which means that the well regulated militia was so they could muster a force to put down insurrection and other threats to their power. That whole 'take back the country from tyrants....if necessary" is nice too. Quaint, even.

Different world and a different time. We all agree that the gun nut interpretations are lunacy. Some fucking dude in pittsburgh just went apeshit and chased a buck through a walmart parking lot, in his truck, firing from a handgun at it. Yeah, real responsible ownership.

You can imagine. As interesting as your story was, mine was even more so.

He was wearing his seatbelt.

Shall we simply pretend it's not there?

What about states rights and individual states providing for self defense in their constitutions?

Plessey meet Brown v. Board of Ed.

McDonald meet.... ?

But you have every right to pitch a bitch in the manner you did.

either, but I'm not totally against people owning them, for hunting, even for protection. What I can't understand is why anyone would want to own an assault weapon, and why anybody would go against background checks. Doesn't make any sense.

...and I will continue to exercise my Constitutional rights to the fullest extent that I please...

I never abused my ex-wife. There are no police reports or medical records of her having been abused. Our divorce was granted on the basis of "physical cruelty" in South Carolina. I have since left that state. I practiced Kenpo so that made me dangerous I guess. She wanted the divorce in 90 days and no other criteria met, so she claimed physical cruelty. I don't hit people and don't like violence. The thought of striking my wife was repulsive, but that is how it went.

I tried to buy a military commemorative M9 and was denied because of the background check. Background checks work, even if I was fucked over by a fucked up system in a fucked up state. I wasn't guilty of physical cruelty. My ex is a nut case. No big deal. I don't need the gun and don't feel that the world will end. It is not the end of the world. No worries. I just think that it is strange that some stupid fucking states would allow felons to be able to purchase guns.

Background checks should be mandatory for all firearms purchases. If you feel that you were wrongly denied, then you can appeal the denial. No BFD.

We need to have a growing movement of people who don't want to own arms. It only causes more grief than good. It fits too well into a paranoid mind to guarantee that growing numbers of them will cause the horror they fear on innocent others. More people need to believe they are probably safer without firearms and will most likely solve a problems better without them.
-Airplane

And I may legally own them, am mentally and physically capable of using them properly and safely, I will do so. I will not be shamed, shunned, embarrassed or made to feel some sort of phony remorse into not owning guns. Not by anyone. Not for any reason.

If I ever reach the decision to not own guns, it will be solely on my own accord.

And I'm not a member of the NRA or any other pro-gun organization. I support Universal Background Checks. I say pass a Universal Background Check law, including Mental Health Reporting. Amend HIPAA as needed, And then make enough available funds to states, so there is no excuse for not reporting violations, or prosecuting, and jailing the hell of Straw Buyers, or felons who attempt to buy guns.

Exactly "Who" would sign off on this and then exactly "who" gets sued when they are wrong and determine some sicko is mentally fit to own an assault weapon? Who pays for the diagnosis to begin with?
I just wonder if having fewer guns on the streets might have a more positive impact than so called mental health exams... oh yeah!.. That is just another ploy by the NRA to deflect reality from the real problem.

When reason is outlawed
Only outlaws will have reasons

The 2nd amendment was a 'pot-sweetener' to get the slave states (primarily Virginia) to ratify the Constitution. The fear was that without the 2nd amendment, the free states could force an end to slavery by ending "slave patrols" (this is what was meant by a well regulated militia - most of the slave states required citizens to participate in slave patrols - keeping down slave rebellions and catching run-away slaves).

Politics then was the same as politics now. The 2nd needs to go the way of slavery - out!

Cheers,

Cap'n Steve

Removing pretexts for maintaining a large standing army? No need for common defense, assisting with enforcing laws?

First, here is Amendment 2, ratified in 1791: "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."

The slave states had established well regulated militias, and required that all citizens (at this point in our history, this would be land-owning white men) be a part of these militias. The primary purpose of these militias were to capture, beat and return run away slaves and protect against any large slave rebellions. They called these militias "slave patrols".

The reason behind the second amendment was to guarantee to the slave states that they would be able to keep their slave patrols. Otherwise, what would keep the federal government from disbanding these slave patrols? Without them, slavery would become untenable.

So: "we'll regulated militia" = "slave patrols"; "State" = Vriginia. The second amendment was a give-away to slave states to get them to ratify the Constitution, and it protects the right for states to raise their own well regulated militias for whatever reason.

