How can we regulate guns ... ?

The militia was not the standing army. The militia was intended to be organized and trained by the states, with state officers in charge if they were ever called up. The constitution explicitly places the president as the commander in chief of both the militia and the army. So the idea that the militia was not supposed to assist the feds is complete nonsense.There is some support for the idea that the militia was intended to oppose the federal government, but I think that support is fairly weak. What's even more weakly supported, in my opinion, is the idea that the militia would be organized to oppose the feds without at least some direction on the state level. Despite Jon's previous statements, the massacre at Wilmington NC was not what the constitution and the 2nd amendment were intended to allow; namely shooting your way to the top after you lose a couple of local elections.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I agree. It is not my position that the 2nd amendment arms the militia. The 2nd amendment prevents the federal government from disarming the militia. But the purpose and functioning of the militia is spelled out explicitly in the constitution. The federal government Congress and the President is in charge of the militia.

Right. I agree that such is the plain meaning of the 2nd amendment. But a majority of the Supreme Court sees in the 2nd amendment a right to "keep" guns for self defense that is completely unrelated to serving in a government controlled militia.

Really? Do you feel labeling my position as bizarre advances discussion?I am expressing the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that was used by the Supreme Court in every case prior to DC vs. Heller. t's not some bizarre insupportable viewpoint.I might just as well say that you have a motivated gun advocates interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

That's not my position, crashfrog. The provision for Congress to arm the militia is provided elsewhere in the constitution. My position, as I have explicitly stated, is that the 2nd amendment prevents the feds from disarming the militia.Here is what I actually said in Message 171.

Does your statement appear to you to address my position, because it seems to me that your statement doesn't address anything I've said? Since I don't believe that the 2nd amendment tells Congress to arm the militia and had expressly denied that position before you made any posts accusing me of having that position, then it doesn't make sense to ask me the question above which yet again attributes that position to me.Short answer: Not disarming is not the same as arming.One provision authorizes Congress to arm the militia and the President to command the militia. The second amendment expressly removes the authority of the federal government to disarm the militia. My position is that the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd amendment in that way prior to DC v. Heller.Edited by NoNukes, : Change 'arm Congress' to 'arm militia'

First of all, the power to arm and the power to disarm are not the same thing. I've already considered the idea for more than a moment.Secondly, the 2nd amendment is an amendment to the constitution. It's pretty easy to find individual amendments that contradict other parts of the constitution and even overturn parts on it. For example, consider the 18th and 21st amendments. Consider the 13-15th and 19th amendments and the way they change the way the constitution is interpreted.In the case of the 2nd amendment, we don't even have a contradiction to explain. The second amendment provides a limit on federal power granted in Article I section 8, clauses 15 and 16. For whatever reason that the feds might want to disarm the militia, (perhaps because they prefer the direct federal control not shared with the states and would rather replace the Militia with Reserve Units) they cannot do so because of the 2nd amendment which states that a Militia is essential to order.

I highly doubt there is universal agreement on these things. Plenty of people think that the loop hole is the way things ought to be for all gun sales.

You are at least partially right. I haven't supported my position.I postponed addressing this challenge because I wasn't quite sure I could do so without being well of the topic. But perhaps it is important to outline some limits on what gun control measures might be off limits by discussing just how much of a departure the most recent Supreme Court cases are from the prior caselaw.It turns out that there are only five Supreme Court cases dealing directly with the second amendment prior to the most recent two cases DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. The link below is to one source pointing to the five cases and to some summary discussion. I don't think anyone would suggest this link to be some gun control freak's musings, but who knows?http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.htmlThe prior cases are distinct from the most current cases in two respects. First, despite the fact that all of the cases date from times after the passage of the 14th amendment, several of them expressly hold that the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states. Secondly, several of the cases tie the right to bear arms to the the purpose and functioning of a militia.Here's my summary of the five cases. I'd be happy to discuss any of them to the extent that we can do so and stay on topic.U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876):In Cruikshank, the Court held that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states, but limits only the federal government.

quote:

---

The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

---

Presser v. Illinois (1886):
Court held that the second amendment applied only to the federal government. Part of the opinion also stated the following:Miller v. Texas (1894):
Refused to consider extending the 2nd amendment to the states.U.S. v. Miller (1939):Miller is the case that makes causes the gnashing of teeth amoung gun advocates. Clearly identifies the 2nd amendment as applying only to weapons that are fit for use in the militia. The case in fact does an excellent job, IMO of discussing the history of the 2nd amendment in terms that makes gun nuts, go nuts. Guncite takes a run at explaining away and criticizing Miller because they must do so. Some of the complaints, such as the use of the case by lower courts in ways the Guncite author does not like are particularly telling.Short version: The court held that the second amendment did not apply to weapons unsuitable for use by a Militia such as a sawed off shotgun. Guncite notes that there were some uses of sawed off shotguns in trench warfare, but that observation and line of argument actually reinforces the idea that Miller's holding is contrary to current law.Lewis v. U.S. (1980).

quote:

---

the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

---

No commentary necessary.That's it. No other cases ruled on by the Supreme Court prior to DC v. Heller, which was a 5-4 decision in which the minority of judges agreed with my reading of the prior case law. The majority actually claimed to be in agreement with US v. Miller, a position that is in my opinion completely unsupportable.Hopefully this will at least address crashfrog's accurate complaint that my position was unevidenced, and leave it to him to pursue showing that my position is in error.I am quite skeptical that any regulation that passes muster under the current interpretation of the second amendment will have even the slightest effect on the frequency of events like the Sandy Hook.

Their reasoning is that they want their guns on demand and they don't want to be denied.

Never have?You are unaware of or have forgotten some of the history of this country. At one time registering to vote in many states required one or more of paying fees, submitting vouchers of good character, and passing literacy tests. It is only because those practices were implemented in abusive and exclusionary ways by the states that such practices were ended. But there is no per se constitutional provision against licensing provisions that are not discriminatory. Most of the provisions against "voter licensing" are statutory ones like the VRA.ABE:What about the not having a vagina test for voting that lasted through the early twentieth century? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Added by edit.

Certainly there are some.How about eagle feathers and other eagle parts. Dynamite and some other explosives. Some chemicals can be obtained legally with a DEA license. Buying refrigerant requires a license from the EPA.Lots of things require licenses to sell or to export. Other things require licenses to use. I have to be licensed to practice law.Where is this going, anyway?

So by the presented definition, an AK-47 or AR-15 capable of semi-automatic, but not automatic fire is not an assault rifle. Fine. Let's call it an assault weapon. Glad we cleared that up.

quote:

---

Exempt from the instant check are licensed dealers, manufacturers, importers, collectors, persons with a concealed carrying license, law enforcement, correctional and correctional probation officers.

---

Are you suggesting that there is no gun show loop hole?
Who isn't a gun collector? What about sales by private owners?Fact is that gun shows are a primary way, if not the primary source for illegal guns. Some counties in Florida do have laws applying to sales at gun shows. 33 three states have no laws at all.Gun shows face restrictions after Newtown shooting, as planners seek 'fair' treatment | Fox News

quote:

---

three of the weapons used in the Columbine attack were bought by someone who went to a gun show that didn't require a background check.

---

I answered the question that was asked. Perhaps the question was irrelevant. The laws are not universal and the result is a loop hole that allows people to obtain guns without background checks. Unless you are arguing that the loop hole does not exist, then I have no idea what your point is.

Yes it is. I don't believe in standing on a man's neck. Jon conceded the point.