Why the 2nd Amendment may no longer be revelent to the Federal Government

[Variable]

Agreed, but this part can be considered no longer relevant.

First, almost all modern military weapons are not available to the vast majority of private citizens, therefore competency is not possible.

Second, necessary training for most modern weapons is provided by the armed forces.

However, the Federalist papers are not law. What is in the Constitution is what the OP addressed.

The M4 carbine (the musket of our day) may not be available to the vast majority of private citizens, but it should be. That would be directly within the intent of the second amendment. The same as M9's, M14's, M1's, M1 carbines, M2 carbines, SAW's, M60's, 870's, 590's, etc., etc., etc... all either ARE or SHOULD be. The NFA was a travesty, and should have never happened. It needs abolished. The Federal .gov's denying us of our inalienable rights does not make them less relevant. It makes the .gov despotic.

The DOD does provide training to it's members, but it does not assist "the people" as a whole in acquiring that competency. Further evidence of our being denied the chance by the government. They could equip and train us like the Swiss, or simply stop infringing on our rights.

The whole story of U.S. vs. Miller makes my head nearly explode every time I even think about it. That was one of the biggest shams ever pulled on "the people". The whole story reads like very bad fiction, and it's extremely hard to believe it even did happen. Those bastards should have been held directly accountable for the stunt they pulled off.

That the entire NFA doesn't comprise an unconstitutional infringement is a farce on it's very face, and that BS needs corrected.

Lest people think I'm unreasonable and insisting on a 2nd Amnd. right to nuclear warheads, I would be amenable to possible NFA type restrictions on crew served weapons and above, as they do not normally comprise "individual" weapons. They might be argued as unsuitable for individual militia member (whether organized or not) usage on those grounds. It might be suitable for them to be treated differently. Even then I wonder though. I seriously doubt George Washington would have taken issue with my possessing a 6 pounder.... If anything, that's where the debate should lie in reference to protected arms possession. Should "Variable" have a "right" possess an 81mm mortar? A 155mm howitzer? I'd vote for allowing it (LOL), but I'm not sure it'd be a "right". That's where our debate should be.

Look how far they've pushed the "Overton Window" on us.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

It's sickening that they've been allowed to get away with it, and now they are trying to push it even farther.

[stanc]

The M4 carbine (the musket of our day) may not be available to the vast majority of private citizens, but it should be. That would be directly within the intent of the second amendment.

Semi-auto versions of the M4 are available to most private citizens. Indeed, that is what the current controversy over school shootings is centered on.

The same as M9's, M14's, M1's, M1 carbines, M2 carbines, SAW's, M60's, 870's, 590's, etc., etc., etc... all either ARE or SHOULD be. The NFA was a travesty, and should have never happened. It needs abolished. The Federal .gov's denying us of our inalienable rights does not make them less relevant. It makes the .gov despotic.

Clearly, many people view such restrictions as reasonable, not despotic.

The DOD does provide training to it's members, but it does not assist "the people" as a whole in acquiring that competency. Further evidence of our being denied the chance by the government. They could equip and train us like the Swiss, or simply stop infringing on our rights.

Yeah, they could...but they won't.

Lest people think I'm unreasonable and insisting on a 2nd Amnd. right to nuclear warheads, I would be amenable to possible NFA type restrictions on crew served weapons and above, as they do not normally comprise "individual" weapons.

Trouble is, the 2A does not distinguish between individual and crew served weapons, or conventional and nuclear arms.

I seriously doubt George Washington would have taken issue with my possessing a 6 pounder.... If anything, that's where the debate should lie in reference to protected arms possession. Should "Variable" have a "right" possess an 81mm mortar? A 155mm howitzer? I'd vote for allowing it (LOL), but I'm not sure it'd be a "right". That's where our debate should be.

I disagree. That would not solve the problem of mass shootings, which have been increasing in frequency and number of victims. The only way I can think of that might put a brake on such incidents is to apply the NFA to all selfloading firearms. I once read that there has been only a single instance of a legally possessed NFA weapon having been used in a crime. If true, that's an extremely good record.

