BF2S Forums The Right to KEEP and BARE ARMS. What did the Fore Fathers Mean?

AnarkyXtra wrote:

Where did I say anything about explosive decompression? I mentioned decompression in general, and the plane crashing elsewhere as a result of various people - the pilot being my main example - being killed.

Well of course there will be. In a country where all guns are illegal, there will be more illegal guns. Because they're all illegal. Get it? That's the most ridiculous counter argument I've heard in a while.

What, "Guns don't kill people - rappers do"? (a sly GLC reference for any Brits reading).

At the end of the day, what you're talking about is paranoia on a massive scale. The belief that you need to be armed in case your government fails you, or worse - turns on you. You need to be armed because your country might be invaded. You need to be armed because of the criminals out there with weapons.

I don't feel the need to have a gun, thanks very much. I can rest with this fact because a) I don't think my government's gonna turn on me; b) I doubt my country's gonna be invaded in this day and age (although that's exactly what the US have done elsewhere recently); and c) Criminals who use guns in this coutnry aren't common. Read what I said about the female police officer being shot.

Essentially, when you get down to it, your point is you don't trust your own country or it's inhabitants. You distrust them as much as you distrust some fictitious enemy army who's coming to get you. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.

We can go at this forever and neither of us will back down because of what we believe in. I've got to install this new BF2 patch and then try and get some sleep. I'll continue this in the morning, no doubt.

*  In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    * In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    * Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Horseman 77 wrote:

read this He invalidates his own  point.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

SysTray wrote:

Did I say that carjacking was a myth? I merely stated that crajacking was not a reason giving to us by the Constitution to bare arms. When the forefathers said one thing I'm pretty sure they meant one thing. No one can really go back in time and ask them, but there were no cars back in the day, so why would they have wanted us to protect ourselves from it? Carriage-jackers? No.

The reason for the amendment. I.E. The purpose behind making it. The sole purpose. Nothing further.

I see the National Guard as a militia, don't you? They may be an actual organization, but do they go and fight our wars? No. They are here to protect us. We are also entitles to protect ourselves from the grievances stated in the Declaration of Independence. Constitution=Right. You=wrong. No one twists and bends the other amendments to the extent of this one. I don't see why they should bend this one either. MILITIA, people, not huntin'.

So you think that the founders wanted us to protect ourselves from the government and foreign enemies.....but not from criminals in our own country? Wtf man, are you serious?

No, it's not the sole purpose. That's not what the ammendment says. It doesn't restrict it to one purpose in any way. It merely states a reason they're protecting that right. Remember, the right to bear arms is not GRANTED by the Constitution, it's PROTECTED by it. None of the rights are granted; they are rights that we are inherently born with. The right to protect onesself is inherent to human existence.


I'm wrong? Sorry dude, but you're the one disagreeing with the Constitution. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Says it right there. It doesn't say "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed ONLY for the purpose of a militia." You're the one misreading it.

Besides, what are people supposed to hunt with if not guns? Bows and arrows? That's ridiculously inefficient these days.

Yellow 13 wrote:

The fore father should have said bare guns

FeloniousMonk wrote:

http://www.a-human-right.com/

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_comeback.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_advice.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/stopKKK_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/colors4_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_support.jpg

food for thought. more where that came from :p

Last edited by AnarkyXtra (2005-11-23 01:42:10)

Hakula wrote:

Just sometimes I'm happy that I don't live in US. Especially why peopple start to talk about guns. And what did your fore fathers mean by the right to bare arms? Did they mean a .50CAL sniper rifle for home protection or a mortar to protect your corn fields? Where do you draw the line? Ins't enough enough... you should realy think where do you realy need your guns. I mean if you like shooting thats fime bye a gun and shoot with it but for home or self protection? Doesnt a tear gas or pepperspray take the attacker down? Here thay are enough so whats the problem there?

FeloniousMonk wrote:

What the framers meant when they wrote the Constitution was that the right to bear arms wouldn't be infringed. The guy up there seems to think that there's some invisible ink on the document that somehow tells us that it's only for the use of militias but I think he just lacks the ability to interpret a simple sentence.

Last edited by SysTray (2005-11-23 08:27:54)

KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:

...a lot of useless bollocks...

