Quote :

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

First, I'd like to point out that I am an Endowment member of the National Rifle Association and am by no means a fan of gun control. However I've been doing some thinking about this in light of the slaughter at Virginia Tech and rightfully, this has prompted a debate about the access to firearms in the United States. No one who reads the constitution logically can deny that the words "the right of the people" have been universally interpreted to mean just that, the people. But just as many cling to the phrase "A well regulated Militia" and (mis)interpreting that to read "National Guard", many ignore it outright. To me, the founders put it there for a reason, though its brevity has made it a point of controversy since.

So my question to you, good TWW readers, is this: since military training is no longer mandatory, should we demand that those possessing firearms "muster" once a year for some form of training? Let me make it clear what I have in mind, we're not going to teach these guys how to clear a room, but would a basic legal review, gun-handling test be out of the question? It would be free (or close to, say $5 - $15) a year and would be similar to the "shall-issue" clause of a CCP wherein, if nothing disqualifies you, you're qualified.

I don't have a solid opinion on this, I'm just tossing it out there for your consideration.

4/25/2007 12:58:29 PM

Quote :

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." "

-George Mason

Quote :

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."

-Richard Henery Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

Quote :

"The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun."

-Patrick Henry


So, in response to your questions:

No, we should not demand anything of gun-owners. They have a right to bear any weapon they like simply by existing as citizens, not subjects.

[Edited on April 25, 2007 at 1:17 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2007 1:15:38 PM

Wait, when has military training ever been mandatory?

4/25/2007 1:20:04 PM

^ditto

4/25/2007 1:21:54 PM

^^ In the 50s and 60s there was limited mandatory military service. Likewise there was the local militias during the revolutionary timeframe, though they were as much drinking clubs as anything else.

Quote :

""I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials""

Agreed, but this doesn't argue against my point, just that everyone should be permitted to own a gun (save felons and the mentally incapable, of course). It goes back to my "shall-issue" point.

Quote :

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."

The "be taught alike . . . how to use them" seems to argue in favor of my point.

4/25/2007 1:27:40 PM

Except that, if he meant what you did, such programs would have existed. They did not.

Quote :

"Agreed, but this doesn't argue against my point, just that everyone should be permitted to own a gun (save felons and the mentally incapable, of course). It goes back to my "shall-issue" point."

I don't "save felons and the mentally incapable."

Putting that aside, your argument falls in light of the fact that if the government can tax you to excercise your right, it's not a right at all. And if it's a constitutional right, the government cannot charge you to use it.

Gun ownership is a right. The government can't require 'annual fees' or required training to excercise our freedom of speech, nor can they for guns.

4/25/2007 1:35:04 PM

we should get this thread bttt'd

/message_topic.aspx?topic=425444&page=11

4/25/2007 1:36:16 PM

Keep in mind, TULIPlovr, that each of those quotes were from men who lived over 200 years ago, and are quite out of context today, given such extreme advances in weaponry, travel, communication, etc. since then

4/25/2007 1:41:00 PM

Quote :

"Keep in mind, TULIPlovr, that each of those quotes were from men who lived over 200 years ago, and are quite out of context today, given such extreme advances in weaponry, travel, communication, etc. since then"

Which, I believe, only strengthens the need for these rights.

4/25/2007 1:44:52 PM

Quote :

"Except that, if he meant what you did, such programs would have existed. They did not. "

I'm arguing that they did, in the form of local militias. Weak or not, they (and the community as a whole) served the purpose of ensuring that those who chose to have arms did so responsibly (to a point).

Whether or not the founders envisioned the weapons today is irrelevant, they intended for the citizenry to have access to such weapons as they could procure for self-defense. At the time, this included field artillery pieces even. My question is in the context of the society of the late 18th century vs. the early 21st.

I'm not sure why you don't exempt felons and the mentally incapable. Felons are excluded from a large number of rights, including voting, I don't have a problem with excluding them from gun ownership.

The government taxes property, income, your purchase of the firearm, your purchase of ammunition and damn near everything else. The fee would be used to offset the cost of the class. You have the right to a fair and speedy trial, but you're still going to get hit with court costs.

