M
Montalban
Guest
And we’re an ally!
- Status
L
levi86
Guest
When interpreting any document one must look at the intended meaning of the author/authors. mgrobertson79 is correct when he says that his constitution provides for the personal ownership of firearms, but he clearly does not understand why. The “second Amendment” reads as follows…
“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.”
To the unbiased observer this passage is clearly intended to ensure a military system based upon a militia, a citizens army that will not only promote political stability but nation unity (as has been effective in Switzerland or post war Germany). If mgrobertson79 was a member of a state militia he may have a point, but to suggest that gun ownership in and of itself is a fundamental right is a misguided interpritation of his own constitution.
L
levi86
Guest
Wrong. John Howard is an allyAnd we’re an ally!
M
Montalban
Guest
Sure, but he does represent us. Though I’ve never voted liberal in my life. Still, some of the comments about we Australians is amazing. We, who are staunch allies!
I’d rather have this John Howard as PM
At least he made an apology
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Please refer to the quote of Thomas Jefferson regard gun ownership posted in at least two places on this forum. I think he is qualified to interpret our Constitution.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
I am glad you are happy with your system there. May you always be. But I believe you folks started with the insults. We have our system and you have yours and each seems to work. So get off the US bashing train and revel in what you have.
M
Montalban
Guest
What? You’ve only got one person to interpret laws now?
However Thomas Jefferson - did he write the Bill of Rights? I thought James Madison drafted them
Given that he was against standing armies, its no wonder he wanted a militia
M
Montalban
Guest
What insults?
L
levi86
Guest
Perhaps someone should tell mgrobertson79 that the only reason some Australian settlements were ever used as penal colonies was because transportation to America was no longer possible due to the revolution, and that over a quarter of all immigrants to America during the eighteenth century were convicts. America was clearly Britains first preference.
Perhaps someone who professes to be so staunchly patriotic should know more about his own national history.
M
Montalban
Guest
“For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion… Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country’s security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation.” –Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482
M
Montalban
Guest
ROFL
T
tjoe
Guest
Hello All, Dominus vobiscum !!
Theoretically gun control may have limited impact in some places. In reality gun laws only effect law abiding citizens more, think about it? When is the last time a criminal “obeyed” the law.
#1. Banning slavery has not stopped racial discrimination, nor has it stopped people from being treated like slaves-sexually, racially or otherwise. Proabition did not stop the sale of alchohol, it only increased and got bloodier and was eventually ruled unconstitutional
#2. I qestion the motivation to control guns, why is SELF control never mentioned. I say this with all due respect to the students and faculty at VT, You suffered a great and horrific tragedy, we are praying for you. 
:console:. Tragedy like this should and does make us pause for reflection, but using the emotions of others by the media to push an agenda is not the rational thing to do. It’s the immoral will to kill that kills, guns or not.
#3 the second amendment while not specifically mentioning a personal right to bear arms, it dosent deny it either. Politicians and activists uses bullying tactics to scare people into giving up thier right, then when they don’t hand over the power of self determination, they are branded as “gun nuts” and “extremists”.
Again I questioning motive.:twocents:
#4 Humans are rational moral creatures and have the use of free will. If a person choses to commit a crime that person will do so based on thier- no doubt twisted- desire to do it at any cost. The availability of a hand gun will not stop the crime, only delay it. Delying it might inadvertantly anger the criminal that much more
So in conclusion, gun control will have only a limited effect with mixed consequences. The answer is changing people not and thier wills, not the simply the tools they use.
Theoretically gun control may have limited impact in some places. In reality gun laws only effect law abiding citizens more, think about it? When is the last time a criminal “obeyed” the law.
#1. Banning slavery has not stopped racial discrimination, nor has it stopped people from being treated like slaves-sexually, racially or otherwise. Proabition did not stop the sale of alchohol, it only increased and got bloodier and was eventually ruled unconstitutional #2. I qestion the motivation to control guns, why is SELF control never mentioned. I say this with all due respect to the students and faculty at VT, You suffered a great and horrific tragedy, we are praying for you. :console:. Tragedy like this should and does make us pause for reflection, but using the emotions of others by the media to push an agenda is not the rational thing to do. It’s the immoral will to kill that kills, guns or not. #3 the second amendment while not specifically mentioning a personal right to bear arms, it dosent deny it either. Politicians and activists uses bullying tactics to scare people into giving up thier right, then when they don’t hand over the power of self determination, they are branded as “gun nuts” and “extremists”.Again I questioning motive.:twocents:
#4 Humans are rational moral creatures and have the use of free will. If a person choses to commit a crime that person will do so based on thier- no doubt twisted- desire to do it at any cost. The availability of a hand gun will not stop the crime, only delay it. Delying it might inadvertantly anger the criminal that much moreSo in conclusion, gun control will have only a limited effect with mixed consequences. The answer is changing people not and thier wills, not the simply the tools they use.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
" Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man".
Thomas Jefferson, “Commonplace Book”
L
levi86
Guest
“In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. . . . As a review of the Library of Congress’s data base of congressional proceeduings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of ‘bear arms’ and ‘bearing arms’ in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States’ Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia.” (Uviller et al (2002). The Militia and the Right to Arms.)
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
Here is the definition of the word Militia, just in case you don’t understand.
militia
One entry found for militia.
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
**2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
**
Two words…Kennesaw, Georgia.Iraq’s a great example. They’re full of guns. Look how safe it is
here is a web page of their crime statistics, kennesaw.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
Every head of household in this city is required by law to own and maintain a firearm with ammunition.
As can be readily seen, crime dropped.
It is a mere fraction of the national average for a town of its population.
Taking guns from citizens does not work.
Putting guns in the hands of responsible citizens does.
L
levi86
Guest
Oxford
noun 1 a military force raised from the civilian population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. 2 a rebel force opposing a regular army.
Webster
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Yes “militia” can be taken to mean every able body man, but very rarely, and certainly not in the context of the 2nd amendment. It states “A **well regulated **Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” this is clearly a reference to an orginised force not the total population of able bodied men.
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
The courts side with the 2nd Amendment being an individual right and the Supreme Court of the United States will have to take up the matter in the next few years. Only one court has decided with the collective theory, that I am aware of and that wasn’t recently.
We will defend our freedom and rights, to the death if necessary. I will not surrender anything to anyone. I am a law abiding citizen and hope all other law abiding gun owners do the same.
You also seem to forget the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment, The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What part of shall not be infringed do we not seem to understand here. I think if we give up our 2nd we may as well advocate giving up the 1st because you deserve it about as much. Without one you CAN NOT have the other.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Before anyone goes too far afield with the definition of “militia”, they should read the Federalist Papers which were written to explain the thinking behind all aspects of the Constitution.
Check it out first.
Check it out first.
L
levi86
Guest
I cannot interpret the second part of the amendment independent of a military context, because a correct reading of the text with a firm grounding in the English language will not allow me to do so. The use of a comma between the first and second sentences means that the latter can ONLY be read in the context of the former. If the two were meant to be read independently (as you seem to be suggesting) it would read as such
“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.”
- Status