SysTray wrote:

First off, the "Wild west" you're referring to was mid-1800s, not late 1700s.. California Gold Rush, Transcontinental Railroad, Civil War. That era. So yes, in the 1700s there wasless crime, by a lot. Maybe 1/1000th was exxagerated, but it's certainly nowhere near the same.

To rub on their nipples and sing Hotel California? A song made in the 1780s? Naw, can't be. THE ONLY THING ON THE FOUNDING FATHERS' MINDS WAS TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT IN CHECK. NO OTHER IMPORTANT USE FOR GUNS EXISTED. They were thinking that and only that, therefore they meant that and only that. Yes, people hunted back then. They didn't give two shits. Especially now since all I have to do for my fresh meat is to drive two miles down the road to Acme and buy up some pre-packaged beefy goodness.

They didn't mean for every Joe and his mom to have a gun so they could go huntin' or so they could rob the Acme where I buy my beef. But with the wording they used they made people believe that was the use (yourself included). You're the one that needs to learn something m'friend. Grammar isn't your issue; it's interpretation.

Being politically correct has nothing to do with it. I don't call Ghandi an Apache, you don't call Sitting Bull a native of Calcutta. Period.

On a side note: I'm not your son.

I know nothing of Native American history? Everyone and their pets have to know something. I'm sure you did a diorama in 3rd grade on the Battle of Little Bighorn. Yes, ok. It's the nature of humans as a species to be different. If I go to high school again, and I'm a freshman, I'm probably going to get beat up by a senior. If you're an Iroquois, you're probably going to be picked on by some Lenape. Everyone has quarrels you noob. Buddha sure as hell has some fights with his dad for the first 19 years of his life seeing as he never left his palace. This is not the point. The white man brought guns to the Natives. The Native culture barely exists beyond a few reservations now. See a connection? They fought amongst themselves more than ever because of our gunpowder and now what? They aren't a major part of society; that's for sure. They were more peaceful than us, and idiot that's ever watched the history channel for a day knows that. That was little crime and little chaos. Go walk into a tribe one day and see what goes on. (oh wait, you can't, my bad) Provided you find one, you'll see that they are harvesting some corn and not murdering someone for some corn.

I think that if everyone used guns for militia purposes and only militia purposes that we wouldn't have to carry a pistol in our glove compartment for protection from a pistol in someone else's glove compartment. If the criminal didn't have a gun, I'm sure a couple civilians could kick his ass. But he does have a gun because our forefathers told him he was free if he had one. No. He just misinterpreted it, just like you.

THE ONLY THING ON THE FOUNDING FATHERS' MINDS WAS TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT IN CHECK. NO OTHER IMPORTANT USE FOR GUNS EXISTED.

SysTray wrote:

Read this paragraph and tell me if it has anything to do with other than a militia:

"In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7

thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units"

"The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but [i]only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."

Not to go huntin' or to shoot the local robber.