[Edited on April 25, 2007 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2007 1:46:36 PM

Quote :

"Which, I believe, only strengthens the need for these rights."

of course it would. I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

4/25/2007 1:50:22 PM

Quote :

"I'm arguing that they did, in the form of local militias. Weak or not, they (and the community as a whole) served the purpose of ensuring that those who chose to have arms did so responsibly (to a point). "

Were all gun-owners required to participate in these local militias? Was their right to bear arms taken away for non-participation?

If not, then they cannot, in any way, be used to support your idea.

Quote :

"The government taxes property, income, your purchase of the firearm, your purchase of ammunition and damn near everything else. The fee would be used to offset the cost of the class. You have the right to a fair and speedy trial, but you're still going to get hit with court costs."

A) They shouldn't tax any of those things.
B) If it is used to offset the cost of a required class, then I am still being taxed to excercise a right - which means it really is not a right, but a privilege granted that can be taken away.
C) Only those found guilty or liable (criminal/civil) should shoulder court costs. No man should face financial ruin for false accusations.

Let's stay on one topic.

And I'm gone for a while....

[Edited on April 25, 2007 at 1:54 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2007 1:52:16 PM

Quote :

"Were all gun-owners required to participate in these local militias? Was their right to bear arms taken away for non-participation?"

Honestly, I don't know, but there are outside factors involved here beyond that.

We have to accept the fact that there are about to be calls for significantly stricter restrictions on firearms, which I am opposed to. On top of that, as gun owners, we need to police our own. How do we do this?

4/25/2007 2:06:56 PM

i think this whole topic depends on your definition of militia

4/25/2007 2:32:42 PM

Quote :

"We have to accept the fact that there are about to be calls for significantly stricter restrictions on firearms, which I am opposed to. On top of that, as gun owners, we need to police our own. How do we do this?"

I don't need to police fellow gun-owners. The only people I "police" as a firearm owner are those who threaten me or my family.

Your average, law-abiding gun-owner (that meaning, those today who have permits for concealed carry, even if they object to the principle) are also the last people that need to be policed.

For any given state, fewer CCW carriers are convicted of violent crimes than the police of that state. They're the safest, most responsible group out there.

^ If we aren't ideologically predisposed to disregard the founders' definition - they are unanimous in what they mean. "Every man able" is the militia....and each man himself determines whether he is "able" - not the state.

[Edited on April 25, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2007 3:01:37 PM

Quote :

""Every man able" is the militia"

Agreed. But if they did not intend for some service, why use the term militia when "people" would have sufficed plenty well.

With rights come responsibilities. I do not doubt that the 2nd Amendment to the constitution permits "the people" to carry firearms, and as a CCW holder, I know the statistics regarding CCW holders and crime. That does not change the public's perception and with the % of households who own guns declining there could come a tipping point where the 2nd amendment to the constitution could be repealed. It is an amendment, like any other, and subject to that.

I can appreciate the opinion that we are solely responsible for ourselves, and I'm not suggesting that we inspect each others houses, but for chrissake, the Idaho National Guard has reported people shooting at their tanks while training. On one level I find this hilarious and highly entertaining, but realistically, it’s insanely irresponsible. It is that kind of attitude that will cause us to lose the constitutional protection of our rights.

4/25/2007 3:28:16 PM

Quote :

"Agreed. But if they did not intend for some service, why use the term militia when "people" would have sufficed plenty well."

They intended to have "some service" as a last ditch option to push back against a tyrranical government. This is part of the central role of an armed people, and that's why its in there.

4/25/2007 3:33:49 PM

Quote :

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."

If this your thinking, then why not just make basic firearms training mandatory during primary school? If you can use school to force children to learn to read, run in circles around a field, and sow pillows, why not throw that into the mix as well?

(Only half serious about this...)

[Edited on April 25, 2007 at 4:01 PM. Reason : can't spell worth...]

4/25/2007 4:00:50 PM

A militia in those days was basically every able body man in the local area who could fight. It was not something organized by the government, instead it was something loosely organized very locally to help protect the local community. In order for militias to exist every man needs to have the right to possess a firearm.

It's pretty clear, the founding fathers wanted the populace to be armed so that the government they created would never become a tyrannical state.

If people don't like the Second Amendment then change the constitution, don't try to interpret it to fit personal beliefs.

