Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
questionmark

Reid supports expanding background checks

86 posts in this topic

Not according to Diane Frankenstein. She said it. Dont blame us for believing she meant it. Our politicians are suppose to be honest upstanding citizens and we are told they are truthful with us about everything from taxes to UFO's

Feinstein is an American and has a right to her own opinions and beliefs, just like you; and you know what? She did nothing wrong, did she? There was a vote, she didn't get the majority of votes and she didn't impose her opinions on others despite losing the vote. What exactly is wrong with this?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. She, along with like minded folks she works with will ban all guns one little step at a time. Same way they have taken every freedom. Why give her an inch? It wont solve anything. Question, why should gun owners trust people who say they dont want to ban guns, when they have openly stated they want to ban guns?

Why don't you just move to North Korea? By the way you talk about the US, it seems you'll have more freedom there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. She, along with like minded folks she works with will ban all guns one little step at a time. Same way they have taken every freedom. Why give her an inch? It wont solve anything. Question, why should gun owners trust people who say they dont want to ban guns, when they have openly stated they want to ban guns?

If we miss words in a sentence (opportunely the words that are classifiers) we can interpret however we want. As long as the second is there (and I fail to see a majority to change that anywhere in the US) all that will be banned is unusual arms, which according to the Supreme Court is constitutional. Some day the US might be as densely populated as Japan (where firing a shot always carries the risk of killing a few bystander) and that might change, but until then you have to be pretty irrational to think that it will happen. On the other side, all these gun buying hypes generally stem from irrationality....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think is it a great idea, I am a gun ower. Wait 5 days for a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. She, along with like minded folks she works with will ban all guns one little step at a time. Same way they have taken every freedom. Why give her an inch? It wont solve anything. Question, why should gun owners trust people who say they dont want to ban guns, when they have openly stated they want to ban guns?

It is fine not to trust her. But getting on a soapbox and claiming she is going to take all guns to allow for total control, is more then just not trusting her, it is promoting ideology to spread fear and anger. You can resist the small steps, but it is not Righteous to just go off and attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just briefly, here is the only issue I have with "expanded background checks" in general.

IF they do this, then your "Second Amendment rights" becomes a privilege...just like a drivers license. The Constitution does not give the right to own a horse or a car or any form of transportation or the right to operate said transportation...so it is a privilege. It DOES give the right to keep and bear arms. This enhanced background check is turning your "right" into a privilege controlled by the state. Which right will next become a privilege? Freedom of Speech?

I don't have a solution to the problem. I do know that prohibition and controls have never stopped criminal activity. In fact, it often enhances it and increases it based on the money that can be made trafficking any form of contraband.

Stopping a father or grandfather from transferring a firearm to a family member is completely against the Constitutional rights to own and bear arms and will absolutely not fix the problem...

I think it is the Constitutional words, "A well REGULATED militia..." that are the sticking point. They are in the same sentance, but seem to be a seperate statement. The problem being that perhaps the Militia statement is SUPPOSED to refer to the right to bear arms.

Reading about the Court Cases and History of Discussion on the 2nd Amendment, it is easy to see this is NOT a simple issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the day you didnt have to get permission to get a gun. You had to individually lose that privilege by a judge. Weve come so far as a country.

Well, unless a background check is done, how do we know if you (general) have lost that privilege? I work with abused women and families. It's not unusual for an abuser to uproot his family to another state trying to get around the laws that limit an individual with a violent background.

Nibs

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is the Constitutional words, "A well REGULATED militia..." that are the sticking point. They are in the same sentance, but seem to be a seperate statement. The problem being that perhaps the Militia statement is SUPPOSED to refer to the right to bear arms.

Reading about the Court Cases and History of Discussion on the 2nd Amendment, it is easy to see this is NOT a simple issue.

Amendment II

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.

