Well, you did say that further legislation would make it too expensive for the "average" American.

That's not what I said. Please re-read my post. I was responding to Clyde question about how Obama could overturn the constitution.

 

NRA Claim: "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent"

Uncertain: This claim is based on an article that appeared in the Chicago Defender on Dec. 13, 1999, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate. According to the Defender, at an anti-gun rally, Obama "outlined his anti-gun plan," which, among other things, sought to "increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] — weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." As a U.S. senator, however, Obama has not pushed for any such tax on ammunition.

We asked the Obama campaign about his position on an ammunition tax but have received no response.

 

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

That's not what I said. Please re-read my post. I was responding to Clyde question about how Obama could overturn the constitution.

 

 

 

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

 

Your words:

 

I want to be clear that I do not think the POTUS will or even can overturn the Constitution. However that doesn't mean he can't try to regulate guns and ammo to the point that the average citizen won't be able to afford or even have available more than a single shot .22

So the info is from an "NRA Claim" article soon to be 13 years old?

Then why ask the original question if you don't care?

 

I am open minded and want to hear opinions.

Your words:

And? I did not say "further legislation would make it too expensive..." I was giving that as an example of an course of action Obama could take. And have backed that up with the link #76 as something Obama has supported in the past. I'm not saying that's what he will do or that he will do anything at all. As far as I know Obama isn't working on any legislation/policy/orders/rules/laws/requests/whatever concerning guns. Again I was simply repling to Clyde with an example of a course of action Obama could take.

 

Do you disagree that is direction the POTUS could go?

I am open minded and want to hear opinions.

Gotcha. When you posed the question it seemed as though you had a position on the subject.

And? I did not say "further legislation would make it too expensive..." I was giving that as an example of an course of action Obama could take. And have backed that up with the link #76 as something Obama has supported in the past. I'm not saying that's what he will do or that he will do anything at all. As far as I know Obama isn't working on any legislation/policy/orders/rules/laws/requests/whatever concerning guns. Again I was simply repling to Clyde with an example of a course of action Obama could take.

 

Do you disagree that is direction the POTUS could go?

 

When you answered Clyde, you didn't say you were giving an example, nor did you say anything about it being something you were quoting. I took your response to mean those were your thoughts. I'm open to learning how to better read your posts, but I need your guidance to do so.

 

It is a direction the POTUS could go. But I don't really see that being a top priority for him now, or even in the next election, frankly. As long as business has the country hostage, his priority will likely remain the economy.

When you answered Clyde, you didn't say you were giving an example, nor did you say anything about it being something you were quoting. I took your response to mean those were your thoughts. I'm open to learning how to better read your posts, but I need your guidance to do so.

 

It is a direction the POTUS could go. But I don't really see that being a top priority for him now, or even in the next election, frankly. As long as business has the country hostage, his priority will likely remain the economy.

Sometimes typed thoughts don't come off like spoken thoughts do, no tone. The response to Clyde was my thoughts about Obama's options. The quote I refered to was a few posts later (post #76).

 

As far as his prioity, I'm sure Obama is capable of working on mutiple issues at once. While the economy will definitely be at the top of the list other issues will also be on it.

Related.. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/

Why did you not bold the first 4 words of the amendment, especially "well regulated"?

 

There is a very clear, but detailed answer for your question.

 

"A well regulated militia" is speaking of a militia, not the right for citizens to bear arms. These are two different things. When the 2nd amendment commands NO infringing, it is speaking directly of the right of the citizens to bear and keep arms and is not speaking about a well regulated militia. Again these are two different things. A militia is a military force raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. The right to bear arms is just simply that - the right for citizens to bear and keep arms. A citizen has a right to bear and keep arms that the 2nd amendment says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, however that doesn't mean, he or she joins a militia. That as stated, is a totally separate thing.

 

That being said, the words "well regulated", that you asked about are directly referring to a militia, a separate thing as the "right to bear and keep arms." The definition of regulate is as follows - Control or maintain the rate or speed so that it operates properly. When the 2nd amendment states "a well regulated militia, that is necessary to the security of a free state", it is saying simply this; A militia that is well regulated or maintained and controlled so as to operate properly is necessary to the security of a free state. This makes sense. A militia that is not maintained or a militia that is not operating properly is useless to the security of a free state. In comes the command to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. The best way to regulate or maintain the usefuleness and quality of a militia is to protect fully the right to bear and keep arms for the citizens that the militia is derived from. Imagine a militia made up of citizens that have infringed rights to bear arms. Imagine during the American Revolution, when militia's were highly important in our countries Independence, if the citizens said, I would love to help and join the militia, but I am waiting for my paperwork to clear and my background check to come through. The point is that a well regulated or well maintained militia, that is necessary to the security of a free state, BEGINS and ENDS with NOT infringing the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Regulating a militia, or keeping a militia maintained, functioning and operating properly IS absolutely done by keeping the citizens who might make up the militia freely and uninhibitedly armed. Simply put...What good is a militia made up of citizens with no guns? Again, don't get mad at me, I didnt write it, however I am going to follow it.

