What's your take on 2nd amendment

[stormrider]

gun rights? If the Constitution gaurentees the right to keep and bear arms yet places like Chicago denies that right, many counties, states, etc. place taxes on that right by requiring the purchase of a permit. Then there is a federal law forbiding the transport or possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school, yet if you drive through most any community with a firearm in your vehicle or on your person, you've violated that law. (3 times for me today). Suppose I get stopped for whatever, and they do a search, etc. and "find" my firearm, geeze. It's a shame that there are laws on the books that criminalize gun ownership. I'll keep on packing as long as I can breath, but it bothers me that they can make laws that can potentially make you a criminal without committing a crime, like pulling a gun to rob someone, kidnap someone at gunpoint, etc. Just driving by a school can get you five years and labeled as a felon.

[Big Rig]

I know it is not right, but when you are a criminal, you have more rights then when you are not a criminal...

[woody]

Down here is Aussie land we have had gun laws forced down our throat since the little Howard the Coward was in power.
You have to jump through so amny hoops to even get a licence that most people dont bother.
Now today, they have just introduced another law about knives. Instant mandatory 2 years for just carrying one.
Now that means any knife including tiny little fruit knives, tiny pen knives and even standard houshold knives.
How am I gonna eat my fruit without a knife to cut it up?

I guess when the inmates run the asylum it gets a little weird.

Our politicians are so frightened of every little thing, so they try to make laws to ban everything.

[JimC]

First of all, I am not an attorney (nor would I want to be one) I retired after 26 years in law enforcement but I am still a gun rights advocate. I live in Wisconsin, one of the only states that refuses to legalize a concealed carry law. Since they refuse to do that the attorney general has ruled that the citizens of Wisconsin may carry a weapon out in the open legally. What prompted this ruling was the fact that many left wing police chiefs were charging people with disorderly conduct for having a weapon exposed, in one case, even while the person arrested was in his own yard.

So now instead of registering, doing a background check for felony's and mental defects, we are going to allow anyone to carry openly and legally. (other than convicted felons of course)

In answer to your question, do a google search on "federal gun laws and schools" One of the first that showed up was a case of a student charged federally for having a gun in a school. This kid challenged the right of the fed's to make a law under interstate commerce etc. etc. Anyway, the kid was found guilty, then the court of appeals overturned that decision, and the supreeme court affirmed the appeals court.

Again I am not an attorney, but that tells me that that federal law is now ineffective. I do not know if there has been any case law since that ruling that changes it or not. You will have to do your own searching.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

check out the link, it has the case I mentioned, then you will have to hit the link within it for the law itself.

Jim

[fstsix]

Here is mine.

William Shatner on Gun Control - It's How Well You Aim the Gun	powered by Aeva

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words . 

[vanagon40]

OK, the exact language of the Second Amendment is this:

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. [I think there may be some controversy as to the punctuation, but I believe this is the language.]

stormrider stated: “there is a federal law forbiding the transport or possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school. . . .”  I do not believe this is correct.

But in my humble opinion (and I doubt you will find this opinion anywhere else), the Second Amendment provides that the citizens should have arms to prevent the overthrow of the State by either the federal government or a foreign invasion.  Therefore, a citizen should be permitted to own the most advanced military weapons in existence (at the time of the American Revolution and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, I do not believe there were any laws forbidding the citizens to own the most advanced military weapons in existence–I could be wrong).

On the other hand, there is absolutely no reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment that allows citizens to own firearms for hunting.  Also, I would respectfully submit that there is no reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment that guarantees the rights of citizens to own firearms for self protection.

Therefore, to me, the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to own machine guns, bazookas, and grenade launchers, but not a snub nose .357 magnum or a shotgun.

I am probably alone on these concepts, but “that is my take on the second amendment.”

[RoadKill]

Some one may very well "pry it from my cold,dead hand" But I assure you that they will get bullets first !  If guns are outlawed then only the outlaws will have guns and I will be one PROUD,GUN TOTING OUTLAW !

