1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

2nd Amendment Case - False Logic

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by pendennis, Nov 27, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    Odin, one of the arguments by the libs, is that more liberal gun laws, as those in Virginia, contribute to the lawlessness in DC. Where this argument falls apart, is that Virginia legally sells guns to individuals, and that those individuals must be in compliance with their local gun laws.

    This is akin to holding the auto dealer responsible for a person driving drunk.

    Chereminsky's argument falls apart when you differentiate between real and private property. Generally, governments have had the ability through taxes and zoning laws to control real property. Historically, though, private property, such as guns, television sets, appliances, etc. have not been, or very minimally taxed (as in personal property taxes).

    He also errs, in that the Second Amendment specifically applies to guns, therefore superceding any common law property rights arguments to the contrary. Common law is, for the most part, assumed law. However, the Founding Fathers specifically enumerated limits to the government in the first Ten Amendments.

    DC, and those cities with very restrictive gun laws always have had high gun crime rates. The other part of the liberal argument that falls short, is that self-defense by an armed individual does not appear in crime reports, since self-defense is generally not a crime. The FBI Uniform Crime reports don't show the numbers of criminals killed by law abiding citizens.

    Best,
    Dennis
     
  2. IM390

    IM390 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    213
    Actually his statement says "prohibiting ownership is reasonable"... That PHRASE IS NOT REASONABLE. For I think everyone would agree that the second amendment allows some ownernship by a militia. The arguement is then, what is a milita? If the governement wanted to prohibit ownership, a total ban of all guns would be more efficient, but that would be contradictory to the amendment. If none are available, none could be used. What govenment has really done is enacted only ownership of unusable parts and pieces.
     
  3. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    "I think everyone would agree that the second amendment allows some ownernship by a militia."

    That is exactly what it doesn't say. It says "People" and "people" as used in the Bill of Rights means singular persons not collective groups. You have bought into the collective poop put out by liberals and the MSM. You need to do some reading up.

    BTW, the Federal Code defines militia as "every able bodied male over 17".
     
  4. Chango2

    Chango2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,518
    A very liberal and wise man once told me that regulating firearm ownership one way or another very likely would not make any difference in stopping criminal activity. However, I do somewhat worry about gun violence (like a stray bullet finding me in some odd manner; lots of objective dangers in modern life) like I do about reckless drivers; those big "bullets" driven by those people kill at an absurd rate. And I don't see legislation stricter controls re. vehicles.
     
  5. AJKohler

    AJKohler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    330
    Devils Advocate, 10 USC Sect. 311 defines the militia as all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 years of age.

    However, while a 'well-regulated militia' is stated in the Amendment as the rationale for protection of the right to keep and bear arms, it is not restricted to the militia, but by its own words is a right 'of the people.' The Supreme Court has already stated that that phrase has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments. Under Mr. Chereminsky's rationale, it would be quite possible to restrict people's ownership of various literary works - something which most if not all civil libertarians would find absolutely anathema to the First Amendment. It is time to look at the Second through exactly the same wide-angle lens as we do the First.

    Tony
     
  6. tomk2

    tomk2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    320
    I wonder if "well regulated" really meant that each member could be expected to show up when called with a gun and ammo. Wouldn't that have been the only important "regulation" of a citizen militia at the time? I would think that it would be just as easy to argue the meaning of well regulated militia in favor of an individual right as it would for the silly collective right notion.
     
  7. Phil E

    Phil E TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    390
    Joe E: While I agree with the spirit of what you say, I believe the Founding Fathers were concerned not about protecting the government, but rather about protecting our freedom FROM the government. The purpose of including the Second Amendment was to make it clear that self-armed citizens banding together to protect the Republic from its government, may at some time be needed, and so should always be available. Tom K: The "regulated" part was that they drilled together, to stay prepared for "what if." See David T. Hardy's wonderful little book "Origins & Development of the Second Amendment." Also Stephen Halbrook's very heavily-footnoted "That Every Man be Armed." Phil E
     
  8. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    Part of the argument for the "militia" was that it would server two purposes -

    First, the militia would be the first line of defense in case of danger to the Republic. At the time of the birth of the Republic, there was little desire to have a standing army. It was felt that the standing army would be a danger within the Republic. America had seen the troubles that had bled Europe during the Seven Years War, and many times in the past.

    Second, as mentioned earlier, there was a real fear of an overly strong central government. The thirteen colonies, now states, were overtly suspicious of the powers of a strong central government. The several colonies had given up a great deal of individual powers to become a union, and they wanted to maintain as much autonomy as possible. They also feared each other. Powerful colonies such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, and others were feared by Delaware and other smaller ones. No one really trusted the new Constitution.

    Best,
    Dennis
     
  9. Big Al 29

    Big Al 29 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,109
    2nd Amendment purpose: God forbid anything happen in our country as a whole or to a specific area where police, National Guard, or Regular Military can not protect us due to dissolvement or impediment, WE the people of the United States could become the greatest insurgency the world has ever seen and protect ourselves and defend the town, state, nation.

    Besides the Atlantic and Pacific oceans being our greatest protectors from foreign enemies I can guarantee any country, Jihad, etc... thinks twice before because they know we all own guns and it would be pretty damned hard to scare or make the people do as they want. Think about 9-11. Perfect situation for terrorists because they know no one would be armed and they could overpower and do as they needed.

