Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun
That said, I do believe that some people have taken the 2nd Amendment to the extreme in using it as a permission slip to buy whatever weapons/arms they wish to define as a "personal defensive weapons". And while neither the NFA nor the GCA prohibit anyone from purchasing certain types of weapons as long as they are of legal age, U.S. citizens, pay the appropriate tax and properly register same, I do think that crack in Pandora's Box where "personal protection" is concerned remains too wide open.
I own quite a few firearms, including assault rifles, high-powered rifles, and things you have expressed as being "unnecessary".
Not one of my weapons has ever been used for any unlawful purpose, despite your concern over their "potential" misuse...nor have 99.9% of other guns in the US.
You don't appear to be very knowlegable about firearms, or crime. For example, you expressed disdain for the idea that someone might need an AK47 to defend against a "burglar" armed with an AK47.
There is a thing called "home invasions", where typically a group of 2-5 or more criminals breaks into a house suddenly, armed, and rapidly takes everyone in the house hostage, threatening the family to force them to tell where the valuables are. When this has been done, the perps not infrequently like to amuse themselves with a bit of torture and rape.
In most of these cases, handguns are the perp's weapons, but high-cap semiauto rifles (ie "assault rifles") have been used as well. IN any case, when facing multiple armed perps breaking into my home with their own guns, I think that a 7.62 rifle with a 30-round magazine is just the thing. I live out in the country and have little worries about overpenetration or nearby neighbors.
Frankly it isn't your place to say what weapons I may own; the fact that you don't seem to know much about guns makes that even more significant. For instance, I wouldn't ask my mechanic for advice on brain surgery...a subject he knows nothing of.
Bringing in things like nukes and stealth bombers, as some have, is a red herring. The second amendment refers to arms used for sporting purposes, self-defense, or militia (INFANTRY) service. Let's apply a tiny smidge of common sense to the issue and not get sidetracked. WMD's and strategic bombers are clearly not "arms" within the purview of the 2A.
The problem with the 2nd Amendment as I see it is that it uses the words "well regulated militia", "security of a free state" and "right of the people" all in the same sentence. However, I don't believe the context matches the content as the situation applies today. Nonetheless, the SCOTUS upheld the state's right to form citizen militias and as such protected the individuals right to keep and bear arms. The question, rightly enough, now becomes what weaponry can a person rightfully possess as weapons that would normally be required of a militia? And since the SCOTUS upheld the state's right to form militias, you rightully have to answer this question in that context. I think it's the wrong way to go, but it is within this framework bywhich the states must address their laws on gun control.
Again, as I've stated in my last post, I believe the intent behind the 2nd Amendment was so that the states could call upon it's residents to take up arms in defense of said state. But we now have other entities to defend the state against a hostile takeover from within (domestic) and without (foreign). Yet, the later part of the 2nd Amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the part that WE, the people continue to fight tooth and nail to preserve. Well, if you take the 2nd Amendment in its entirety and apply it in the content for which it was truly entended, I think most people would agree there's no need for a citizen militia in any state anymore...at least not in the way such was formed two centuries ago. And if there's no need for a militia, then WE, the people no longer need to take up arms in defense of the state inwhich we reside. Again, we have the National Gurd for that (which, of course, is an all-volunteer force). But WE will fight to preserve this right for the sake of "self-protection" which I also agree with.
The national guard was created by the Feds, it is not a militia. As for the "need" for a militia in modern times, shall I quote Admiral Yamamoto (WW2, Japan) when he advised against invading the US mainland? He said: "There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass."
(He wasn't referring to the NG.)
Let's see what the Founders said about private arms and the Militia:
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
On what is the militia:
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment.
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)
"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
On to another matter:
I think the best thing the SCOTUS can do is to take up U.S. -v- Miller again and define what [fire]arms are for personal protection. It's the only way to keep certain types of firearms as identified under the NFA out of the hands of this nation's citizens where they can potentially be used irresponsibly.
So you wish to exercise
prior restraint on otherwise law-abiding citizens becaue of the
potential for irresponsible use?
Do you also favor restricting access (with prior restraint) to printing presses, copy machines, the internet and blogs, because people potentially might use these mediums to incite violence and hate? Would you argue that we no longer need a free press because the government can tell us everything we need to know on TV?
I count myself fortunate that you are not in charge of defending our freedoms.
