They Don't Call this Region "New England" for Nothing

JonJ

JonJ

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
13,068
Likes
353
Location
Plymouth, MA
Feedback: 11 / 0 / 0
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-guns.artsep09,0,5903304.story
Hartford Courant editorial.
The Right To Own A Gun

September 9, 2007


Sometime in the next year, the U.S. Supreme Court may settle the question whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants individuals the right to own firearms or imparts a collective, civic right to bear arms as part of a military organization. We believe the latter interpretation is the correct one.

Officials in Washington, D.C., are seeking to appeal a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that overturned the city's handgun law. The law, which prohibits handgun ownership except by active and retired law enforcement officers, is among the nation's strictest. The court also struck down a law requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger locks.

In its 2-1 ruling in March, the three-judge panel concluded that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." Because handguns are "arms," the court found, the district has no right to ban them.

In their petition to the Supreme Court, district officials argue the appeals court's decision ignores the "obvious military character" of the Second Amendment's language.

We agree. The Second Amendment states: "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." The right to bear arms, in other words, flows from a collective need for military defense.

The leaders who forged our Bill of Rights were a smart and articulate bunch. They picked their words carefully. "Militia" is a word that already implies a level of formal organization. But the Second Amendment goes beyond that by calling for a "regulated militia"; and not just a regulated militia, but a "well regulated" one.

We think the intent is clear. We also think that gun laws in this country, which have tended to exalt the individual's right to own a gun at the expense of public safety and welfare, have gotten way, way out of whack.

The Supreme Court is likely to decide this fall whether to hear the appeal. Legal experts think it will. If so, a decision could be out by next summer. That ruling would certainly heat up the 2008 presidential race. We hope it also brings some long-needed light and sanity to the nation's gun laws.
Click to expand...
 
The leaders who forged our Bill of Rights were a smart and articulate bunch. They picked their words carefully. "Militia" is a word that already implies a level of formal organization. But the Second Amendment goes beyond that by calling for a "regulated militia"; and not just a regulated militia, but a "well regulated" one.
Click to expand...

If this is true why then do you totally ignore the word "people" in the 2A?

I hate liberals and when they start talking like our founding fathers would be on their side it is about all I can take....[rolleyes]
 
That editorial is the most ridiculous and simplistic misinterpretation of the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment that I think I've ever read. If that's the line of argument that the other side thinks will persuade anyone, I can't wait for this appeal to reach SCOTUS.
 
All I could think of was that STRIKE noise from family feud.

"BZZZZZZZZT! WRONG ANSWER!"

Anyone that argues the 2nd amendment based on/only applies
to organized militia, national guard, etc, is a bonafide moron.
It's to the point where if I'm arguing to an anti about it, and
they bring it up, I simply say- "Well, if you believe that, despite
the fact that it's inherently false argument on more than one basis,
then it's no use even discussing it with you- the equivalent argument
would be you insisting that the earth is flat and not relenting."

Some flaming liberal anti from Harvard even wrote a well written paper
saying that arguing against gun ownership by trying to pick out
non-existant flaws in the 2nd amendment is a waste of time.
You would think that by now these morons would figure it
out. I don't mind them spewing the crap though- it just helps
make more of an ass out of themselves.


-Mike
 
Last edited:
We agree. The Second Amendment states: "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." The right to bear arms, in other words, flows from a collective need for military defense.
Click to expand...

Actually, the need was for every citizen to be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government and their military force.

The well regulated militia is formed from those citizens upon the need to do so.

Must have been written by some intern who flunked history 101.
 
My Comment...

"militia." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 11 Sep. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militi... ;.
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Now that we know what a militia is and that it is obviously not members of a "military organization" lets continue to analyze the 2nd Amendment.

At the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment "well regulated" would have meant that it was functioning properly. For a militia to function properly it must be well drilled and well armed.

The only way you can call up a militia is if it's members are permitted keep arms. In order for the militia to be well drilled its members must be permitted to bear those arms. In order for a militia to function it must also bear those arms. And since the militia is made up of ordinary citizens and a militia is necessary for the security of a free state... The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.

It is quite obviously to anyone with a 4th grade education that the last phrase of the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that the government shall not infringe on that right.

The 1st 2 phrases of the amendment only provide 1 of the reasons why this right exists.
Click to expand...
 
"We agree. The Second Amendment states: "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." The right to bear arms, in other words, flows from a collective need for military defense."

------------------------------------
Sure, there has always been a "collective NEED", but that need was/is designed and intended to be filled by INDIVIDUALS who are required by law to supply their own guns, powder, shot and accoutrements as part of the unorganized militia.

Additionally, the individual's right is not trumped by any "collective need" of the state. The individual's liberty and ability to defend their own life, liberty and property is paramount above any need of the state.

There are no "OTHER WORDS" and ....the ammendment is clear to anyone other than an anti rights spin doctor wanting to deny others of their liberty.
 
The founding fathers definitely were smart and articulate. Here's some quotes:

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense."
-- John Adams

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington

"No freeman shall [ever] be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"
--Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), proposed Virginia Constitution, June 1776, in Thomas Jefferson's_Papers

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
--George Mason (1725-1792), June 14, 1788, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, in_Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
--Samuel Adams (1722-1803), in_Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

"The great objective is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
--Patrick Henry

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
--Thomas Jefferson
 
But the Second Amendment goes beyond that by calling for a "regulated militia"; and not just a regulated militia, but a "well regulated" one.
Click to expand...

