UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights

[BigPete]

The 2nd Amendment, and The Federalist Papers make it very clear what the intent was Pete. Don't try to deny what the purpose is.

I have a copy of the Federalist Papers and I know what they say regarding the subject...but those opinions were not the only influence on the Bill of Rights. By any measure they were a small fraction of the thoughts that went into the concept of the Bill of Rights and if you remember those thoughts were heavily debated even at that time. It has been posited in modern times that there were a series of reasons for the 2A and the 'bear arms' portion. To stand up against a tyrannical government was just one of them...depending on who you talked to. The major one was much more clear: they didn't want to stand up a large national army so they needed volunteer militiamen and those militiamen would have to come ready to fight with their own clothes, support, and guns. They specifically mention the militia in the wording. If they wanted to authorize the opportunity for people start an armed revolution they should/would have done so.

 

[BigPete]

Alexander Hamilton as Publius in Federalist No. 29:

Hamilton states that a federally regulated militia will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively regulated militia can harm a nation's work force, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises. Thus, a smaller, but still well-regulated militia, is the answer. This force will be further complemented by the "people at large," who can "stand ready with arms to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens." In the end, Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called upon by federal authority.

I don't see anything in that interpretation that says the people should have guns so they can rise up against their own government should it become tyrannical.



EDIT: I personally think Hamilton was a boob. I am only bringing him into the argument because Jax did.

 

[jakobeast]

Disagree. IMHO if a civillian wanted to own a full military spec SAW or the like, then by all means they have that right, full auto or not.



I mean, hell, most people in the US could get by in a vehicle that only has a 100hp engine and no larger than, say a Toyota Matrix. Does that mean that cars like a 'vette only belong at the racetrack because the speed at which they can go can kill and cause collateral damage?



I don't think so, and honestly if you have criminals toting mac-10's I have no problem with any of my neighbors toting a full-auto vz .58. If they misuse it, then fine, charge them. But if they want to arm themselves to a high level that is there right.



It seems to me that a well-armed populace makes politicians nervous. Good. They should be, that's thy the 2nd amendment is there in the 1st place.

Totally agree. Like I said earlier, if the civilians had the same weapons as the military, thing would be a bit different. Not that I want every wacko to have a M1A1, but you understand.

 

[jakobeast]

Based on the notion of unlawful search and seizure we will never be able to rid the populace of unlawful firearms completely. If the Feds and local law enforcement could do 'health and welfare' sweeps for 'bad' guns then a lot of the illegal weapons could be taken off the streets....but again, we have this silly prohibition on unlawful search and seizure.

It's not just that. I believe a convicted felon can't have a gun of any kind, and if found in posession, can get 10 years minimum. I wouldlike to see how often that law in applied.



There are other laws and such that need not be on the books as they have been rendered moot, but still can be used archaecally.

 

[IceHogsFan]

My problem is not nor has it ever been civillians owning Uncle Kalashnikov. It's always been outlaws, who can give a **** about gun laws, owning Uncle Kalashnikov. I'd rather deal with a well-armed populace than rely on a government agency in preventing people from becoming victims.

Hear Ye



Hear Ye!

 

[BigPete]

It's not just that. I believe a convicted felon can't have a gun of any kind, and if found in posession, can get 10 years minimum. I wouldlike to see how often that law in applied.



There are other laws and such that need not be on the books as they have been rendered moot, but still can be used archaecally.

That law is applied all the time, but authoritoes have to produce reasonable cause to search prior to siezing an illegally possessed firearm.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

I have a copy of the Federalist Papers and I know what they say regarding the subject...but those opinions were not the only influence on the Bill of Rights. By any measure they were a small fraction of the thoughts that went into the concept of the Bill of Rights and if you remember those thoughts were heavily debated even at that time. It has been posited in modern times that there were a series of reasons for the 2A and the 'bear arms' portion. To stand up against a tyrannical government was just one of them...depending on who you talked to. The major one was much more clear: they didn't want to stand up a large national army so they needed volunteer militiamen and those militiamen would have to come ready to fight with their own clothes, support, and guns. They specifically mention the militia in the wording. If they wanted to authorize the opportunity for people start an armed revolution they should/would have done so.

We aren't arguing here. There are multiple reasons why they included the 2nd Amendment. Those reasons don't lessen over time. They may have added "to protect life and property like your LCD TV" if they were Nostradamus. This also points to proof of Jako's (and others') point that the type/style should not be regulated because if we were to be attacked we would need similar weaponry to defend our country from invaders (Red Dawn).