[Variable]

Semi-auto versions of the M4 are available to most private citizens. Indeed, that is what the current controversy over school shootings is centered on.
"Semi-Auto" versions aren't actually M4s. The NFA is unconstitutional, and you have just as much right to an M4 in your abode as Pvt. Jones does on post.

Clearly, many people view such restrictions as reasonable, not despotic.
Their "view" is irrelavent. Unless they repeal the 2nd Amendment, our rights are our RIGHTS.

Yeah, they could...but they won't.Agreed. They couldn't stand the thought of a free and vibrant people.

Trouble is, the 2A does not distinguish between individual and crew served weapons, or conventional and nuclear arms.
Hence the importance of original intent. A nuclear weapon is pretty obviously not a militia weapon. An HK MP7, FN P90, or a "real" M4 clearly would be.

I disagree. That would not solve the problem of mass shootings, which have been increasing in frequency and number of victims.False. Frequency and number has not increased at all. That is a fallacy that they are gleefully spreading. The only way I can think of that might put a brake on such incidents is to apply the NFA to all selfloading firearms. I once read that there has been only a single instance of a legally possessed NFA weapon having been used in a crime. If true, that's an extremely good record.

"Solving" the problem of mass shootings is a red herring. If you snapped your fingers and every small arm on planet earth disappeared instantly, then a month from now they'd be asking "how do we solve the problem of mass ________ (insert method of killing here)? If I were a would-be mass killer, I could just as easily accomplish the task with a five gallon can of gasoline, explosives, an F350 truck, etc., etc., etc......

Arson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupont_Plaza_Hotel_arson

Explosives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

We could go on and on. Murder is already illegal. We have a RIGHT to bear arms, allowing that right to be stolen in violation of the US Constitution will not stop people with evil intent from killing.

If a "madman" steals a dump truck and plows it through a crowded school yard during recess, will the victims be any less dead because a firearm wasn't used? The entire argument really is that simple. They don't care about that. They simply seek to disarm us by any means possible, and since they can't get them all at once, they are content to take them in slices. They must be stopped, or this republic will be lost.

ETA: NFA registration for all semi's? I'm seriously starting to worry about you Stan. Think about it for just a second.... The reason that legal NFA weapons have very rarely been involved in crime is because criminals don't bother to comply with the NFA. It's reeeaaaaallllllyyyy that simple. Crooks bent on committing crimes don't bother to submit their fingerprints to the ATF (unless they are applying for employment there that is...).

Please tell me you are just being intentionally obtuse. Law abiding gun owners don't commit crimes. OK, derrrr. Because if they were committing crimes they wouldn't be law abiding would they? Also, a legal NFA weapon ceases to be a "legal" one once it's stolen, hence the fabulous record for "legal" NFA arms.

Future criminals will simply print their weapons anyway.

[BjornF16]

:confused: Huh? You say I'm incorrect, then cite Presser, which says the same as I did -- that the people are a reserve militia.

Yes, because you previously stated: "The 2nd Amendment addresses only "well regulated" (official and organized) militias." - which is totally incorrect. I cited Presser because SCOTUS said in Presser that everyone (i.e. "the people") was the reserve militia and the 2A applied to all of us. (I'm inferring you are saying that since it applies only to "well regulated (official and organized) militias", then it doesn't apply to the average Joe).

My point was again validated by SCOTUS decision in US v Miller (1939), which applied the 2A "militia" standard to a private citizen who was found with a SBS that was not "stamped". In this case, the court searched for use of a SBS in the "militia" to see if it was in common use before saying whether or not it could be regulated under NFA of 1934.

Not quite. It (well regulated) actually meant organized and trained for military operations.

Not completely accurate. It did not mean "organized and trained for military operations" in the context we would organize and train today. How could it? It consisted of yeomanry. When combined with the ending of the 2A (the right to keep and bear arms) it can be inferred to mean "practiced and skilled in firearms"

"Security" refers to maintaining the territorial integrity of the state and well being of its citizens, not to marksmanship training or access to bullets.

I respectfully disagree. Security here means the "maintenance of a free country", not the territorial integrity of the state (but I will agree with the "well being of its citizens, since that is synonymous with being "free"). If, however, you mean territorial integrity in the sense of repelling an invasion, then I don't necessarily disagree since you can't very well maintain your freedom if you've been invaded.

