Ashcroft turns 2ND AMENDMENT on its head, argues for personal right to bear arms

[Mdguy]

Debates on the adoption of the 2nd Amendment do not show that the framers were concerned with an individual right to bear arms, only the need to preserve the militia as an alternative to a standing army...the text and surrounding circumstances of the 2nd amendment is what we should be concerned with when seeking out the intent fo the founders.

We have to disagree there. Isn't the entire basis of the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent admendments of the Constitution the fundamental, UNALIENABLE rights of the sovereign individual? We've been through this before but you have to be a realist: govenments CAN get out of hand and the 'people' should have the right to defend themselves from a coercive government. A national military has the duty to fulfill the orders of the government,that is all, even if it might be construed as a wrongful act. The individual right of gun ownership exists to counteract this if it occurs against the citizenry. Checks and balances.........


As for your contention that the Ashcroft position will not change current laws, many legal commentators disagree. Again, the high court would have to analzye all gun control legislation against a tougher constitutional standard which, in turn, makes it harder to regulate guns.

Even if the Supreme Court's position is changed and all the current gun control legislation is put under scrutiny, I don't think it will affect many of the really utile ones. I'm sure there will still be a clause in there preventing ownership of workable howitzers, tanks, and cruise missiles.

If you've been around guns, you learn to respect them and really learn to understand what their importance was to the forming of our nation. You should try it sometime

 

[KA-BAR]

The Attorney General is now seeking to turn the 2nd amendment on its head by seeking to overturn a decades long Justice Department position that there is NO private, constitutional right to bear arms. In short, Attorney General Ashcroft incorrectly asserts that an individual has a constitutional, individual right to bear arms, even though a more critical reading of the 2nd amendment says otherwise---only state militias have the fundamental right to bear arms.

Forget the fact that firearms claimed almost 30,000 lives last year. Instead, the extremist, Attorney General is arguing that imposing any restrictions on gun ownership should require a new Supreme Court standard which would require that private, gun ownership be recognized as a fundamental constitutional right, via the 2nd Amendment---an idea that would make gun regulations next to impossible to pass by Congress.

If the Attorney General has his way the new constitutional standard could lead to sweeping curbs on even the modest gun safety laws now in effect. Moreover, it could lead to severe changes in background checks, regulation of concealed weapons, and bans on guns such as assault rifle.

At long last, the N.R.A. (killing machine) is getting its quid pro quo for its contributions to the Bush presidential election campaign. In the meantime, Supreme Court precedent is attacked, the Constitution is assaulted, and our nation's health might be sacrificed all because the N.R.A (killing machine) has all but bribed the Republican party.......Bang, Bang,====sold out!

Ryan.

1. Guns dont kill people. People kill people


2. The 2nd amendment is very clear on what is says:

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.

While only the second to be adopted, there is clearly no Article of the Bill of Rights which is more important to the maintenance of Liberty!

3. The NRA saves lives. They have classes everywhere where they show proper fundementals of marksmanship and shit I could write a book on how the NRA saved America. They came up with project exile and it was tested in Virgina. Anyone who commits a violent crime with a firearm must serve 5 years min imprisonment. It was proven to work but Bill Clinton Refused it and he also refused to use alot of the gun laws that are already out there he just wanted to make more. I think you are an Idiot for that comment you made about the NRA. Im a proud lifetime member and I donate to them often to help keep the Gov in check.

4. If you ban Guns The crimminals will laugh there asses off! They will still get there guns and wont have to worry when they break into peoples houses.

5. More states are going to the no concealed weapon law because it has proven to cut back on crime. The bad guys always have guns why not give the Good guys a chance.

6. Interesting email I got from a good friend.
Accidental Deaths!!
---------------


Number of physicians in the US: 700,000.

Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000 (AMA).

Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000.

Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500.

Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188



Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

"FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one Doctor." Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.

 

[RyanH]

Even if the Supreme Court's position is changed and all the current gun control legislation is put under scrutiny, I don't think it will affect many of the really utile ones. I'm sure there will still be a clause in there preventing ownership of workable howitzers, tanks, and cruise missiles.

If you've been around guns, you learn to respect them and really learn to understand what their importance was to the forming of our nation. You should try it sometime

so you are ready to dismiss the argument that the founders intended to "well-regulate" the militia and not the people? Surely, if the founders intended that the "militia" be "well-regulated," it also intended that the "people" would be "well regulated" as well. (assuming I adhere to your interpretation, which I don't).