 

[jaxhawksfan]

Backtracking for political expediency. Isn't the first time, and won't be the last. Notice it says explicitly "this year".........duh, you are going to wait until after the election. We are not fools.



http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-obama-not-seeking-gun-laws-173426783.html

 

[LordKOTL]

I completely disagree with that. IMHO



The language of the original AND modified 2A does not say that "the people should be able to have guns so they can rise up against the government". If that is really what they meant, then they would have said so. SCOTUS ruling be damned.

It also doesn't say, "The right to bear only arms that the governmet allows", or "The right to bear arms a level or two beneath what the government has". It's worded ambiguously. IMHO you always err on the side of freedom than the illusion of security.

 

[IceHogsFan]

While the Aurora shooting injured 71 people — 12 of those killed — to date, there have been 1,262 shooting incidents in Chicago for 2012, up from 1178 in 2011. The murder toll is up to 284, of which 85 percent is typically shootings, according to the Chicago Police Department.

But why, activists ask, hasn’t there been as much attention paid to Chicago’s crime issue nationally–the president’s hometown? Many contend that one reason could be because since it’s in Chicago, murder and gun violence is simply the norm.

You have to hear these comments from Bloomberg.... unbelievable.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKOcHDr3lcU

 

[BigPete]

It also doesn't say, "The right to bear only arms that the governmet allows", or "The right to bear arms a level or two beneath what the government has". It's worded ambiguously. IMHO you always err on the side of freedom than the illusion of security.

Come on. If the founding fathers ever had any clue we would evolve muskets into fully automatic machine guns, rocket launchers, tanks, attack helicopters, bombers, or LRBMs with NUKES, they would have been a lot more careful in their choice of words. (this is all theory though, because I still think they were talking about a militia and not inviting/allowing an armed revolt)

 

[jaxhawksfan]

Come on. If the founding fathers ever had any clue we would evolve muskets into fully automatic machine guns, rocket launchers, tanks, attack helicopters, bombers, or LRBMs with NUKES, they would have been a lot more careful in their choice of words. (this is all theory though, because I still think they were talking about a militia and not inviting/allowing an armed revolt)

So wait, these guys, who just finished with "armed revolt" didn't want the rest of us to be able to do what they did? I'm confused.

 

[BigPete]

So wait, these guys, who just finished with "armed revolt" didn't want the rest of us to be able to do what they did? I'm confused.

Technically, they weren't finished with it at all. There was war for another 30 years (War of 1812 anyone?). They were fighting a monarch in a far off place who disavowed their right to vote on matters of governance.



To combat this, they set up a government for the people, by the people. That system is supposed to be impervious to establishing the kinds of tyranny that they were being subjected to...hence no reason to institutionalize the idea that an armed revolt is good or allowable. The lawful 'bearing of arms' was for the express purpose of fending off foreign attacks, ie a militia for national defense. I took that directly from Publius in No. 29...you know, the very papers that you directed me to?

 

[LordKOTL]

Are you sure about that, BigPete? For all we know the proliferation of advanced weaponry would have meant that they worded it the same so that a standing militia could go toe-to-toe with an advanced attacking force.



Further, if the purpose of weaponry is defense, and a lot of criminal organizations can arm themselves with at least as well a a small 3rd world nation in the brink of a civil war, why wouldn't it be prudent for the popuace to arm itself just as well if it could afford to?



It doesn't matter whether your level of weaponry is rocks, sticks, and an atlatl; or lasers, particle weapons, or the like yet to be invented. Criminals are criminals. Crazies are Crazies. No law abriging any level or weaponry is going to stop them from attaing the level of armament that they want to and and from secreting said weaponry into the carcasses of those they want to destroy and any bystanders.

 

[Pez68]

Are you sure about that, BigPete? For all we know the proliferation of advanced weaponry would have meant that they worded it the same so that a standing militia could go toe-to-toe with an advanced attacking force.



Further, if the purpose of weaponry is defense, and a lot of criminal organizations can arm themselves with at least as well a a small 3rd world nation in the brink of a civil war, why wouldn't it be prudent for the popuace to arm itself just as well if it could afford to?



It doesn't matter whether your level of weaponry is rocks, sticks, and an atlatl; or lasers, particle weapons, or the like yet to be invented. Criminals are criminals. Crazies are Crazies. No law abriging any level or weaponry is going to stop them from attaing the level of armament that they want to and and from secreting said weaponry into the carcasses of those they want to destroy and any bystanders.

Spot on.

 

[sth]

The Federalist Papers were arguments between Madison and Hamilton. Madison and the Anti-Federalists feared a strong central government. Thus they supported the second amendment to be able to overthrow the government if it became too powerful. Hamilton and the Federalists feared the anarchy of too weak a central government. As was seen in the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton feared the concept of constant revolution, and he opposed the second amendment. And that tension has survived till today. After the chaos of the French Revolution the idea of constant revolution is frightening, at least to me.