Clear?

These were entities ALL states had, as mandated under the Articles.

The sections that you cite (Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2 for those following at home) refer to federal militias and the right of Congress to form and equip a standing military.

James Madision (author of the 2nd amendment) even changed "country" to "state" to clearly assure that states would be able to keep control of their slave patrols.

I reccomend this excellent paper on the subject (and yes, Carl Bogus is his real name...):

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

“The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South’s principal instrument of slave control” — professor Carl T. Bogus, Roger Williams University Law School, in his extraordinary thesis, “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment.”

Cap'n Steve

and the term "the Militia of the several States". They mean the same thing, the same entities ("militia" here is plural -like "fish&quot , the same as those mandated exist under the Articles, those provided for with the militia acts, and existed in the common wealths for decades. Only how they were to be organized and discipline (and used in constitutional roles) changed much (per federal regulations).

They are one and the same - today there would be 50 of them. There was NO federal militia, only STATE militias called forth in federal service.

What we are really talking about here (and what James Madison was worried about) is federal control of the militias. I will grant you that the militias were state militias, but the Constitution gives Congress and the President wide control over those militias.

The fact remains: the 2nd amendment was put in place to preserve slavery, concealed in a play for states rights in the form of militia control. It would take the 13th amendment and a bloody Civil War to finally retire the slave patrols.

I think we can agree that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right of citizens to own AR-15s.

in vital MANDATORY roles WELL beyond usage as mere slave patrols.

Yes, we know that the feds had been given power over the militias (and is what what Madison pushed for), which was a main reason for enacting the constitution in the 1st place (read the pre-amble). Those powers included providing guidelines on "arming" them, as well as using them in federal service.

not only call forth the state militias, but also

I think you both have valid points (dunno really wasn't there in 1791);
For the southern states a driving force (or contributing) might've indeed been slave patrols/militias, while for northern states this would'nt've been much of a concern, while the threat of british revanchism, relanding in new england & trying to capture back boston more the reason they'd want a state militia, or incidents like the whiskey & shays rebellions.
I think you're arguing which was the reason for 2ndA, rather than segregating the concerns.

You love this stuff - wondering when you might join in!

Thanks

Thanks airplane & capn steve, et al.

gecko: {what is} "real" 2013 meaning of the 2A? Is it a complete anachronism? Shall we simply pretend it's not there?

It's revisionist history, & yeah probably an anachronism after the charles dick act early 1900 which eliminated 'well regulated citizens militias'. Can't ignore it as long as nra remains far right.
Odd, what might've been considered more proper to revoke during the mid 20th century due obsolesence, went the other direction & loosened to allow guns galore now. Prohibition amendment 18 was revoked by 21st amendment, a loosening as well, but a revocation of an amendment.
.. scalia revised the historical interpretation to appease modern day rightwing thought. Had congress enacted a new amendment in 2008 granting americans today an individual rkba I'd've had no real problem with it, since it would represent modern thought & culture, but to twist the interpretation of the original 2ndA into what they did was wrong, since it empowers the nra to block guncontrol legislation using the pretext of infringing on 2ndA's individual rkba (in spite of the qualifier scalia included).

What about states rights and individual states providing for self defense in their constitutions?

Dang gecko, thanks, I'd maybe gone years before realizing this. Okay here I go:
Since I no longer own any guns & have no intent.. (shut up & cut to the chase jimmy)....
Er, I hereby renounce my pennsylvania right to keep & bear arms!
The second renunciation of jimmy, on easter. Gotta get some tarot cards see what it means.

Thanks again gecko, another reason the 2ndA is obsolete & antiquated, for even were it to be interpreted correctly as a militia right, or even revoked, americans could still comfort themselves in their state rkba (tho some of them are obsolete too, re militia).

Jarhead, coinky dinky I was also falsely accused of a crime in south carolina, charges quickly dismissed since I had ample evidence to clear it since based on lies, but don't care for south carolina system, too red a state. You can't get whatever expunged? (bad news SC wants about $250 to do that).

Hey jmg, how'd that lenten gun abstinence play out for you? did you feel relieved, happier, less antsy, or, did you feel naked, vulnerable to crime or people around you? Are you happier that easter lifts the abstinence? (nyuck!)
I've been gunfree for over 10 years now & I feel fine!