Kerry Anti Second Amendment

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
There seems to be a constant debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment and whether we the people actually have a right to keep and bear arms or not, or if that is a right solely conferred upon a State organized and operated militia.

One of the things that is important in looking at the meaning of the Constitution and the Second Amendment in particular is to consider the background of the men that wrote the Constitution and their ability to express their thoughts and ideas in an accurate manner

The quotes you provided, some were false, others taken out of context. The 2nd Amendment issue boils down to interpretation. Obviously we differ on how the founding fathers thought on this issue, but I think we agree that they gave us the ability to discuss it freely, and that is a great thing.

EDIT: I don't mean to say we should turn all guns into plowshares, but I think some type of regulation is needed.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by curme]

I believe the supreme court has determined that the second amendment really is giving the right for state militia members to bear arms...not anyone...I don't think the founding fathers would agree with that interpretation, but that's what the courts have been saying recently.

Originally posted by curme

The quotes you provided, some were false, others taken out of context. The 2nd Amendment issue boils down to interpretation. Obviously we differ on how the founding fathers thought on this issue, but I think we agree that they gave us the ability to discuss it freely, and that is a great thing.

EDIT: I don't mean to say we should turn all guns into plowshares, but I think some type of regulation is needed.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by curme]

I think them leaving the amendment a little ambiguous and open to interpretation was part of the founding fathers genius. Leaving it open to healthly debate. Though I believe the Founding Fathers feeling on the subject were clear.

As for the quotes would you mind telling me which ones are false or taken out of context. These quotes were not taken from Gun websites. I would hate to quote false information,Or have one bad quote make them all seem false. I will link you to the places where the quotes were taken.


www.dojgov.net...

www.freerepublic.com...

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

As for the quotes would you mind telling me which ones are false or taken out of context. These quotes were not taken from Gun websites. I would hate to quote false information,Or have one bad quote make them all seem false. I will link you to the places where the quotes were taken.

Gun Cite is a 'pro gun' site, but it does show some "Quotes that were never made by the Founders, but refuse to die, especially on the Internet, are discussed."

The context of the quotes have to due with ratifications, Virginia's state constitution, but in the end, I guess maybe even the context could be argued by both sides.

The founding fathers have many proven pro gun ownership quotes.Why anyone felt it necessary to make up a quote is ludicrous. Maybe an anti-gunner did it to discredit all the real quotes.

Founding Fathers and their contemporaries were quite clear about their support for the individual right to keep and bear arms, some overzealous people have attempted to falsely attribute a few additional quotes to their legacy in order to defeat the gun grabbers. Creating bogus quotes is wrong and counterproductive. It harms the rest of the message sent by any person utilizing a proven fake quote,

If I deed indeed use a bogus quote I am sorry but I ensure you it was unintentionally. I would not want hurt the message by passing along any phony quotes.

Originally posted by curme
The 2nd Amendment issue boils down to interpretation. Obviously we differ on how the founding fathers thought on this issue, but I think we agree that they gave us the ability to discuss it freely, and that is a great thing.
[edit on 23-7-2004 by curme]

I think you hit the nail on the head. I find the line ��the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed� to allude to our individual right to bear arms. But, the amendment is somewhat vague and it does leave a lot of room for discussion.

That said, private gun ownership has been around in this country since the constitution was ratified, and our founding fathers did nothing to stop it. I think that speaks volumes about their intent of the amendment.

Originally posted by Shoktek
I believe the supreme court has determined that the second amendment really is giving the right for state militia members to bear arms...not anyone...I don't think the founding fathers would agree with that interpretation, but that's what the courts have been saying recently.

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The National Guard is technically the militia, and THE only militia. National Guard members are the only ones it applies to.

RockerDom is correct about the Patriot Act. The updated USA Patriot Act II takes away even more rights and allows us all to be treated like terrorists in a secret court whenever our ways are not worthy according to their whims.

Punch Patriot Act II in a search engine and you can see reviews of the Act.

Shoktek has a point about the National Guard. They, along with the Coast Guard are the only two branches exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. That means that they are allowed to legally operate as a domestic law enforcement agency.

I doubt that is what the framers had in mind when writing that amendment, coming out of and elongated military occupation by the British. But, I would not be surprised in the least to find that that is what our legal system has twisted it into.

Originally posted by para
Shoktek has a point about the National Guard. They, along with the Coast Guard are the only two branches exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. That means that they are allowed to legally operate as a domestic law enforcement agency.

