Obama: Some Gun Control Measures 'I Can Accomplish Through Executive Action'

In my own attempt to square away my own feelings on this topic I ran across a very very well written article by Daniel Schultz, a pro-2nd amendment lawyer. I don't think I've ever run across an article that so closely mirrors my own feelings on the 2nd amendment before this. He breaks down the words "well regulated militia" in a very easily understood way. Here is a link to his article: Daniel J Schultz: Lectlaw.com Article on 2nd Amendment and It's Intent

You will have to read the entire article to get the overall understanding of it, but I will attempt to pull a couple of things from it, that to me, is relevant here:

The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

Bold my own emphasis.

If, for those who actually click the link above, you read nothing else at least read and think a moment on the last 3 paragraphs. You may find those rather interesting.(I won't copy them here as I'd be dangerously close to posting too much of the actual article which is against T&C) Now, it is apparent that I am a pro-2nd individual and I make no bones about that fact. Not only am I supporter in mind but I practice that right as well. In saying that, here is my conundrum.

I've long held the belief that the framers of the Constitution being men of common sense most certainly would take issue with certain individuals in society holding firearms. Such citizens being those who have a mental or physical infirmary that would prevent them from using good common sense or physical ability to operate said weapon in a responsible way. The fatal flaw with this theory of mine is that they then expected that same common sense traveling trough the generations without having to state that in the Bill of Rights to the time we live in now which, in my opinion, is not the case.

Do I trust some owners of firearms to know exactly WHEN is the right time to exercise the right to perform the acts of a militia? No, frankly I do not. Do I think that there are situations of mental or physical incapability that should prevent those persons from being able to own or have access to firearms? Yes, I do and I think that common sense needs to be applied in those situations even though I know, understand and comprehend the words of the 2nd where it states "shall not be infringed" and the 2nd makes no statement as to any limitation on the individuals ability (mental or physical) in owning said firearm.

Originally posted by Indigo5

As far as the 2nd Amendment...both the modern world and founders intent speak to a "regulated" right to bear arms.

Can you point out where my right to bear arms is to be regulated by the government?

reply to post by macman

"Large majorities of Americans agree with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns, and Americans strongly oppose efforts to ban handguns," said Bob Carpenter, vice president of American Viewpoint, the Republican polling firm that joined with Democratic firm Momentum Analysis to conduct the survey.

"But Americans and gun owners feel with equal fervor that government must act to get every single record in the background-check system that belongs there and to ensure that every gun sale includes a background check. Most Americans view these goals, protecting gun rights for the law-abiding and keeping guns from criminals, as compatible."

-- 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns.
-- 91 percent of Americans and 93 percent of gun owners support requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists to prevent them from buying guns.

-- 89 percent of Americans and 89 percent of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech shootings to put more records in the background-check database.

-- 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.

-- 89 percent of Americans and 85 percent of gun owners support a law to require background checks for all guns sold at gun shows.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


I did not ask....again. for what the bastardization of the 2nd Amendment is interpreted by the SCOTUS.

I am for the Constitution and the Rights of the People.

Regulation, restrictions and bans are an infringement. There is no way around it.

The implementation of restrictions, regulations and bans, while in place now, does not mean it does not go against the Law of the Land.

The 2nd Amendment is one of only a handful of guaranteed rights that the Govt can't, well that they are supposed to now be able to trample on, or infringe upon.


The Progressive Courts and enacting of Case Law is what has brought us to the idea that regulations and restrictions are not in direct violation of the 2nd.

You may have convinced yourself that this is good, and the right thing to do. That is a shame, as you have been brainwashed into thinking that and are fine with trading freedom for false security.

Sad, very sad.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

While I find the idea that you own firearms as very very hard to be true, your statement that you believe in the 2nd Amendment, yet want gun restrictions is basically one thing in direct contradiction to the other.

And I am not suprised that you have such a monolithic, narrow view of the issue. It is in keeping with your posts.

