I'll spell it out for you.

As contempory of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton writes, well regulated means more that Fo2's singular "well maintained" or "well-equipped" definition.

Therefore the well regulated phrase of the Second Amendment reaffirms the regulatory authority over the militia given to Congress in Article 1 Section 8.

quote:

---

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

---

-ACLU

I'll avoid any childish ending statements.

quote:

---

Yes, but the militia only becomes an actual part of the military at such time as they are called into service, ala a draft or invasion. Thus, the regulation portion does not apply to private citizens.

---

I've got a couple of things to say about this and the individual's Constitutional right to own firearms outside of the context of militia...because this is afterall the crux of the argument...I was just waiting for the other side to figure that out...

But I'm very busy at work so it will have to wait.

------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

Come on, Jeff, we beat the snot out of you on that one, too. Do you REALLY want to bring that thread back from the dead? Or do you forget your failures that fast?

but they've been hitting things pretty clearly on the gun issue.

No, they haven't, as I have just shown.

Second, you still haven't responded to this point:

Yes, I have. I responded by saying that criminals have no rights, as such, because there is not necessarily such a thing as an ex-criminal. Once you're arrested, you have no rights, beyond that of avoiding cruel and unusual punishment, and your rights are only reinstated at the instruction of local or state law. If that's never, well, that's your fault.

Daniel:

Why do we need guns in the first place?

To defend ourselves from those who have malicious intent.

Do we really need them for protection and recreational purposes?

Yes.

Would it be so horrible if we restricted firearms completely from the American public?

Yes.

Answer these questions please, using logical, rational statements supported by evidence without making exceptions to the points you are making, and perhaps we will get somewhere useful.

I did. Look up the preceeding thread, a couple pages before the end. I pointed out several different surveys that contained the statistic that Americans use firearms to prevent crimes at a bare minimum of several hundred thousand times a year, and quite likely more. I also pointed to a refutation of the statistic that it's more like tens of thousands, obtained by a single survey, before anyone points that out.

Also, how would you propose taking guns away from all criminals, at the same time you took them from non-criminals? They wouldn't just turn them in.

I would like to point out that I believe Japan bans use of firearms by any persons other than the police or armed forces, and they seem to make out just fine.

Britan did the same thing, and their crime rate sucks royally.

Jay:

Therefore the well regulated phrase of the Second Amendment reaffirms the regulatory authority over the militia given to Congress in Article 1 Section 8.

Except that it ISN'T LAW! Do you need Rob to diagram the sencence for you again? Or shall he just copy and paste the previous post where he shot your entire argument down, which you apparently ignored? That phrase of the sentence is an explaination, not a qualification. The second ammendment gives NO POWER to regulate a militia, and even if we assume that such power as granted in Article I gave the power to restrict private ownership of firearms (which it didn't), the Second AMMENDMENT overrides it. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed." Why is this law so hard for you to grasp?

quote:

---

Come on, Jeff, we beat the snot out of you on that one, too. Do you REALLY want to bring that thread back from the dead? Or do you forget your failures that fast?

---

If you say so, kid.

quote:

---

Yes, I have. I responded by saying that criminals have no rights, as such, because there is not necessarily such a thing as an ex-criminal. Once you're arrested, you have no rights, beyond that of avoiding cruel and unusual punishment, and your rights are only reinstated at the instruction of local or state law. If that's never, well, that's your fault.

---

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed."

Now, who shall not infringe it? Why, the government shall not! Well, which government? Why -- any government!

*GASP!* It says specificly that the right to own a gun shall not be infringed! The government on any level can't touch it! Your explanation is only valid if you agree on government regulation.

quote:

---

To defend ourselves from those who have malicious intent.

---

Sadly, it is often people with guns who have malicious intent.

quote:

---

Would it be so horrible if we restricted firearms completely from the American public?

---

It'd be great.

quote:

---

I did. Look up the preceeding thread, a couple pages before the end. I pointed out several different surveys that contained the statistic that Americans use firearms to prevent crimes at a bare minimum of several hundred thousand times a year, and quite likely more.

---

We gotta do this again? Actually, the number is just over 100,000. Since the others who claim they used their guns to ward off crime:

a) didn't report it to the authorities, it ain't official, no much how Omega wants to believe it so

b) there's no guarantee that there was a legitimate threat (the police coulda made that determination)

c) they could be exaggerating to impress the poll-ster (they could either be making up instances out of thin-air, or relating incidents which happened months or years ago as having happened more recently)

d) since Omega's numbers were gained by a phone-poll, you've got the problem of oversampling.