[db46]

Those who bend their guns into plows, soon plow for others
fear the goverment that fears your gun

[RoadKill]

Is it the gov't that should be feared? or all the Lazy,worthless,something for nothing mongers that society as well as Gov't has been enabling for so many generations? 

[Moonshot_1]

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.

My take.

This, as well as the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written in a different time. The beauty of it is in it's timelessness.

As it relates to the 2nd amendment, a well regulated Militia was comprised of the people.
While today, it could be construed that a State's National Guard is that well regulated Militiaof which the 2nd amendment speaks, the point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure (as is possible) the security of a free State. This then requires an armed population, free to form such militias, as any government's army or armed force can be politicized and used against the people of a state.
History has surely taught us that. As time goes on, fewer people understand the concept of how fragile this thing we call Freedom is.
It is taken for granted.

We now have a population that believes that the government will be there to protect their freedoms and gladly ceedes the responsibility for those freedoms to the government as well.

The time is on the horizon for the next generation to not only take their freedoms for granted but to have their freedoms taken.


And most will wonder what the hell happened.

[MP]

+1 Moonshot!

MP

[Ferris Leets]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I think that says it all.  A few "common sense" infringements is where we run into trouble.  The rules about convicted felons, persons with verifyable mental problems, and a reasonable age limit.  Then you get into what the otherside thinks are "reasonable restrictions" for examples of those look to Great Britain and Australia.

[Puffs Daddy]

<sigh> OK. In the interest of an interpretation not subject to testosterone poisoning, here's an interpretation that the courts have more or less universally endorsed for a long time.

(1) The phrase "well regulated militia" is the basis of decisions that have found laws controlling the places/times/particular weapons or people "bearing arms" to be constitutional.

(2) The term "infringe" does not mean "abridge" or "limit." (Note that the First Amendment uses the term "abridge" in  reference to freedom of speech.) "Infringe" is a different concept. It means the Federal government is prohibited from limiting firearm ownership to such an extent that the objective of having a "well regulated militia" is effectively null and void.

And before the avalanche of abuse regarding my views on gun control follow, it's worth noting that this interpretation says nothing about the wisdom of limiting firearm ownership. It simply notes that there is no absolute prohibition against laws that limit firearms ownership in the Constitution.

[x]

<sigh> OK. In the interest of an interpretation not subject to testosterone poisoning, here's an interpretation that the courts have more or less universally endorsed for a long time.

(1) The phrase "well regulated militia" is the basis of decisions that have found laws controlling the places/times/particular weapons or people "bearing arms" to be constitutional.

(2) The term "infringe" does not mean "abridge" or "limit." (Note that the First Amendment uses the term "abridge" in  reference to freedom of speech.) "Infringe" is a different concept. It means the Federal government is prohibited from limiting firearm ownership to such an extent that the objective of having a "well regulated militia" is effectively null and void.

And before the avalanche of abuse regarding my views on gun control follow, it's worth noting that this interpretation says nothing about the wisdom of limiting firearm ownership. It simply notes that there is no absolute prohibition against laws that limit firearms ownership in the Constitution.

Gee whiz... whatever are we going to do with a well reasoned, non emotional response to the issue of guns in the United States?  Shoot the author?  I hope not.

