<p>The radical NRA and those of their ilk would have us believe that there is an unfettered constitutional right for everyone to own any type of weapon. There is NO such constitutional right!!!</p>
<p>The Second Amendment is suscinct, stating, “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 right to keep and bear arms is dependent on a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.</p>
<p>There was much discussion of national defense in the Federalist Papers with discussion ranging from a standing federal army to reliance on states’ militia. In all discussion of militia, the founders were very clear that the militia would take the form of a trained citizen army under the command of either the states or the President. It seems that our National Guard is the concept they were envisioning with respect to a well regulated militia.</p>
<p>These great men would be aghast to see how the Second Amendment is now being interpreted,where pro-gun radicals insist on a gun ownership right absent any prerequiste of participation in a well regulated militia under government command.</p>
<p>And now we are left of wonder how a non-citizen can walk into a Virginia gun shop, buy semi-automatic weapons and a cache of ammunition legally. As a non-citizen he certainly could not be a part of a well regulated militia. And now 30+ innocents are dead because of politicians bow down to the radical NRA and its money.</p>
<p>When it comes to gun ownership and gun violence, the USofA is the laughing stock of the world. And with more than 250,000 semi-automatics sold only last year it becomes an impossible task to correct the horror.</p>
<p>I’m glad you acknowledge that these were “great men” but unfortunately you mischaracterize what they said about private individuals bearing arms:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the focus of your complaint is that a non-citizen was able to buy guns then you may have some common ground with the founders. However, if you want to extend that restriction to citizens as well, then the founders may be at odds with you.</p>
<p>fundingfather: I (reluctantly) agree with your direction, as a matter of constitutional law. But that’s mainly because I am NOT an originalist. Of all your quote-bites, only the first, from John Adams, is actually inconsistent with originaloog’s argument. And without context I can’t tell whether Adams thought that was a good thing or a bad thing, and whether it was the intent of the amendment or merely a desirable or undesirable side effect. I would note that you do not usually endorse the proto-Maoism that an overly expansive interpretation of those statements suggests.</p>
<p>I also note that the historical records show that the citizenry of 1789 was a good deal less armed than it is today, and that there was nothing like an expectation that men not actively engaged in an organized militia would universally bear arms on a regular basis.</p>
<p>In any event, believing that the Constitution as it exists today recognizes a right to private ownership of arms in no way precludes believing that it permits reasonable restrictions on that right, including character inquiries, quantity restrictions, regular qualification, and registration requirements.</p>
<p>FF, while I agree that the right to bear arms is a fundamental freedom that we in the 21st century should still uphold, almost all those quotes imply or directly state that users should be trained, owners should be peaceable, members in sffect of a “well regulated militia” - I’m not sure the founders had bazookas in mind, or semi-automatic weapons. If I’m not mistaken, all personal weapons were still muzzleloaders or flintlocks in their day, so you could only shoot one person every few minutes.
I know a tremendous number of responsible gun owners, and almost to a person they welcome appropriate regulation of guns - which includes registration, background checks and closing gun show loopholes. Most favor required training. Some also favor concealed weapons.
My personal views are different and I support much more gun control than the average person down here, particularly control from the public health perspective. But I think we can have a conversation in this country about responsible preservation of the Second Amendment, and that there is middle ground between the take up all the weapons and destroy them camp and the famous rifle in the cold dead hand camp.</p>
<p>By the way, the public health perspective takes that you can’t directly prevent a determined, disturbed person from committing a horrific attack, it happens in countries with much stricter gun laws. But, many more people are killed and many more deaths could be prevented by reducing the general availabiltiy of guns in the community, especially in the hands of children, patients on antidepressants or with a history of suicial ideation, no demonstrable training, etc.</p>
<p>"“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” - Patrick Henry </p>
<p>Patrick Henry OPPOSED adoption of the Constitution. </p>
<p>The Second Amendment was adopted to prevent the automatic establishment of a standing army. The argument was that folks could grab their guns, be marshalled into a militia, ISSUED AMMUNITION by the government, and fight foreign invaders. There is no Constitutional right to ammunition.</p>
<p>“Arms” includes the means to use them - bullets, for example. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. You could have said, in that ancient context, except “flint” since that was just as important as the lead for the balls.</p>
<p>Btw - the personal right to firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. You can’t lawfully possess a firearm as a felon, for example, or under a restraining order.</p>
<p>“Arms” includes the means to use them - bullets, for example."</p>
<p>Nope. In its Constitutional context, bullets and powder were issued to the militias by the government, not brought from home. This is historical FACT, not opinion. You can check George Washington’s itemized bills to the Continental Congress for same. It makes perfect sense, if you assume the the purpose was to guarantee the non-infringement of citizens’ rights to bear arms in a well-regulated militia.</p>
<p>Not parsing facts. The government organized militias to fight for independence, and assumed it would continue to do so, without having to rely on standing armies. When it did so, it is FACT, not opinion, but fact, that it issued the bullets and powder to the well-regulated militias.</p>
<p>I can think of plenty of reasons how the right to purchase and keep bullets can be protected, notably by state law. But the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with it. </p>
<p>A soldier who couldn’t load his musket more than once every few minutes would have been pretty useless. While not as fast as an Vietnam-era M16 on rock-and-roll, a good 18th or 19th century soldier could fire three or four times a minute.</p>
<p>True WashDad, but you had to aim, too! Yes, I know that trained soldiers could get off more than one shot per minute, but they would have been delighted with an M-16.</p>
<p>You’re entitled to your opinion, of course.</p>
<p>Why not try and see if you can get ammunition banned?</p>
<p>I suspect it’s been tried before. I think the current anti-Amendment #2 talking point is to tax ammunition with something like a 10,000% tax.</p>
<p>I would offer there would have been lots less bloodshed if all able-bodied citizens, lawfully trained to arms, had been armed yesterday on the VT campus. The government just cannot be everywhere, all the time. Unless you like the more oppressive types of government? Then any news would have been censored and we’d all feel normal.</p>
<p>Is it too early to start this argument, or is it too late.</p>
<p>I’d only add that the “right” to bear arms is an antiquated notion from hundreds of years ago at a time, for example that slavery was permitted.</p>
<p>To borrow a line from Chris Rock, maybe the solution is just to make bullets cost about $5,000 a piece and all the guns really won’t matter then</p>