I am open minded and want to hear opinions.

 

VOR, I do consider you to be open minded, so here is my opinion:

 

As someone that grew up around guns, served in the military and owns numerous magazine fed weapons, trust me please when I say that any legislation or regulation limiting magazine size is an insult to the intelligence of the anti gun supporters and is just simple window dressing. As someone else mentioned, a ban on magazines greater than 5 or even 10 rounds would make no one safer. Any one sick enough to use a magazine fed weapon to attack people could, with just a little practice at a target range or just out in the country side, quickly become proficient in replacing one spent magazine with a full one in approx. a second. Forgive me, but I have to believe that someone sick enough to use a 50 round magazine to kill as many people as possible will, if that 50 round magazine is not available, purchase 5 ten round magazines and spend a little time practicing to be able to replace a spent one with a full one. Put 5 ten round magazines in a belly belt and I'm no less dangerous than if I had a one 50 round magazine. Any regulation or law limiting magazine size is simply feel good legislation that accomplishes nothing. It really doesn't.

 

Setting aside the whole Constitutional right to own a 50 round magazine debate for a minute, I "operate" from the starting premise that any, and I mean any, individual freedom can only be regulated or infringed when (a) there is a compelling societal need for such infringement; and (b) the law implementing that infringement will actually serve and accomplish that societal need, and © the law implementing that infringement is written in the most non-intrusive but effective manner. I am a huge advocate of the right to free speech, but I'm fine with a law regulating the right to scream "fire" in a crowded movie theater because there is a legitimate societal need to prevent unfounded panic and dangerous stampedes; that the ban on such language is effective in implementing that societal need; and that such a limited infringement on free speech is the most non-intrusive manner that the societal need can be accomplished. Heck, I support 55 mph speed limits (even though I hate driving that slow) because study after study shows the lower limits saves significant lifes and dramatically decreases gas consumption (and thus our use of foreign oil and the outflow of US dollars to nations not aligned with our national interests and security).

 

Let's say, for argument sake, that the regulation of magazine size satisfies the first requirement of my "test" by serving society's need to safeguard its citizens from violent crime caused by large capacity magazines (but as I mention below, the FBI stats and studies I've seen don't support that conclusion, but we'll ignore that for now). However, from my experience it miserably fails the second part of my test because it really accomplishes nothing due to the fact that numerous legal size magazines can be used in a manner roughly equivalent to one 50 round magazine and for that reason, a ban on large capacity magazines fails my "test". In other words, even if there is a compelling societal need, if the infringement does not satisfy or accomplish the societal need, the individual liberty should not be infringed.

 

I've been called a conservative on here. I'm not really sure what a conservative is to be honest with you, but I look at myself as a pragmatic libertarian. I start with the premise that I should have the right to do whatever and anything I want but that I should be responsible and held fully accountable for any of my free actions. That's the libertarian in me. But I realize that if everyone could do whatever they wanted, there could not be organized society. Thus the pragmatist in me says that society has the right and ability to infringe on my individual rights if such is in the best interest of society and the infringement actually accomplishes what it is in the best interest of society. It's the price I'm willing to pay to live in and benefit from society. If it could be demonstrated that the availability of 50 round magazines was a cause of a large amount of violent crime in the US and a ban on the new manufacture and sale of 50 round magazines would actually result in a significant decrease in violent crime, I'd vote for a constitutional amendment if that's what it took. But I don't believe the first part of the preceding sentence is backed up with FBI statistical information, and I know from my own experience handling magazine fed weapons for decades that the second part of the preceding sentence would not happen. Besides my experience and knowledge that, with a little practice, spent magazines can quickly be replaced with full ones, the legislation proposed by McCarthy early in 2011 did not ban possession of large capacity magazines; it would just ban the manufacture and sale of new large capacity magazines. Well, what's going to happen to all the existing large capacity magazines out there already? They aren't going to wither up and disintegrate. And they'll be legal to own! Which makes no sense to me. If large capacity magazines are a cause of a significant amount of violent crime and if the ban on them would significantly reduce violent crime, why should any of them be legal? McCarthy's bill would be like the US govt telling GM that it had to quit producing a certain model of car that burst into flames when it was involved in a 5 mph impact but not doing anything about the million cars of that model that GM already had sold. Heck it's worse than that because cars wear out and deteriorate faster than magazines. In a decade or so, most of those dangerous cars already on the street would be in the scrap yard. However, slap on a little oil on a magazine a couple of times a year and don't store the magazines loaded (to avoid magazine fatigue) and that magazine will work just fine 50 years or more after it was manufactured. All those magazines that are so dangerous to warrant a ban on new production and an infringement of my personal liberty are going to remain out there in the public. Dang it, if they are so dangerous to warrant me not owning a new one, they are so dangerous to warrant me not owning a old one, and every one should be confiscated and destroyed.