[Oss]

rotflmao at vanagon's suggestions

Wish you were my constitutional law professor instead of General Telford Taylor (google nuremburg prosecutors  sorry bout the spelling)

Dont forget there really was no "federal" government at the time of the revolution. We had several continental congresses before the bill of rights were ratified by enough states. The federal republic barely survived the war and did not survive the peace.  Small states being scared of big states and how to count people (men women indentured servants slaves) we all know resulted in the two tier system of congress.  Fear of the power of a central govmt gave us the supreme courts

The fact that states need to ratify amendments by the way speaks volumes to me about the intent of the framers to limit the federal government  ie my last post about powers not specifically delegated to the feds are state powers

I wish here in NY I could just buy a pistol and carry it around.  Even with my court ID I need to check it at the door if I go to the courthouse,  my 2 inch knife gets caught in the downtown courthouse metal detector and I must surrender that  In the Bronx I walk around the detector with my ID, as ironically the deli deliveryman who is possibly illegal since he doesnt speak a word of english

Back in the 1700's most needed rifles to survive by hunting so I cant imagine that rifles would be something the feds could ban.   Can you hunt deer with a pistol?  maybe with a big enough pistol.

Anyway my take is that an armed populace is the best medicine against federal incursions against rights and liberty. If you live in Australia you have my sympathy regarding your loss of rights.  Hope that someday you get them back

[solo1]

One needs to look at the Federalist to know what our Framers of the Constitution were thinking.

The meaning of the Second Amendment is clear IMHO as explained in the Federalist paper Number 46, written by Madison.

"A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state"  is explained by example as written by Madison. The Second Amendment was intended as a threat to any future abuse of power by the Federal government.

Militia meant concerned citizens of the States "officered by men chosen by them"  which could keep the Federal government from usurping its power over states rights.

Militia does not mean the National Guard which is normally controlled by the individual states but can be taken over by the Federal government (like now).

Therefore the "Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Unfortunately, today, it could not be foreseen how 'People" have changed and use the power of firearms to commit crimes.

Just for the record, I'm an instructor and Life member of the NRA.

[Puffs Daddy]

...Anyway my take is that an armed populace is the best medicine against federal incursions against rights and liberty...

Empirical evidence doesn't support that contention. For example, over the last 200+ years there is virtually no case of an "armed populace" either overthrowing or preventing the imposition of a tyrannical regime. Furthermore, other than the US, the nations with the most widespread ownership of firearms are in the Mideast and Latin America, neither of which are regions known for preventing "incursions against rights and liberty." (For example, firearm ownership was widespread in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.)

The bottom line is that an "armed populace" is no match for an "armed military." Nor are there many examples of "armed revolutions" leading to regimes where "incursions against rights and liberty" are effectively prevented. There is a reason that post-Saddam Iraq has focused largely on disarming the populace.

[stormrider]

Didn't know it had been overturned. And all this time I've been sneaking through the zone.

And Puffs Daddy, "not subject to testosterone poisoning", so what gender are you? And if you take #(1) in it's entirety, "well regulated militia, bieng necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". then couldn't that as well be interpreted to mean only those who belong to a well regulated militia can keep and bear arms? Or as Moonshot_1 states, the people are to be armed and formed into militias to protect against an overbearing federal government.

There is a debate zone gun ban law before congress banning gun possesion within 11/2 miles of the president when he is making a public appearecnce, even if you aren't aware of him being in town. Which means, if you are traveling through an area, and the pres happens to be there unbeknown to you, you get stopped, searched, found to have a gun, yep, you guessed, up to $5000. fine and or 5 years in prison and now a felon.

Here is a link pertaining to the Gun Free School Zone Act.

http://gunowners.org/fs9611.htm

And Puffs, as for your last statement, "It simply notes that there is no absolute prohibition against laws that limit firearms ownership in the Constitution." then what does the term "shall not be infringed" mean? And there are lots of things that are not covered in the Constitution specifically, yet congress has passed many, many laws, over 10,000 laws, that regulate our lives.

Here's a definition I found. Seems to suit what I interpret the founders meaning to be.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe

Here is a well written article on gun ownership.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott38.html

And I guess the gun-free school zone act is still on the books, there has been a bill introduced this year to repeal it.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3021/text

I suppose, despite what is in the Constitution, that the 2nd Amendment, pertaining to gun ownership, will be debated, regulated, intrepreted, analyzed, etc. as long as gun owners have a breath. Just hope we don't end up like others and lose the right to keep and bear arms.

