As defined by who?

there is only one definition that matters, and it is not mine. You only need look up the definition in the dictionary, and that is how I see it.

http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/04/bloody-17-hours-in-chicago-32-shot-6.html

Good thing they have great gun control laws there. Helps EVERYWHERE they are adopted, right?

So.. free in the literal sense?
That would include all people not incarcerated, paroled, on probation or remanded to some sort of State Institution?

I agree.. it is very tragic.

To borrow a term you used though. We can't be expected to 'nerf' the world.

See this is where the topic gets twisted, but yes, that is exactly what I am saying. OUr judicial system has been so perverted by liberalism that there are now people walking the streets for crimes that 200 years ago they would have lost their lives for. BUt the wording is plain text, "free men" includes those who have paid their debt to society in full through their incarceration. Mentally ill should not be on the street, but rather institutionalized. Murderer's, rapist, and others convicted of violent crimes should be executed.

Nerf the world no, but you shouldn't take away a peoples rights to defend themselves. The police are a reactionary force. They are a fact finding force that attempts to solve crimes after they occur. Granted they do delay some crimes through presense, but they only do that for a short time as someone bent on creating havok will only wait until a better opportunity to do so.

OK.. So no gun control at all.

By the way.. You can thank Reagen and his Administration for the lack of State run Mental Health Institution bed space. They thought a better place to keep them was homeless and on the street.

Also.. The first police forces and jails in cities were developed while the Federalist Government was in control. Before that? We had posses and hanging trees. So.. again.. Conservatism got the ball roling in the direction of our current law enforcement system.

Gun control is hitting what you aim at, period. I never meant to say there was no need for a jail system, not everyone who commits a crime should be executed, only those involving violence. People were executed for violent crimes quite regularly in the us till the 20th century took hold. To say that a simple thief, regardless how loathesome they are should be executed for that crime is kinda silly. I would sit in my house, and watch a person strip my car and wait for the police to get there. I would never shoot a person for any reason other than to protect the life, or health of another person.

I never said you would.

But I need to get my but to an account for a few hours.. So we can take this up later.

Relying on the Constitution to answer fine details of arms regulation is inappropriate and futile.
In this area (among others), it is only a baseline, recognizing unalienable rights, ensuring the maximum freedoms possible, without crippling the effectiveness of the government, or recklessly endangering it's citizens.
The Constitution, by way of the 2nd Amendment, sets a restriction on the government (as does the entire Bill of Rights). It does not grant the right to bear arms (it does not possess the authority to do so). This is what must be understood by any who support a ban on guns (or any other weapon), or such restrictions and regulations creating an inconvenience or burden to the exercise of this right.
How this right is guaranteed in practice, should be left to the individual states, with NO interference by the federal government. Even then, they too would be prohibited from passing any legislation which would nullify or circumvent the declaratory statement made by the 2nd Amendment.
It also makes no difference what is stated in the first part of the 2nd Amendment; it could have just as easily been left off entirely. It was put there as a conciliatory gesture - a justification to those advocates against the amendment, because they could/would not disagree with the need for a well-equipped militia.

It is not difficult to determine to whom the right applies:

1. The People (all citizens of the United States of America).

a. Excepted:
Anyone who has proven by their actions to be lacking in the fundamental, necessary moral or mental judgment to properly exercise said right in society. This is to be determined by the judiciary of the individual states - NOT by the federal government.

The reasoning is thus: By their actions, they have forfeited said right within society.

The arguments brought up, time and time again, regarding being armed while traveling, etc., etc. are also pointless. The moment you choose to travel by means of a commercial carrier, you voluntarily, temporarily, surrender certain rights to help ensure the safety and well being of all others utilizing that service. It ceases to be an issue of individual rights, and becomes one of societal safety. If you were the only one on the airplane, then the reasoning behind the regulations would be less likely to apply, but not necessarily baseless; the airplane, after all, is not yours. It belongs to a private business, which is perfectly within it's rights to establish such rules or regulations as they deem necessary, or to comply with state or federal safety directives. That being said, there should exist no prohibition against being armed as you see fit, while utilizing personally owned transportation.

Addressing the issue of mandatory gun safety training or pretesting before acquiring firearms (or any other deadly weapon), I would have to vote "no" on these, as they impose a preclusion on unalienable right, and therefore constitute infringement. After all, as far as I know, there isn't a test to become President, so why should there be for mere gun ownership?

Regarding militias, this is the best article I've ever read on the subject. Don't denigrate it just because it's hosted on a "pro-gun" sight. Read it.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/tmvarc.html

Lordling... I truly enjoy your posts.

This was my favorite part!

All I could picture was each person who wanted a gun travelling the country, giving speeches, making television commercials, debating their beliefs, and spending millions of dollars...

It was funny!

Sorry... just what my mental picture was.... not being offensive, just sharing.

Yes, that is amusing. I hadn't given any thought to the inverted aspect of the observation.

Of course, I was actually referring to something along the lines of a psychological "what if" scenario test designed to determine whether or not the person elected is secretly a megalomaniacal sociopath. I can't bring myself to consider the campaign as a true test.
The sad thing is, despite all the exposure during the process, we still don't really know them, do we?

I think it would one of life's safer assumptions that anyone who wants to be president is a grandiose, narcissistic megalomaniac.

I am of the opinion that those individuals best suited to be in positions of power are those who would never seek it to begin with.