It does not have conditionals or exclusions. Regardless if militias are relevant or not..."the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed upon" is about as clear as you can get. It does not say "When lunatics start killing innocent people we can take that right away or limit the type of guns you can own"....let us be perfectly open here. I do not agree or condone with the violence we have been exposed to. I do however understand the whole idea of "slippery slope" that so many want to deny or ignore. When a "right" becomes a state issued privilege, then a precedence is set. It becomes much easier to use "past practice or legislation" to then attack other rights. I would think most intelligent, logical minded people could see why people fear "the slippery slope".

But back to the Amendment itself...

If I am not mistaken...and to be honest, I have not and am not going to...research this...BUT...I think every state Constitution still has the ability to call up a militia. If we "infringe" upon the Right as it is written, then any other right can and probably will be re-written to suit whomever is in charge...that is a bad-bad thing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amendment II

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.

It does not have conditionals or exclusions. Regardless if militias are relevant or not..."the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed upon" is about as clear as you can get. It does not say "When lunatics start killing innocent people we can take that right away or limit the type of guns you can own"....let us be perfectly open here. I do not agree or condone with the violence we have been exposed to. I do however understand the whole idea of "slippery slope" that so many want to deny or ignore. When a "right" becomes a state issued privilege, then a precedence is set. It becomes much easier to use "past practice or legislation" to then attack other rights. I would think most intelligent, logical minded people could see why people fear "the slippery slope".

But back to the Amendment itself...

If I am not mistaken...and to be honest, I have not and am not going to...research this...BUT...I think every state Constitution still has the ability to call up a militia. If we "infringe" upon the Right as it is written, then any other right can and probably will be re-written to suit whomever is in charge...that is a bad-bad thing.

The point being that a "regulated militia", if it is directly refered to gun ownership, directly allows regulation of those guns. The government would have the right to demand you keep your militia weapons in good order and that you be trained and such. It is that little coma in the sentance that is the problem. If it read... "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." in two sentances, there would be no debate, but there is no period, there is a coma. Or... if it had used the word AND instead of a coma, there would be no debate. But since there is a coma there must be debate.

It could be read (given the sentance structure) as....

1) A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

2) A well regulated Militia requires the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

3) A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

The modifier of "shall not be infringed" can easily be put toward the militia, and not the right to bear arms. Why else would it be included in the sentance using comas and not spelled out seperately? The right to bear arms could be seen to modify the militia statement.

It is not a simple issue.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being that a "regulated militia", if it is directly refered to gun ownership, directly allows regulation of those guns. The government would have the right to demand you keep your militia weapons in good order and that you be trained and such. It is that little coma in the sentance that is the problem. If it read... "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." in two sentances, there would be no debate, but there is no period, there is a coma. Or... if it had used the word AND instead of a coma, there would be no debate. But since there is a coma there must be debate.

It could be read (given the sentance structure) as....

1) A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

2) A well regulated Militia requires the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

3) A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

The modifier of "shall not be infringed" can easily be put toward the militia, and not the right to bear arms. Why else would it be included in the sentance using comas and not spelled out seperately? The right to bear arms could be seen to modify the militia statement.

It is not a simple issue.

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court has upheld time and time again, no matter if most judges were liberal or conservative. And so again in District of Columbia VS Heller that the life and security of citizens take precedence over the militia, therefore making it constitutional to ban felons, mentally unstable and other potential risks from possessing guns as well as outlawing unusual weapons. I don't think there is much left to discuss in that department. Would the life and security not take precedence there would be no reason to allow weapons for self defense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it...the wording is rather odd. Our language today is not extraordinarily different than that of 200+ years ago, but it is to a point. I believe this was done on purpose.

I will embrace the "shall not be infringed" as the crux of the whole point. The Gov cannot infringe. What is the regulation they speak of in a "well regulated militia"? Is it training and preparation? Is it exercise and practice? Is it randomly calling people to come and pull a weekend of duty? Is it expecting people to help out in times of disaster? What was the intent here? We do not know in this day and age. What WE DO KNOW is that we have a very open and yet...not so open...specific right.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are oddly ambiguous on this and I hold steadfast that it was the very intention. They left it open for people...patriots and others...to discuss and debate the meaning of this but the wording is still...not foggy...."shall not be infringed"...whether you include that into the militia or not...the whole is what it is and the fragments are what they are. There are no clauses about specifics, no exceptions, no exclusions.

