Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Right to Bear Arms? What History Tells Us.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    Historical speaking, in 1789, the meaning of constitutions were ascertained by applying the well established common law rules of legal interpretation. One of those rules applied to legal expressions which contained parts that didn't coincide.

    The rule dictated that the means should be sacrificed to the end. Therefore, we are obligated to sacrifice the means, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, to the more important end of a well regulated militia. Thus, we must deviate from the plain language of the Amendment, just as the founders deviated from the plain language in other laws, and understand the right of the people to keep and bear arms to mean the right of the militia to organize, arm and train as the standing force of the nation.
    Yes, and please forgive my stupidity, but surely if you have a gun under your bed you're not 'obligated' to do anything, as long as it's loaded and you can pull it out in time.

    Deviation has been well covered elsewhere on these forums.
    Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
    (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
      If that were the case, the lawmakers would have included a clause in the Second Amendment which said that "a weapon under the bed being necessary in case someone comes to take the women, children, weapons for any other possessions..."


      ********************

      "The English language was carefully culled", by the butt monkeys who wrote the Second Amendment, "to find words feeble in their Nature or doubtful in their meaning!"
      Depends which English you're talking about. There's Norman, Saxon, even Pidgin... But that's a good point. If that's a quote "feeble in their nature" you could translate that into Norman English as 'ambivalent'. Then clever chaps those FFs.
      Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
      (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
        The meaning of the word "people" and that of "well regulated militia" cannot be reconciled except by including only that which they have in common. The only thing the two have in common are the people who are members of a well organized, well armed and well trained militia. Thus, we construe the word "people" to mean only the people who are members of the organized, armed and trained militia, over which Congress was granted sole and exclusive authority under Article One Section Eight.
        I'm sure William the Bastard's group would have argued they were a 'well regulated militia' but the 'people' involved in the 'Harrying of the North' would probably suggest only in terms of ruthless efficiency in their assigned task.

        You can see equivalents today, for instance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Or Hutu militias in Rwanda.
        Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
        (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
          You do know what country produces the Glock?
          .
          Duh! Maybe Austria.
          How may other countries allow their citizens to carry a Glock on a daily basis?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
            Duh! Maybe Austria.
            How may other countries allow their citizens to carry a Glock on a daily basis?

            How many other countries citizen feel a need to carry one?
            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

            you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
              How many other countries citizen feel a need to carry one?
              Hi John.

              Need has nothing to do with the exercise of a right. England has much stricter press censorship laws than the US, I guess they could claim why does the US need its freedom of press? However, from a safety perspective, the USA has less violent crime per capita than many other western countries... England has one of the highest. Where we stand out is in homicides. However, it is debateable whether gun control laws would have any significant impact upon our homicide rate, for a variety of factors.... including cultural. An example of the cultural impact, relatively gun free japan has a suicide rate which exceeds the combined homicide-suicide rate in the US.

              Austia Law: A semi auto Glock handgun is considered a class B firearm and one must establish a need to the stisfaction of the governement before you can own one. Waffengesetz [Weapons Act] Bundesgesetzblatt [RGB1 I] No.
              12/1997.

              Canadian Law. A semi auto Glock handgun is considered a "restricted" firearm and requires the acquistion of a Possession and Acquisition License and the passage of two seperate firearms safety classes for restricted and unrestricted firearms. Firearms Act, R.S.C. ch. F-11.6, c. 39, §12 (1-6). This is relatively recent and many previously owned Glock's are "grandfathered" in withinout restricition, but it will be difficult for one to purchase a new Glock.

              French Law. A semi auto Glock handgun is considered a Class 4 firearm and can not be purchased by your average citizen unless they demonstrate that they engage in a "dangerous profession." Law No. 95-589, Decree of May 6, 1995 (no 95-589), Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise [J.O][Official Gazette of France]

              Italian Law and German Law. Good news, the Germans and Italians let you own your Glock.

