Guns

[ny10570 745]

I was unclear in my wording before, and I'll try and prevent that. Yes the national guard in all its forms and related organizations are state militias and a vital part of this country, but they do not need nor do they benefit from the second amendment. The militias that were so vital during the start of this nation are now referred to as the unorganized militia and would consist of "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." If something were to happen where our military was so over stretched or out numbered the selective service draft would be used, followed by the few states that have state drafts, and then if there were still any able bodied men left to fight there would be a call to arms. There isn't going to be anyone left. And if you're so worried a military coup that would eliminate the military and force a call to arms then you had better have a stockpile of rifles and ammunition because without it you aren't going to be much use to the militia.

PC_420

Stop it. I have not said its old we should get rid of it. I have said it is impractical and no longer applies as written. My argument is not based on the actual right to bear arms. I am in fact a proponent of this right. Get away from emotional attachment and take a look at its practicality. So we need to be prepared to take the defense of our nation if we were to come under attack? So say tomorrow China decides to kick it off and sends their masses after us. The first move our government makes is the draft (see above). They are going to induct every able bodied citizen into military service long before any unorganized militias are called up. So we have the other option, a threat from within. Someone marches a Division into DC and takes over the government. Now without the federal military its up to the states. Who they hell is going to arm you? You're facing superior force armed with spit wads. The weapons currently at issue and the majority of the weapons in private hands are all but useless as a first line weapon.

paramedico987

I stated that the minority opinion of the supreme court justices was primarily concerned with the repeal of recent gun control legislation. I however do not fear this as I believe there are laws that need to be changed and others that are so common sense that I am confident they will persist. I also love how everyone references drivers licenses and car registration as a model for gun regulation yet I have seen many threads come and go on this site about how ineffective both are in preventing bad drivers, unlicensed drivers, etc. I would also like to point out that my argument is about practicality for the 2nd amendment. Once again guns are good and the amendment has been out grown. Gun rights had absolutely nothing to do with the Nazi's taking power. They were voted in. The German people gave the Nazi's the power they needed. Once in power they changed the laws because there was no strong backbone to their government like the Constitution to prevent changes to its fundamental structure. This is what enabled Hitler to appoint himself supreme chancellor or whatever his title was. The gun legislation was only intended to prevent individuals from fighting back. The masses supported him. No gun laws would have made a bit of difference.

[jayhalsey 6]

So we need to be prepared to take the defense or our nation if we were to come under attack? So say tomorrow China decides to kick it off and sends their masses after us. The first move our government makes is the draft (see above). They are going to induct every able bodied citizen into military service long before any unorganized militias are called up. So we have the other option, a threat from within. Someone marches a Division into DC and takes over the government. Now without the feneral military its up to the states. Who they hell is going to arm you? You're facing superior force armed with spit wads. The weapons currently at issue and the majority of the weapons in private hands are all but useless as a first line weapon.

so if China sends their masses after us, what good is the draft going to be? How much help is the draft going to be when Chinese soldiers are knociking on your door? Thats all well and good that the state can call up a militia, but you have squads of Chinese soldiers walking by your house, right now. You need some help right now. I know that this is an extreme case, but I was simply expanding on what NY stated.

Not to mention when someone tries to break into your home, and threatens your life and your family's life. You have and should have every right to defend yourself.

Now the second quote, isnt that basically what the revolution was like? About American will overcoming great odds?

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

Just like the movie RED DAWN. That was classic. WOLVERINES.

[moggie6 54]

I am very pleased with the Court's decision. Every human being has a right to defend themselves.

[Guest partyrock]

NY10570, that’s a different approach and an interesting perspective but in this context you are wrong. The challenge placed before the court was not whether or not the 2nd amendment is applicable in today’s society because that is not for the court to decide. I do agree that it should be changed but that is going to have to come from the legislature or the states. The specifics of the case that went before the court, was whether or not the DC gun ban violated a persons 2nd amendment rights. As long as there is a provision on the books for an unorganized militia then there is a right to bear arms. A while ago (70’s I think) someone challenged the need of an unorganized militia and the Supreme Court decided that such a provision was guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. So it kind of breaks down into a, because there is one you have to have the other. Now in 2009 if a liberal president were to come together with an overly liberal legislature someone could cause trouble by legislating that only citizens eligible for the militia can own a firearm. Guns would be limited to able bodies males 18 to 45 and females in the guard. Now that would make for some interesting legislative battles.

