The begining of the end?

[Marc29thGA]

Re: The begining of the end?

Interesting point Curt, but I think those trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment, should look at all 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment 1 – “…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Amendment 2 - “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Amendment 4 – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
“The People” also appears in Amendments 9 and 10

IMHO – it is interesting that people will argue the 2nd was set up with the militia (National Guard) in mind and will say it is within their 1st Amendment Right to argue that as well. Therefore, I feel “The People” is a key statement to have defined in late 18th Century terms: is “The People” the individual citizen? Yes – I believe it is. True , the Framers of the Constitution had no idea of the coming of the AR-15, etc, but then again – did they write the 1st with the Internet, telephones, mass transportation allowing millions to assemble, etc in mind?

Thus, Citizens of NJ – write your elected officials and share your view on and concerns for/against the proposed legislation. It is a right of the people to do so. :wink_smil

Sincerely,

[ThehosGendar]

Re: The begining of the end?

I certainly agree that "the people" is a very important and critical ingredient to the Bill of Rights, and yes, you're indeed right that the Framers certainly had no idea about modern communications in regards to the 1st Amendment.

Along those same lines, primarily in the Federalist Papers, the term "the public good" is a key notion, and one which should again take prominence. Yes, we have 1st Amendment rights to free speech, yet we have taken it upon ourselves that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not a good thing to do, because of the potential harm it could do to others. There, the public good prevails.

Why does not the same good sense for the public good, then, translate to self-imposed, and not Congressionally enforced limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

And, certainly! Regardless of your position, us Joisey guyz (and galz) should write our officials about the matter. It's your civic duty.

[HighPrvt]

Re: The begining of the end?

No weapons should be banned. I should be able to own any weapon that I choose. I'm a law abiding citizen in a free country, that has violated no laws. I'm a veteran of the U.S. military. Why should I be subjected to some "feel good" legislation that has proven time, and time again to have absolutely no bearing on crime what so ever.

U.K. has recently banned almost all firearm ownership, and their crime rate has gone through the roof. The cities, and states in the U.S. that have the most restrictive firearm laws also have the highest crime rates.


A man that will leave the defense of his family to the authorities is no man at all.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: The begining of the end?

The hobby is fine, and will be fine. Even here in Jersey. This is just the usual "the system is going to take away all our guns" freak out that seems to go around every couple of months.

Yeah and people just don't seem to get it. There is NO constitutional right to unregulated firearms ownership.

And the best way to protect your rights is to vote.

NJ has the RIGHT to vote whatever gun laws it's citizens see fit to have and it ONLY affects NJ residents. Nobody else and no one just driving through the state.

And it isn't going to pass anyway, so why sweat it.

And you know what the nice things about laws are? Even if they are voted in they can fall to constitutional challenges or even be overturned.

Anybody ever hear of SLAVERY and PROHIBITION. Fun they were both part of the US Constitution and now they are gone. Wonder how that happened?

[billwatson]

Re: The begining of the end?

"And why is it that "the right to bear arms" is the oft quoted portion, but the qualifier, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is never mentioned?"


Well, ok:

Formation of any militia in colonial and post-colonial America presupposed private ownership of weapons. That's what you brought when initially called out. It was not until you were accepted into Royal service that you were issued the military weapons from the arsenals. Up to that point you were expected to provide your own.

There is no more dramatic evidence of this than the Lexington militia reporting to the green with their own private weapons to stop the British from seizing the armory at Concord, with the coveted military weapons. What did everyone think that was all about? Some arbitrary decision that the bridge at Concord made a picturesque place or something? It was all about who was going to control the state-of-the-art weapons stored in Concord, because suddenly their control was not automatically in British-answering hands any more.

Private ownership of weapons is a precondition of the Second Amendment, understood by all at the time. As an analogy, the right to self expression and freedom of expression presupposes the ability to speak, write or otherwise make your thoughts and opinions known. The right to assemble presupposes the existence of people inclined to form associations to affect the decisionmaking on use of power. Etc.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: The begining of the end?

Amendment 2 - “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Why does EVERYBODY who makes this argument leave out "a well-regulated militia".

If the government ISN'T the regulating body whom is?

I would also like to point out that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states "insurrection" as a crime. If "the people" were allowed to keep guns to protect themselves from the 'government' why would the founders who gave them the right to "bear arms" have listed insurrection as a crime since opposing the government by the use of ARMS is insurrection?

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The begining of the end?

No purpose!!!
Maybe if every member was aware, and wrote a letter to their Congressman it might just be the most important thing ever posted on the AC!
Bury your head in the sand, and ignore it , and you might just wake up one day to find your weapon illegal. I personally don't think this will pass, even in Jersey, but if it does...
It sets precedence for other gun grabbers...

Friend,

You are commenting on a post that I deleted. "No purpose" was a reference to my own post (the text of which I deleted). In retrospect, I should have left it for folks to read. It made no mention of firearms, militias, etc. My point was that we live in a world that encourages us to deal less with our fellow man in-person, pushing us to imerse ourselves in media. In the end, we see less and less of the humanity of those that surround us. People become objects or (worse) obstacles. ...makes shoot'n 'em a li'l easier, especially when the shooter has some bats in the bellfrey, a chemical imbalance, or "issues" with his/her father/mother stemming from an imperfect childhood. :confused_

IMHO, THAT is the real problem.

