“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free s

Toxophile

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
“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.”

How would you interpret that statement?
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
I wouild interpret it as I have for years..and just as Justice Scalia did in questioning today.

He claims there are two (2) distinct groups that are guaranteed the right to bear arms..the militia and the people !

The libs who try to distort the Constitution are either stupid or intentionally pretending to be so !

The forefathers that wrote and approved the Constitution were much more language-capable than some of those
liberals want to admit. The wording starts out with the admission that the militia needs to be armed..but further
extrapolation says that the "people" need that same righht !

If the authors were speaking about only the militia, they would have said, " the right of said militia to keep & bear arms , shall not be infringed."

But no; they emphatically said " theright of THE PEOPLE to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems like ANYONE could understand that ! ...unless they just DON'T WANT to !
 

Coues

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2002
Messages
2,886
Reaction score
4
All they have to do is read it as written instead of trying to read INTO it what they would like it to say.

If they still can't figure it out, they should read other writings of the authors of the Constitution and they will quickly learn what their feelings were on the right to bear arms.

In simple terms; there are no other rights without the right to defend yourself.
 

Tank

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
552
Reaction score
0
The people are the militia. When the constitution was authored, the militia was the people...farmers, blacksmiths, the average joe. That is what it is still.

Here are a few definitions from two different dictionarys.


mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1580–90; < L mīlitia soldiery, equiv. to mīlit- (s. of mīles) soldier + -ia -ia]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə) Pronunciation Key
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

[Latin mīlitia, warfare, military service, from mīles, mīlit-, soldier.]


 

Bullfrog 31581

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
2,142
Reaction score
28
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
He claims there are two (2) distinct groups that are guaranteed the right to bear arms..the militia and the people ![/b]
That's how I read it as well. Its ordaining both the militia and the people to have the right to bear arms.
 

easymoney

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
10,523
Reaction score
102
Thanks tank for posting the definition, I was about to.
For those who want to re interpret our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you had better go back to civics and social studies 101. It is quite plain and in english, we have that unalienable right and it was given to us for a very good reason.
 

BelchFire

I speak fluent Vise-Grip
Admin
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
9,575
Reaction score
149
Coues said it best. The only reason the Supreme Court is hearing arguments is because some people don't like what they read and they've taken matters into their own hands (DC). If the Supreme Court reads plain English as well as I do, we have nothing to fear (and neither does DC).
 

Coues

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2002
Messages
2,886
Reaction score
4
DC has had a gun ban for along time and their crime rate is still through the roof. What more proof do you need? How about they pass a law requiring EVERY home to have a double barrel shotgun and the training to use it and then we'll see how fast the crime rate drops.
 

Common Sense

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
10,550
Reaction score
140
I think "well regulated milita" means that the government has the authority to regulate "the people" who chose to bear arms. Reasonable regulations, such as no shooting within city limits or near other people's home, can be put into place. But government should not have the power to prevent citizens from bearing arms.

Hate to say it, but I can understand the reasoning of those mis-guided liberals in DC, and they think it is reasonable for them to ban hanguns. Many people think those liberals are being "reasonable". And truthfully; if CA can ban .50 caliber rifles and the feds can ban machine guns, why can't DC ban handguns if that's what they want to do?

If it is illegal for me to have an atomic bomb, it can be illegal to have handguns in DC.
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
CS;
The primary flaw in what the "feel good" libs are doing in DC is that by banning hand guns to the citizenry..they are doing the following;
The police have handguns, the robbers, murderers and home invaders have handguns....

Tha leaves just the law-abiding homeowner, who is forbidden a handgun !

...simple isn't it !
 

BelchFire

I speak fluent Vise-Grip
Admin
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
9,575
Reaction score
149
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coues @ Mar 18 2008, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
DC has had a gun ban for along time and their crime rate is still through the roof. What more proof do you need? How about they pass a law requiring EVERY home to have a double barrel shotgun and the training to use it and then we'll see how fast the crime rate drops.[/b]
It is a city ordinance in Kennesaw, GA that every home MUST own a gun.