Another point I wanted to make guns do not prevent crime. Nor do they cause increases in crime. The same could be said with gun bans. Baltimore, a city demographically munch like DC has had nearly identical increases in crime since the DC gun ban. Where gun bans do make a difference is in accidents and suicides. An increase in accidents is obvious, and while tragic not reason enough to ban cars or any other object we manage to hurt ourselves with, so you can’t use that to ban guns. The decrease in suicides could be explained by more failed attempts at suicide since a gun is fairly effective the first time around, but since there is no reliable record of suicide attempts in a community that I’m aware of it is purely speculative.

[abaduck 123]

Now in 2009 if a liberal president were to come together with an overly liberal legislature someone could cause trouble by legislating that only citizens eligible for the militia can own a firearm. Guns would be limited to able bodies males 18 to 45 and females in the guard. Now that would make for some interesting legislative battles.

It would not, it would die a death the day it passed into law when a judge ruled it blatantly unconstitutional and forbade its enforcement; the SC has just interpreted the 2nd definitively, and found that it encompasses an individual right to own a firearm and keep it in the home *for self-defence*, subject to reasonable regulation (e.g. EDPs and felons need not apply, guns can be registered). The court did NOT find that such a right hinged upon eligibility for milita service; self-defence was a good enough reason.

At least that's my reading of the judgement; if you disagree feel free to explain why.

Mike

[antiquefirelt 994]

I believe NY10570 has made some of the best counterpoints on the gun ban article that I've read. I of course disagree with the premise on many points, but it's nice to see a argument made using ones brain more than the heart.

One of my earliest issues is with the firearms typing bans: ie: assault rifles, semi-auto, hand guns, etc. A firearm is a firearm. The capability of a few of my hunting rifles far exceeds most military long guns in range, accuracy and knockdown power. Anyone remember Geraldo's assault weapons show? The devastating effects of the AK47 on a watermelon made the audience gasp and the Brady Bill proponents rally, then came the common hunting rifle, bolt-action, 7mm Mag.. Of course they had no issue with that until the watermelon was turned into mist! I would add that yes, some weapons have little purpose or are designed with criminals in mind (Saturday Night Specials, cheap concealable pistols, TEC 9's, etc)

Regulating firearm types, is much like regulating cars. Why should we allow cars that exceed the maximum speed limit? There is no legitimate reason to break the law, we know speed kills and accidents often involve other vehicles. The technology is there... What's the difference? Why do must we impose laws on law abiding citizens?

For the record, I am for firearms registration and/or ballistic fingerprinting. I'd gladly prove proficiency to whichever law authority was required it. But, I find the NRA's doomsday scenarios of government troops taking our guns laughable at best, downright insane at worst. Talk about needing a civics lesson.

[Guest MVFD334]

The NRA is good but not great. There is a huge difference between a American citizen being able to have a concealed hangun to protect themselves and being able to own an AK47 that is fully automatic equiped with a silencer and a 40 rd clip.. Im sorry, fully automatic weapons are a blast to shoot but have no place other than war. To me , a gun was one of the only tools the militia had to stop and uprising. In todays age what good is a gun gonna do if we come under attack? A gun isnt gonna stop planes, tanks and missiles. Responsible gun owners should have better rights than the criminals they arent trying to protect themselves from. But somehow in our court system we make the innocent home owner pay the medical bills for the robber who fell and got hurt in our house. We need for our lawful citizens to be able to choose wether or not they want to be armed, but there also should be laws protecting those innocent people around them..

[Future Fireman 4]

The NRA is good but not great. There is a huge difference between a American citizen being able to have a concealed hangun to protect themselves and being able to own an AK47 that is fully automatic equiped with a silencer and a 40 rd clip.. Im sorry, fully automatic weapons are a blast to shoot but have no place other than war. To me , a gun was one of the only tools the militia had to stop and uprising. In todays age what good is a gun gonna do if we come under attack? A gun isnt gonna stop planes, tanks and missiles.

Depends, the turret has 2 guns, and it's a vehicle. Buy them seperately and.....LOOPHOLE!

Mike