It’s Time to Recognize Citizens’ Constitutional Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court soon will decide District of Columbia v. Heller, a challenge to the D.C. law that makes it illegal to keep an operable firearm in your home for self-defense.
The question before the Supreme Court is clear: Does the D.C. law violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and operable firearms in their homes?
The issue before the court transcends legal hair splitting, and rises above the politics of gun control. The issue before the court is literally one of life and death.
Americans use firearms more than two million times every year in acts of self-defense. And in the vast majority of incidents, not a single shot is fired. These victories over violent criminals are won every day and every night . . . all across America.
Everywhere, that is, but Washington, D.C. In D.C., the basic God-given right to self-defense is a right denied. If you live in D.C., you face an obscene choice either place yourself at the mercy of criminals, or become a criminal yourself by possessing the most effective tool with which to defend your life.
The results of D.C.’s social experiment are clear. Since D.C. imposed its 1976 laws, it has earned the unfortunate distinction of being the “murder capital of the United States.” D.C.’s murder rate had been declining before 1976, but it increased thereafter. Between 1976-1991, it rose 200 percent, while the U.S. murder rate rose only nine percent.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Guns rights advocates quote this sentence from the 2nd Amendment, evidently without understanding the rules of English grammar.
"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."
The error in understanding the rights granted to Americans by this sentence is a misreading of the relationship between two words - the "militia" and the "people". The "people" refers to the nation as a whole which needs a "militia" (made up of people) to ensure "the security of a free State" - not the "people" individually. There is no such thing as a one-person militia, though some advocates consider themselves as such.
If this sentence was split into two independent statements, then the people and the militia could be assigned independent rights; but that is not how the 2nd Amendment was written. Clearly, our forefathers' English grammar skills were far better than our own. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will eventually include enough English majors to figure this one out and ban the people from owning guns independently of the armed forces, police and citizen's militia.
Author's note: The arms our forefathers had in mind were not weapons of mass destruction like the automatic handguns and machine guns legal today capable of killing 20-30 people in a minute.
The term '...the people...' was used often in the Constitution and in the first Ten Amendments called the Bill of Rights. Nowhere did it mean anything other than the free citizens of the United States.
If you can come up with a letter, newspaper editorial or speech from one of the Founders who support your erroneous supposition, I'll at least listen to your thoughts. But because of the fact that the Founders all would disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I will not entertain your thoughts on the matter.
The 2nd Amendment was written and rewritten many, many times. There was considerable debate as to how is should be written as to be as clear as possible. They would likely apologize for your 21st century reading of the text of the amendment. Their writings, letters, speeches, papers and newspaper articles at the time shed all the light that is necessary to understand their meaning.
I have taken a lot of my free time to compile their thoughts in order to shed some much needed light on the sometimes controvertial reading of the 2nd Amendment. But I assure you that they were not confused by what they meant by it.
"No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."
James Burgh (1714-1775) was an English Whig politician
Source: "Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses" (London, 1774-1775)
http://www.savetheguns.com/quotes.htm
The assumption guns -rights advocates make that the authors of the Bill of Rights had good judgement may be unfounded.. They were, after all, slave owners, saw women as inferior and undeserving of the same rights as men, and would probably have been sympathetic to Neo-Nazis and the KKK.
Though there were wise dissenters among the authors including John Adams who eleoquently said that "uncontrolled individual discretion to own and use guns" has the potential to " ... demolish every institution, and lay the law prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man— it is a dissolution of the government ."
If John Admas walked the streets of Detroit and many other big US cities after dark, he would find his prediction had come true - with too many guns, many of them concealable, denying good men and women of the enjoyment of liberty without security systems, guns under the bed, and heavily armed police roaming the streets and the government watching through CCTV cameras for the out-of-control militia of the NRA's USA.
In fact, the Anti-Federalists of this time (State's rights advocates) thought the 2nd Amendment was too restrictive for individual use. Their explicit version was rejected because it called out the individual right and read:
"The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or for real danger of public injury from individuals."
See John Kenneth Rowland's reseacrh of what the Second Amendment mean to Americans in the early 1790s at http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html
You'll also note that the Anit-Federalists use of English language of the day differentiated between the People as a group and individuals - in their version of the 2nd amendment:
"The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or for real danger of public injury from individuals."