There are plenty of us out there.

Gabrielle Giffords, husband Mark Kelly launch anti-gun-violence group

Kelly said he and Giffords, both gun owners and Westerners supportive of the Second Amendment, would push for ambitious legislative changes in American’s gun laws: an assault weapons ban, universal background checks to close the “gun show loophole,” and a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines like the one used to kill six people and wound Giffords and 13 others in Tucson.

articles.washingtonpost.com...

edit on 16-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

My view is very simple, and holds to the Constitution.
Your views are aligned with Progressives and Liberals.

No matter how you spin it, restrictions and regulations are an infringement. Either on the simplest level, to the most complex.

AS for Giffords??? She is the new Brady.
Morons pushing more laws while they dance and stomp on the Constitution.


Hey, what were the numbers again for firearm sales and NRA membership again????

What is the membership growth for the loosers over at the Brady Camp??

Yeah, there are SO many of you.... I am thinking that is more based on the Multiplicity idea, where one person is reflected several times over in different places.
You guys are merely reflecting in a mirrored room.

reply to post by Indigo5




The Huffington Post as your source.



Ok then.


My source for law is a document.

Yours is the Liberal Progressive Huffington Post.

Wait, I know. Can you get George Soros' take on it, and parade it around as truth?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Indigo5

As far as the 2nd Amendment...both the modern world and founders intent speak to a "regulated" right to bear arms.

Can you point out where my right to bear arms is to be regulated by the government?

"Well Regulated Militia"...the right to bear arms was intended both to be a defense against Tyranny, Insurrection and Invasion as well as organized and regulated.

Whatever side of the debate you sit on...it would be great to approach the discussion from an informed position.

I reccomend starting here...which breaks down the evolution and various versions of the 2nd Amendment, giving insight into it's intent.
en.wikipedia.org...

Joseph Story wrote in the 1830's about the 2nd Amendment absent regulation and the dangers that come with it.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

"and thus undermine all the protection intended by [the 2nd amendment]"

That is what is occurring...that is why I support the 2nd Amendment AND appropriate regulation...they are not incompatable, they must both exist for the 2nd Amendment to serve it's intent.

Second excerpt at same link as above.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

The Huffington Post as your source.

Sure...and a Poll that was conducted by a well known conservative think tank. If you are unable to read, I can't help you.

reply to post by Indigo5


Again, for like the hundredth time. Polls, regardless who puts them forth, can be tailored to suit any need.

Show me raw data, in total. Not sampling in the form of a poll.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I did not ask....again. for what the bastardization of the 2nd Amendment is interpreted by the SCOTUS.

No offense, but between yourself and historians and constitutional scholars...folks who spend thier lives dedicated to the study of the constitution...I would defer to thier "interpretation" vs. yours...which apparently you are so pridefully egocentric, that you do not even realize that your opinion on the matter is just that...an uninformed, uncompromising opinion...and a willfully ignorant one at that, since you refuse to even consider any other interpretaion than your own...even Supreme Court Justices like Scalia. Honestly...no room to debate with someone living in such a small locked room.

Originally posted by macman
The Progressive Courts and enacting of Case Law is what has brought us to the idea that regulations and restrictions are not in direct violation of the 2nd.

No the founders intent and case law by the most CONSERVATIVE justices of our time recognizing the same are the ones that have afforded for regulation in the 2nd amendment.

Geez...honestly done responding to you since you haven't read a single posting of mine.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Show me raw data, in total. Not sampling in the form of a poll.

Here you go...
Link to raw data

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Indigo5

As far as the 2nd Amendment...both the modern world and founders intent speak to a "regulated" right to bear arms.

Can you point out where my right to bear arms is to be regulated by the government?