I doubt that is what the framers had in mind when writing that amendment, coming out of and elongated military occupation by the British. But, I would not be surprised in the least to find that that is what our legal system has twisted it into.

What we now know as the Coast Guard was founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1790, the Revenue Cutter Service which was created for collecting duties and tariffs. In fact, America's first naval battle was fought by the Coast Guard. The National Guard celebrated its 367th birthday on December 13, 2003. Both were created during the times of our founding fathers.


EDIT: I'd like to hear people's interpretation of the 'well regulated' part.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by curme]

Well, you�ve got me on the history front. I had no idea either organization was that old (1636!).

I may have jumped the gun on the PCA, it wasn�t signed in as law until 1878, quite a while after our �founding fathers� were around to have an opinion on it. Still, I maintain the belief of our individual right to bear arms, something we obviously have differing opinions of. Like you said, it all boils down to interpretation.

Originally posted by curme
EDIT: I'd like to hear people's interpretation of the 'well regulated' part.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by curme]

I�ve always read it as the militia that needed to be well regulated, and not the arms. If they were referring to the National Guard, then I would consider that well regulated. Some of the private militias are... lacking in this department.

Good point though, I�ve always thought of the militia as private way of ensuring that the State doesn�t go too far. It really doesn�t do us much good if the State is the one regulating it (unless, of course, I am completely wrong in my views on the miltia).

Another way to think about the constitution, and the founding fathers wishes. They thought blacks were 1/3 a person. Was it 1/3? Or a 1/4? Anyway, they also thought that women weren't even a consideration. As we progressed as a nation, we decided to change what our founding fathers thought about certain issues, and the spirit of the constitution as a whole.

Either side could argue that the original interpretation is moot. Americans values change, and our laws should change to reflect that. Women can now vote, non-whites are no longer property (in fact, I remember a murder case judged by the famous cowboy judge, Roy Bean. A white guy killed a chinese worker. Judge Bean let him go, because he could not find a law against killing an Asian person).

So both sides may be a little weak on using the constitution and founding fathers as the last word. They could little imagine a world after the benchmarks of our country, the civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

EDIT: Typos

[edit on 24-7-2004 by curme]

I know this is an older post. But I feel compelled to respond. I cannot let this kind of "I'm and expert, and my decision is final" crapperoo go unanswered.

Originally posted by RockerDom

I am proud of this collection, and honored that someday I will own it. Face it, the Remington 870 IS an assault weapon. What the hell animals are you hunting that you need an 870 to take them down, whales?

There are two main kinds of birds I hunt with my 870:

1. Pheasant

2. Canada Geese

Pheasant cocks are large enough, and favor windswept terrain, so a 16-guage will frequently not get enough lead to the target. Mutilating animals is just not right. Every time I've hunted with someone using a 16 or .410, they injured birds they couldn't down.

I've never even seen anyone try to hunt geese with a 16 guage. I'm not entirely certain it's legal. You can only use a 3 rd magazine, and you must use steel shot; I don't really know how much there is on the market in 16 ga., because no one I know uses anything but a twelve.

Go to a Walmart and ask the other shoppers what to use on upland game. The only advocates of 16 or 410 are people who inherited a squirrel gun and cannot afford a real birding gun.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

It's sad that your step-grandad might actually waste an incredible collection of firearms on someone who has no real knowledge or appreciation of them. They might as well be ashtrays or hummell figurines to you. If you've ever spent more than a day or so hunting, you know what a difference the right gun (not always the most expensive) can make.

Before you wrote that the 870 is an assault gun, did you ever stop to wonder why it is the most popular long gun in the free world? Snipers and muggers don't use shotguns. Hunters and homeowners do. Shotguns are used in less that 5% of all gun crimes (including the ones where possessing the gun is ITSELF the offense.)

************************************

Hunting/outdoor living is the ultimate rationale for firearms. For 60 bucks in fees, and using the previous years ammo, I provided my family with 2 bucks, one antelope, 5 pheasant, 3 geese, numerous dove and quail, and and probably a dozen rabbit during my most recent hunting year. I also brought home probably 25 lbs of fish, but that's another story.
That meat had a huge impact on my family's budget, since my brother-in-law and his friend processed the deer into ground and sausage for us. did we eat it all? Heck no! We traded the jerky (antelope is THE jerky) for car-mechanic and a/c repair. Although I did get paid in Elk meat for helping a neighbor. It all evens out.