"....disarming the People or any of them ..." the militia or any individual is the clear meaning here. The language of the authors of the Bill of Rights themselves refutes your argument that the 2nd amendment is about individual rights.
Furthermore, it was, as I mentioned previously Madison's hand who wrote the 2nd Amendment, along with the others. Can you come up with a single factual quote from Madison or Jefferson for that matter, where they solidly stand behind your baseless supposition that the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear private arms only protects the arms of individuals who are members of an active militia body? Because I can come with a few dozen quotations, letters and newspaper articles from the time period that solidly back up my factually correct argument that the 2nd Amendment's text does indeed protect against federal encroachment of individual and private arms.
"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion , freedom of property and freedom of the press."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright in 1824
"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."
Samuel Adams
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
Dear Mr. or Mrs. Edge of Reason, please take notice that in the Federalist #46 Madison said "...the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." If he intended the 2nd Amendment to mean an organized body of militia only, then he would have written the Federalist #46 differently.
Please take due note that it is not my intention to make light or poke fun at your erroneous supposition that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to organized bodies of militiamen. I'm not trying to make light of your thoughts on the matter, but reading your posts do bring a smile.
STG - This is about understanding the meaning of the language they all agreed upon, not the passions of individuals or the desires of states. However, if you look closely at your quotes .... you might be a bit embarrassed.
Jefferson:
(1) "...people...themselves" are "... entitled to freedom of PERSON ..."
(2) " ... the liberties of the people ..." Militia composed of free CITIZENS" (note that this word means individuals)
Adams:
(3)"... the people of the United States, who are peaceable CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms." (Refers to the subject PEOPLE made up of individual CITIZENS.
Note that Admas also said that
"... uncontrolled individual discretion to own and use guns " has the potential to " ... demolish every institution, and lay the law prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man— it is a dissolution of the government ."
If John Admas walked the streets of Detroit and many other big US cities after dark, he would find his prediction had come true - with too many guns, many of them concealable, denying good men and women of the enjoyment of liberty without security systems, guns under the bed, and heavily armed police roaming the streets and the government watching through CCTV cameras for the out-of-control militia of the NRA's USA.
Et tu Brutus?
Madison's role as stenographer does not mean anything other than that he was a strong voice in the debates and had good penmanship. He did however, protect freedom from dogma such as yours and that of the NRA. Here are a couple of my favorite Madison and Jefferson on religious dogma. To wit:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind, making it unfit for every noble enterprise." James Madison
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Thomas Jefferson
If it is your supposition that the 2nd Amendment only applies to groups of organized members of a state-run, state-funded organized militia body and not to the individual Americans who make up the body of the general population of the United States, I find myself embarrassed by your lack of knowledge on the subject. I really cannot, Mr. or Mrs. Edge of Reason, bring myself to embarrass you. But I will simply state that you are completely incorrect.
Did Madison then say or intend to say that the 1st Amendment 's protection of free speech only applied to groups of people and not to individual Americans? The notion has no foundational evidence and I find your errorneous supposition rather comical actually.
Does then, according to your interesting theory, the liberty of a free press only apply to groups of newspaper editors, or does it apply to individual reporters? Does the freedom of religion clause apply to the free religious choices of individual Americans? Or by your brand of twisted logic, does the freedom of religion only belong to organized church bodies ?
How about the Fourth Amendment? Are we to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures only as states? As cities ? As towns? As villages? As hamlets? As neighborhoods? Or are we to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures as individuals?
How about the Fifth Amendment? Where it says 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime .... etc. Does the Fifth Amendment's mention of person mean some other organized body of persons? Or does it refer to the individual?
By the way, sure Jefferson had slaves, but he abhorred slavery.
Even the Romans got it right.
"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit,
occidentis telum _est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands")
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
"And they are ignorant that the purpose of the sword is to save every man from slavery."
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus Roman poet (A.D. 39-65)
Source: De Bello Civili (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 1988), IV, 579, p. 216
"There exists a law , not written down anywhere, but in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice; not by instruction but by natural intuition: I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) Roman Orator and Statesman at the trial of T. Annius Milo in 52 BC
Mr, or Ms. Save the Guns (and Shoot the Whales I presume?)