The Presser court's opinion was that the states were prohibited from disarming "all citizens capable of bearing arms" because it conflicted with the federal government's right to a reserve military force and the militia powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.

My point (supported by Supreme Court, and other courts) is "the people" + firearms + ammunition = the 2A militia. Why do I make a point about ammunition? Because it was the Brit's attempt at confiscating powder that precipitated the "shot heard 'round the world". Do you really think that did not play into the 2A?

A "reserve militia" is useless without firearms+ammo and the skill to employ them.

Try reading in the context of: "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State (or Country) therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[BjornF16]

The M4 carbine (the musket of our day) may not be available to the vast majority of private citizens, but it should be. That would be directly within the intent of the second amendment. The same as M9's, M14's, M1's, M1 carbines, M2 carbines, SAW's, M60's, 870's, 590's, etc., etc., etc... all either ARE or SHOULD be. The NFA was a travesty, and should have never happened. It needs abolished. The Federal .gov's denying us of our inalienable rights does not make them less relevant. It makes the .gov despotic.

The DOD does provide training to it's members, but it does not assist "the people" as a whole in acquiring that competency. Further evidence of our being denied the chance by the government. They could equip and train us like the Swiss, or simply stop infringing on our rights.

The whole story of U.S. vs. Miller makes my head nearly explode every time I even think about it. That was one of the biggest shams ever pulled on "the people". The whole story reads like very bad fiction, and it's extremely hard to believe it even did happen. Those bastards should have been held directly accountable for the stunt they pulled off.

That the entire NFA doesn't comprise an unconstitutional infringement is a farce on it's very face, and that BS needs corrected.

Lest people think I'm unreasonable and insisting on a 2nd Amnd. right to nuclear warheads, I would be amenable to possible NFA type restrictions on crew served weapons and above, as they do not normally comprise "individual" weapons. They might be argued as unsuitable for individual militia member (whether organized or not) usage on those grounds. It might be suitable for them to be treated differently. Even then I wonder though. I seriously doubt George Washington would have taken issue with my possessing a 6 pounder.... If anything, that's where the debate should lie in reference to protected arms possession. Should "Variable" have a "right" possess an 81mm mortar? A 155mm howitzer? I'd vote for allowing it (LOL), but I'm not sure it'd be a "right". That's where our debate should be.

Look how far they've pushed the "Overton Window" on us.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

It's sickening that they've been allowed to get away with it, and now they are trying to push it even farther.

They got away with NFA of 1934 because it didn't prohibit anything, it just "taxed" it. Much like ObamaCare mandate was upheld as a "tax".

What IS a travesty is the prohibitions on owning automatics that was snuck into the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 in the middle of the night, via a "voice vote" that didn't truly pass but was rammed through via the "opinion of the chair".

We saw this absurdity occur at the Democrat National Convention when they rammed through a change in platform language that clearly did not carry the voice vote, but was approved anyways via the "opinion of the chair" after the third vote.

I saw it again just a week ago in the US House of Representatives with Republicans in control...the "opinion of the chair" was once again in clear contrast to the voice vote.

Disgusting...

Anyways, I agree with Variable that we SHOULD be allowed to own these arms without interference from the government...IF the light infantry or local law enforcement can have a particular weapon, then so should we!

[cory]

They got away with NFA of 1934 because it didn't prohibit anything, it just "taxed" it. Much like ObamaCare mandate was upheld as a "tax".

I disagree it is not like the obama care mandate. The 2nd clearly states "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon". A tax is clearly an infringement.

The administration clearly believes that requiring a "costly" ID to vote infringes upon an individual's right to vote. Should that shame idea not apply to the 2nd?

[stanc]

ETA: NFA registration for all semi's? I'm seriously starting to worry about you Stan.

I'm not advocating it, Chris. I just said it was the only idea that came to mind that seemed like it might reduce the incidents of mass shootings, and still allow most private citizens to "keep and bear" military-style semi-autos.