              UK Law. Forget about the Glock, you will have trouble purchasing a knife, and they are considering a ban on hoodies (hooded sweatshirts). It is kind of interesting, following the English Bill of Rights, the Norman oppressors did not seek significant gun control legislation until after WWI. Once again, the stated reason concealed the real reason. Obstensibly, it was a crime control measure, but in reality, the Norman overlords feared a Bolshevick revolution.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                The rule dictated that the means should be sacrificed to the end. Therefore, we are obligated to sacrifice the means, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, to the more important end of a well regulated militia. Thus, we must deviate from the plain language of the Amendment, just as the founders deviated from the plain language in other laws, and understand the right of the people to keep and bear arms to mean the right of the militia to organize, arm and train as the standing force of the nation.
                Only in the event of irrenconciable conflict, otherwise you are obliged to give meaning to every part. Since militia members are fully protected as being part of the protected class of people, there is no irreconciable conflict. An example of where there would be an irreconciable conflict would occur if it stated "the right of the Free Masons to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".

                You still did not answer Torien's question. I will repeat it once more

                Please explain how you arrived at your remarkable conclusion that Tucker was praising the English for disarming the population of England.
                You have still not answered the question

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                  The meaning of the word "people" and that of "well regulated militia" cannot be reconciled except by including only that which they have in common. The only thing the two have in common are the people who are members of a well organized, well armed and well trained militia. Thus, we construe the word "people" to mean only the people who are members of the organized, armed and trained militia, over which Congress was granted sole and exclusive authority under Article One Section Eight.

                  That is not the test to be employed. That the term "people" and the term "militia" are not equivalent, obviously. The conflict occurs if an only if the people being armed is contraindicated to a well regulated militia.... that by allowing the people to be armed in some way restricts the arms to militiaIt, or in other respects HARMS the well regulated militia. In fact, the opposite is true, if the people are free to own their private weapons, the well regulated militia is readily supplied with a source of weapons AND has the advantage of its recruits being familiar with the use of arms. Therefore you lose. For example, do you think the Army taught Sgt. York how to shoot a gun?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                    UK Law. Forget about the Glock, you will have trouble purchasing a knife, and they are considering a ban on hoodies (hooded sweatshirts). It is kind of interesting, following the English Bill of Rights, the Norman oppressors did not seek significant gun control legislation until after WWI. Once again, the stated reason concealed the real reason. Obstensibly, it was a crime control measure, but in reality, the Norman overlords feared a Bolshevick revolution.
                    Well, I could speak to French and English Law. The French love hunting, and many is the time I've been hounded from bed early in the morning by the sound of gunshots.

                    English law. I'd dispute most violence in England as gun-related. Fists, glass, boots, a knife if you can find one. Whatever to hand.

                    As to WWI+ -even before- gun legislation. I'd imagine most related to poaching on estates, principally held by Normans, though a Bolshevik revolution might have been a possibility, given the numbers of trained English soldiers returning after the war.
                    Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                    (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                      Well, I could speak to French and English Law. The French love hunting, and many is the time I've been hounded from bed early in the morning by the sound of gunshots.
                      Indeed, the French love hunting. They have one of the most enthusiastic hunting federations in all the world. Hunting firearms are primarily listed as Class 1 firearms, which is much easier to obtain. But a Glock semi auto is not a Class 1 firearm (I used Glock because Half Pint used that as an example). I imagine there are many a den in a French household which has a stuffed frog head mounted proudly above the fireplace.

                      Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                      English law. I'd dispute most violence in England as gun-related. Fists, glass, boots, a knife if you can find one. Whatever to hand.
                      I did not wish to convey the impression that the violence in England is gun related. For the most part it is not. What is true, however, is that the violent crime rate in England is much greater than in the US.... for whatever reason.

                      Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                      As to WWI+ -even before- gun legislation. I'd imagine most related to poaching on estates, principally held by Normans, though a Bolshevik revolution might have been a possibility, given the numbers of trained English soldiers returning after the war.
                      Yeah, all those returning soldiers with access to guns frightened the pudding out of them Normans, which in turn resulted in their first modern gun control legislation.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                        Indeed, the French love hunting. They have one of the most enthusiastic hunting federations in all the world. Hunting firearms are primarily listed as Class 1 firearms, which is much easier to obtain. But a Glock semi auto is not a Class 1 firearm (I used Glock because Half Pint used that as an example). I imagine there are many a den in a French household which has a stuffed frog head mounted proudly above the fireplace.