Stay on topic ... we are debating the meaning of the language in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights - not Roman poetry. Thou embarraseth thyself Brutus.
If you are able, explain to readers how in your expert opinion, how the same group of people could mean different things when writing on the same topic over the course of the same weeks and months in the late 18th century.
VERSION-1: "The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or for real danger of public injury from individuals."
Note the word "PEOPLE" (note the use of the plural "THEMSELVES") and "STATE" were left in the final version but the "OR ANY OF THEM" was removed because it means people like you could buy and own a gun without proper supervision of a militia or the Satae.
VERSION-2: "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."
These were the same people writing at the same time - but disagreeing about who could decide which PEOPLE could own and bear arms.
I rest my case.
www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
www.saf.org/journal/9/Ktso2.htm
By your reasoning, individuals do not have the right to free speech , religion , to petition the government , freedom from unwarrented search and seizure, jury trials, or any other of the rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No one in or out of our legal system believes that is true.
Go here for an explaination of the English that the 2nd Amendment is written in: www.supremecourtus.gov/opinion/07pdf/07-290.pdf Also note that 9 SCOTUS Justices said that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right to arms, the split of the 5-4 decision to strike down the DC handgun ban was over striking down the ban, not the meaning of the 2nd Amendment as is sometimes put forward.
Automatic handguns and machine guns ar highly regulated by the BATFE under the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934. One cannot legally possess a full auto weapon without paying for transfer stamps, having a Class III license issued by the BATFE and prices for such arms begin in the five figure range. It is impossible to simply walk into your local gun shop and buy a machine gun. The only crime committed using a titled Class III firearm in the last 40 years was the murder of a woman by her husband, a police officer using a weapon belonging to the police force.
The US Constitution is so frequently called upon for support for free gun ownership and yet it appears those who use it to defend their arguments seem to have forgotten to read it. The protection afforded by the Constitution is not for personal unsupervised ownership of guns , but the right to formation and governance of militia (National Guard, Army, ...). Specifically:
"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;
The logical extreme of this so-called right? Personal nuclear firearms ? Mandatory gun ownership? School children required to wear holsters as part of their school uniforms? Some of this is already happening ... Because of guns, America is the least safe country in the world.
If nothing else, handguns should be eliminated. I challenge anyone to explain why handguns (concealed guns) are needed - except for law enforcement or for personal use to defend against other handguns. If handguns were banned, then only criminals would have them for a while, making it easy to pick out the ones the police should shoot. Home owners could still have a personal Uzi at home. Still, far fewer people would die given the majority of deaths are passion-related - killed by someone you know and/or love.
I have lived in 2 countries where guns were banned and can attest to the safety and calm it affords the citizens not to have to worry about being held up at gunpoint, shot by a road-rager, killed by an angry spouse. Americans deserve a hand-gun free country.
SocialistsBetty I would like to go back to the original interpretation of the Second Amendment.
BTW Hello folks.
I have seen the literal interpretation of the second amendment argued by both sides of this issue frequently in the past. In my opinion the intent of these people was towards individual gun ownership and not exclusively for local militia only. There are many quotes from the founding fathers praising gun ownership. I could be mistaken and perhaps there are a similar number of quotes from the founding fathers supporting centralized or federal gun regulation, which would be a clear indication of the contrary. I just haven’t seen any. Something in the line of “all firearms must be accounted for”, “licensed”, or more importantly “denied”.
I would be very surprised to find any, given that our liberties were assured through an armed rebellion 15 years before the constitution was ratified. And so now 15 years after they were pining to rid themselves of firearms? To what possible end? To deny their constituents a varied diet through hunting, or perhaps to enable the native Indians to better protect themselves from the colonists. If there was a sound economic, strategic, or political motive I would really to hear it. Especially profound enough to include it in the constitution.
So why hedge for “militia only” ownership. The militia referred to in colonial times, consisted of private citizens. It’s important to note they were very real people, not a nameless mysterious unknown organization with no footprint in history. When they mention “militia” they are not referring to some large professional army of soldiers we simple forgot about, or that they forgot to create. And yes they had commanders, designated central meeting places and they even drilled with real weapons. But I don’t think the organized structure would classify them as a local Rotary Club either. Claiming the militia was anything else but these folks, you might as well claim they had no weapons at all it would be just as historically accurate.