4/25/2007 4:03:09 PM

it is my observation that the 2nd Amendment does two things. It declares that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because with infringment of the right to keep and bear arms the first declartion would not be possible.

The first statement can only be achieved with the second statement in effect. This isn't a requirement that all people "keeping and bearing arms" be apart of the milita, or having anything to do with the milita. This is a fairly short amendment and in a case of what I think is trying to be simple and straight forward in that time and age with their wording, has led to a broad interpretation of it in this day and age.

What is open to interpretation because it isn't strictly outlined, ( and all things not outlined in the Constitution fall to the States and not the Federal government ) is how a milita is regulated and what kind of regulation is needed to make it "well regulated".

4/25/2007 4:18:09 PM

I guess that is what I'm getting at. I'm not proposing that this should happen, but the idea has been stuck in my head for a few days now and I'm bouncing it around. If the intent is clear that the founders meant it as a means of resisting tyrrany (and I believe it is) then a loosely organized collage of gun-owners with no cohesion stand no chance of resisting anything.

4/25/2007 4:21:23 PM

Quote :

"If this your thinking, then why not just make basic firearms training mandatory during primary school? If you can use school to force children to learn to read, run in circles around a field, and sow pillows, why not throw that into the mix as well? (Only half serious about this...)"

If this question is addressed to me, then my answer is because governments should have no say whatsoever in the education of young people.

Quote :

"If the intent is clear that the founders meant it as a means of resisting tyrrany (and I believe it is) then a loosely organized collage of gun-owners with no cohesion stand no chance of resisting anything."

Sure they could. No people that is armed, and has a reasonably strong minority that hates their rulers with ever fiber of their being, can ever be successfully occupied. In the end, they will be wiped out in mass slaughter, or gain independence from their would be conqueror because they cost that conqueror more than he gains from occupation.

The resistance in Iraq is estimated to be 5-10% of the population on average, and that population is mostly disarmed....yet we are incapable of effectively ruling.

[Edited on April 25, 2007 at 4:45 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2007 4:43:34 PM

Quote :

"The resistance in Iraq is estimated to be 5-10% of the population on average, and that population is mostly disarmed....yet we are incapable of effectively ruling."

They are, however, quite organized.

4/25/2007 4:54:07 PM

Not really. There are dozens of different groups, each shooting for a different purpose ( ), plus all the random pissed-off individuals.

And even so, the more organized the resistance, potentially the better...but the key figure is having that percentage of those willing to fight back, not necessarily how organized they are. Either way, 5-10% of fight-to-the-death folks can keep even a superpower relatively at bay.

4/25/2007 5:09:19 PM

Quote :

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

the problem that some of these anti-gun people have is that pesky little comma followed by the word people instead of militia once again

which is really what makes the 2nd amendment strong in the first place

4/25/2007 5:19:37 PM

More organized than you think, though only in limited geographic areas, not nationally.

4/25/2007 5:22:41 PM

its a good thing we have guns

that way we can fight off the dirty Mexicans who try to take back their land

4/25/2007 5:26:36 PM

Quote :

"If people don't like the Second Amendment then change the constitution, don't try to interpret it to fit personal beliefs."

Ytsejam

But that's what the liberal moonbats do continually. For example, I once heard Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) say, and I'm paraphrasing, that she and others believe the language of the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard--even though that organization did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written. Clearly, the anti-gunners never stop attempting to forward this modern-day militia nonsense as a reason to deny the people--and not some artificial construct of the people or governmental representation of the people but the actual people--their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 2:50 AM. Reason : .]

4/26/2007 2:46:09 AM

Politicians learned their lesson from Prohibition. Now, rather than make something, that many people want, out and out illegal...the more effective method is to gradually whittle away at the legality of owning and using the target item.

Cigarettes are a good example. It's obvious the gov't wants to outlaw butts, but politicians have gradually over the years boxed the industry into a corner. First with banning advertising, then making it illegal in more and more places to smoke, the gov't will soon make them basically illegal without passing a law.

This same fate awaits gun ownership if we are not diligent and fight back the smaller steps gov't will try to take to ban ownership.

4/26/2007 9:19:18 AM

I've advocated making a short (perhaps week long) gun handling and safety class part of high school curriculum.

4/26/2007 10:11:56 AM