Do some research on crime and compare the two cities. Then send said research to 1) Congress, 2) NRA, 3) Washington Post, 4) other mainstream media outlets and let's see which one publishes it.
 

el_vaquero

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
3,229
Reaction score
1
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coues @ Mar 18 2008, 02:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
All they have to do is read it as written instead of trying to read INTO it what they would like it to say.[/b]
That right there sums it up for me. It seems that a lot of people these days think that in order to be "intelligent" or "knowledgeable" one must over-analyze everything and try to reinvent the wheel. Funny, but it seems to me that politicians would do better spending their time enforcing the laws already on the books and lowering the crime rate across the nation than trying to infringe upon the rights guaranteed to every law-abiding citizen by our forefathers.
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
Belchfire;

The difference is quite remarkable between Washington DC and Kennesaw..I was able to find ststs for 2004 Washington DC and 2003 stats for Kennesaw. I googled Washington DC, violent crime statistics..then the same with kennesaw..
The stats are based upon per 100,000 of the population for DC and the stats are for the total population of 25,183 for Kennesaw, so
I compensated for Kennesaw by multiplying their figures by a factor of 4.

Here are the results:

Type of crime Washington (per 100K) Kennesaw (per 100K)

Murder 35.7 4

Forcible rape 46.8 0

robbery 385.9 28

aggravated assault 615.3 60

The figures speak for themselves...
 

Jeff S.

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
314
Reaction score
0
All of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights refers to individual rights, why would the 2nd be any different?
 

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coues @ Mar 18 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
DC has had a gun ban for along time and their crime rate is still through the roof. What more proof do you need? How about they pass a law requiring EVERY home to have a double barrel shotgun and the training to use it and then we'll see how fast the crime rate drops.[/b]
If I'm not mistaken it was only a ban on handguns not on long guns.
 

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuckslayer @ Mar 19 2008, 07:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Belchfire;

The difference is quite remarkable between Washington DC and Kennesaw..I was able to find ststs for 2004 Washington DC and 2003 stats for Kennesaw. I googled Washington DC, violent crime statistics..then the same with kennesaw..
The stats are based upon per 100,000 of the population for DC and the stats are for the total population of 25,183 for Kennesaw, so
I compensated for Kennesaw by multiplying their figures by a factor of 4.

Here are the results:

Type of crime Washington (per 100K) Kennesaw (per 100K)

Murder 35.7 4

Forcible rape 46.8 0

robbery 385.9 28

aggravated assault 615.3 60

The figures speak for themselves...[/b]
While I am for some gun control (fully automatic weapons) I think the handguns ban was dumb. Another thing to look at between the two studies is the amount of people below the pverty line. I have a feeling DC has Kennesaw beat hands down. There are a lot more factors that need to be taken into consideration when trying to compare the two cities.

I don't agree with DC's ban but I also don't agree with a law making you have to own a firearm. What happened to the freedom of choice? Isn't that big govt. telling you what to do?
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
In DC a citizen could own a long gun but it must be locked up with the ammo locked up somewhere else..
....not much use in a hurry....AND THE CROOKS KMOW IT !

Poverty has little to do with crime..I have known poor folks, and as a child was much poorer than many of today's "under the poverty line" whiners..and they and I were not involved in crime.

If "poverty" causes crime, then the nation would have been awash in crime during the great depression, but clearly, that is not so ! Yes, there were high profile criminals, like Al Capone & Lucky Luciano..but the average Joe was more inclined toward God and hard work whereever he could find it !
Somehow, the comparative figures did not come through in the previous post, here they are as numbers per 100K of population.

Murder: Wash DC @35.7...........Kennesaw @4

Forcible rape: Wash DC @46.8 ..........Kennesaw @0

robbery: Wash DC @385.9 .............Kennesaw @28

Aggravated assault Wash DC @615.3 ..Kennesaw @60



....Gotta be something besides "poverty" Chaum ! Besides; what does "poverty" have to do with forcible rape ? The various POW camps
and concentration camps around the world have proven that starving people are not inclined greatly toward sex !

Better dream up a better excuse than that, Chaum !
 

Tank

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
552
Reaction score
0
In DC you can own a long gun as long as it was purchased and in the district prior to the gun ban of the 1970s. I t had to be grandfathered in.

Chuam, why are you against ownership of full auto firearms? If you are not a criminal and have no history of mental illness, what's the problem? Plenty of people own them and never cause any harm to society. In fact people that jump through all of the legal hoops to be able to own them rarely if almost never use them inappropriately.

And I also do not agree with a law which requires you to own a firearm. However if you choose to own one nothing should stop you from your right other than the above mentioned reasons.
 


Top Bottom