Is it really that hard to believe, that ordinary people would unite to rebel against an armed occupation?
And of course 15 years after accomplishing just that, the most important thing on their agenda was to surrender their own personal firearms?
I would like to believe the assertion is sincere, but it takes way too much effort to make it work. It’s an upstream swim against both logic and human nature. There is no possible motive to remove firearms from the people at the time and in fact perfect sense to keep a well armed populace. The same year the Bill of Rights were added, 600 soldiers were killed in the Ohio valley by Indian attack.
"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 doesn't give the rights to citizens, no matter what the Supreme Court might say. Anyone who reads it knows that it means the right to keep and bear arms belongs to those who have served in militia. That's how it was written. Simply because it has been ignored doesn't mean the words have changed.
"...anyone who reads it knows that it means the right to keep and bear arms belongs to those who have served in militia..."
Assuming that you are a citizen of the U.S., then you, personally, have served and are serving in the militia: as have everyone else. The militia is composed of all citizens, who can be called forth in defense of the country, region or area not just for military service, but police actions also. In addition, the militia can be called to aid in natural and/or man made disasters.
In essence, the militia is the willing cooperation of free men and women who consciously choose to support and defend the society and government they have created.
Errr.... they must do so in an organized manner to be a militia. (Just... one... teeny tiny distinction.)
All members of the Rotary Club are citizens.
I am a citizen.
Therefore, I am a member of the Rotary Club.
Okay, I don't actually know if that's a stipulation to being in the R.C., but you can see how that doesn't work. That all members of a militia are citizens doesn't mean that all citizens are members of the militia.
But I have since examined this issue in my mind for laborious hours and have come to think that this only says the protection against federal imposition upon the arms of the militia shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that if you aren't in the militia you can't keep and bear arms... but it doesn't say that it is a right that can't be infringed, or controlled.
The Militias of the states in 1789 when Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment consisted of EVERY able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and 60. Later it would be limited to every male between the ages of 17 and 45.
However, that being said, there is no historical evidence, not even one morsel of evidence that the Founders intended the right to keep and bear arms to be limited to only those who are currently serving in an organized and active militia unit.
The Framers wrote often and spoke often on this issue. Nowhere in the newspapers , periodicals, speeches or in their letters to one another did ANY of the Founders even mention one time that the right to own and carry arms in the 2nd Amendment should only include active militiamen. Not even one time. Your supposition is completely contrived and has absolutely NO historical foundation.
Allow me space once again to let the Founders speak to your suppositions. They can defend themselves considerably better than I.
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794), Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789
"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, February 20, 1788
Let's examine this from an historical point of view, rather than as an artificial construction. From U.S. vs. Miller 1939:
"...The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time..."
From the National Guard Charter:
"In addition to the definitions in sections 1-5 of title 1, the
following definitions apply in this title:
(1) "Territory" means any Territory organized after this title
is enacted, so long as it remains a Territory. However, for
purposes of this title and other laws relating to the militia,
the National Guard, the Army National Guard of the United States,
and the Air National Guard of the United States, "Territory"
includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.
(2) "Armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, and Coast Guard.
(3) "National Guard" means the Army National Guard and the Air
National Guard.
(4) "Army National Guard" means that part of the organized
militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and
the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that -
(A) is a land force;
(B) is trained, and has its officers appointed, under the
sixteenth clause of section 8, article I, of the Constitution;
(C) is organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at
Federal expense; and
(D) is federally recognized..."
This last means that the Militia are not the National Guard, but that the National Guard will train and equip the members of the militia. This law changes where the militia acquire military equipment but does not negate both the duty and right to keep and maintain arms "...of the kind in common use at the time..."
I don't know if you are familiar with the case or not, but the Supreme Court recently delved in depth with these very subjects: the militia and the individual right to keep and bear arms. The location is:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
The reasoning is quite good. Also, this decision left open the government's power to regulate the right, but not negate it.
2.>>>>>>> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:<<<<<<< For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding ****prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill***, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, *****or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.******
Which is, essentially, what I came up with. But the right to legislate these restrictions is left to the state. D.C. isn't a state. So... This is my limit. I don't know know enough about the government workings of D.C. (choo choo, all aboard that curiousity train) If there is a ban, there's a ban. Perhaps it would simply better to be a criminal in this case... if you really feel that you cannot protect yourself without a handgun, practise civil disobedience responsibly. Again, I don't see the need for handguns unless you're a police officer... . I have rifles and shotguns, these are adequate protection in my home, and they are the last things I list in home protection (since the best protection is prevention).