Also, I do not wish that guns be outlawed, only that guns be kept out of the wrong hands, which requires strong congressional oversight--something Ashcroft seeks to change.

Any instrumentatlity that can inflict as much damage as a gun potentially can must be subject to strong regulation.

 

[The Almighty]

when the framers used the word "people," they did not intend that all adults could bear arms.

And how do you know this. I dont know you personally, but I will bet all of my right and half of my left testicle that you were not in the room at the time of the drafting, therefor you would have no idea of what they meant to say.

 

[smallmovesal]

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: Ashcroft turns 2ND AMENDMENT on its head, argues for personal right to bear arms

1. Guns dont kill people. People kill people


2. The 2nd amendment is very clear on what is says:

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.

While only the second to be adopted, there is clearly no Article of the Bill of Rights which is more important to the maintenance of Liberty!

3. The NRA saves lives. They have classes everywhere where they show proper fundementals of marksmanship and shit I could write a book on how the NRA saved America. They came up with project exile and it was tested in Virgina. Anyone who commits a violent crime with a firearm must serve 5 years min imprisonment. It was proven to work but Bill Clinton Refused it and he also refused to use alot of the gun laws that are already out there he just wanted to make more. I think you are an Idiot for that comment you made about the NRA. Im a proud lifetime member and I donate to them often to help keep the Gov in check.

4. If you ban Guns The crimminals will laugh there asses off! They will still get there guns and wont have to worry when they break into peoples houses.

5. More states are going to the no concealed weapon law because it has proven to cut back on crime. The bad guys always have guns why not give the Good guys a chance.

6. Interesting email I got from a good friend.
Accidental Deaths!!
---------------

Why are you so concerned with accidental deaths when I'm concerned with intentional violent crime (often carried out via guns)? please take note of the most severe risk stemming from guns.

As for the NRA---sure, they save lives. LOL! That's why they've fought for years against such wise legislation as the Brady Bill and laws such as those seeking to close the gun show loophole. The NRA has aided and abetted wrongdoers by implicitly pursuing legislation that does nothing but benefit their wrongful desires and threaten our nation's health.

 

[RyanH]

And how do you know this. I dont know you personally, but I will bet all of my right and half of my left testicle that you were not in the room at the time of the drafting, therefor you would have no idea of what they meant to say.

because SURPRISE, there are records from the debates. I'll bet my right testicle that you've never read them!

 

[smallmovesal]

www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Ashcroft/ashcroft.html

 

[Thaibox]

I teach philosophy, and I get such a kick out of seeing people try to invalidate others' arguments by playing with big words and arguing definitions like sophists. You aren't articulating a strong argument, you are sounding stupid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by steroid virgin...

guns are like drugs.. even if they were completely outlawed they'd still be everywhere... hahah I love it!! I love going to the range and shooting my guns... I love knowing if some dumb mother fucker breaks into my house and tries to harm me or my family, I will shoot his ass dead... and no liberal hippy is going to take that right away..... WOOO WHOOO!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfect

Why does this other guy have to cloud his waters to hide his shallowness.

After many hours in the range with her, my girlfriend can put a 3 inch group with her Glock20(her b-day present) at 15 yards.

 

[Mdguy]

so you are ready to dismiss the argument that the founders intended to "well-regulate" the militia and not the people? Surely, if the founders intended that the "militia" be "well-regulated," it also intended that the "people" would be "well regulated" as well. (assuming I adhere to your interpretation, which I don't).

Honestly,I would have to do some reading to understand exactly what they meant by "well regulated", but I don't think they meant it in the sense to be controlled by legislation..more like an orderly unit with rules.

Also, I do not wish that guns be outlawed, only that guns be kept out of the wrong hands, which requires strong congressional oversight--something Ashcroft seeks to change.

Any instrumentatlity that can inflict as much damage as a gun potentially can must be subject to strong regulation.

What's your definition of 'wrong hands'?--that's the most important term to define here. I just saw a report that crime is exploding in China and people are resorting to producing their own makeshift guns since gun ownership is of course, illegal. As SV said, there will always be guns out there no matter what legislation is passed. I for one want to have the best opportunity to defend myself against others if need be.