These are just some of the problems with Omega's figures. Not to mention that he recently dropped the number "two-million", so he's being really inconsistent with this stuff and is hard to believe. Refer to the previous thread for more information on why Omega's source is highly un-reliable.

quote:

---

Also, how would you propose taking guns away from all criminals, at the same time you took them from non-criminals? They wouldn't just turn them in.

---

Well, Omega, considering that most of those now-illegal guns were at one time legal guns which could quite possibly still be owned by their legal owner is someone had thought to include a gun lock or a gun safe ... careless people shouldn't own guns. Not that you care.

quote:

---

Britan did the same thing, and their crime rate sucks royally.

---

Ah, well, at least you're consistent with spelling my name wrong. What's your source for this?

quote:

---

The second ammendment gives NO POWER to regulate a militia, and even if we assume that such power as granted in Article I gave the power to restrict private ownership of firearms (which it didn't), the Second AMMENDMENT overrides it. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed." Why is this law so hard for you to grasp?

---

You keep avoiding the question, Omega. If the right can't be infringed, why do you support keeping guns away from those who have committed crimes and served their time? The only answer is that you believe the government has the right to regulate handguns.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that you're screaming over the government regulations, when you're clearly in support of some of them? Please elaborate, because as far as I can tell, you're being a hypocrite.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 01, 2001).]

I've answered this. CRIMINALS HAVE NO RIGHTS. Period. Once you commit and are convicted of a felony, your rights are non-existant, until such time as they are reinstated by law. Or do you think that people IN PRISON should be allowed to have guns?

Unsurprisingly, you're not arguing against my point that the government can't regulate private ownership of guns anymore. You, in your limited view, are presenting me with two choices: either the government can regulate EVERYONE's guns, or the government must allow even INCARCERATED CRIMINALS to have guns. Can you honestly not see a third option? Are you so blind?

And since that's the only point you made of any kind...

quote:

---

I've answered this. CRIMINALS HAVE NO RIGHTS. Period. Once you commit and are convicted of a felony, your rights are non-existant, until such time as they are reinstated by law. Or do you think that people IN PRISON should be allowed to have guns?

---

We're not talking about incarcerated criminals anywhere. When have I mentioned them once?

We're talking about people who have committed crimes, gone to jail, and been released. By your view of the 2nd Ammendment, they should have the right to own guns. And yet, you argue that they shouldn't have that right. If the government can't regulate guns, how do you determine that they can't have that right?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

No, they shouldn't, for reasons I've now explained several times.

Now, see, there's nothing in the Second Ammendment about restricting someone's rights after they've done their time. There's nothing in the Constitution about it, either. And, Mr. Diagram-The-Damn-Sentance, you seem to be reaching outside of your previous arguments to make that asertion. Frankly, it's not in league with your "Precise!" interpretation of the Constitution. It's contradictory and hypocritical.

The only way you could possibly agree that ex-cons be forbidden from owning guns is if you agree that the government has the right to restrict said ownership.

See ... keeping guns from ex-criminals = regulation. No matter how you look at it.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

However, from the 2nd Amendment, it could be interpreted that the US government cannot regulate this. To legislate it might be against the constitution.

Fortunately, I don't believe in that interpretation. I am of the belief that the 2nd amendment is so horrifically outdated that it should have been repealed long ago. Do we seriously need state militias when we have the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, Coast Guard, etc.? Do you think anyone would actually ATTEMPT to invade our country by land? The concept is absurd.

Unfortunately, many look on the right to bear arms as an inalienable right to which every living soul in the world, (sans terrorists et al, of course), should have because such weapons are SO important in our daily lives. Somehow, this still escapes me. Perhaps someone who supports this right could explain to me more fully why it is neccessary. Besides protection, what do these weapons do for us? You feel more secure having a weapon in the house. You have fun shooting things. THIS is an inalienable right?

Example: Say I kill someone. The law could easily say, "This person will be punished by having his right to own a firearm revoked. He will also spend the next twenty years in prison, after which time he will be released, subject to good behavior."

If you commit a crime, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, except those specifically devoted to you as a criminal (trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc.). The applicable government can do whatever it wants to you. If the lawmakers want to execute you for simply pointing a gun at someone, that's well within their rights. So if they can revoke every other right that a criminal previously had, why not this one?

