racketboy.com

Food for thought from a friend of mine:

I apologize in advance....

It must be really hard to live in a truly free country. I wouldn't know, I live in the U.S. this hasn't been a truly free country in a long time, Regardless what the propaganda machine spews out.

Let's talk a bit about this "gun control" idea and the meaning of the 2nd amendment. The original intent was that the people were in charge of governing themselves and if the "leaders" in the state decided to overstep their grounds and violate the laws of the land then the people were to pick up arms and restore the rule of law. The Federalist papers, number 28 talks a bit about this idea, as did Jefferson a few times.

Now to answer the "well regulated milita" clause. Title 10, section 311 of the US Code pretty much answers that, look it up. Every able bodied male citizen aged 17 to 45 is a member of the militia of the United States, per law. I believe able bodied more or less also includes of sound mind.

Then there is general self defense. The Police force throughout the country is never going to be able to defend every person from evil deeds, as they shouldn't have to, if this was a truly free country. If we give up completely our ability for self defense, the police forces in the country will have to be expanded to the point where we will truly have a police state, in which point we may as well just declare martial law. On the flipside, all one has to do is pay a little attention to news stories and we will find several cases of members of the police forces country wide abusing their power. I would rather take the responsibility to defend myself and have a small police force filled with good members then to lose the ability and have a massive police force with many corrupt individuals.

Arguing that the founders did not forsee the weapons that we have today, so thusly couldn't have meant to mean that we should be allowed them; is similar to saying that they didn't forsee the internet and satelite, so the freedom of speach and the press couldn't possibly mean to include those as well.

The first two points pretty much answer why the U.S. citizen "needs" "assault weapons". To that point, if an individual can afford a tank, then yes, they should be able to own one without question, the same with fully automatic weapons, as long as they are of sound mind. Background checks? I have no problem with those. I have had several performed on me, some were very thorough checks. I can think of no good argument for limiting magazine sizes, and haven't heard any either. But hell, this isn't a truly free country, and hasn't been for a long time. If it were truly free, the 9th and 10th amendments would be more respected.

I still shake my head when I remember sitting in a government class at a San Diego Community College, and being told the 9th and 10th amendments had no real meaning. Thinking about it though, it is no wonder they don't anymore, when the instructors are teaching the populous that they mean nothing.

(this rant brought to you by being tired of hearing Piers Morgan and the like questioning my rights)

You are never truly free if you have to abide by the rules. And the rules are in place to make sure more people get a fair shake, to keep the balance of power stable, and to prevent abuse of power.

Of course rules beget more rules, the people are squeezed, those in power become corrupt, and use that corruption to remain in power.

Politics as usual? Yeah. Ignoring that, I think the US can borrow a few things from other countries. Finland, to the best of my knowledge, still has mandatory training for all its citizens between the ages of 18-35. Every citizen is to be "drafted" into the national guard training center for a year or two of their lives to get certified for survival, gun-handling, and two things that I currently cannot remember. Israel, and I can hear some of you sucking wind through the teeth, also adds another degree of firearms responsibility: if your weapon is used to commit a felony, you are charged (IIRC as an accessory) for losing track of a dangerous weapon.

This won't change the fact that criminals can still obtain weapons illegally. That legally-owned weapons by people of sound mind and body may still be used when those people snap. But at least with training and education, the populace won't panic as badly.

Advances in weapons have changed a lot of things. Body-armor (or armored suitcases) in case someone smuggles a weapon in their ring or cell-phone. Bigger school campuses (to avoid the nutjob-in-the-clocktower scenario. Police SWAT teams for those pesky neighborhood armies (though surprisingly there is no funding to form Local Neighborhood Watches). And kids today can get into the darndest things (like getting high or committing credit theft or disrupting the city power grid).

And honestly, I think the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights was a sign that "in a few years we'll need a new Constitution." (Doesn't Poland re-draft theirs every few years? It probably stays the same, but still...)

Luke wrote:It must be really hard to live in a truly free country. I wouldn't know, I live in the U.S. this hasn't been a truly free country in a long time, Regardless what the propaganda machine spews out.

Let's talk a bit about this "gun control" idea and the meaning of the 2nd amendment. The original intent was that the people were in charge of governing themselves and if the "leaders" in the state decided to overstep their grounds and violate the laws of the land then the people were to pick up arms and restore the rule of law. The Federalist papers, number 28 talks a bit about this idea, as did Jefferson a few times.