And as a greater concern, whatever happened to the 10th ammendment?

"Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note"

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Over 10,000 federal laws.  Does anyone know them all? I sure don't. Whatever happened to states rights? Or individual rights?

[stormrider]

Puffs quote, "The bottom line is that an "armed populace" is no match for an "armed military." Nor are there many examples of "armed revolutions" leading to regimes where "incursions against rights and liberty" are effectively prevented. There is a reason that post-Saddam Iraq has focused largely on disarming the populace."

So, your telling me that if we had a well regulated militia, of say, just 50 million Americans, we wouldn't be any match against our military, not supposing that our military would use force against us? And there have been no citizen uprisings that were successful against any government in 200 years? Could be another arguement for an armed and well regulated citizenry.

Just doing some surfing on an old concept, the Committee of Safety, and found this site.

http://www.committee.org/

I know we live in a more complex society than our founders did, but the older I get and the more things seem to change, the more I realize that things are still the same. The love of money, power, position, somebody's got to pay.

[MAD6Gun]

OK I am going to put my 2 cents in here. During the revolutionary war the Militia were people like me and you fighting alongside the government controlled Army. So that should still apply. Where in the constitution does it say what type of firearms we were allowed to own. It doesnt. If you want to say that because they used rifles that we should only be allowed to have rifles. OK if thats the way you want to think than what about TV,the Internet and so many other media's that are used today.  Did they have the internet in the 1700s ? So that is a mute point.
 Puff stated "The bottome line is a "armed Populace" is no match for a "armed military".  Ok you may be right. But the gonvernment can not use the Miltary against us because of the "Posi Cumatatus act" (forgive the spelling). That would have to repealed first. And another thing I would think a good majority of the miltary would switch sides rather than fire on there friends and family. JMHO.......

[Puffs Daddy]

Puffs quote, "The bottom line is that an "armed populace" is no match for an "armed military." Nor are there many examples of "armed revolutions" leading to regimes where "incursions against rights and liberty" are effectively prevented. There is a reason that post-Saddam Iraq has focused largely on disarming the populace."

So, your telling me that if we had a well regulated militia, of say, just 50 million Americans, we wouldn't be any match against our military, not supposing that our military would use force against us? And there have been no citizen uprisings that were successful against any government in 200 years? Could be another arguement for an armed and well regulated citizenry.

Just doing some surfing on an old concept, the Committee of Safety, and found this site.

http://www.committee.org/

I know we live in a more complex society than our founders did, but the older I get and the more things seem to change, the more I realize that things are still the same. The love of money, power, position, somebody's got to pay.

I simply noted that the romantic notion of an "armed citizenry" preventing tyranny is just that; a "romantic notion." There is virtually no statistical relationship between the breadth of firearm ownership and the breadth of "freedom" in modern nations. That is not to say that armed uprisings don't start revolutions. However, successful revolutions occur when (a) uprisings are transformed into military operations and/or (b) external military forces finish the job. (See the American Revolution.)

Furthermore, armed revolutions almost never result in regimes dedicated to preserving "freedom." Much more likely is the imposition of one tyrannical regime replacing another or an extended period of anarchy.

"Red Dawn" is a movie, not a history lesson.

[Trynt]

The bottom line is that an "armed populace" is no match for an "armed military." Nor are there many examples of "armed revolutions" leading to regimes where "incursions against rights and liberty" are effectively prevented.
[/quote]

That's what England thought in 1776.

[Puffs Daddy]

Didn't know it had been overturned. And all this time I've been sneaking through the zone.


Here's a definition I found. Seems to suit what I interpret the founders meaning to be.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe

Yup. The following is a perfectly good definition of "infringe" from your source."

"to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule."