 

In fact the police officers better not possess them either. I'm not one to think the revolution is coming next week or that the big brother government is going to use the police to take away all of our liberties and install a totalitarian govt in this country. Then again, 20 years ago a lot of people probably never would have thought a half black politician would get elected to the Presidency in 2008; a lot people in the 1930's probably didn't think that Hitler would invade Poland, France, etc; and a lot of people in 2000 probably didn't think terrorists would be able to hijack aircraft and fly them into the World Trade Towers either.

 

Fact is that no one, neither me nor you nor anyone else on here can know what the future holds for this country. I don't want to give up a right or a liberty that may someday keep me, my family and my friends alive unless there is a dang compelling need of society for me to give up that liberty; that the giving up of that liberty will actually accomplish what society needs; and the giving up of that liberty is the only way that such need can be met.

 

Sorry for the pontification VOR and I hope none of the above was offensive to you. Trust me: you are one of the people on this site that I truly respect. I've just got this "thing" about not wanting to give up personal freedoms unless there is a compelling societal need for me to do so and I've got this "thing" against politicians that propose legislation that accomplishes little or anything but serve as a shill for votes.

There is a very clear, but detailed answer for your question.

 

"A well regulated militia" is speaking of a militia, not the right for citizens to bear arms. These are two different things. When the 2nd amendment commands NO infringing, it is speaking directly of the right of the citizens to bear and keep arms and is not speaking about a well regulated militia. Again these are two different things. A militia is a military force raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. The right to bear arms is just simply that - the right for citizens to bear and keep arms. A citizen has a right to bear and keep arms that the 2nd amendment says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, however that doesn't mean, he or she joins a militia. That as stated, is a totally separate thing.

 

That being said, the words "well regulated", that you asked about are directly referring to a militia, a separate thing as the "right to bear and keep arms." The definition of regulate is as follows - Control or maintain the rate or speed so that it operates properly. When the 2nd amendment states "a well regulated militia, that is necessary to the security of a free state", it is saying simply this; A militia that is well regulated or maintained and controlled so as to operate properly is necessary to the security of a free state. This makes sense. A militia that is not maintained or a militia that is not operating properly is useless to the security of a free state. In comes the command to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. The best way to regulate or maintain the usefuleness and quality of a militia is to protect fully the right to bear and keep arms for the citizens that the militia is derived from. Imagine a militia made up of citizens that have infringed rights to bear arms. Imagine during the American Revolution, when militia's were highly important in our countries Independence, if the citizens said, I would love to help and join the militia, but I am waiting for my paperwork to clear and my background check to come through. The point is that a well regulated or well maintained militia, that is necessary to the security of a free state, BEGINS and ENDS with NOT infringing the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Regulating a militia, or keeping a militia maintained, functioning and operating properly IS absolutely done by keeping the citizens who might make up the militia freely and uninhibitedly armed. Simply put...What good is a militia made up of citizens with no guns? Again, don't get mad at me, I didnt write it, however I am going to follow it.

 

Our forefathers were masters of the English language, there is no doubt. Given that, your first paragraph is highly specious. The amendment is not divided into two sections, there is one section with only one sentence. It is you, and others who have made it into two things, which seems to fly in the face of some conservative expositors who want to strictly interpret the document.

VOR, I do consider you to be open minded, so here is my opinion:

 

As someone that grew up around guns, served in the military and owns numerous magazine fed weapons, trust me please when I say that any legislation or regulation limiting magazine size is an insult to the intelligence of the anti gun supporters and is just simple window dressing. As someone else mentioned, a ban on magazines greater than 5 or even 10 rounds would make no one safer. Any one sick enough to use a magazine fed weapon to attack people could, with just a little practice at a target range or just out in the country side, quickly become proficient in replacing one spent magazine with a full one in approx. a second. Forgive me, but I have to believe that someone sick enough to use a 50 round magazine to kill as many people as possible will, if that 50 round magazine is not available, purchase 5 ten round magazines and spend a little time practicing to be able to replace a spent one with a full one. Put 5 ten round magazines in a belly belt and I'm no less dangerous than if I had a one 50 round magazine. Any regulation or law limiting magazine size is simply feel good legislation that accomplishes nothing. It really doesn't.