I agree wholeheartedly.
Hominem, memento te

No you didn't say that.. You said:



This subject is way off topic...and only really seems to serve a purpose of once again, blaming them damn liberals for all the worlds troubles... But... Since you brought it up.
A brief history lesson might be in order here.




The Federalists (Or Republicans) were in power of both the House and Senate until 1798. The Death penalty was eliminated as a punishment for many crimes, including arson, piracy, sodomy, burglary, robbery, rape, horse-stealing, slave rebellion, and often counterfeiting... and a few other crimes.. Leaving only murder in the 1st degree and treason in many of the States, with exception to the south. Thomas Jefferson lead the reform. Jefferson was a Fedralist.

The next reform happened between 1833 and 1853.. At which time public executions were banned. During that time.. some States eliminated capital punishment in its entirety as well.

Later that century.. States that had manditory death sentence went to descretionary death sentances.

Between the Civil War and World War I the abolitionist movement was quite strong throughout the States. After World War I? Well... Capital punishment reached an all time high of 167 per year in the 30's.

Yup.. Those damn 20th century liberals {note sarcasm}.


Also.. In reference to the claim that D.C.'s ban on handguns increasing crime...

This information from the New England Journal of Medicine... which one would think is probably a reputable publication...
says different.

anyone else think it's strange that the bad guys can pick up guns anywhere but the good guys almost have to sell their first born for one???? and why does everyone get scared when i ask them to teach me to shoot one???? things that make you go hmmmmmmmm

ill tech you to be a world class shooter anytime, ole yeller.

Even this article, rob cited.. gives credit where credit is due.... in regards to illegal weapons. While trying to make a case for the pro gun movement.
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/04/bloody-17-hours-in-chicago-32-shot-6.html

'The gunrunning networks are simple. Criminals are supplied by burglary proceeds, stolen police and military weapons. Drug dealers often accept payment in guns as well as cash later selling the guns at a profit. Despite the heavy-handed federal, state and local gun law enforcement criminals in Chicago will never be disarmed.'

The amount of legal weapons we have in this country will always be a supplier of illegal weapons to the black market. The last time I looked? It is hard to steal what you do not have. Darn near impossible!
Somehow.. I have a feeling it is easier to steal a weapon from a home in suburbia then it is to steal a weapon from a military armory.
Most here who keep fire arms say that they keep them safely... Maybe so. But statistically? If it wasn't for the private gun owner? We would have a drastically reduced amount of available firearms available to the criminal.

In regards to Lordlings previous post.

Thank-you. I also enjoy reading your posts. They are very well thought out and challenging. Generally staying away from the rhetoric, on point, informative and clear.



I did read the paper you linked... and it does make a compelling argument. However.. I do question the overall intent... The author, no matter how well spoken seems to be a party to special interest.
*by Thomas M. Moncure, Jr.
Member, Virginia State Bar. Assistant General Counsel for the National Rifle Association of America. Major, Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserves. The author is also a former member of the General Assembly of Virginia, where he served on the House Courts of Justice (Judiciary) Committee. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author. The assistance of Gina Abdo in the preparation of the manuscript is gratefully acknowledged.

Not that it is wrong to write a manuscript on your opinion about a national concern.. Or it is wrong for you to cite said manuscript...

My issue with it is, In my opinion... It leaves out some of the history and aspects of the overall debate.

While bringing up the stark difference between then and now. All the possible incursions we could have and were subjected to then...By Indians, The French, The Spanish...etc... Compared to our social climate today. It somehow lost a few momentous occasions of domestic insurrection.

It offers the war of 1812 as the first major conflict..Which is true, but there is no mention of the previous use of the militias in domestic rebellion, and how those occurrences shaped the social and political landscape of the day.

It also makes no mention of the Articles of the Confederation and it's influence on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Given that the authors of both documents were the same men, says much.

There is much in it that has not been introduced to this debate in JSH though.
For instance the mention of 'United States v. Cruikshank' Where it was decided in the mid 1870's that 'The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.' and the enforcement acts of the early 70's... Which many construed to be in breach of both the first and second amendment.
Then the case of... Presser v. Illinois. Where the Court claimed the 2nd amendment was intended only to limit the powers of Congress and not the State. While also saying that the State was unable to disarm it's citizens because they were part of the Federal Militia.
So.. Even then, the 2nd amendment was judged to be a whole..dealing with the militia, which is to be governed.

So.. I am concerned with the conclusion of the manuscript. Which seems to be more seated in tradition then actual real world law.


I agree.. it is futile.
I disagree with your use of the word unalienable (or inalienable). The only inalienable rights we have are human not civil.
"The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property."

For the sake of debate..Lets assume this to be true.



I suspect this to be an opinion. I doubt the men in charge would have ratified a 'conciliatory gesture' in the document in question.



Unfortunately.. If gun laws are found to be unconstitutional? The entirety of US Code Chapter 44, Firearms.. would be null and void. We would also be hard pressed to make any sort of law for the sake of public safety when it concerns firearms.

So... any free man or woman regardless of behavior, illness or action will be able to possess and carry a weapon, loaded with the ammunition of their choice.



Again...any free man or woman regardless of behavior, illness or action will be able to possess and carry a weapon, loaded with the ammunition of their choice. Sure! The airline, railway or other conveyance can deny you service if you attempt to carry a weapon onto their vehicle.. But they cannot jail you for it.

Again.. I see a confusion as to what is an unalienable right and a civil right. However..it is a lost point.. To make anything a condition to owning and carrying a firearm would be unconstitutional.