Note that the term is meaningless in the absence of a "rule" or a "law" that can be infringed. As already noted, if the Framers had meant the Second Amendment to prohibit regulation of firearm ownership, they could easily have used the same words they had used in the Amendment that preceded it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

In short, "infringe" means the illegal violation of a rule or law. Since the government makes "laws," the second amendment simply states that the Federal government may not violate its own laws.

[Puffs Daddy]

The bottom line is that an "armed populace" is no match for an "armed military." Nor are there many examples of "armed revolutions" leading to regimes where "incursions against rights and liberty" are effectively prevented.

That's what England thought in 1776.
[/quote]

Uh, in the first place, you might note that I specifically referenced the last 200 years when modern mass armies were invented. But even the American Revolution doesn't qualify. Had it not been for the French, we'd all be celebrating the Queen's birthday every year.

[Oss]

I will stand behind my statement, removing the right to carry arms has cost my family tree in europe to be rather severely pruned between 1900 and 1945 between pograms and the final solution

You take away one freedom then another and soon the people accept what should not be. 

I am greatly honored to still know some folks who live here but used to live in Germany or Poland or Russia.  Some are folks who survived the warsaw ghetto uprising, men who fought as partisans in Poland and Russia. Usually they still sit with their back to the wall and look out at what may be coming in.  Even in services in the holidays some pace perimeter looking for the unseen enemy, How lucky we do not have to know that fear.

This I do know one of the things they have in common. their families had a gun or they got one somehow.

Trust the government?  Hey brother YOU trust the government  I will keep an eye on them at all times. 

Solo 1 used my favorite POGO quote about a month ago

We have met the enemy and he is US.  We all created this mess  people who meant well or didnt. Lets try to figure out how to UNMESS it up. any ideas of a constructive nature would be appreciated

[CajunRider]

Solo 1 used my favorite POGO quote about a month ago

We have met the enemy and he is US.  We all created this mess  people who meant well or didnt. Lets try to figure out how to UNMESS it up. any ideas of a constructive nature would be appreciated

The BEST idea I can come up with takes place next year.  GO OUT AND VOTE!!! 

Find out the voting record of your congressmen and senators... (It can be found...) If you don't like their record, vote them OUT. 

DO NOT... I repeat... DO NOT... go by what they say on TV/radio/print/internet/etc/etc/etc... MOST are known to lie through their teeth. 

No matter what they say on TV to give you the warm and fuzzies, their voting records show what they REALLY stand for and what they WILL do again and again. 

Look at their RECORD, and make your decision. 

My 2 cents.

[Varmintmist]

Puff, you are partly correct. There has been no modern revolution of a armed populace because the first thing that a modern dictator does is to remove the option by removing the arms.
As to a successful uprising, Honduras comes to mind. A in place politician who wanted to change the rules to stay in was removed IAW their constituion. It wasnt a populace but the military working on behalf of their legislature.

BTW, in your first post, what you said was "generaly accepted more or less" is a bit less. The problem is in the language. When the founders wrote "regulated", it meant trained, not controlled. In Madisons papers he describes the milita as all able bodied men and gives a age range that I cant remember offhand. Changing the language to fit whatever outcome you want is no different than taking a phrase wholey out of context.

[Puffs Daddy]

Puff, you are partly correct. There has been no modern revolution of a armed populace because the first thing that a modern dictator does is to remove the option by removing the arms.

Nope. Iraq, for example, firearm ownership was widespread under Saddam Hussein. Likewise in virtually all Arab nations.

[Puffs Daddy]

BTW, in your first post, what you said was "generaly accepted more or less" is a bit less. The problem is in the language. When the founders wrote "regulated", it meant trained, not controlled. In Madisons papers he describes the milita as all able bodied men and gives a age range that I cant remember offhand. Changing the language to fit whatever outcome you want is no different than taking a phrase wholey out of context.

Oddly, the NRA opposes mandatory firearm training as a condition of gun ownership. Guess they don't read Madison. Not surprising.