Until the'70's, congress was the entity which constructed and passed ordinances for DC. Since congress has (had) bigger fish to fry, they allowed DC to craft and pass ordinances on their own. In 1975 or so, the DC council passed an ordinance which outlawed *all* private individual new pistol purchases, and required *all* firearms to be either locked separately from ammunition in your home or disassembled and stored (read locked up). Pistols which were previously owned before the new ordinance were required to be registered.
"...if you really feel that you cannot protect yourself without a handgun, practise civil disobedience responsibly..."
There is something that I would like you (and everyone else reading this) to read: "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" by Martin Luther King. Let us know what you think.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Keeping your weapons locked and stored is part of being a responsible gun owner. Especially if there are children in the home. Aaaand at any rate, there's no constitutional guarantee that says these things cannot be legislated. By the state or.... apparently... a non-state.
Watching the meanding logic of Socialist Betty - I have a question.
Does Socialist Betty think that abortion is a "right".
Let us see if "rights" to Betty are judged by her leftist benchmarks.
If the Obama administration were advocated banning "partial-birth" (assault weapons) abortions, requireing prior approval by parents, doctors, clergy etc (5 day waiting periods, 1 gun a month, closing the gun-show "loophole", licensing, registration) would Betty still say that the states or DC or the Federal gov't has the power to restrict her "right" to abortion?
I just wonder.
First of all, if you're going to represent me, do so accurately.
I say the right to self is immutable... meaning that no one can force you to use your body against your will except as means of punishment. To do otherwise would be slavery.
Second of all, I do think that the fetus does have rights when it reaches the point where it can be medically sustained outside the womb. Therefore, I think that if a woman does not want to remain in servitude to that fetus she should not be allowed to kill it, merely to have it removed from her body by a procedure commonly referred to as a c-section. If you had actually bothered to read what I had to say about the subject instead of merely assuming something (and what does that say about you... let's all think about what that says about robscottw and his ignorant benchmarchs)
Thirdly, don't refer to me in the third person. It's rude. You are replying to me... your response is to me. Unless you're one of those strange people who refers to yourself by own first name there is no reason for it.
Fourth, yes, the government does have a right to restrict how many and what manner of guns we have. While I believe that you and I have the right of self, this does not extend outside the body. We have a right to our own bodies, but we don't actually have a right to any physical property. We do not have the innate right of owning a gun. Our militias are protected from having their arms infringed upon... you, as an ordinary citizen, are not guaranteed any such thing. There is no such right. It is left to the states.
Sorry you see this as being meandering. Meanwhile, you show nothing but contempt, and rudeness. You say nothing of HOW it meandering, you only say that it is. You say nothing of how I could possibly be leftist, and if I were, how this is a bad thing... I could say you have all the signs of McCarthyism... and what does that imply?
I really don't think you wonder... I think you don't wonder and that's why you respond how you do.
Let's examine this from an individual point of view, rather than a collective one.
"Keeping your weapons locked and stored is part of being a responsible gun owner..."
But not to and past the point where having to assemble a weapon would essentially give it to an intruder simply because the intruder is already inside.
"... Especially if there are children in the home..."
Education, training and familiarity are what prevent firearm accidents. Not hiding them and/or placing them in a location from which it is essentially impossible to employ the tool(s) necessary to preserve you and your family. Gun safes do have a pertinent role to play as a tool to limit access by outsiders: not to limit you in a time of need.
It is precisely this which children do not grasp. Why do we buy those little outlet covers? Why do we fence in our pools? Why do we repeat ourselves over and over (and OVER) to our children? Could it possibly because children do not grasp the responsibility of their actions? Even if you tell them a million and a half times to do or not do something? Taking measures to protect children from themselves is RESPONSIBLE. The original person I responded to has children in the home. And even if his children were COMPLETELY responsible and NEVER did what they were not supposed to do, then they must always live in solitude for other parents could not be relied upon to be so clever as to raise perfection.
