If the meaning of "regulated" must be based on the definitions when the Constitution was written,

[elehhhhna]

then the weapons it protects should be what was available at that time.

can't have it both ways.

[Zoeisright]

1. Exactly. Muskets only, gun nuts.

[roguevalley]

11. scalia of all people probably agrees with you. If I remember right.

[dipsydoodle]

2. I' m UK

A young American friend pointed that out to me 10 years ago.

[CTyankee]

3. Elsewhere I posted that one of the reasons that the new emerging democracies in the

world do not want to model their new constitutions on our constitution has got to be our outrageous Second Amendment. It strikes me that many of these new emerging nations have seen violence and gun violence in particular all around them every day and have no stomach for enshrining guns any further.

[stevenleser]

16. Technically, the Constitution does not contain any gun language. An amendment to it does. nt

o

[ashling]

33. Technically, when an amendment

is ratified - through the process proscribed by the originally submitted and ratified document - it becomes a "full on" part of that document as if in the original version.

[stevenleser]

39. No, it doesnt become part of that document, but it is treated as Constitutional law. Its an

amendment, its not part of the original document.

[CTyankee]

36. Yes, I know, but it is in the context of our founders which to me makes it a part of

our foundational document. It is a result of the thinking of that day, perfectly understandable for its time, that simply cannot be applied to today without intense analysis as to what its meaning is in today's society. I think that is where the failure arises. There are other flaws that I see in our Constitution that makes it unworkable for today's emerging democracies, in particular its omission of women and women's rights (see, for example, the Constitution of South Africa which Justice Ginsburg has said COULD be a model for modern day democracies).

There was a NYT front page article on this subject this past year (not sure of the date but you could Google it) and Ginsburg got raked over the coals by the RW on her remarks but she was absolutely right IMO...

[jody]

4. OK and all writing with quill pens, all speech without electronic aids, etc. nt

[kestrel91316]

6. There are no Constitutional issues with writing implements, unlike weaponry.

Explain to us again why you consider yourself a Democrat? Because I have yet to see you support a liberal viewpoint.

[stevenleser]

17. And if we want, laws could be passed or repealed easily regarding all those things. Not so with

something codified in the Constitution or an Amendment.

[jberryhill]

54. Go operate a radio transmitter without an FCC license.

...and let us know how that works out for ya.

[NightWatcher]

5. "Regulate" that shit. Make people jump through hoops, register....

limit sales to people who are in militias like the Army State National Guards...not the nuts in the woods with pot bellies and racist hatred. That is what they meant by well regulated militia.

[Bjorn Against]

7. Yes, it is idiotic to pretend the founders were writing about modern technology in the 18th century

The Constitution needs to be viewed in the context of the time period, there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that the founders thought everyone should be able to own the sorts of firearms that are available today. I don't think it is practical to ban guns, but I certainly think they should be much more heavily regulated.

The Second Amendment was written to protect muskets at a time when there was no military to speak of and they had just finished fighting a revolution. I support the second amendment but I view it in the context of the time it was written and recognize it was not written about current technology.

[dipsydoodle]

8. Just wait until you've all got your own armed drones.

[Mel Content]

52. funny how they used the word 'arms' and not muskets...

i was under the impression that the founders were smart enough to know that weapons, like all technology, evolves over time.

[moobu2]

9. That's a very valid argument.

[elehhhhna]

14. thanks! stating the obvious is always a good argument, yanno?

[bongbong]

10. Read Federalist Paper #29

And you'll find out exactly what "well-regulated" meant in those days.

A very eye-opening read, BTW. It also discusses the chaos that would ensue if there were willy-nilly gun ownership by untrained persons. Ironic, but prophetic.

[elehhhhna]

12. Make that an OP and throw up a link. PLEASE?!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. You know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

You are right.

I just forgot exactly which of the Federalist, and Heller did a number to it.

[FarCenter]

13. That would be Antonin Scalia's position? Strict textualism.

[white_wolf]

47. Well Scalia likes to claim that position.

But he's quick to abandon it when it doesn't suit him. My professor refers to it as a "results driven jurisprudence."

[RomneyLies]

15. Tax the SHIT out of gunpowder

Problem solved.

[Logical]

18. I have seen you post this many times. Do you think a nut shooter would care about the money?

[RomneyLies]

19. Yes, I do.

Thousands of dollars for a magazine of ammunition would go a long way to stopping the nutters.

[elehhhhna]

21. truefact. stops 'em from getting mental heath care.

why would this be any different?

[backwoodsbob]

20. then freedom of press only applies to hand printing presses? NT

[elehhhhna]

22. really, bob? really?

you can't see the false analogy there?

[backwoodsbob]

23. I understand...se my point

all day I've read that I am an accomplice to this simply because I own a gun...that I should be banned from DU for owning a gun,that I should be put in prison for owning a gun.

You get kind of defensive after a while.I'm probably just gonna leave DU over this.

[elehhhhna]

24. bob, we own guns. plural.

no reason to feel defensive. don't you think this country could make some public policy improvements?

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Bob I am a gun owner

I invite you to read this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

I ain't gonna rewrite it again.

[JCMach1]

30. And here is Madison writing to Jefferson about the nature of the Bill of Rights

which includes (of course) the 2nd Amendment.

