I think with Muskets and flintlocks.
2nd amendment right ... where should it end?
by Simon 166 Replies latest social current
-
-
kepler
Amendment Text: 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.
A couple of years ago I stumbled on a discussion of the English Bill of Rights of 1689. And I was struck by what it implied about the origins of the American 2nd Amendment and the right of militias to bear arms.
In many current debates about the amendment's nature, a public figure such as President Obama might argue that regulation of arms would in no way result in the loss of firearms suitable for small game hunting. Whether this is simply disingenuous or the result of widespread unawareness of 1689's Bill of Rights, I have to wonder. After all, the President once taught Constitutional law. But consider this summary:
-------------------------------------------------
Laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament;
No taxes should be levied without the authority of Parliament;
The right to petition the monarch should be without fear of retribution;
No standing army may be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament;[nb 2]
Subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defence as permitted by law;
the election of members of Parliament should be free;
the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted;
jurors should be duly impannelled and returned and jurors in high treason trials should be freeholders;
promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
Parliaments should be held frequently.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Did you notice that provision above about Protestants in particular having the right to bear arms? This was in reaction to the monarchial century and a half tug of war between Catholic and Protestant affiliations. Other features of the American Bill of Rights are there in embryonic form, but the right to bear arms is a check and balance measure against the possible religious backsliding of royal family members - and their standing armies.
In other words, although Federalists Papers and other background sources have little to say on this matter, those that drafted the American Constitution would surely have been aware of the English BOR context.
But the document does not take away with one hand what it gives with another: no established churches and religious liberty.
I argue that the founders intended to arm the individual citizens as much as the situation might require: muskets., cannons, pikes or whatever technology allowed - and that they were not thinking about provisioning them with passenger pigeon or buffalo carcasses. They were thinking about defense against central governments. And I can imagine that Justice Antonin Scalia would pick up on this, even though you might say that the gun was originally pointed at people of his own religious persuasion. Others, of a different philosophical bend would be quite the contrary: "The amendment has to be taken into a 21st century context rather than 17th."
In practice, I see evidence that mass murder and mayhem is as much a result of mental state. Our assassins seem to have no rational agendas. The shooting from the U of Texas clock tower back in 1966 could serve as an illustration. A military veteran with a severe brain tumor shot people at random in the quadrangle below.
On the other hand ( an economist's argument?) were it not for gun shows in the United States, where would Mexican drug cartels get their weaponry? Or are these examples of well armed militias in another country?
-
freemindfade
I can buy "semiautomatic military guns", as you call them, in Vancouver without a gun store as easily as I can rent a hooker without a hooker store. Easy. Maybe its a good thing but too many of you live in a good little law abiding citizen bubble. If were out there in the real real world you might see the world very differently. -
Gentledawn
- no knock warrants exist.
- nut job (police or burgler) who crawled in through a basement window and is now heading up your stairs in the dead of night
___
remember: these ARE the police, not military:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=a3p6ip&s=4
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=30aqk37&s=4____________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
"... is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States."
________
Woody Guthrie Ludlow Massacre :
"Refers to the violent deaths of 20 people, 11 of them children, during an attack by the Colorado National Guard on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families in Ludlow, Colorado on April 20, 1914"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDd64suDz1A
The fact that the federal govt can pick you up without arresting you (indefinite detention), no access to lawyers, no rights, whisked away to Zeus-only-knows where.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-garrison/martial-law-under-another_b_1370819.html
Homan square black sight in Chicago is used by police there.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/homan-square__________
Just putting all this info in one place.
For some, there is no point except to debate, other than to debate some more. Honestly, there needs to be some rollbacks on general government and police powers. The police are rolling around inside the USA, shooting people who are suspects and getting away with it. The latest were 2 kids who allegedly broke into some cars. They were driving a Dodge Challenger, owned by the 16yo victim of the police shooting. His car is likely now owned by the same police dept that shot him. Because "civil forfeiture" is a real thing. And a real problem. That kid was never under arrested or even spoke to a cop before he was shot dead. He never had his day in court. Never had his side heard before jury of his peers. Nothing.
Because the police can act like judge, jury and executioner.
That needs fixed. They need to be held to the same standards as civilians. Banks, too. Money needs pulled out of politics, both during campaign season and through perks used as payoffs (or however its done these days... likely perks, not cash).
-
JeffT
Simon,
If you want an honest debate about this you should do some research on what the framers of the Constitution meant by "militia." Its at least as relevant as what they meant by "firearms."
And to answer your question, we have accepted some reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms for quite some time. Military grade weapons, such as fully automatic rifles and machine guns are highly regulated, and I've never seen a weapon that fires explosive shells for sale to private citizens.
There may be some nuts around advocating a right to own tanks or whatever, few serious people take such a position. Asserting an argument from an absurd position is what's inane.
-
redvip2000
The latest were 2 kids who allegedly broke into some cars. They were driving a Dodge Challenger, owned by the 16yo victim of the police shooting. His car is likely now owned by the same police dept that shot him. Because "civil forfeiture" is a real thing. And a real problem. That kid was never under arrested or even spoke to a cop before he was shot dead. He never had his day in court. Never had his side heard before jury of his peers. Nothing.
Neither you or I know what happened, or the circumstances that led to the shooting, so lets not jump to conclusions. What is known is that they were attempting to steal a car and they ran from the police - doesnt exactly warrant my sympathy, but ok doesn't mean they deserve to be shot. Unless of course they did something after to deserve that as well. In any case, it seems stealing cars and running from the law, doesn't exactly pay off.
-
Finkelstein
If you were out there in the real real world you might see the world very differently.
If I was living back in the States in a area of violence with the use of guns, I might be pressed to own a gun for protection myself. This is getting back to the point I was implying previously.
-
Finkelstein
Everyone thinks they should own a gun because its believed that everyone has their own.
My guns are bigger and better than your guns and I'm a better shot too.
-
Gentledawn
What is known is that they were attempting to steal a car and they ran from the police
Hearsay evidence. That's why the police are not judges. It was not reported anywhere that the cop confronted the kids before all parties were in their respective vehicles and the cop started ramming them with his SUV. Why no lights or sirens? Was the cop off duty and that was his privately owned vehicle, with no lights or sirens?
in this article, it states that the vehicle was "his", meaning the cop's. Does that mean it was not a police-issued one? Again, no sirens or lights? No way to know that the crazy guy behind them is an actual
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2016/03/addison-police-investigating-police-shooting.html/
The kids were not alleged to be stealing the vehicles. they were allegedly breaking into the other vehicles in order to steal items. What is known is that the cop took his SUV and rammed it into the 16yo's Dodge Charger, then shot him dead and critically wounded his passenger (head shot).
Google: Dodge Charger kid shot, this past weeks news for time frame
Here ya go:
"Although he was not in uniform and was driving his personal vehicle, Johnson repeatedly identified himself as a police officer, Livingston said."
"... as he was ramming them from behind with his personal, no lights or sirens SUV, during what was likely a decent amount of speed"
-
Simon
If you want an honest debate about this you should do some research on what the framers of the Constitution meant by "militia." Its at least as relevant as what they meant by "firearms."
The problem is, they are not around to ask so all you get are interpretations. I think most people's idea of "well regulated militia" would mean well trained / disciplined armed guard - the National Guard fitting that description.
But this is the whole point - it's treated as meaning something *today* that isn't at all what it was intended to be used for. So why can't it be scrapped and replaced with something more relevant and well thought out for todays challenges? What holds that up? Or rather, "who".