Please excuse me for not responding to the rest of your post, but it is simply much too difficult and takes far too long for me to type replies using one, very shaky finger. (ETA: This post took me nearly a full hour, and the previous post was close to three hours.) It was a mistake to think I still have the ability to engage in such involved discussions. Perhaps if/when I get voice dictation software installed...

[grin&dull]

as was perfectly stated above (in #23 by Variable) this is just the start of a much bigger agenda, give in on this and it doesn't end, they'll just be back for the next item on their list.
a guy that would stand in the blood of murdered children to try to look like a leader is not someone I'd want to meet unarmed.

[BjornF16]

I disagree it is not like the obama care mandate. The 2nd clearly states "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon". A tax is clearly an infringement.

The administration clearly believes that requiring a "costly" ID to vote infringes upon an individual's right to vote. Should that shame idea not apply to the 2nd?

Cory, I'm not advocating it, just saying that is the rationale of Congress and the Courts...they can tax anything they want. ObamaCare mandate is ruled a tax by SCOTUS.

US v Miller (1939) showed they can get away with taxing firearms, as long as it wasn't a weapon "in common use" with the militia. They didn't prohibit anything, just taxed the weapons of interest (short barreled rifles/shotguns, suppressors, automatics) since they were heavily involved with crime in the early 30's (that was their rationale).

I agree with Variable (and you) that NFA of 1934 should have never have happened, and should have been thrown out. Unfortunately, SCOTUS ruled and it is the law of the land.

But what I have said previously, I don't understand how the FOPA of 1986 banning automatics wasn't challenged based upon the precedence of US v Miller (1939) since automatics are clearly "in common use" in the military. If it was challenged (I am not aware of it), I can't believe they would ignore precedence (ok, with today's libtard courts, I can believe it).

[BjornF16]

I'm not advocating it, Chris. I just said it was the only idea that came to mind that seemed like it might reduce the incidents of mass shootings, and still allow most private citizens to "keep and bear" military-style semi-autos.

Please excuse me for not responding to the rest of your post, but it is simply much too difficult and takes far too long for me to type replies using one, very shaky finger. (ETA: This post took me nearly a full hour, and the previous post was close to three hours.) It was a mistake to think I still have the ability to engage in such involved discussions. Perhaps if/when I get voice dictation software installed...

Glad to see you back on the forum Stan...

[cory]

Cory, I'm not advocating it, just saying that is the rationale of Congress and the Courts...they can tax anything they want. ObamaCare mandate is ruled a tax by SCOTUS.

BjornF16 I didn't mean to imply you were, I was only disagreeing with your justification analysis and the courts rationale. I do belief a flaw of the constitution has been to not put a check on the courts.

[BjornF16]

BjornF16 I didn't mean to imply you were, I was only disagreeing with your justification analysis and the courts rationale. I do belief a flaw of the constitution has been to not put a check on the courts.

But there is a check on the courts...they're called Amendments to the Constitution. in some cases, Congress can pass laws to check the courts as long as the legislation is constitutional.

[cory]

But there is a check on the courts...they're called Amendments to the Constitution. in some cases, Congress can pass laws to check the courts as long as the legislation is constitutional.

How are the amendment checks when the courts are free to interpret them in any way that suits them best?

[BjornF16]

How are the amendment checks when the courts are free to interpret them in any way that suits them best?

Since George Washington, tradition held that a president was limited to 2 terms in office. FDR blew that off. Consequently, there was an Amendment to limit a President to 10 years in office. Kind of hard to interpret that any other way...

Congress tried passing a line item veto to control pork spending...courts struck it down as unconstitutional. Passing an amendment that clearly spells out the cases in which it could be applied would make it "constitutional".

[Variable]

No problemo Stan! I'm just glad to have you back here.

We just have to insure your shaky fingers's right to have a trigger in front of it (with the appropriate poundage of course )

Get that dictation software! You can be a reverse Stephen Hawking.LOL

[cory]

Since George Washington, tradition held that a president was limited to 2 terms in office. FDR blew that off. Consequently, there was an Amendment to limit a President to 10 years in office. Kind of hard to interpret that any other way...

Congress tried passing a line item veto to control pork spending...courts struck it down as unconstitutional. Passing an amendment that clearly spells out the cases in which it could be applied would make it "constitutional".

Solid point Sir