Summations Only

When I was growing up, kids played with matchbox cars, not guns.That is fact. Your opinion is unnecessary. You didn't post any facts, you posted some opinions.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

You cannot even tell me what the 2nd amendment is without looking it up.

Yet it is a fact that the guns haven't changed much. Yet it is a fact that the knives haven't changed much.

Violence is as American as apple pie - H. Rap Brown.

Personally, I see little difference between American and British culture.
We both like violent films, violent games, etc.People on both continents have a fascination with weaponry.
The only significant difference I see is that in America there is easy access to those weapons.

School shootings are easy to eliminate.No schools with more than one classroom per grade level. No schools with more than 250 students. No towns with more than 5,000 people.Problem solved.

Historically in the US the militia was an army of citizens where the officers were representatives of the state government. The difference between a militia and a standing state army was that the militia was called up for specific situations. The militia described in the 2nd amendment does not mean you and the rest of the Yancy Street Irregulars gathering to fire on DEA when they come to your neighborhood serve a drug warrant for crack.Let's also recognize that the Bill of Rights, at the time it was passed only prevented the feds from passing gun laws. States were free to regulate gun ownership with impunity. Well regulated meant a militia regulated by the state.The way that the second amendment is currently interpreted by the courts is that there is a personal right to carry guns, and that the words regarding the militia merely explain a purpose of the right, but do not limit extending the right to personal use of firearms for most uses.You're interpretation is complete nonsense and is at odds with history. The defense against federal power was the state or a collection of states calling out their militia. The belief that individuals are supposed to take on the federal government on their own whim originates from gun nuts.

Look, if you are going to carry on about "my" supposed interpretation, at least respond to what I posted back in Message 57 where I quote so many from the founding generation and provide a link to a really informative study of the history of the concept of a citizen army which was the basis for the Second Amendment. "Regulated by the state in what sense?" is a question you might keep in mind if you bother to read that information.You can't just blather on with assertions that do not deal with the facts I provided there.EvC Forum: Gun Control AgainThank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours truly.

I don't know what to tell you, Hooah, but yes - you're going to have to accept that bad things can happen to you and yours regardless of what laws we pass, because making something illegal isn't going to be enough to dissuade someone who's sufficiently motivated to do something that they don't mind dying in the attempt. Yes, you're going to have to accept that bad things can happen to people. Well, no, you're not. You're not doing a goddamn thing to lower those deaths. Literally nothing is what you're doing.

Whoa, Faith. Let's not pretend that my post was not in response to errors in your own post.I provided the answer to what regulated means. A well regulated militia means a militia trained by the state,with officers who represent the state in charge of it. Regulation could of course include keeping criminals, minors, and people with mental problems out of the militia, but the issue of whether the state can place limitations on guns for uses not associated with the militia is a completely separate question that is, for the most part, not answered by question of whether the person is fit to serve in the state militia. The 2nd amendment, as currently interpreted would not allow the state to classify someone as '4F' and then to deny that person a right to firearms solely on that basis.My comments addressed incorrect statements in a post that you made. If you actually understand those statements to be incorrect, you need not have posted them. To wit: This is incorrect regardless of anything you had posted previously. The militia in the 2nd amendment refers to an adhoc army citizens to be called up and organized by the state to face an emergency identified by the state, with officer's selected by the state giving the orders. If in fact, you were aware that the militia was run by the state, what prompted you to say otherwise?The closest thing to a militia these days are the National Guard units operated by each state. Thanks to recent decisions by the Supreme Court, there is no longer any reason for individuals to defend their rights to guns by pointing to the need for a militia. Attempting to defend gun rights by alluding to a right to defend against the federal government is what gun nuts used to have to do. I find this statement of yours is quite amusing. You agree, as do I, that the currently interpretation of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It is inconsistent to interpret the 'militia' to mean organized by the state and yet have the state with little to no ability to control the use of guns that are not conducive to being in a militia. Yet that is exactly the way the Supreme Court does interpret the 2nd amendment. The words relating to militia are given essential no weight whatsoever.I'd appreciate any correction you care to make in this matter. I make no apologies for providing historical blather that pointed out the need for correction.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

A comedian is hardly needed when the straight man/woman delivers lines like this.

I'm not pretending anything. You haven't made it clear what errors really exist in my post and if you read the material I keep referring to it might turn out I've represented the Second Amendment accurately. Well, but that is what is in question. This is not the majority interpretation of the Amendment that I glean from the material I posted in Message 57. It's one version that some held of it but others took issue with such formulations as giving the state too much power. It can't be RUN by the state or it violates the spirit of the amendment. There CAN be state regulation of some sort, OK, but it can't interfere with the basic right to keep and bear arms. But my objection was that you put way too much emphasis on the state aspect as so many people do these days. Maybe I'm overreacting to this general trend and misreading you but that hasn't been made clear yet. While there may be arguments in support of having a National Guard along WITH the people's right to keep and bear arms, the National Guard is not the "militia" as most understood that term when the Constitution was being written. And that is because it is run by the state and anything run by the state could be enlisted against the people.I keep saying PLEASE go read that stuff I posted in Message 57. Especially the article linked at the end, which is rather lengthy, but does spell out the arguments on both sides and it gives context to the quotes I singled out above too. The consistent emphasis is on the need for the PEOPLE to have the right to arms both for self protection and to serve the nation when necessary, and the constant refrain concerns the danger of tyranny from government or a standing army itself if these rights are restricted (beyond the usual common sense considerations that clearly make some unfit to carry arms, which they also take into account). I'm not sure I get your point here.For quite some time it seems most people have been misunderstanding the whole idea of a militia as it was hammered out historically and then put into the Second Amendment, and that common misunderstanding has been expressed on this thread, quite aggressively expressed I might add. We keep reading it as some kind of organized state-run entity but that is NOT how they understood it originally. There are different views among the Constitution shapers as to how this militia is to be run, yes, and all that can be discussed, but the basic concept was always that this is a right that must be given to the people individually and the National Guard does NOT meet the meaning of "militia" that they had in mind as far as I grasp their intent. I must admit that by this time I don't think I know what you are trying to say.I do hope you will take some time to look through what I posted back in Message 57 though.ABE: For reference to the thinking of the Constitutional framers, here's an early draft of the amendment proposed by Madison (from that article by Vandercoy I link at the bottom of Message 57): That doesn't sound like the National Guard to me. Other phrasings of this view add "whole" as in "composed of the WHOLE body of the people."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It was intended as a joke but I figured nobody would know that. I said it anyway. I don't expect anybody to get anything I say here, so naturally you'd assume I wasn't conscious of the irony. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Crash,You said above: Wouldn't it be equally valid to say, that in a hypothetical world, where America had decided to ban the ownership of guns, that whenever someone (who didn't own a gun) was shot by a criminal, you would have to accept that bad things can happen to people ?And if that is the case, doesn't it then simply become a case of society weighing up the overall statisitcs, and determining whether gun control results in a likelihood of greater or fewer deaths by guns for society overall ?

So why did they scrub this early draft? What you have there is a version of a second amendment that in the end Madison did not put forward and Congress did not adopt. Whatever the intentions of the Founders, I don't think the evidence of what they deliberately decided not to do can have evidential value except in the negative --- if they considered saying that, and ultimately decided not to say that, it's probably not what they wanted to say.