In this context the term "regulated" means "maintained", not "government restricted".

"A well maintained Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

e.g. 'the people should own arms so that when the SHTF they can form a militia'

NOT, "only government controlled groups may own firearms"

These people just evicted the British Crowne, they didn't want to from their own Imperialistic force. They wanted a small government and had no money to pay troops anyway.

Lincoln knew what they were talking about: a government of the people, by the people, for the people

If current day people think this is antiquated they just have to pass another Amendment to change it. [wink]
 
Ironically by claiming that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the RKBA only for collective citizens or state sponsored militias, the author of the article is setting the stage for the weakening of other amendments we take for granted as applying to the individual.

His article is completely maddening in its lack of logical arguements.
 
JonJ said:
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-guns.artsep09,0,5903304.story
Hartford Courant editorial.
Click to expand...

The author of this piece of journalism, which is a profession based on the use of words, shows either his ignorance of words or his bias, by failing to observe:

1) "Militia," as used in the times when the Constitution was written most certainly does NOT imply an "organized" institution.

2) "Regulated," as used on those same times, did not mean subject to a bunch of rules and regulations, but rather was synonymous with "equipped."
 
My comment:

Trying to nit-pick the Second Amendment's wording shows the lack of substantive arguement presented by anti-gun crowd lately. They ignore the writings of the men who actually contributed to writing the Bill of Rights and instead try to assign their own agendized meaning to these words, hoping to sway those who are not inclined to study history for themselves. But those who do read the words of these men see what they really meant, that is that every American citizen had the natural right to own their own firearms. Stephen P. Halbrook, a scholar more learned than most of us can ever hope to be has effectively debunked the "collective" theory of the Second Amendment in his book, "That Every Man be Armed". He stated: "If anyone entertained this notion (the collective theory) in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known wruting surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.". Additionally, limiting the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens to have and carry firearms in no way threatens public safety and welfare. This is the fault of the criminal. If anti-gun forces took half the energy they use to attack the rights of the honest citizen and focused it on catching and punishing the criminals who are commiting thse crimes, then the crime problem would shrink dramatically. Let us hope that calmer and more rational minds prevail in this discussion and that we focus on the real problem, not an inanimate object.
Click to expand...
 
Mikey said:
If this is true why then do you totally ignore the word "people" in the 2A?

I hate liberals and when they start talking like our founding fathers would be on their side it is about all I can take....[rolleyes]
Click to expand...

No kidding, they always pick and choose which parts to read and which parts to pretend not to comprehend.
 
JRyan said:
No kidding, they always pick and choose which parts to read and which parts to pretend not to comprehend.
Click to expand...

I see plenty of that out of both sides. The difference between the two sides is which amendment they choose to protect. Even then it's a small difference.
 
My Comment, under "Bob, Weston, MA" on page 8:

It is a wonderful country when the Courant can express its beliefs - even when they are wrong. Your classic, sadly uneducated and uninformed opinion that "We also think that gun laws in this country, which have tended to exalt the individual's right to own a gun at the expense of public safety and welfare, have gotten way, way out of whack." ignores the fact that law-abiding gun owners are not a risk to public safety and welfare. It is the criminals who ignore laws and obtain and use firearms illegally that are the problem.

If you did your homework to see how hard it really is to legally get a license to own a gun and the procedures to actually legally buy, store, and use a gun, I think you would change your opinion. We, the law-abiding gun owners, are not the problem. It is you at the Courant that are "way, way out of whack."

Besides, the DOJ also disagrees with you:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

See page 105.
 
Original, un edited text of 2A: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." - James Madison

And those really smart guys you spoke of and their thoughts on the 2A

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth." - George Washington.

"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the State. Such are a well regulated Militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen, and husbandman; who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." - James Madison

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -Thomas Jefferson

"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange."- Thomas Jefferson

"When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour." - George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

"Congress shall have no power to disarm the milita. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." - Thomas Paine

"I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly argue with all the world to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation, but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power." - Thomas Paine

SO you are part correct... they are pretty smart, you are just not smart enough to understand them. Thanks for playing though, we have some wonderful parting gifts for you.
Click to expand...
my comment
 
From the Article:
The Right To Own A Gun

September 9, 2007

Sometime in the next year, the U.S. Supreme Court may settle the question whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants individuals the right to own firearms...
Click to expand...

I can tell you that it absolutely does not!

And this illustrates just how ignorant the writer is.
 
Nope, the Bill of Rights does not grant any right at all. It simply enunciates the rights that a free people have.

The fact that you have to actually explain this to people is one of the reasons that this country is falling into Socialism.
 

Similar threads

New England gun tourism
Replies
26
Views
654
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
New England Ballistic Services, Inc.
Replies
16
Views
617
EJFudd
EJFudd
Has anyone heard of the Safari Club International New England Foundation? They have a gun auction/banquet open to the public April 27th in Newton, MA!
Replies
25
Views
796
Lord0fWar
L
Is this a new term? Zombie guns.
Replies
9
Views
363
hminsky
H
Check out this new security system that will shoot intruders with paintballs
Replies
1
Views
91
walter62
walter62
Back
Top Bottom