Here is Madison writing about the creation of the Bill of Rights... "...Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public..."

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-letter-to-thomas-jefferson-october-17-1788.html#ixzz2E5sN2g26

Got that gun nuts! The original intent was to keep it open to the will of the people!

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. In my mind it is high time to recapture

Original intent from these fanatics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. I just posted Federalist 29

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021987588

[elehhhhna]

34. you rock nadin, thankyou

[TheKentuckian]

29. The right to keep and bear arms is not conditioned on what is regulated

however it is defined it is an individual right. The well regulated militia is a rationale not a condition.

Also, I think the logic is sketchy anyway if it is an effort to discern original intent. Citizen and the military were essentially at parity on a one on one basis, this was not missed at the time I suspect.

[elehhhhna]

31. i suspected that

but WE get to define which arms are available -- like no drones or suitcasenukes, etc. More recently, no boxcutters on planes.

[Eleanors38]

35. Not really, unless you follow the Constitution and due process.

You reading of 2A is flawed. The RKBA is stand alone; the militia clause is the central government's stated interest in that right for organizing the militia.

"Well regulated" referenced a citizen's duty to have at ready a firearm equivalent to a military infantry firearm, and the knowledge of how to use it.

"Arms" has, interestingly, more flexibility and room for interpretation than "press." Fortunately, the courts realize things change. Further, even before the Constitution's drafting thousands of soldiers were equipped with rifles as well as muskets. A few decades later, Lewis & Clark took a repeating air gun on their expeditions.

We now have computers to argue the meaning of "press."

[JCMach1]

32. See #25... nor was it intended to absolute

The will of the people should also play a role...

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Read this, you are wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

And also go find federalist 29, just for starters.

But their meaning was very clear from practice at the time and letters and other documents.

[Mel Content]

50. "federalist 29" is NOT the constitution or the bill of rights.

i thought you should know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. It's just Hamilton's justification for it

And defense, under his pen name plubius, BEFORE IT WAS RATIFIED,

Of course it not relevant....

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. Fuck That...

No offense, but the constitution is a living document (hence the ability to amend it). At this moment, I could not give two shits what Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson may (or may not) have thought about whether AR-15's should be allowed in the hands of private citizens.

It's up to us, now and in this generation, to determine what freedoms and what privileges should be shared by the American people. You don't need to rummage through 200-year-old semantics to make a decision.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. The problem is that the NRA tells you that the founders wanted

Every able American to be able to carry an AR15. Here is the point, they did...but not the way we are doing it. So we either change it (good luck with the repeal) or you want to driver right to Carry fans nuts? Sure you can, I have done this, when are you attending drill?.

What the founders wanted, and it has to do with their own fears of regulars is essentially universal conscription to the guard. You can have that, but guess what skippy, you are now part of the militia and we drill once a month. That was the requirement back then for gun owners, who were few and far between. The myth that they were wide spread is just that, a Hollywood myth. There were whole classes of people who could not own guns, and if they were out hunting, they did with papers of leave on them, kind of insurance, promissory note.

So damn straight, we want the right without the responsibility that the Founders implied. They would approve, of Switzerland, which has universal conscription and every male is issued his weapon when they go home, and remain in the reserves until 45, and drill every year.

Israel is also what they intended. It is the modern RKBA movement, praying to these dusty documents, that are clear in meaning, and courts, that have destroyed that.

So yes, we do need to talk of original intent, because it is not this mayhem. At the same time we must speak of rational gun control laws, and Fawke 'em

Oh and congress should go against the Court and pass a law essentially getting rid of the wrong headed Heller decision. Is this going to happen? Unicorns have a better chance to fart in the forest.

[Mel Content]

38. the amendment doesn't REQUIRE a 'well regulated militia'...

it says because a well regulated militia is necessary from time to time, people need to be able to keep arms on hand.
AND- it says "arms" and NOT "muskets" for a reason- they knew that weapons continually change and evolve.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Heller notwithstanding yes it does

You don't believe me? There are reams of documents written by those pesky founders that point to it. Start with Federalist 29.

You want you AR? Sure, like your counterparts all the way to before the civil war, you need to attend drill once a month.

[Mel Content]

45. the wording they chose for the amendment does not REQUIRE a well-regulated militia.

and it doesn't require gun owners to be a part of such militias, either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Do you understand Dependent Clauses

And how they work in the English Language?

And do you know the social milieu of the emergence of the Second Amendment?

FYI, due to what hey did, the guard and the police are your modern day equivalents, both well regulated.

[Llewlladdwr]

48. Break it down for us then nadinbrzezinski.

Diagram this sentence out for us so that we can clearly see how membership in a militia is a requirement for an individual to exercise their second amendment rights.

'Cause I don't believe you can...In fact, I don't believe you'll even try....

[Mel Content]

49. what he said.

diagram the sentence for us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Here you go,,, have fun

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

[Llewlladdwr]

55. Ummm..that's not a sentence diagram.

It's an interesting post, but it doesn' t diagram the 2nd Amendment out. I keep hoping someone can provide that. Thanks anyway.

[Codeine]

42. Similarly, our right to free speech and press should not apply to anything

printed on modern printing equipment or disseminated over the internet, as those clearly did not exist then.