[MAD6Gun]

Oddly, the NRA opposes mandatory firearm training as a condition of gun ownership. Guess they don't read Madison. Not surprising.

Puff. Where did you get that idea. I am a life member of the NRA. And a firearm safety Instructor. Where did you get the idea that the NRA opposes training. Have you been listening to the liberal anti-gun politicians and media. The same media that states the NRA is for anyone owning a gun including felons and the mentally deranged. If you have proof I want to see it. And not from CNN or CNBC.

If this was so. The NRA would not have programs like the Eddie Eagle program. Or Women on target, Or Refuse To Be A Victim. Not to mention countless self defense and firearm safety programs.
The NRA is not opposed to training. They Encourage it...........

[RoadKill]

I agree Puff Daddy,an armed populace is no match for an organized army. that is why guerrilla warfare is SOOO  easy to combat and why we are having such an easy go of it in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Pull all the troops out because they are just a bunch of armed citizens led by lunatics. Nancy Pelosi herself could do that job in a mater of hours!   Armed citizens of America are fooling themselves if they dont think their loved ones in the military would not fire on their neighbors, and who would lead them anyhow? A bunch of right wing extremists,country boys,and retired U.S. soldiers could NEVER become organized enough to protect themselves or even gain bargaining power to protect their rights. GEESH !  Why dont we all just trust the government...It worked out so well for the Native Americans,they all got casino money and free land out of the deal!

[Valker]

Puff, you are partly correct. There has been no modern revolution of a armed populace because the first thing that a modern dictator does is to remove the option by removing the arms.

Nope. Iraq, for example, firearm ownership was widespread under Saddam Hussein. Likewise in virtually all Arab nations.

I agree that gun ownership was widespread, but WHO owned the guns. I've only seen the folks in those areas who supported the reigning regime have them. The Kurds were basically unarmed when Saddam wiped out over 50,000 of them.

[HayHauler]

Ride what you like...

Carry a gun if you like...

I ride a Valk AND own guns, some to carry and some not...  

I am with Smokin' Joe, LET'S RIDE!!!!

Hay  
Jimmyt

[fudgie]

I agree Puff Daddy,an armed populace is no match for an organized army. that is why guerrilla warfare is SOOO  easy to combat and why we are having such an easy go of it in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Pull all the troops out because they are just a bunch of armed citizens led by lunatics. Nancy Pelosi herself could do that job in a mater of hours!   Armed citizens of America are fooling themselves if they dont think their loved ones in the military would not fire on their neighbors, and who would lead them anyhow? A bunch of right wing extremists,country boys,and retired U.S. soldiers could NEVER become organized enough to protect themselves or even gain bargaining power to protect their rights. GEESH !  Why dont we all just trust the government...It worked out so well for the Native Americans,they all got casino money and free land out of the deal!

Free land? Technically it was theirs before it was 'our's.   I've been through the reservations and seen plenty and its sad. Plus everyone got free land in the 1800's during the push west.

[fudgie]

...Anyway my take is that an armed populace is the best medicine against federal incursions against rights and liberty...

The bottom line is that an "armed populace" is no match for an "armed military." Nor are there many examples of "armed revolutions" leading to regimes where "incursions against rights and liberty" are effectively prevented. There is a reason that post-Saddam Iraq has focused largely on disarming the populace.

Tell this tell Gen Custer......
NA won many battles againts the military.

[Trynt]

Uh, in the first place, you might note that I specifically referenced the last 200 years when modern mass armies were invented. But even the American Revolution doesn't qualify. Had it not been for the French, we'd all be celebrating the Queen's birthday every year.
[/quote]

Okay then, how about what the Afghanis did to the Soviets?  Oh  I guess that doesn't count because the U.S. provided them with Stingers. I learned long ago you don't have to kick a bully's ass to make him stop.  You just need to make his experience kicking your ass an unpleasant one. Of course with your mindset that would never happen.