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

Same link as in my previous post written by Daniel J Schultz

It does not nor ever should be regulated by the government. The efforts of the government to do so smacks right up against the 2nd and is an attempt...and apparently effective one... to circumvent the 2nd's purpose. I think for those with reasonable comprehension skills, which you obviously have, this is clear in spite of my own personal dilemma I stated in my previous post.

reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn


I get what you are saying, but the right is granted by the fed via the 2nd Amendment, so if they do not have the power to regulate that right, then they niether have the power to enforce that right as the SCOTUS did in striking down the DC gun ban. The only way to reconcile your argument would be to strike the 2nd amendment all-together and leave it to the individual states...ban...or zero restrictions...whatever each state decides...unhindered by the Fed. But one can not both look to the Federal government to supercede state laws, uphold the 2nd amend. and protect individual rights to own guns at the state level while at the same time saying that same Fed may not decide on meaning or interpret the 2nd amendment (regulations vs. no regulations).

BTW - Every right in the constitution has restrictions. Free speech is also a butress against tyranny and oppression and yet has restrictions. It is the nature of those restrictions that determine whether they contradict the constitution or not.

reply to post by Indigo5


WOW, just because I don't agree with your BS pitched, means i have not read it. Talk about ego.
What you suggests is that if I merely read what you have posted, I will convert to your incorrect assessment of the 2nd Amendment.
And, how do you know that this topic is not one that I have studied on for many many years.

Shall I post the 2nd Amendment here?

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.

Why and how is that so difficult to comprehend.
It is simple and direct.

being necessary to the security of a free state
I don't see where it says to hunt or shoot paper targets.


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What does that mean?
To anyone, outside of the influence of the Progressive ideals, means that there will be no restrictions, regulations or bans. Very simple.



the right of the people to keep and bear arms What does that mean?
Again, outside the Progressive Crap drivel, means that the US Citizen has the right to own and carry arms.



SO..................I love the idea that you and others like you have put your life, and freedoms in the hands of the so called "Smart" people, that are nothing more then lawyers and politicians.


The Constitution was written and created so anyone.........let me repeat "ANYONE" can read it and understand what is the law.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Show me raw data, in total. Not sampling in the form of a poll.

Here you go...
Link to raw data

It's not raw data, and it's from the same source.
And it is polling sampling.

It is like I am speaking to a fungo.

reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn
Thank you.

Am rather heated right now, I appreciate the redirect.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

WOW, just because I don't agree with your BS pitched, means i have not read it.

Despite me citing repeatedly rulings by Justice Scalia and by anyones defintion profoundly CONSERVATIVE courts that afforded for regulation of gun ownership in the context of the 2nd Amendment...Despite me bolding, all-caps and underlining that it was CONSERVATIVE courts and justices that have ruled that the 2nd Amendment affords for regulation...despite me providing historical links and context pre-ceeding case law, speaking to regulation....you keep posting this nonsense..

Originally posted by macman

The Progressive Courts and enacting of Case Law is what has brought us to the idea that regulations and restrictions are not in direct violation of the 2nd.
.

So forgive me if I assumed you were not reading my posts...rather you had read them and are being dishonest?

I knew it !
The POTUS didn't do squat,he would have been impeached had he tried to do so,Congress remembers what happened last time and they won't move an inch,not to mention the attacks on the GOP pissing THEM off to a point where they will not back much else.
SORRY ANTI GUN GRABBERS,you are a failure in this regard and rightfully so,enloy your steaming hot plate of CROW.

Originally posted by macman
The Constitution was written and created so anyone.........let me repeat "ANYONE" can read it and understand what is the law.

Apparently not.

reply to post by Indigo5


No, as you continue to offer up SCOTUS rulings, which is Case law, which is the Progressive intrusion into the courts, I will continue to tell you and anyone else that they are wrong.

You are trying really hard to pitch this, by using the Conservative title for people. That is nice, but not effective.

And as for dishonest, how so?
Because I just don't fall in line with people that you put up as conservatives???

Sorry, I don't follow party lines. Maybe that is your brand of life, but not mine.