Do you know how many working-class people, How many black and hispanic people in this country, supplement their diets with fresh game? I am sure the numbers are significant. I've had a number of hispanic neighbors volunteer to fix fence on my land for the privelege of hunting it. What about the economic impact of these people being disbarred from hunting, if it returns to being an elite sport? I am dead serious about this.

***********************
To those of you arguing about whether a citizen's militia could overthrow a tyranny in America. Both sides are looking at the whole thing incorrectly.

Look at Russian history. The Russian revolution did not start in 1917. It actually started in 1905. What happened was that as more and more people became disenchanted with the govt and its wars, they began to act up. One boat, the Potempkin I think, had a mutiny and it was the officers who sided with the public. Once that happened, the whole nation rose up.

Look at George Washington. He never won a single battle. Most Americans forget that Lexington and Concord were American routs. So was Breed's Hill (bunker hill). Yankee doodle was sticking a white feather in his hat because that was the sign of surrender in 18th century England.

But George knew that as long as he could field an army, the war was still on. Ho Chih Minh understood that too, to America's disgrace. So did the Mujahadeen, retreating on donkeys into the hills as they fled from helicopters and tanks, to Russia's disgrace.

Although we need the second amendment to keep our liberty, we wont stay free because americans own machineguns. But we do need citizens armed (even if it's with deer rifles) to frighten tyrants.

The marines have no reason to fear their own civilians armed with deer rifles, because that's not who they battle against. They fight foreign adversaries, not their own dads and uncles.

By the time the tyrants have screwed things up so bad that they are sending in what's left of marine esprit to fight in rural tennessee and colorado, then the tyrants will have already lost. Sure the marines can wipe 'em out. But who's going to be making bullets, back at the factory? Who's going to package the MRE's, if mom and pop are hiding in the woods?

We need the second amendment, not so that we can prevail upon the battlefields of our own farms and parking lots. The ultimate battlefield is not swamp or forest or prarie.

The ultimate battle is within the human heart.

The 2nd amendment is merely ammo for THAT battle, the battle for the soul of america.

Kerry certainly wants your guns, but so does George Bush. He has promoted the Assault Weapons ban, expanded BATF, etc.

Republican legislators are losing sight of what we are preserving, and why.
They are no longer looking at the Constitution, but at what they can do to make a more powerful, albiet kindlier and gentler police state.

The problem is, government is not the solution, as Ronald Reagan said, government is much of the problem (besides an ignorant and morally bankrupt populace).

We need to remind ourselves that we are not mostly concerned about perpetuating the Republican Party, with its attendant neo-con Nazis, but liberty as defined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc.

The Second Amendment, championing militias, keeping and bearing arms, and a free state guaranteed by an armed to the teeth populace, is one of the cornerstones of our liberty. Without it, all our other rights are just mostly forgotten and ignored words written on some musty old pieces of paper housed somewhere in Washington DC.

To those--Republicans and Democrats alike--who continue to trample the Second Amendment, I offer the words of some Texans back in 1835: "Come and take it!" May "shall not be infringed" live forever.

I doubt Bush really wants to take individual guns. He is too cozy with the NRA to do that. While I can�t comment on Bush and the BATF, I am nearly positive that he doesn�t support the extension of the AWB. He said that if the resolution came across his desk he would sign it. If he really wanted to push the issue, he could, and more than likely congress would pass it. But, since Clinton�s passing of the AWB cost the democrats control of the house, he knows it is political suicide. Slimy, yes, but I don�t think it counts as support.

Originally posted by para
I doubt Bush really wants to take individual guns. He is too cozy with the NRA to do that. While I can�t comment on Bush and the BATF, I am nearly positive that he doesn�t support the extension of the AWB. He said that if the resolution came across his desk he would sign it. If he really wanted to push the issue, he could, and more than likely congress would pass it. But, since Clinton�s passing of the AWB cost the democrats control of the house, he knows it is political suicide. Slimy, yes, but I don�t think it counts as support.

Do a Google search on: Bush supports Assault Weapons Ban, and you will find out otherwise.

Below are a few links (which I didn't check out). I know without a doubt that Bush has campaigned to sign the extension if it lands on his desk. Guaranteed:

www.csgv.org...
www.nealknox.com...
feinstein.senate.gov...
www.galleryofguns.com...