Now to answer the "well regulated milita" clause. Title 10, section 311 of the US Code pretty much answers that, look it up. Every able bodied male citizen aged 17 to 45 is a member of the militia of the United States, per law. I believe able bodied more or less also includes of sound mind.

....

I still shake my head when I remember sitting in a government class at a San Diego Community College, and being told the 9th and 10th amendments had no real meaning. Thinking about it though, it is no wonder they don't anymore, when the instructors are teaching the populous that they mean nothing.

....

Your friend is clearly not a constitutional scholar, and his statement regarding the "intent" of the long-dead framers of the United States Constitution is completely wrong.

First, the Second Amendment did not apply to the States until after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868; so, under the Constitution's original framework, the States clearly had the power to disarm their citizens completely. Accordingly, his idea that the right of individuals to bear arms was intended by the framers to be some sort of back-stop against government tyranny simply does not mesh with the original version of the United States Constitution. Likewise, his attribution to Thomas Jefferson is probably based on this quote:

"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."

which - for better of for worse - is completely bogus:

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-to-retain-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation

Second - even after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment - the Supreme Court did not find that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms until two 5-to-4 decisions in 2008 and 2010. In both cases, the Court noted that the individual right was based on historical protections of the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of hunting, self-defense in the home, and use during militia service, not as some back-stop against government tyranny. (I don't know where to start on your friend's citation to 10 U.S.C. 331...I have no idea what it is supposed to "answer", and the whole paragraph is nonsensical).

Finally, the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution are pretty much useless. They were "filler" when they were ratified, they are remain useless today, and - rather than simply shaking his head - I think that your friend should have played closer attention to his civics professors at San Diego Community College.

In any event, if your friend despises our country so much because it is no longer "free", then he should consider moving to Somalia. The only law there is the law of the sword, and you can have pretty much any type of weapon that you want...Awesome!!!

...

I apologize for the rant, but I just can't help myself when people hold themselves out as some sort of constitutional scholar just because they like playing with big guns and read some intellectually dishonest articles on the internet. It would be like me spouting off on the future of e-commerce because I like video games and read an issue of Wired back in the '90s...

prfsnl_gmr wrote:Accordingly, his idea that the right of individuals to bear arms was intended by the framers to be some sort of back-stop against government tyranny simply does not mesh with the original version of the United States Constitution.

Especially since, historically speaking, the Constitution was only drafted after the squashing of Shay's Rebellion in 1787.

prfsnl_gmr wrote:
Your friend is clearly not a constitutional scholar, and his statement regarding the "intent" of the long-dead framers of the United States Constitution is completely wrong.

...I think that your friend should have played closer attention to his civics professors at San Diego Community College.

In any event, if your friend despises our country so much because it is no longer "free", then he should consider moving to Somalia. The only law there is the law of the sword, and you can have pretty much any type of weapon that you want...Awesome!!!

...

I apologize for the rant, but I just can't help myself when people hold themselves out as some sort of constitutional scholar just because they like playing with big guns and read some intellectually dishonest articles on the internet. It would be like me spouting off on the future of e-commerce because I like video games and read an issue of Wired back in the '90s...

Thanks for pointing all this out, as I didn't have the energy to do so nor, frankly, all the requisite knowledge. If/when Luke's friend reads this, though, I am guessing he'll dig up some "solid backing" for his position on sites like infowars or some other website/book that comes from a place of intellectual ignorance/dishonesty.

I'd just add that I don't think I've heard Piers Morgan "question rights" so much as question what the limits of those rights are, which is a pretty fucking important distinction that is clearly lost on many

To be clear...I am a gun owner, and I think that the Court was right to hold that the United States Constitution guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That said, gun control - and certainly the gun control measure currently up for debate - are issues of public policy. Debate surrounding the constitutionality of those measures - or gun control generally - is a distraction (and, to me at least, indicates that there is no rational basis for opposing them).

So Ruger's releasing 13 new guns this year. That's cool.

Yes, it is. Thank you for your efforts to bring this thread back to its original topic!

Oh, my friend won't read the comments posted here, nor do I agree with him. Just posting his pov as his thoughts are worth debating in a civil discussion.

Winchester is re-releasing the model '73. I want to pick one up if I can.