"It is precisely this which children do not grasp..."
Exactly why parents and teachers must revisit the same topics and behavior over and over....Not to mention constant attention to the child (children) in order to receive responsible actions from them.
"...The original person I responded to has children in the home..."
So do we. And yes, I have had, and will continue, to revisit safety and handling many, many times. Also, direct access is limited to my wife and myself. Yet, - addressing the point of the DC law - our firearms are not disassembled. Safety and availability are not mutually exclusive of each other unless taken to one extreme or the other.
Sorry, bad movie quote. .....If the law actually requires them to be disassembled then it's about as meaningful as the law which bans oral sex. Meaning there aren't squads waiting to invade homes to see if your wife isn't giving you a blow job while your handgun is fully assembled in your drawer.
Now that I have that weird vision in my head... *MARGARET THATCHER NAKED ON A COLD DAY*....
I'm the first to advocate responsibility and education. It is, in fact, the only gun reform law I think necessary whether one owns a gun or not.
But I still do not think handguns...specifically handguns are ever necessary unless you're an officer of the law. No one seems to give a valid reason other than "Well, criminals have them...", as if this is a valid reason. Again, it is simply ridiculous to say that because a criminal breaks the law (which is, let's face it, WHY she's a criminal) then there should be no law at all. And the reason why I disagree with just anyone walking around with a handgun in her purse or in his briefcase is because they are not trained professionals (well, I mean they could be professionals, but not in law enforcement or public protection). While this isn't to say that I think of officers as not being human, I consider their level of self-control to be above that of ordinary citizens who might be placed in extraordinary situations where a handgun would be of use.
Then argument becomes something about how law enforcement can't be everywhere. Well quite honestly, that's not a good excuse. Crime happens to people who have guns and to people who don't alike. Crime happens period. Law enforcement can never be everywhere all the time and if it could be? Hello 1984 and that's when I say "See ya!".
"But I still do not think handguns...specifically handguns are ever necessary unless you're an officer of the law..."
No one wants to force you or anyone else to have a handgun. That you have the right of choice is what is important.
"...No one seems to give a valid reason other than "Well, criminals have them...", as if this is a valid reason..."
Actually, it *is* a valid reason. There *are* individuals who care *nothing* for: you, your family, what you have done, your position in the community, your compassion, your understanding of 'his' situation. All these individuals care about is what they want, and how they can take it from you or someone else. Period. Each of us must evaluate our surroundings and situation to arrive at a reasoned decision. That you can make that decision is one of the great strengths of our country.
".... And the reason why I disagree with just anyone walking around with a handgun in her purse or in his briefcase is because they are not trained professionals..."
What (continued) education, training and familiarity are all about. Important note: what you see on TV shows is 99.99999999% bogus.
"...Law enforcement can never be everywhere all the time and if it could be? Hello 1984 and that's when I say "See ya!"."
Chuckle!!! Kinda goes against your screen name......
Oh. By the way, "Maggie" was something of a looker when I was young(er).
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/images/f_thatcher_young.gif
I always find it amazining that some people have to tell us what a phrase means, because when we disagree with their interpetation they say that only they can know what was really meant by a phrase that is to simple for the average "citizen" to truly comprehend. Bulls**t. This is why a decent education in the history of this country must be a mandatory part of ones learning process. As is evidenced by the fact that our rights, although not wholly uninfringed, are still protected by this great document. In the first place it dosen't give us our rights it merely says the goverment shall not infringe our rights. Some people refuse to look at the evidence and wholly rely on their emotional intellect in viewing this issue.
the_car_man
....I don't think people have a "right" to guns. A natural "right" is the right to eat, breathe, walk about, choose the direction of one's life, reproduce (unfortunately), etc. Rights Are granted to us by the government. I, however, don't think that people automatically have "rights" to own guns for it implies that people are automatically responsible. I would say anyone with a brain should know that, but since the nation's in the middle of a crisis that anyone with a brain should have seen coming, I guess anyone with a brain Should know that... just ignores it or rationalizes it away.
Rights are NOT granted by a benevolent government . The Founding Fathers believed in the concept of natural rights. Natural rights according to the Framer's views are rights that are granted by the Creator.