                        I did not wish to convey the impression that the violence in England is gun related. For the most part it is not. What is true, however, is that the violent crime rate in England is much greater than in the US.... for whatever reason.



                        Yeah, all those returning soldiers with access to guns frightened the pudding out of them Normans, which in turn resulted in their first modern gun control legislation.
                        OK, I won't argue with you. For the simple reason that I know I can't win.

                        If the French- or anyone else- want to hang slain animal's heads above their fireplace, good luck.

                        The English- as long as we're not talking gun-related I agree. I'd only point out that the efficiency of weapons has increased over the years, and the Normans may have had something to do with it and associated controls.
                        Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                        (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                        Comment


                        • The conflict occurs if the people being armed is contraindicated to a well regulated militia....
                          The conflict occurs because the meanings of "people" and "militia" don't coincide, and because the means should be commensurate with the end being sought. Since the end sought is a "well regulated militia", the means to that end should be only that which is necessary and proper to achieve a well organized, well armed and well trained militia.

                          Comment


                          • ...if the people are free to own their private weapons, the well regulated militia is readily supplied with a source of weapons...
                            A well regulated militia is one that is uniformly armed. Every member of a "well regulated militia" should be equipped with the same type of arms and receive the same training in how to use them.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                              The English- as long as we're not talking gun-related I agree. I'd only point out that the efficiency of weapons has increased over the years, and the Normans may have had something to do with it and associated controls.
                              Efficiency of weaponary will only cause a slight variation in the statistics. There are reasons for this. The primary one is a concept known as "substitution". Where one weapon becomes unavailable, another weapon is used in it's stead. Everything being equal, the decrease in leathality should result in a corresponding decrease in mortality. But that does not seem to be the case. What is occuring is that the decrease in lethality is offset by the increase in the total number of events. The concept of detterance raises its head. In Australia, for example, the Aussies passed some rathe strict gun control legislation in 1996 in response to the Port Arthur masscre. The result was a decline in gun homicides, but an increase in knife and blunt instrument homicides, with the overall homicide rate declining only slightly and in a statistically irrelevant amount. The overall amount of violent crime, however increased, and in a statistically significant amount.

                              Here is a real interesting historical factoid. The homicide rate in europe prior to the invention of the firearm was 20 to 30 times greater than it is today. Following the invention of the firearm, the homicide rate began a step and steady decline until the 20th century when modern control legislation began to be introduced. At that point the overall homicide rate stopped declining and has actually begun to increase.

                              Are the two related? I doubt it. In my view, homicide is more a factor of culture than anything else. I perceive the individualistic, macho male ideal in the US as the primary reason for high homicide rate in the US... where you are not a man if you back down to a challenge.... rather than any aspect of concerning the availabilty of firearms.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                                The conflict occurs because the meanings of "people" and "militia" don't coincide, and because the means should be commensurate with the end being sought. Since the end sought is a "well regulated militia", the means to that end should be only that which is necessary and proper to achieve a well organized, well armed and well trained militia.
                                Quite simply, there is no conflict because the people being armed does not hurt the well regulated militia. The contrary was true with the example Madison provided. The goal of a strong federal government could not be met by amending the Articles of Confederation.... The means provided actively interfered with the desired end. Since the militia is merely a subset of the people, providing a general right to the people instead of specifically to the militia is at most overbroad, that its protections are argueably too sweeping to fulfil the desired end. This does not create a conflict, however, because by protecting the larger group, the smaller group is also protected. Further, by protecting the larger group, rather than the subset, you provide additional benefits to the well regulated militia which can not be obtained by merely protecting the subset. Thus, when Sputnik was launched in the late 50's, Eisenhower proclaimed that we were behind in the rocket sciences and demanded a vast increase in educational expenditures in the science and math. You would argue that this means that all of the educational funding should go to increaing the educational study of rocket propulsion and rocket propulsion only. Thereby diminishing many advances in the science which had benefits to the space program, such as the revolution in microchips.

                                You obviously know very little about statutory construction, history, or just plain common sense... I suggest you try a new tact.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X