See ... keeping guns from ex-criminals = regulation.

I obviously disagree, but even if you were rights, Jeff, I would contend that a convicted criminal is no longer one of "the people" whose rights are protected by the Constitution.

And again, I point out that you no longer make any argument against my Constitutional interpretation. Care to explain to the group why that is? Did you finally realize that I was right, or what?

Daniel:

As he stated, a criminal's rights are reinstated after they have carried out their sentence. They once again become full and viable citizens of the United States.

Not if the law says otherwise. If there's a qualification that affects you for the rest of your life after you've commited a crime, you have NEVER fully carried out your sentence. You're still being punished, and are therefore no longer a "full and viable citizen", short of having the sentence revoked.

Look at it like being on parole for the rest of your life. Parolees can't own firearms if the law and judge say so, now can they?

Besides protection, what do these weapons do for us?

You need something else? Protection of self, family, and property sounds like a pretty DARNED good reason to me.

What I am trying to say is that any criminal who has fully carried out his/her sentence, (i.e., shorter than life term with parole completed), has the right to bear arms restored to him. Unless another crimes has been committed after the fact, this right cannot be denied him/her.

So, according to the current interpretation, (your own), of the 2nd amendment, you cannot legislate against ex-convicts who have FULLY carried out their sentences.

"Hey you, you committed a manslaughter seven years ago, and even though you've done your time, we say you can't own a gun."

You've said it as best as anyone could. However, Omega will no doubt still not respond to the question and continue to say "the criminal has no rights!!" Apparently, he's not very big on "forgiveness", so once a criminal always a criminal.

You wanna respond, Ommie?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Not if his sentence INCLUDES perpetual revocation of his right to own a weapon. In that instance, his sentence can NEVER be completely carried out, by definition.

Think about it this way: if the government has the right to put you in jail for the rest of your life as punishment for a crime (as I'm sure all participants in this discussion agree that it does), why would it not have the right to do the far lesser thing of removing your right to own a gun, again as punishment for a crime?

We're not talking about punishment after a sentence has been completed. We're talking about something that is an integral part of that sentence.

And yet again, I ask Jeff: do you no longer have any objection to my argument on the unconstitutionality of the government regulation of private ownership of firearms? You have masterfully attempted to drive us off topic, but to no avail. Please, answer the question, eh?

quote:

---

And yet again, I ask Jeff: do you no longer have any objection to my argument on the unconstitutionality of the government regulation of private ownership of firearms?

---

No, I still have objection to your view of the Constitution and how it applies to the Second Ammendment. I don't belief it's a realistic (in view of contemporary law) way of looking at the situation, although you certainly are quite an eloquent speaker in your defense of your beliefs.

quote:

---

You have masterfully attempted to drive us off topic, but to no avail. Please, answer the question, eh?

---

Why thank you, sir, but I must disagree with your assertion that the question posed was off topic. By the strict definition of the Constitution, the rights of the citizen to own and bare a weapon cannot be infringed, yet the citizen who commits a crime and serves his time, after release, has that right infringed upon. There is a conflict which can only be resolved by the government having the right to regulate.

quote:

---

Not if his sentence INCLUDES perpetual revocation of his right to own a weapon. In that instance, his sentence can NEVER be completely carried out, by definition.

---

While I agree that this is a step which the government (at either state or Federal level) should look at implementing, to override the Second Ammendment (per your definition), it would have to be done as an Ammendment to the Constitution. Since it hasn't been, we can conclude one of two things:

a) The government is violating the Constitution by refusing to allow former convicts the right to possess and use firearms.

or ...

b) The government has the authority to regulate the Second Ammendment.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Plain simple and to the point, the Constiution gives Congress the right to regulate the militia and offers no guarantee to the ownership of firearms without an express connection with said militia.

quote:

---

Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

---

There is a defacto right to regulate in the fact that nuclear weapons are not allowed for private use. I believe that the Second Amendment and the appropriate portions of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution supports that defacto right.

Your attempts to show otherwise were ignorant of the document you choose to argue from and distinctly lacking historical and judicial evidence.

The argument becomes what constitutes a reasonable restriction on the militia and weapons. But at this point I refuse to waste any more of my time on you regarding this issue. I would advise others do the same, that way your simpering foolishness and protruding ego will both die out like weeds that are not watered.

------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns