The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[Stavros]

It might be helpful to think of the USA as 50 different countries, each with its own government and laws. The original intention of the Revolutionary Congress, as I understand it, was that the Federal government would be of minimal importance across the States, and the reluctance by Washington and the first Congress to establish a standing army was not based on defence or security but driven by reluctance to create the taxes that would need to be levied to pay for it; defence issues were a matter for local communities, and because they had already created their own militias, this seemed to be the best form of defence. I don't believe that Congress ever intended individuals to have rights to arms that were greater than the rights of their communities, which is why the 2nd Amendment refers to militias and not individuals; the Heller judgement in my opinion is a perverse reading of the intentions of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, but offers a contemporary interpretation of it that is also perverse, because the nature of the USA as a federal entity has changed radically in the last 200 years, so that the original assumptions of 18th century politics, as well as the technical level of the arms that were available then compared to now, creates this confusion about then and now.

The right to bear arms is linguistically allied to warfare at any level, be it local, regional, national or international, it does not, for example, refer to a right a farmer might have to own a gun to kill foxes. To 'bear arms' is a military term; pioneers who headed out west or who made a living trapping in the wilds will have had weapons such as guns and knives as part of their work, as well as for personal security. They did not 'bear arms'; they just owned them.

Logically, the 2nd amendment should be changed, as it is now too vague and can be interpreted to mean more than one thing, but that is the one measure that I doubt will happen. Individual states will make it harder to own certain types of weapon, it has been done before, so it is not that controversial. But the right to own weapons as a political right in order to deter the growth of tyrranical government does seem to me to resonate with American history, but must apply to state governments as well as the Federal government; but it does open the door for political extremists who may claim any form of government is a form of tyranny and thereby seek to take arms to end it. At some point, democracy at state level ought to deal with these issues, as I do not believe that most Americans hate their government, be it the Federal one, or the state government.

[Dave32111]

...and we go 'round and 'round again - this is why I don't try to get caught up in these discussions - people respond to what they already think. No one's going to change their mind here.

[trish]

...No one's going to change their mind here.

Speak for yourself.

[trish]

It might be helpful to think of the USA as 50 different countries, each with its own government and laws. The original intention of the Revolutionary Congress, as I understand it, was that the Federal government would be of minimal importance across the States, and the reluctance by Washington and the first Congress to establish a standing army was not based on defence or security but driven by reluctance to create the taxes that would need to be levied to pay for it; defence issues were a matter for local communities, and because they had already created their own militias, this seemed to be the best form of defence. I don't believe that Congress ever intended individuals to have rights to arms that were greater than the rights of their communities, which is why the 2nd Amendment refers to militias and not individuals; the Heller judgement in my opinion is a perverse reading of the intentions of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, but offers a contemporary interpretation of it that is also perverse, because the nature of the USA as a federal entity has changed radically in the last 200 years, so that the original assumptions of 18th century politics, as well as the technical level of the arms that were available then compared to now, creates this confusion about then and now.

The right to bear arms is linguistically allied to warfare at any level, be it local, regional, national or international, it does not, for example, refer to a right a farmer might have to own a gun to kill foxes. To 'bear arms' is a military term; pioneers who headed out west or who made a living trapping in the wilds will have had weapons such as guns and knives as part of their work, as well as for personal security. They did not 'bear arms'; they just owned them.

Logically, the 2nd amendment should be changed, as it is now too vague and can be interpreted to mean more than one thing, but that is the one measure that I doubt will happen. Individual states will make it harder to own certain types of weapon, it has been done before, so it is not that controversial. But the right to own weapons as a political right in order to deter the growth of tyrranical government does seem to me to resonate with American history, but must apply to state governments as well as the Federal government; but it does open the door for political extremists who may claim any form of government is a form of tyranny and thereby seek to take arms to end it. At some point, democracy at state level ought to deal with these issues, as I do not believe that most Americans hate their government, be it the Federal one, or the state government.

Nicely done.

[notdrunk]

It might be helpful to think of the USA as 50 different countries, each with its own government and laws. The original intention of the Revolutionary Congress, as I understand it, was that the Federal government would be of minimal importance across the States, and the reluctance by Washington and the first Congress to establish a standing army was not based on defence or security but driven by reluctance to create the taxes that would need to be levied to pay for it; defence issues were a matter for local communities, and because they had already created their own militias, this seemed to be the best form of defence. I don't believe that Congress ever intended individuals to have rights to arms that were greater than the rights of their communities, which is why the 2nd Amendment refers to militias and not individuals; the Heller judgement in my opinion is a perverse reading of the intentions of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, but offers a contemporary interpretation of it that is also perverse, because the nature of the USA as a federal entity has changed radically in the last 200 years, so that the original assumptions of 18th century politics, as well as the technical level of the arms that were available then compared to now, creates this confusion about then and now.

The right to bear arms is linguistically allied to warfare at any level, be it local, regional, national or international, it does not, for example, refer to a right a farmer might have to own a gun to kill foxes. To 'bear arms' is a military term; pioneers who headed out west or who made a living trapping in the wilds will have had weapons such as guns and knives as part of their work, as well as for personal security. They did not 'bear arms'; they just owned them.

Logically, the 2nd amendment should be changed, as it is now too vague and can be interpreted to mean more than one thing, but that is the one measure that I doubt will happen. Individual states will make it harder to own certain types of weapon, it has been done before, so it is not that controversial. But the right to own weapons as a political right in order to deter the growth of tyrranical government does seem to me to resonate with American history, but must apply to state governments as well as the Federal government; but it does open the door for political extremists who may claim any form of government is a form of tyranny and thereby seek to take arms to end it. At some point, democracy at state level ought to deal with these issues, as I do not believe that most Americans hate their government, be it the Federal one, or the state government.

Shays Rebellion happened during the era of the Articles of Confederation. It was successfully put down by the militia. The First American Regiment (the small standing "army" at the time) didn't participate because it was assigned to the Western Frontier. The rebellion showed the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. The Army didn't expand until after the Battle of the Wabash in 1791. It was an embarrassing defeat against the Indian tribes. The battle led to the creation of the Legion of the United States and passage of the Militia Acts of 1792. After a few years, the Legion of the United States was reorganized into four regiments. The US had its first official standing army but it was small. The Government relied on the militia for 100+ years and it still does to a certain extent.

Bear arms isn't an exclusive military term. The following is from the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Notice the right to bear arms for self defense?

How about the Connecticut Constitution of 1818:

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Notice again the right to bear arms for defense of oneself and the state?

By the way, under Federal law, healthy men between the ages of 17 and 45 are apart of the unorganized militia.

[NYBURBS]

And what - leaving your much vaunted constitutional "rights' aside - is so important about owning semi automatic weapons. Not hand guns. Not shotguns. But the sort used by nujobs and fanatcis to carry out slaughters like Sandy Hook. What do you gun owners NEED them for exactly? I'd love a rational argument on this that isn't circular about rights.

Do you really think the US Government is like Syria and about to turn its military firepower on the populace?

Do you actually know what a semi-automatic weapon is? Have you ever used one? Most handguns now are also semi-automatic. Just an FYI there.

[trish]

Another school shooting today.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-shooting.html

Luckily no one killed.

Another reason to tighten firearm regulation. Still no reason given for the status quo other than "some two hundred year old men living under entirely different circumstances with entirely different weapons technology gave me the right to carry firearms they never heard of."

[notdrunk]

Another school shooting today.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-shooting.html

Luckily no one killed.

Another reason to tighten firearm regulation. Still no reason given for the status quo other than "some two hundred year old men living under entirely different circumstances with entirely different weapons technology gave me the right to carry firearms they never heard of."

Tighten how? He was armed with a shotgun.

P.S.,

The Brady Campaign ranked California as number one with the strongest gun laws in the country. Those old men probably would know what a shotgun could do because there were buck and ball load for their muskets.

[robertlouis]

Tighten how? He was armed with a shotgun.

P.S.,

The Brady Campaign ranked California as number one with the strongest gun laws in the country. Those old men probably would know what a shotgun could do because there were buck and ball load for their muskets.

Which begs the question - WTF was he doing in a school carrying a loaded shotgun in the first place?

[notdrunk]

Which begs the question - WTF was he doing in a school carrying a loaded shotgun in the first place?

Looks like he wanted to kill somebody. He probably stole it from a family member similar to what happened at the Red Lake reservation.