Obama: Working On Gun Control Under The Radar

[Lil Red]

Original story: http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9614

[url="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-on-gun-control-under-the-radar/"]Ed Morissey's commentary[/url]

[Amppax]

i feel no debate about gun control is complete without this

[url="http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html"]http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html[/url]

[Ed Normile]

We will all certainly feel much safer when only the criminals have guns.

ed

[Don John of Austria]

Amppax... who is the Author, he says things are his opinion but gives no reason why his opinion should be looked at seriously.

I disagree strongly that the general militia, composed of the entire body of men armed and ready for defense of the state or from the state is either unneccessary or obsolete. Not knowing who is actually writing the peice makes it quite difficult to judge.

[Laudate_Dominum]

been loving all the open debates on cspan that obama promised.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMf6kW_1Nw[/media]

Edited May 26, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306392045' post='2246134']
been loving all the open debates on cspan that obama promised.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMf6kW_1Nw[/media]
[/quote]


Haven't you, he's been so transparent in everything he does.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Winchester]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306391199' post='2246128']
Amppax... who is the Author, he says things are his opinion but gives no reason why his opinion should be looked at seriously.

I disagree strongly that the general militia, composed of the entire body of men armed and ready for defense of the state or from the state is either unneccessary or obsolete. Not knowing who is actually writing the peice makes it quite difficult to judge.
[/quote]
It's because it backs up the stupid notion that rights originate in the Constitution. A lot of children indoctrinated by the State believe that.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1306420024' post='2246188']
It's because it backs up the stupid notion that rights originate in the Constitution. A lot of children indoctrinated by the State believe that.
[/quote]

Huh, so I believe right originate from the Constitution? glad to know that, wasn't what i thought I believed. But you know, some dude on teh interwebz obviously knows the inner workings of my mind better than i do.

Alright I guess i better quote what i want out of the article *sigh* :

[quote]The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm?

Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.

Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311]).

This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.


In the state constitutions written around the time of the [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html"]Declaration of Independence[/url], the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article6"]Articles of Confederation[/url] specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/vdeclar.html"]Virginia Declaration of Rights[/url], though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_faf.html"]Anti-Federalists[/url] during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally,[url="http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html"]Madison's original proposal[/url] for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.[/quote]


Alright, i was mainly looking at ^this

[quote]Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today, in [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/sjjm.html"]my[/url] opinion, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law. For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting — it would be next to impossible. The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan — it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction. There are some who fear the rise in executive power under the second Bush presidency is just such a usurpation, and in some ways it may be. But similar usurpations of power by the Congress and the President, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, were all eventually overturned or struck down and then condemned by history. My hope is that history can be our guide this time, too.
The defense of our borders had not been a cause for concern for nearly a century before the subject really came up again around the time of the turn of the millennium, in 1999. Concern with border defense again became an issue after September 11, 2001, when a series of terrorist attacks, both in the form of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings and anthrax-laced mail, made people realize that we do have enemies that wish to invade our nation, though not on the scale of an army. But while each state has its National Guard it can call up to guard the borders, the coordination needed is much more on a national scale, and special units of the regular army or border patrol are better suited for such duty than the Guard.[/quote]


Was ignoring ^this

[quote]These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias.[/quote]

And this is [b]really [/b]the only reason that i posted the article, to talk about the two interpretations of the amendment. I'm not really interested in the author's opinion on the issue, sorry about that Don John. Merely injecting the different interpretations of the amendment into this discussion. I apologize for being lazy.

[Amppax]

*edit: double post

Edited May 27, 2011 by Amppax

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306391199' post='2246128']
Amppax... who is the Author, he says things are his opinion but gives no reason why his opinion should be looked at seriously.

I disagree strongly that the general militia, composed of the entire body of men armed and ready for defense of the state or from the state is either unneccessary or obsolete. Not knowing who is actually writing the peice makes it quite difficult to judge.
[/quote]

Here is the Author: [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/sjjm.html"]http://www.usconstit...n.net/sjjm.html[/url]

Well, he's not very qualified, now is he, whoops

Edited May 27, 2011 by Amppax

[Don John of Austria]

Thank you. I don't dismiss what people say out of hand becuase they lack formal education, but, conversly, I try to give people with substantial formal education a bit more bennifit of the doubt than I do someone without it.



Does that make sense?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306470251' post='2246541']
Thank you. I don't dismiss what people say out of hand becuase they lack formal education, but, conversly, I try to give people with substantial formal education a bit more bennifit of the doubt than I do someone without it.



Does that make sense?
[/quote]

Definitely, I understand.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Amppax

[Don John of Austria]

Well the militia s supposed to be all the adult men, all you have to do is read the founders, even the Federalist, who were the big government guys of thier day assume that everyman will be armed and ready to march on the government if it gets out of line, further that they will be prepared to resist invasion at a local level.

The National Gaurd is what the founders would call a [i]select militia [/i] something specifically mentioned in numerous documents as abad and not what was intended by the militia.



I find the Idea that the tyranny of the Federal government is far fetched humorous, why, becuase it has already happened. The Federal government has already grabbed more authority than it was ever intended to have and has consentrated all the power within its hands.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306470647' post='2246552']
I find the Idea that the tyranny of the Federal government is far fetched humorous, why, becuase it has already happened. The Federal government has already grabbed more authority than it was ever intended to have and has consentrated all the power within its hands.
[/quote]

[Amppax]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1306474910' post='2246642']

[/quote]

yup