Myth: U.S. v. Miller said that the Second Amendment is not
an individual right
Fact: The Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by
the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had militia use, and the court
wanted evidence presented confirming that citizens have a right to military style
weapons. Since no evidence was taken at the trial level in lower courts, they remanded
the case for a new trial. Specifically the court said:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the
Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of
approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised
all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A
body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when
called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated
militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep
and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this
weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could
contribute to the common defense.”
Fact: Even the US government agreed. Here are some sentences from the brief filed
by the government in the appeal to the Supreme Court:
“The Second Amendment does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear
arms, but merely recognizes the prior existence of that right and prohibits its
infringement by Congress.”
“The "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment are, moreover, those which
ordinarily are used for military or public defense purposes . . .”
“The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and
bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the
prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed by
Congress. Thus the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the
Constitution and therefore is not dependant upon that instrument for its source.”
Gun Facts Version 4.0 Page 59
Copyright 2004, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info All Rights Reserved
Fact: The federal 8th Court of Appeals holds that the Miller case protects an individual
right to keep and bear arms. “Although an individual's right to bear arms is
constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller . . .”306
Fact: Federal courts reject the myth. “We conclude that Miller does not support the
[government's] collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second
Amendment.” 307 They continue, “There is no evidence in the text of the Second
Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘we the people’ have a
different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere . .
.”.
Summary of various court decisions concerning gun
rights
DECISIONS THAT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE, POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, AND IT LIMITS THE AUTHORITY
OF BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS:
• U.S. vs. Emerson, 5 Fed (1999), confirmed an individual right requiring
compelling government interest for regulation.
• Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846) (struck down a ban on sale of small,
easily concealed handguns as violating Second Amendment);
• State v. Chandler, 5 La.An. 489, 490, 491 (1850) (upheld a ban on concealed
carry, but acknowledged that open carry was protected by Second Amendment);
• Smith v. State, 11 La.An. 633, 634 (1856) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but
recognized as protected by Second Amendment "arms there spoken of are such
as are borne by a people in war, or at least carried openly");
• State v. Jumel, 13 La.An. 399, 400 (1858) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but
acknowledged a Second Amendment right to carry openly);
• Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402 (1859) (upheld an enhanced penalty for
manslaughter with a Bowie knife, but acknowledged that the Second Amendment
guaranteed an individual right to possess arms for collective overthrow of the
government);
• In Re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, 70 Pac. 609, 101 Am.St.Rep. 215, 216 (1902) (struck
down a ban on open carry of a revolver in Lewiston, Idaho as violating both
Second Amendment and Idaho Const. guarantee);
• State v. Hart, 66 Ida. 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945) (upheld a ban on concealed carry
as long as open carry was allowed based on both Second Amendment and Idaho
Const. guarantee);
• State v. Nickerson, 126 Mont. 157, 166 (1952) (striking down a conviction for
assault with a deadly weapon, acknowledging a right to carry based on Second
Amendment and Montana Const. guarantee).
306 U.S. v. Hutzel, 8 Iowa, No. 99-3719
307 U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331
Gun Facts Version 4.0 Page 60
Copyright 2004, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info All Rights Reserved
• U.S. v. Hutzell, 8 Iowa, 99-3719, (2000) (cite in dictum that "an individual's right
to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939).").
DECISIONS THAT RECOGNIZED THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
TO POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, BUT ONLY LIMITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
AUTHORITY:
• U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876) (limiting use of the Enforcement Act
of 1870 so that Klansmen could not be punished for mass murder and disarming
of freedmen);
• State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367, 373 (1891) (upholding a ban on carry of
various concealable arms);
• State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921) (overturning a ban on open
carry of pistols based on North Carolina Const., but acknowledging Second
Amendment protected individual right from federal laws).
DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ARGUED OR RAISED AS A LIMITATION ON
STATE LAWS, AND IN WHICH THE COURT RULED THAT IT ONLY LIMITED THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, TACITLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE RIGHT WAS INDIVIDUAL IN NATURE:
• Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 165, 172, 173 (1871);
• Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am.Rep. 556, 557, 558 (1876); State v. Hill, 53 Ga.
472, 473, 474 (1874);
• Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120, 140, 141 (1879); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252,
265, 266 (1886) (upholding a ban on armed bodies marching through the
streets);
• People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 403 (1912); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 636,
226 P. 914 (1924) (upholding a ban on resident aliens possessing handguns).
DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS IMPLIED TO GUARANTEE AN INDIVIDUAL
RIGHT, THOUGH UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER IT LIMITED ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR
STATES AS WELL, BECAUSE THE TYPE OF ARM IN QUESTION WASN'T PROTECTED:
• English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476, 477 (1872)
• State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458, 459 (1875) (upholding a ban on carrying of
handguns, Bowie knives, sword-canes, spears, and brass knuckles);
• People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950) (overturning a
conviction for carrying a concealed handgun and acknowledging that the right in
the Second Amendment was individual);
• Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 827, 828 (1975) (denying that
"concealable hand weapons" were protected by the Second Amendment, but
acknowledging that an individual right protects other firearms).
Gun Facts Version 4.0 Page 61
Copyright 2004, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info All Rights Reserved
DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CLASSED WITH OTHER INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS, WITH NO INDICATION THAT IT WAS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT:
• Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281, 282, 17 S.Ct. 826, 829 (1897); U.S.
v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 1061 (1990).
DECISIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH SHORTER IF THE COURT HAD SIMPLY DENIED
THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTED AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT:
• U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (the Supreme Court upholding the National
Firearms Act of 1934, after district judge released defendants on the grounds that
it violated Second Amendment).

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Illinois and no, I'm not allowed to carry my weapon on me. Oh yeah, Chicago enacted stricter gun control laws for within the city and the crime rate went up again. Oh yeah, gun control works real well.