    Do that on a bus in the middle of Phila. I can guarantee someone is packing some heat.

    I think back to the bullshit the people went through in New Orleans when the mayor or Governor ordered the police to take every one's guns. That's total bullshit. Our second amendment is there EXACTLY for that type of situation. No police, no protection, so we have to protect ourselves and our brothers.

    I love the pic that was floating around the Internet where the men of a small town are at the town limit with a sheet of plywood with the words "Looters Welcome" and about 20-30 guys with their rifles stand ready to defend their town.

    God bless the USA!!!

    I said my peace. Thanks
     
  10. Beancounter

    Beancounter TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    482
    The people on this site are passionate gun owners and God bless us every one. However, I do not believe there are any constitutional law scholars here (including me). Definitions of militia are really moot. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the right our founding fathers were providing.

    I do not believe that stuff about describing or defining a militia has a part in the argument. If the founders had wanted it to read otherwise, it would have said that all militia members can have guns, or only militia members can have guns. But that is not what the document says. It says very very clearly, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    semper fi
     
  11. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    HaveGun, part of the argument, like it or not, is the confusing structure of the sentence. It states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Those who question the validity of the individual rights definition, like to use the first phrase as the cornerstone of their argument. They also like to use the term "well regulated" to mean gun control, when the original definition obviously means well-equipped or standardized. Militia always meant those able-bodied males who could take up arms.

    Now, will the anti-Second Amendment folks accept these definitions? Not likely, but we pro-Second Amendment folks have to keep the correct definitions out here in the public domain to ensure that our argument stays alive.

    Go Navy!!

    Best,
    Dennis
     
  12. Beancounter

    Beancounter TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    482
    pendennis - if the founders were alive today - the first part of the sentence would not exist. As you know, you have to know something about the founders to understand the way they wrote. At any rate, I am on the pro gun side - I will die with the rest of you on the pro gun side.
     
  13. tomk2

    tomk2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    320
    Now Jimmy, TS.com etiquette demands that you provide not only a link to something you want to refer to, but also a cut and paste of the passages you feel support your stance. Trapshooters who post here can't even be bothered to reference an online ATA rule book, how can we be expected to search the net for something hundreds of years old! LOL.


    "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.............

    ...........That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack.........."

    The rest seemed to be just a bunch of stuff about how the militia men would be organized into larger units and stuff. It was the first requirement, that you have a gun and answer the call that made an impression on me. So when will it be argued that firearm ownership should be restricted to white males aged 18 to 45? Now that would certainly narrow down the trophy list at your next shoot.
     
  14. timb99

    timb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,330
    Location:
    Shawnee, Kansas, USA
    True, the wording is a little odd, but what of this sentence?

    "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

    Would anyone read this to say that the only people who can possess books must be something like a registered voter with a high-school diploma?

    I don't read it that way at all.

    (BTW I didn't make this up myself. I got it from the link. Good stuff, have a look.)
     
  15. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Sef-defense and defense of the nation against tyranny is not "property". Firearms are the objects which make this concept work.
     
  16. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    McCain came to Oregon and helped ram gun control crap down our throats. I will never vote for that (censored).
     
  17. AJKohler

    AJKohler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    330
    Can't say that I'd never vote for McCain - or Giuliani. I didn't vote for McCain the last time he ran for the Senate; I cast no vote in that race. But if the choice is either McCain or Giuliani vs. Hillary, Obama or whoever the Democrats have running, then I shall indeed hold my nose and vote for the Republican. Not because I want them; I don't think either one should be in the White House. But the alternative is so much worse that failing to give even my one meager vote to try to stop them is, as I see it, failing my children, my country and my fellow gun owners.

    The last time I failed to vote for the Republican in a presidential race was Nixon vs. McGovern. My vote hardly mattered in that one, and I was in a VERY liberal precinct anyway. Sometimes I vote FOR the Republican; sometimes I merely vote AGAINST the Democrat. But good or bad, I vote for the Republican.

    Haven't voted FOR a presidential candidate since Reagan. Unfortunately.

    Tony
     
  18. Doctor_Chicago

    Doctor_Chicago Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Chicago and Cleveland
    That guy doesn't know what he is talking about...

    Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right

    The Supreme Court will act favorably on this issue

    and we will get some justice on these matters and start reversing all this crap that has built up in the last 40-70 years.
     
  19. AJKohler

    AJKohler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    330
    Perhaps the greatest fallacy in the collective rights view of the Second Amendment is that nowhere in the Bill of Rights is a right granted to the states, or reserved to them. The Bill speaks of 'powers' reserved by the states, but 'rights' are exclusively individual rights of the people. The collective rights view invents the concept of a non-individual right, primarily (as I see it) to be able to ignore a specific right which the proponents of the collective rights view dislike.

    Tony
     
  20. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    Tony, well said! People enjoy rights because they can logically and morally understand those rights on others. That's why this idea of "animal rights" is so ridiculous. No animal is capable of logically understanding my rights.

    Likewise, "collective rights" seems to be oxymoronic on its face. The very idea that a collective should be able to determine my rights erodes to mob rule.

    Best,
    Dennis
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page

content