Apparently SocialistBetty, you are not even aware of the reason for the Bill of Rights in the first place. The Bill of Rights is a list of what I call negative rights. In other words, the items in the Bill of Rights do not 'grant' rights to American citizens, but instead, were intended to self-limit government infringement into the pre-existing and natural rights of a free people. The right to keep and bear privately held arms is indeed one of those pre-existing natural rights of a free citizenry. Madison's intent was to have the Congress self-limited and recognize these rights.
Please allow me a moment to quote one of Madison's friends and contemporaries. Perhaps you've heard of him...
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788
A year later, in June of 1789 Madison would indeed introduce the 2nd Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights to the United States House of Representatives. What did Madison think of the subject? I think it is essential that we gaze upon Madison's thoughts, as it was his pen who wrote the 2nd Amendment.
"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for
the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops ."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46 January 29, 1788
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
Sorry SocialistBetty, but you stand corrected. For it is not your opinion that matters. The truth is what matters.
"... Rights Are granted to us by the government..."
An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
"...for it implies that people are automatically responsible..."
Why, yes indeed; people, individually, are responsible. In every meaning of the word. From your own post on abortion - ahem - rights: "It is simply maddening to hear someone say that we do not have the right of self..."
The right of self means that your body is Yours. It needn't be specified because it simply Is.
Just because your arms belong to you doesn't mean you can do with them whatever you wish... it means you cannot use them to infringe upon the freedoms of another. That responsibility is yours. We know that not all people are responsible enough to keep their hands to themselves.
The abortion issue is all junky and cloudy because it deals with the bodily rights and right of self while another person is INSIDE you. You being a woman... that is. The greatest responsibility is toward the protection of the self, apparently. Ugh. If I keep going this will just take me forever because I'll just want to board this beautiful little train of thought. But No! I will not!
This is not so junky. Responsibility is acquired. Apparently, this nation has a slow acquisition rate. Or just sheer obstinance.
The right of self means that your body is Yours. It needn't be specified because it simply Is.
The abortion issue is all junky and cloudy because it deals with . Even during the - process - both still retain knowledge of self and individuality. The Human Being created by both profits most from both. What to do with one who won't, or rape, is another (several) discussion(s).
What? Are there words I'm not seeing there?
Who are you referring to with "both"?
"Both" still retarin knowledge....
The Human Being created by "both"
If this were a cell phone conversation I'd say you were breaking up.
.....
I paraphrased your statements using using angle brackets to show my phrasing. It looks like the software the site is using doesn't like that. Let's try it again.
The right of self - defense - means that - defense of self and family - is Yours. It needn't be specified because it simply Is.
The abortion issue is all junky and cloudy because it deals with - the creation of a sentient being, the emotional differences between male and female. Even during the - process of creation both still retain choice, knowledge of self and individuality. The Human Being created profits most from the presence and commitment of both. What to do with one who won't accept responsibility, rape or incest is another (several) discussion(s).
As in, the those things you can wave around when you're dancing that your hands attach to.
What is your education level? Oh nevermind. Listen bodily functions are not repeat not rights. As for making choices about the direction of ones life well i'm flabergasted, you almost make my point fore me, yes Virginia we do have the right, God given of protecting our lives and of those around us,in order to do this you have to be educated in the use of all the tools around you,Knowing the enviroment you travel in, use of ones physical abilities, i.e. karate or kung fu,what I am trying to say is that a gun is an inanimate object, atool to be used for good or evil as "man" so choses. As we live in a Free society(getting less all the time) a "man" should be free to use any tools at his disposal for the protection of our very being.Also note that most of the people I know already know that the politicians and wall street aren't to be trusted, they squandered trillions and will continue to do so as long as the sheep can be led astray. They will not save you and If you give them unlimited power, economic or otherwise they will surely abuse you, as for me and mine i will protect it the best that i can with All the tools available to me.
the_car_man
Natural rights are rights that exist by being natural to you. They're almost non-rights in the fact that they do not need to be named as they are inherent to your own being. Handguns are not natural to you.
God does not exist to give you rights. If you believe in a God, that God gave you life and rules with which to get into heaven.
WE exist and WE give ourselves rights.
Wall street and politicians weren't innocent babes, but neither were ordinary people, here. It wasn't my field of study, but even I saw the impending financial crisis coming (apparently, despite my obvious stupidity because I disagree with you about handguns). It was fairly obvious. Yet the sheeple continued, knowing full well the outcome. If we are not responsible for this - which is of our own creation - why do you claim that we are so responsible as to not have handguns legislated?