If I were to get shot tomorrow by a lunatic with a submachine gun, my family would not ask the rest of the country to pay for it...which is what we are doing right now...and it is wrong.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The modifier of "shall not be infringed" can easily be put toward the militia, and not the right to bear arms. Why else would it be included in the sentance using comas and not spelled out seperately? The right to bear arms could be seen to modify the militia statement.

IIRC the Supreme Court ruled that what shall not be infringed was the right to bare arms, not the formation of militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court has upheld time and time again, no matter if most judges were liberal or conservative. And so again in District of Columbia VS Heller that the life and security of citizens take precedence over the militia, therefore making it constitutional to ban felons, mentally unstable and other potential risks from possessing guns as well as outlawing unusual weapons. I don't think there is much left to discuss in that department. Would the life and security not take precedence there would be no reason to allow weapons for self defense.

Basically anyone who would be a danger to have in a government sponsored militia should not have a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the Supreme Court ruled that what shall not be infringed was the right to bare arms, not the formation of militia.

:tu:

I was just making a point about the sentence structure. Not meaning to define the Constitution.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it...the wording is rather odd. Our language today is not extraordinarily different than that of 200+ years ago, but it is to a point. I believe this was done on purpose.

I will embrace the "shall not be infringed" as the crux of the whole point. The Gov cannot infringe. What is the regulation they speak of in a "well regulated militia"? Is it training and preparation? Is it exercise and practice? Is it randomly calling people to come and pull a weekend of duty? Is it expecting people to help out in times of disaster? What was the intent here? We do not know in this day and age. What WE DO KNOW is that we have a very open and yet...not so open...specific right.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are oddly ambiguous on this and I hold steadfast that it was the very intention. They left it open for people...patriots and others...to discuss and debate the meaning of this but the wording is still...not foggy...."shall not be infringed"...whether you include that into the militia or not...the whole is what it is and the fragments are what they are. There are no clauses about specifics, no exceptions, no exclusions.

I also believe that would have been on purpose. But that they probably beleived that the details would be filled in by Congressional Legislation. So that the People, by electing representatives, would have control of how the Regulations were to be done.

I think it is for Wiser and more Experienced brains then mine to decide if the "regulated" in the body of the sentence overrides the "cannot infringe" at the end of the sentence. BUT.... My opinion would be that what "cannot be infringed" is the right to own a gun within the regulation of the government. Thus, as long as you obey the law, you cannot be refused.

Infringe can mean to limit or undermine some right (Infringing on someone's Right to Vote). Or it can mean to go past the terms of an agreement (Infringing on a property line or on a copyright). So there are several ways to look at the language invovled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being that a "regulated militia", if it is directly refered to gun ownership, directly allows regulation of those guns. The government would have the right to demand you keep your militia weapons in good order and that you be trained and such. It is that little coma in the sentance that is the problem. If it read... "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." in two sentances, there would be no debate, but there is no period, there is a coma. Or... if it had used the word AND instead of a coma, there would be no debate. But since there is a coma there must be debate.

It could be read (given the sentance structure) as....

1) A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

2) A well regulated Militia requires the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

3) A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

The modifier of "shall not be infringed" can easily be put toward the militia, and not the right to bear arms. Why else would it be included in the sentance using comas and not spelled out seperately? The right to bear arms could be seen to modify the militia statement.

It is not a simple issue.

It's not a simple issue for statists who want to play ridiculous word games with the Constitution. You can't change the grammar to muddy up the meaning; that is gross misinterpretation. It's in the same sentence because the conclusion is the direct result of the antecedent. You misspelled sentence four times and misspelled comma five times. I'm not a PhD in grammar either, but "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" is obviously describing the right of the people. People have the right to bear arms because of the military. It's as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is the Constitutional words, "A well REGULATED militia..." that are the sticking point. They are in the same sentance, but seem to be a seperate statement. The problem being that perhaps the Militia statement is SUPPOSED to refer to the right to bear arms.