 

Setting aside the whole Constitutional right to own a 50 round magazine debate for a minute, I "operate" from the starting premise that any, and I mean any, individual freedom can only be regulated or infringed when (a) there is a compelling societal need for such infringement; and (b) the law implementing that infringement will actually serve and accomplish that societal need, and © the law implementing that infringement is written in the most non-intrusive but effective manner. I am a huge advocate of the right to free speech, but I'm fine with a law regulating the right to scream "fire" in a crowded movie theater because there is a legitimate societal need to prevent unfounded panic and dangerous stampedes; that the ban on such language is effective in implementing that societal need; and that such a limited infringement on free speech is the most non-intrusive manner that the societal need can be accomplished. Heck, I support 55 mph speed limits (even though I hate driving that slow) because study after study shows the lower limits saves significant lifes and dramatically decreases gas consumption (and thus our use of foreign oil and the outflow of US dollars to nations not aligned with our national interests and security).

 

Let's say, for argument sake, that the regulation of magazine size satisfies the first requirement of my "test" by serving society's need to safeguard its citizens from violent crime caused by large capacity magazines (but as I mention below, the FBI stats and studies I've seen don't support that conclusion, but we'll ignore that for now). However, from my experience it miserably fails the second part of my test because it really accomplishes nothing due to the fact that numerous legal size magazines can be used in a manner roughly equivalent to one 50 round magazine and for that reason, a ban on large capacity magazines fails my "test". In other words, even if there is a compelling societal need, if the infringement does not satisfy or accomplish the societal need, the individual liberty should not be infringed.

 

I've been called a conservative on here. I'm not really sure what a conservative is to be honest with you, but I look at myself as a pragmatic libertarian. I start with the premise that I should have the right to do whatever and anything I want but that I should be responsible and held fully accountable for any of my free actions. That's the libertarian in me. But I realize that if everyone could do whatever they wanted, there could not be organized society. Thus the pragmatist in me says that society has the right and ability to infringe on my individual rights if such is in the best interest of society and the infringement actually accomplishes what it is in the best interest of society. It's the price I'm willing to pay to live in and benefit from society. If it could be demonstrated that the availability of 50 round magazines was a cause of a large amount of violent crime in the US and a ban on the new manufacture and sale of 50 round magazines would actually result in a significant decrease in violent crime, I'd vote for a constitutional amendment if that's what it took. But I don't believe the first part of the preceding sentence is backed up with FBI statistical information, and I know from my own experience handling magazine fed weapons for decades that the second part of the preceding sentence would not happen. Besides my experience and knowledge that, with a little practice, spent magazines can quickly be replaced with full ones, the legislation proposed by McCarthy early in 2011 did not ban possession of large capacity magazines; it would just ban the manufacture and sale of new large capacity magazines. Well, what's going to happen to all the existing large capacity magazines out there already? They aren't going to wither up and disintegrate. And they'll be legal to own! Which makes no sense to me. If large capacity magazines are a cause of a significant amount of violent crime and if the ban on them would significantly reduce violent crime, why should any of them be legal? McCarthy's bill would be like the US govt telling GM that it had to quit producing a certain model of car that burst into flames when it was involved in a 5 mph impact but not doing anything about the million cars of that model that GM already had sold. Heck it's worse than that because cars wear out and deteriorate faster than magazines. In a decade or so, most of those dangerous cars already on the street would be in the scrap yard. However, slap on a little oil on a magazine a couple of times a year and don't store the magazines loaded (to avoid magazine fatigue) and that magazine will work just fine 50 years or more after it was manufactured. All those magazines that are so dangerous to warrant a ban on new production and an infringement of my personal liberty are going to remain out there in the public. Dang it, if they are so dangerous to warrant me not owning a new one, they are so dangerous to warrant me not owning a old one, and every one should be confiscated and destroyed.

 

In fact the police officers better not possess them either. I'm not one to think the revolution is coming next week or that the big brother government is going to use the police to take away all of our liberties and install a totalitarian govt in this country. Then again, 20 years ago a lot of people probably never would have thought a half black politician would get elected to the Presidency in 2008; a lot people in the 1930's probably didn't think that Hitler would invade Poland, France, etc; and a lot of people in 2000 probably didn't think terrorists would be able to hijack aircraft and fly them into the World Trade Towers either.