If you cannot protect your family with a gun that doesn't fit into a small bag, there is something wrong. You know as well as I that you do not NEED a handgun for much more than concealing and shooting at other humans. They're nice for picking off rats in the barn, it's true... but the applications are limited that don't involve armed robbery or enraged motorists (I was going to say female, but it seems unfair toward my own sex). Furthermore, a firearm should be your LAST line of defense, not your first.
What is YOUR education level, or yes I do have the right to butcher, God given of the building of sentences? Do you know what a period is and its function? You appear to know and not know, at the same time.
This:
"As for making choices about the direction of ones life well i'm flabergasted, you almost make my point fore me, yes Virginia we do have the right, God given of protecting our lives and of those around us,in order to do this you have to be educated in the use of all the tools around you,Knowing the enviroment you travel in, use of ones physical abilities, i.e. karate or kung fu,what I am trying to say is that a gun is an inanimate object, atool to be used for good or evil as "man" so choses."
was hard to read. Yet you ask about my education level? I, at least, try to keep things readable.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." (emphasis added)
According to the founding fathers and the Constitution, rights do extend from a deity. Your simplistic view of religion and recognition of something higher than oneself is misleading. The argument against handguns as being "unnatural" is absurd. Just because something is unnatural does not mean that it is a right. I am fairly certain, though it is possible that I am wrong, that you have argued for healthcare as a right. Healthcare is not natural. Clothes, shelter, and a fair and speedy trial are not natural, but they are rights.
Health is not natural? Or, lack thereof? Your health is not within realm of your right to life? It is not your general welfare that is not a right?
HAAAAA ha ha.
Mr. Richardson, if you think that handguns are your natural right but your right to life (which is your very health) is not, then you've issues.
Sorry, but it is MEN who give ourselves rights. So far as I know, the "Creator" has yet to come down and write a constitution, or even a manifesto. MEN write, men create, and until it is proven... there is no such thing as God-given. There Are natural rights, but as is evident, it was men who wrote the constitution and it is man who maintains those rights.
The natural right to a handgun is non-existent. It is a created right... and as such can be legislated.
It is an absurd idea to say that because a criminal can break the law (there-by a criminal) then there should be no laws to regulate the non-criminals so they can "protect" themselves against the criminals. What would be the point of laws in the first place?
There is a difference between a right to health and the right to free healthcare. Just as there is a difference between a right to arms and a right to free firearms. The government cannot make legislation that would be damaging to you health, nor can it prohibit you from pursuing healthcare. Those are natural rights. The right to keep your weapons, and to purchase more, are natural rights. It is not a natural right to have health care provided, any more than it is a right to have firearms privided.
You are right in saying that no gods have come down and issued a Constitution, but it was in the name of their Creator that the Founders wrote the Constitution, and it was their belief that those rights stemmed from that Creator.
The right to defend oneself from people is just as vital as one's right to protect oneself from disease.
If you are so well learned, then why is it you do not understand what the 2nd amendment is about. Have you not read the writings of our founding fathers, you know the ones who wrote the constitution. They are clear in their writings, as the outcome of the court has proven, yes I know it was a 5 to 4 vote, the evidence is well layed out have you even bothered to read the courts findings and reasoning. Yes Virginia you are well versed in economics as you say you saw the crisis coming, this is the same thing the politicians are now saying and of course it is also what wall street is saying, if you all seen this coming why did not you do something to stop it,sorry I digress. Where are you coming from, we started out at your support of a total ban on hanguns in D.C. now you appear to be ok with the right to own a "small" gun as long as it fits in your "small" bag. Are you now saying that we the people have the right to own only small handguns that fit into a bag? I'm getting lost. Do you have an issue with the the term "God", well that would be "your Problem. Are you saying that their are no natuarl rights or that we and only "WE" give ourselves rights. My point about wall street and politicians is that I and apparently you know that they cannot be trusted to act in the peoples best interest, why would we give up any more rights. As for my reference to your education level I must apologize, that was un called for. But my reference was to your studying of American History and it's Founding Documents and not meant to be derrogatory toward you.
the_car_man