bias but do a pretty reasonable job of showing that well regulated militia was not to inhibit private ownership but only to limit the manner with which groups could joing together as a unit in times of the government's needs to defend itself. The only thing worse than no military is one that has no command and control. They wanted to assure that people could own weapons and clearly would never have wanted to disarm the citizens or most would have died from starvation, but rather to assure that when called to arms for the purpose of defending the republic that they would be orderly and under the direction of those who knew the tactics and skills of leadership necessary to stand a chance against highly trained soldiers from other lands such as England at the time. Do you really believe they were trying to limit which citizen could own a rifle? Shotgun? Pistol? They would have been tarred and feathered for even suggesting such a stupid idea. With over 2 million defensive uses of weapons by the US citizenry estimated each year how can one seriously argue that the choice to have a weapon should not be available to those without a criminal record or mental health disorder? Do you think the number of home invasions would go down if only the criminals had weapons? Really? How do you think the non-gang communities of Somalia feel about the fact that they are controlled by bands of thugs with AK47s and a few 50 cal machine guns and they are defenseless unless they want to bring a knife to a gun fight? Why does an NRA sticker on your door lower the risk of your house being invaded? Do you think the criminals fear verbal confrontation on hand gun issues or being on the receiving end of a 44 mag with as much warning as they gave the homeowner that they were going to break in. If a woman you love is attacked would you want her to be at the typical disadvantage in physical strength etc. Or possibly be able equalize the playing field and drop the fool where he stands? If you don't want a weapon in your home then I support your decision. Unless you have some proof, which doesn't exist, that you are at more risk because I may own a weapon, then you should support my decision to own a lawful firearm. Why don't we address the real major causes of unnecessary loss of life in our World and country before we spend billions trying to take lawfullly purchased weapons from law abiding citizens?

Pete