[RP#62]

Here's the US Court of Appeals take on it from Parker vs the District of Columbia case in which the Court of Appeals overturned the US District Court and the DC gun ban.

With respect to the right to defend oneself against tyranny and
oppression, some have argued that the Second Amendment is utterly
irrelevant because the arms it protects, even if commonly owned,
would be of no use when opposed to the arsenal of the modern state.
But as Judge Kozinski has noted, incidents such as the Warsaw ghetto
uprising of 1943 provide rather dramatic evidence to the contrary. See
Silveira, 328 F.3d at 569-70 (dissenting from the denial of rehearing
en banc). The deterrent effect of a well-armed populace is surely
more important than the probability of overall success in a full-out
armed conflict. Thus could Madison write to the people of New York
in 1788:
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several
kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as public resources
will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not
be able to shake off their yokes.
THE FEDERALIST NO. 46, at 299-300 (James Madison) (Clinton
Rossiter ed., 1961).


Here's a small portion of the ruling:  -RP

We start by considering the competing claims about the
meaning of the Second Amendment’s operative clause: “the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.” Appellants contend that “the right of the people”
clearly contemplates an individual right and that “keep and bear
Arms” necessarily implies private use and ownership. The
District’s primary argument is that “keep and bear Arms” is best
read in a military sense, and, as a consequence, the entire
operative clause should be understood as granting only a
collective right. The District also argues that “the right of the
people” is ambiguous as to whether the right protects civic or
private ownership and use of weapons.
In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee
is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most
important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the
First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has
never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion,
interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth
Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”—indicates
that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of
distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the
states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the
people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage
elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
The District’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read
“the people” to mean some subset of individuals such as “the
organized militia” or “the people who are engaged in militia
service,” or perhaps not any individuals at all—e.g., “the states.”
See Emerson, 270 F.3d at 227. These strained interpretations of
“the people” simply cannot be squared with the uniform
construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions. Indeed, the
Supreme Court has recently endorsed a uniform reading of “the
people” across the Bill of Rights. In United States v. Verdugo-
Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), the Court looked specifically at
the Constitution and Bill of Rights’ use of “people” in the course
of holding that the Fourth Amendment did not protect the rights
of non-citizens on foreign soil:
�

[Puffs Daddy]

Here's the US Court of Appeals take on it from Parker vs the District of Columbia case in which the Court of Appeals overturned the US District Court and the DC gun ban.

With respect to the right to defend oneself against tyranny and
oppression, some have argued that the Second Amendment is utterly
irrelevant because the arms it protects, even if commonly owned,
would be of no use when opposed to the arsenal of the modern state.
But as Judge Kozinski has noted, incidents such as the Warsaw ghetto
uprising of 1943 provide rather dramatic evidence to the contrary...

Perhaps someone should tell Judge Kozinski that the Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943, while an example of bravery to be sure, failed.

[Jeff K]

Oddly, the NRA opposes mandatory firearm training as a condition of gun ownership. Guess they don't read Madison. Not surprising.

Puff. Where did you get that idea. I am a life member of the NRA. And a firearm safety Instructor. Where did you get the idea that the NRA opposes training. Have you been listening to the liberal anti-gun politicians and media. The same media that states the NRA is for anyone owning a gun including felons and the mentally deranged. If you have proof I want to see it. And not from CNN or CNBC.

If this was so. The NRA would not have programs like the Eddie Eagle program. Or Women on target, Or Refuse To Be A Victim. Not to mention countless self defense and firearm safety programs.
The NRA is not opposed to training. They Encourage it...........

Mandatory was the key word Puff used. That would be the government regulating gun ownership based on their idea of how a gun owner should be "trained", which really would amount to federal gun registration and regulation, the first step toward collection of all of my guns.

[Trynt]

Perhaps someone should tell Judge Kozinski that the Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943, while an example of bravery to be sure, failed.
[/quote]

And one reason the revolt failed was because they were poorly armed.