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

Horseman 77 wrote:

Its so bad in the U.S.A but everyone is trying to get here. The Crime and murders you hear about are crimanels killing each other. When a True innocent is killed it makes headlines. Police treat most drug related murders as a shooting into occupide clothing

Can you remember a few years back all European tourist were getting mugged and robbed in florida?

Heres why.

Cuban gangs were so out of control Florida's Legislaters finally allowed its citizens to carry concealed firearms. The Crimanals were suddenly in danger themselves. But they weren't dumb. they simply went to the airport and robbed people who had just been through a metal dictector.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

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.

Prove that there was less crime. Considering the lack of decent record keeping it's impossible to know whether or not there was MORE crime in those days. Sure they didn't have carjackings and identity theft but murders, rapes, and robberies were no less prevalent in any time in history in accordance with the population of the time.

So if you can show me that crime was nowhere near the same, please do so.

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.

I have to see this again.

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

I truly feel sorry for you, I really do. The statement alone is naive but the fact that you actually believe it with such passion is hilarious. Yeah, the framers just wanted people to fight the government, not protect themselves against criminals in their own areas. Simply brilliant, man.

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).

Learn a little bit about the law of the land before you try to claim that the Supreme Court has denied the individual right.




Do you seriously believe that the second ammendment exists so that people can shoot cops but not local robbers? Why should I not be allowed to shoot a person robbing me?

Last edited by SysTray (2005-11-23 14:00:27)

KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:

ANARKY Suck my big white American Dick. I have been to War for my Country. You are some little Punkass from Panzy world. Puss country who is So perfect and you have all the knowledge. Fuck off.      Oh by the way I am sorry if I pissed anyone else off on this debate. Fuck yourself Anarky Canadian fag

AnarkyXtra wrote:

Felonius Monk: I'm tired of this debate. Your guns don't ensure anything. They won't stop your government turning on you if that's what they want to do. They won't stop an enemy army invading your country. They sure as hell won't stop you posting those ridiculous images.

So believe what you want. You skip neatly over the argument that "we don't have as much gun crime as you. And it's evident not necessarily through stats and crime reporting, but through simple observation - i refer to the headlines again. It simply isn't common" by going on about how we can't defend ourselves. No-one cares. We're not as paranoid.

SysTray wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

SysTray wrote:

Answering that would bring up an entirely different arguement You want to talk about why I think Dick Cheney is more of a threat you can come talk in person.

I'm sorry but what would you be able to say in person that you can't say here? Besides, you didn't answer my question. While it's true that keeping Cheney and the likes under control is very crucial, defending your children (or future children as the case may be) from a violent child molestor would be an equally important reason to own a gun. Eighty million Americans own guns; you not owning one isn't going to make a large difference in keeping a government under control but it would certainly make a difference in protecting your family.

80 million people united in one common cause will overthrow the government. We will not bow down to tyranny and we will fight for our freedom!

I may be biased. I don't have kids and I'm quite a big guy. I think I can handle a child molestor without a gun.

SysTray wrote:

I believe people can protect their lives, but if guns were regulated to the point where they could only be used in the case of an uprising...say if there was a public armory...then they wouldn't have to defend themselves with guns in the first place.

You come try to rob my house. I'll kick your ass.

Last edited by FeloniousMonk (2005-11-23 21:19:56)

Horseman 77 wrote:

Why do liberals think any one who has a firearm is a redneck?

Last edited by AnarkyXtra (2005-11-24 00:55:02)

SysTray wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Why do liberals think any one who has a firearm is a redneck? You get a redneck from long hard hours spent outdoors, usually working. I think most Liberal's problem is, they know their own limits, Know they couldn't handle a high stress situation, Are pissed that you can. I don't want you to be able to do or accomplish any thing they can't. They also get upset when you are having fun, which unfortunately for them is often. Viagra is the Last nail in the Liberal Democrat Coffin. Why would they want to stay Liberals or democrats any longer than they have to?

PS the Word  we have for Liberal Democrats / welfare types is Rabbit people.

And why do Right-wing nutjob idealists think that any Liberal cares what they think? Truthfully you wouldn't want a world without Democrats, nor would you want one without Republicans (at least in this country). Otherwise we'd collapse under our own tunnel vision.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

How do you perceive freedom? Again, I'm not trying to put you down, I just have a different point of view and I'm curious what yours is.