 

Fact is that no one, neither me nor you nor anyone else on here can know what the future holds for this country. I don't want to give up a right or a liberty that may someday keep me, my family and my friends alive unless there is a dang compelling need of society for me to give up that liberty; that the giving up of that liberty will actually accomplish what society needs; and the giving up of that liberty is the only way that such need can be met.

 

Sorry for the pontification VOR and I hope none of the above was offensive to you. Trust me: you are one of the people on this site that I truly respect. I've just got this "thing" about not wanting to give up personal freedoms unless there is a compelling societal need for me to do so and I've got this "thing" against politicians that propose legislation that accomplishes little or anything but serve as a shill for votes.

Great post LN.

There is a very clear, but detailed answer for your question.

 

"A well regulated militia" is speaking of a militia, not the right for citizens to bear arms. These are two different things. When the 2nd amendment commands NO infringing, it is speaking directly of the right of the citizens to bear and keep arms and is not speaking about a well regulated militia. Again these are two different things. A militia is a military force raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. The right to bear arms is just simply that - the right for citizens to bear and keep arms. A citizen has a right to bear and keep arms that the 2nd amendment says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, however that doesn't mean, he or she joins a militia. That as stated, is a totally separate thing.

 

That being said, the words "well regulated", that you asked about are directly referring to a militia, a separate thing as the "right to bear and keep arms." The definition of regulate is as follows - Control or maintain the rate or speed so that it operates properly. When the 2nd amendment states "a well regulated militia, that is necessary to the security of a free state", it is saying simply this; A militia that is well regulated or maintained and controlled so as to operate properly is necessary to the security of a free state. This makes sense. A militia that is not maintained or a militia that is not operating properly is useless to the security of a free state. In comes the command to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. The best way to regulate or maintain the usefuleness and quality of a militia is to protect fully the right to bear and keep arms for the citizens that the militia is derived from. Imagine a militia made up of citizens that have infringed rights to bear arms. Imagine during the American Revolution, when militia's were highly important in our countries Independence, if the citizens said, I would love to help and join the militia, but I am waiting for my paperwork to clear and my background check to come through. The point is that a well regulated or well maintained militia, that is necessary to the security of a free state, BEGINS and ENDS with NOT infringing the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Regulating a militia, or keeping a militia maintained, functioning and operating properly IS absolutely done by keeping the citizens who might make up the militia freely and uninhibitedly armed. Simply put...What good is a militia made up of citizens with no guns? Again, don't get mad at me, I didnt write it, however I am going to follow it.

 

Our forefathers were masters of the English language, there is no doubt. Given that, your first paragraph is highly specious. The amendment is not divided into two sections, there is one section with only one sentence. It is you, and others who have made it into two things, which seems to fly in the face of some conservative expositors who want to strictly interpret the document.

 

Here is a long and methodical view of why the militia clause in in the 2nd amendment. The discussion on militias here is nothing less than fascinating. It contains many quotes of the time.

 

http://www.guncite.com/journals/val-hal.html

 

The main question was does the country depend on a permanent standing army - likely controlled by a select few or on a militia made up of citizens.

 

The questions was not so much 'if' the people were armed but more 'how' do they get armed - since it was assumed that every able bodied male would or could be part of the militia. And they were expected to expected to bring their own arms. Some wanted it in law that all persons had to be armed. Some wanted state-managed arms depots. But at the time almost every freeman in America was already well armed. And the ability of Governor of State to call out the militia was critical.

 

So interesting quotes from the link above:

 

"Under every government the dernier resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people ... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens .... [Y]our liberties will be safe as long as you support a well regulated militia. "

 

and

 

Several members doubted that every man should be a member of the active militia, but there was a consensus that every man be armed.[281] "As far as the whole body of the people are necessary to the general defence, they ought to be armed," explained Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania.[282] James Jackson of Georgia argued that:

 

"the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms. Though it may prove burdensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated .... In a Republic every man ought to be a soldier, and be prepared to resist tyranny and usurpation, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils--a standing army.[283]"

 

It would appear the founders hated the idea of a standing army - like the one they fought that oppressed them. Standing armies were the tool of the elite, the aristocrats. Not of a republic. The Republic of Rome had a tradition of making its armies disarm at the Rubicon - until Cesar and his army "crossed the Rubicon" and he declared himself emperor using his army to eliminate the Republic.

 

 

For the short version of the discussion the front end of the 2nd amendment simply goggle 'Penn Teller 2nd Amendment' and look for a video. Unfortunately they use some language that prevents direct linking.