My post went on for about three paragraphs. I decided to spare the A-C readership... as it did not serve the purpose of this website.

[Justin Runyon]

Re: The begining of the end?

No weapons should be banned. I should be able to own any weapon that I choose.

Just to play the devils advocate here, does that mean that your OK with my purchasing a damn nuke and moving in next door to your kids elementary school? After all, it's a weapon and you said any weapon.

[KyCavMajor]

Re: The begining of the end?

This is New Jersey state legislature. I personally don't plan on attending any events in NJ, but it does set precedence for other gun grabbers.

What is the poem?
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Substitute New Jersey Gun owners for any of the above groups...
So now

[KyCavMajor]

Re: The begining of the end?

Why does EVERYBODY who makes this argument leave out "a well-regulated militia".

If the government ISN'T the regulating body whom is?

I would also like to point out that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states "insurrection" as a crime. If "the people" were allowed to keep guns to protect themselves from the 'government' why would the founders who gave them the right to "bear arms" have listed insurrection as a crime since opposing the government by the use of ARMS is insurrection?

Because the Second Amendment is CLEARLY an individual right..., and has been from the beginning. The Militia is possible because of that right. The government may regulate the Militia, but the INDIVIDUAL right "Shall not be infringed"

The recent Surpreme Court ruling, Parker V District of Columbia said,
The Amendment does not protect ‘the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,’ but, rather ‘the right of the people.’ The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit—and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.
The court did not announce an absolute right to gun ownership and use. That can still be regulated to a reasonable though not unrestricted degree. But since the Amendment does provide some constitutional protection, private gun ownership and use cannot be banned completely, as it effectively was in the District.

[HighPrvt]

Re: The begining of the end?

Just to play the devils advocate here, does that mean that your OK with my purchasing a damn nuke and moving in next door to your kids elementary school? After all, it's a weapon and you said any weapon.

Well this is really to ridiculous to respond to so I'll just say...

Materials that are hazardous merely due to their presence should be excluded, this should go without saying, as a reasonable individual would surmise.
We were refering to small arms, and none including full auto should be restricted from law abiding citizens.
Full auto restrictions came as a knee jerk response to a few gangsters, who still managed to get the weapons, and couldn't care less if they were illegal.
So why restrict them from law abiding citizens?

A lot more college children would be alive today, if some of those kids would have been armed. Rely on the authorities to protect you, or your family? Not I.

[64OVI]

Re: The begining of the end?

"A lot more college children would be alive today, if some of those kids would have been armed. Rely on the authorities to protect you, or your family? Not I."

I have noticed this is the latest pro-gun argument. Naturally it follows then that our society would be the safest if everyone was packing? Are all these armed citizens competent in firearms or would that kind of regulation be an infringement of our freedoms? Age requirements or does Jr have a right to own an RPG?

Total freedom equals total anarchy

Kent Dorr
"Devils Own Mess"

[Dale Beasley]

Re: The begining of the end?

There is not a Citizen of these United States that need a full-auto rife.... never mnd.

[Rob Walker]

Re: The begining of the end?

I don't think anyone that is pro-firearms would ever suggest that owning a nuke or an RPG is a good thing and to suggest that is simply rediculous. Pro-gun people simply state that we have the right to keep our weapons as long as we are law-abiding citizens. Even though I an pro-gun I don't have a problem with registration and I do not think anyone should be able to buy any gun at anytime. I also believe that there is some validity to the thought that if people during these masacres were afforded the ability to defend themselves the outcome may have been a bit different. After the Va. shootings I heard a reporter ask Rep. Carolyn McCarthy if she thought that if the people had weapons could they defend themselves. Her answer was simple silly. She said (I am paraphasing) that she was told by law enforcment that if the victims were armed that many more people wouold have been killed or wounded by stray fire and that only law enforcment officials are qualified to have waapons. That is funny to me since I have a friend that spray painted his 9mm glock black to pass inspection and another had not unholstered his weapon in such a long time that when he drew his weapon every metal part of the weapon was rusty. I am not saying by any strech of the imagination that that is the norm, far from it but I do know plenty of people in law enforcement that do not know much about weapons. On the contrary, almost all gun collectors and enthusists I know are nuts about keep their weapons clean and functioning and they target shoot on a regular basis. What I am trying to say is carrying a weapon for a living does not mean you will use and maintain your weapon in a correct and safe manner and that a private citizen that practices and maintains his weapon can be just as efficient as a "trained" professional. The bottom line to this entire thread has been skewed into a pro- gun / anti - gun discussion when the main thought behind the original post I believe, si to let everyone know that many anti gun politicians do not discriminate between what we do and the common criminal does. In many of their minds guns are bad no matter what the purpose and they believe that if we eliminate firearms there would be peace an noone would ever die as a result of violence again. As if noone is very injured or killed by any other mode than firearms. Lets not forget that the highjackers on 911 only need box cutters to subdue a plane full of people. If anything, that should show us that anything can be used as a weapon in the hands of a person that intends harm. If the anti gun people get their way, mak e no mistake about it, they will put us out of business. Don't kid yourself into thinking that they would not. Just my 2 cents.

[dusty27]

Re: The begining of the end?

While this is in the sinks, it still, in my eyes, violates the "no modern politics" rule of this forum. Therefore, I'm closing it. Let's get back to talking about the Civil War and commemorating it.