Reading about the Court Cases and History of Discussion on the 2nd Amendment, it is easy to see this is NOT a simple issue.

The right of the people to keep arms was a clear issue to most of the founders .. as these quotes from them show...

http://econfaculty.g...uotes/arms.html

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment

Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

  • "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

  • "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    -- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

  • "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
    -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

  • "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
    --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

  • "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
    • "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
      -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

    • " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
      -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
    • "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
      -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
      • "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
        -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

      • "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
        -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention

      • "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
        --Samuel Adams

Edited by lightly
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right of the people to keep arms was a clear issue to most of the founders .. as these quotes from them show...

http://econfaculty.g...uotes/arms.html

Those are all fine. But does not directly deal with a "regulated militia". Does "regulated" apply to the Right to Bear Arms or not? I'm just saying it is still a point of discussion, not that I think all guns should be taken from everyone. Saying that the Right cannot be Infringed upon is dependant on the rest of the sentence, and saying the mantra over and over again that only the back end of the sentence is applicable does not automatically make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a simple issue for statists who want to play ridiculous word games with the Constitution. You can't change the grammar to muddy up the meaning; that is gross misinterpretation. It's in the same sentence because the conclusion is the direct result of the antecedent. You misspelled sentence four times and misspelled comma five times. I'm not a PhD in grammar either, but "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" is obviously describing the right of the people. People have the right to bear arms because of the military. It's as simple as that.

It is actually against the Forum Rules to blatantly reference spelling issues to try to make an arguement.

5b. Spelling and grammar: Do not point out mistakes or criticise other members on their spelling, grammar or punctuation.

It is not a ridiculous word game, it is the exact spelling of the Constitution. Would you like to live by the actual intent of the Constitution or by someone's opinon of what the Constitution intends? The people do have the Right, but is that right regulated or not? Based on the wording in the Amendment and many Supreme Court rulings, it can be read either way, but is generally read that Regulation Can be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to buy a AK-47 just to despite them treasonous politicians in our government. :P

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The longer this country is around the more it is going to have attacks to the Constitution.

The question will be do we want a strong Constitution that is not to be changed at every arbitrary change within society or a diluted and weak Constitution that can be changed at the whim of the average lawmaker.

Well, unless a background check is done, how do we know if you (general) have lost that privilege? I work with abused women and families. It's not unusual for an abuser to uproot his family to another state trying to get around the laws that limit an individual with a violent background.

This would be an appropriate use of background checks, but your right to be placed on said list should be done on an individual basis. When we blanket certain groups into laws we weaken our judicial system not strengthen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right of the people to keep arms was a clear issue to most of the founders .. as these quotes from them show...

http://econfaculty.g...uotes/arms.html

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment

Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

  • "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

  • "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    -- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

  • "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
    -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

  • "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
    --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

  • "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
    • "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
      -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

    • " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
      -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
    • "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
      -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
      • "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
        -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

      • "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
        -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention

      • "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
        --Samuel Adams

What was clear to some is the one chapter, what was passed as law quite another. And the only thing relevant is what the majority voted into law. And that is the constitution.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was clear to some is the one chapter, what was passed as law quite another. And the only thing relevant is what the majority voted into law. And that is the constitution

In English please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In English please

The personal opinions of the framers is irrelevant if 2/3 of them voted for something different. And 2/3 voted for the text as is. And that text is the law, not the opinion of 10 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what your saying what they said is not important today ? cause Ill just throw that back at you and say much of what was said yesterday is irrelevant today or is there hard date for things maintaining relevant that anything said before is irrelevant. Perhaps 1933 would be a good year to say anything before was irrelevant.

As to the signing of the Constitution I personally am aware of the controversies over the wordings and where the pulled some of the text used from. There are even people that refused to sign it as they saw it as too invasive to their freedoms.

Maybe Im not understanding what your saying but I do find the quotes relevant as to the mindset of our forefathers and to get a glimpse as how to interpret some of the language that was decided upon by the majority of the writers of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.