Summations Only

And yet we still vaccinate our kids against smallpox.

Have you forgotten the shooting in Tuscon last year? It would be difficult to find a more gun friendly environment than Tuscon Arizona. Are you seriously suggesting that our best solution is guns in k-4 schools?

Thanks crashfrog. My example was completely wrong. Let's change the example to vaccinating against HPV or rubella or to washing your hands after using the bathroom.My point is only that we shouldn't dismiss gun control simply because other risks are more significant.

Why not? You list other related topics that we should discuss. So why not gun control?When is the time to discuss gun control?

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.

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 think Dr. Adequate's comment does hold. The mindset of the original drafter is not really of ultimate importance if the original drafter could not get his peers to go along with his idea, or if it was clear that the states would not ratify the draft as originally penned.I don't reject your position entirely. Some modifications to the original draft are mere wordsmithing. But quite often, and in particularly in the case of the first and second amendments, it is pretty clear that not all of the intent of the original drafter survived the early parts of the drafting process once the drafter's fellow Congressman got hold of the text. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not quite. What you say simply means that the document does not reflect the intention of the original drafter. When we refer to the writers, we mean more than just the original drafter.A secondary issue is that we have amended the constitution many times since the Bill of Rights was enacted.Dr. A is perfectly correct to refer to the intention of the writers and not just the original drafter as you do here.

Perhaps it would be helpful to discuss exactly what Connecticut's gun laws actually were. That might allow us to speculate on possible provisions.Page not found – Twin Cities

quote:

---

In 2011, Connecticut was rated the fifth toughest by the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on a scorecard which gave points for each restriction the group favors.

​

But the state scored only 58 points out of a possible 100, below the 81 points of top state California but far ahead of most other U.S. states. Thirty-one states didn’t even score in the double digits.

​

To buy a gun, Connecticut law requires residents apply for a local permit, typically with the town’s police chief, have their fingerprints taken and submit to a state and federal background check with a 14-day waiting period. To buy a handgun, residents also are required to take a gun safety course.

​

The state is also one of seven to have an assault weapons ban that specifically lists more than 35 semiautomatic and automatic weapons. It does not appear to cover the .223 caliber rifle used in Friday’s attack.

​

Pinciaro said the state weapons ban, which dates back to 1994, did not go far enough because it did not also include restrictions on high-capacity magazines, which allow users to fire off dozens of shots before stopping to reload.

​

After the 2011 shooting in Arizona at a constituent event held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Connecticut lawmakers proposed a restriction that would limit magazines to 10 rounds. But after hundreds of protesters showed up at the state capital for a hearing, the bill died in committee.

---

So, yes there are some possible changes to Connecticut law that would have been helpful. Sure, Connecticut ranks fifth overall, but the overwhelming majority of states don't do diddly squat. There is plenty of room to argue that Connecticut's gun control laws are not tough enough.

That's not what I meant. I am referring to the 31 states that scored less than 20 on a scale of 100 as doing "diddly squat". I apologize for speaking less than literally. I cannot make any sense out of your comment. I gave examples of a measure that Connecticut did not adopt. I also noted that four other states have measures that are tougher than Connecticut's, and that fifth place isn't a big deal given that Connecticut rates a 58 out of 100. You ignored all of that and chose to interpret my remarks in the most ridiculous way possible. What was the point of that?Connecticut is free to adopt measures adopted in other places. That means there is room to discuss the possibility of tighter measures. Laws that actually try to reduce gun ownership seem to work elsewhere. I agree that laws that simply make it hard to get guns don't seem to work.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The Supreme Court has interpreted our constitution in such a way that strong gun laws such as the ones which existed in the District of Columbia and Illinois will be struck down as unconstitutional. There is simply no realistic political path to adopting laws here that match those in the UK.

Is that my argument? Nope.My argument is that the original intent of the second amendment, or any other amendment is not the same as the original intent of the person authoring the first draft. It's pretty clear that Dr. Adequate's point was saying quite the same thing. Dr. Adequate was saying that rejected language may reflect the intent of the author of the rejected language, but that such language is also evidence that such intent was rejected before the amendment was passed.Quite frankly, Dr. Adequate's point is nothing more than common sense. Not surprisingly, you reject the point.

That may well be correct, but the National Guard is the only modern militia we have left. Your statement is absolutely silent about whether that militia is to be controlled by the state. But as others are pointed out, other portions of the constitution refer to 'the Militia' in terms that make it quite clear that the militia is a state controlled militia and not the rabble (i.e. defenders of Main Street). Or perhaps those omissions are not mere bad luck. Perhaps they are meaningful omissions.We should also note that the drafts of the second amendment also contained wording making even more clear the purpose of the militia. For example some drafts talked about exemptions from the militia for religious views and for conscientious objectors. None of the stuff makes the least bit of sense for a people's militia.

"the body of the people"Who cares? 1) That language is not part of the current amendment, and 2) we know the people are going to be in the militia. How could it be otherwise? The question is whether the militia in Georgia is controlled by governor of Georgia or his delegates or not.