BINGO!

This respectful and intelligent conversation, particularly its bearing on language, is interesting to me because of the 7-4 California court decision, almost two to one.

As for checks and balances, isn't the current voluminous dissent in both parties because they've worked negatively in the public interest (and have no bearing on language)?

I come here for information and it's pleasing---and a tribute to the board---to see opinions more from a community than partisan politics.

And this is where I really can't follow the logic as taking up arms (levying war) against the US government is defined in th constitution as treason.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights effectively replaces the bullet with the ballot when it comes to how our country is governed. Our leaders are elected by the people and there is simply no constitutional provision that provides for armed insurrection by those who don't like the outcomes.

Judges are human, and make mistakes. Plessy v. Ferguson, and Dred Scott come to mind.

You are correct. I think the anti-gun lobby would re-order the entire English language to change the meaning of the 2nd A.

In 200+ years of American jurisprudence you will not find one opinion or dissent supporting the literal interpretation of the 2nd A. Pretty hard to argue that mistakes have been made when there is zero case law to support a position.

Stated simply - Yes!

And let us all remember that the right to protect ourselves is NOT granted by a government, but is a God-given right that no person nor entity can take from us.... Ever! And in order for 'the People' to protect themselves they must be as well armed as those who wish to oppress them.






.

Excluding the words "who don't like the outcomes" and replacing those with such wording as 'when we no longer have a representative form of government', or 'if the government becomes a single party system and becomes oppressive to those who are in disagreement with its policies and edicts to the point that their rights are ignored.' Then yes, I believe there is - it's known as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights were not written by a government, but were written by wise and thoughtful men who had been oppressed and tyrannized.







.

One can not be a literalist and start speculating on what the authors meant when they wrote what they wrote. If you believe the 2nd A is clear and should be construed literally then you must also construe literally Article 3 that provides taking up arms against the government of the US to be treason.

They had been oppressed by a foreign government (England) and they formed a government that gave its citizens a method to govern by and through the people. Oppressive is subjective and relative term, regardless, there are checks and balances in place. At what point do those who feel that the government is oppressing them has the "god given right" (which does not exist) to take up arms against that has been elected by a majority of the country? There is no footnote; no unless; no but if.... The founders made it clear: we are a republic led by people chosen by the people, no matter what those people believe. That is the ONLY way a country can evolve. If they did not truly believe in the evolution of society and its government then they never would have made provisions for amending the constitution. Sorry, there is no legitimate way for our government to function as the founders envisioned that is consistent with legitimate armed insurrection. On that point, the constitution is very clear. They are, by definition, mutually exclusive.

Well said Mr Romig.

You could not have said it any better.

Let me try to aid Mr. Gardner in understanding what he cites: Article III of The United States Constitution:

[B][I]"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

There may be some perceived difference in "levying war" against the States and defending oneself against tyranny, or assisting in the "security of a free State."

Also, the American colonists were NOT oppressed by a "foreign government." They were oppressed by THEIR OWN government.

And, if oppression is "relative" then what was that Holocaust the Jews have been complaining about?

And sorry. Every creature on the face of the Earth has the God given right to defend itself. Even Jews and gays in an Orlando nightclub.

And as for his last claim, I humbly refer Mr. Gardner to this passage of the Declaration of Independence:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


I must emphasize that all this is offered in the cordial spirit of casual debate, with no ill intended toward anyone on this board. Especially Mr. Gardner.

"Right of Revolution"
 

The state of New Hampshire takes this idea to heart.

The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire is the fundamental law of the State of New Hampshire, with which all statute laws must comply. The constitution became effective June 2, 1784, when it replaced the state's constitution of 1776.

The constitution is divided into two parts: a Bill of Rights and a Form of Government.

Part First of the constitution, the Bill of Rights, is made up of 43 articles, codifying many of the same natural rights as does the United States Constitution, including free speech, freedom of the press, jury trials, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms. It protects citizens against double jeopardy, unreasonable searches and seizures, and being required to quarter soldiers. In most cases, the state constitution affords more specific protections than the U.S. Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, New Hampshire's Bill of Rights has been amended regularly since its adoption.

Article 10. Right of Revolution

New Hampshire is one of several states that codify a "Right of Revolution" in their state constitutions. The Right of Revolution dates back to the Revolutionary War. Article 10 reads:

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

I really like living in the "Live Free or Die" state!

Simply put if, the 2nd A is open to interpretation then I choose to interpret it to mean that it is my God given right to keep and bear arms and if ANYONE tries to take them away from me then I will defend my right unto my death. I can put up with a lot of nonsense but this is the hill I'm willing to die on. Are you?

I'm with you Mike. I've had enough.

And it is in the spirit of shared interests that we debate these questions, cordially. Unfortunately there are few forums where one can find civil debate. If one can't debate both sides of issues then they don't fully understand the issues.

If there is any lesson to be learned from American jurisprudence it is there is nothing that is black and white. That is why civil debate is critical in our country.

So true Jay. And the absence of black and white means that there are people with a higher pay grade than we gun owners who will be doing the interpreting and THOSE people don't care about guns or have any experience using them and never did and never will.
Those people of all 3 parties- R and D and IND- are not evil per se. They just don't see why we would ever care about gun ownership.
They have no experience with guns.
We need to reach those people and educate them. Or we will be forever behind the 8 ball.

Sad but so true. What's become of us? We all grew up hunting and shooting when we were just as likely to have a shotgun as a basketball. There was nothing evil or suspect about it. People are making gobs of money off this fight, pitting one side against another. Those are the ones we all need to take our anger out on. Those who exploit these shootings (and make no mistake, the are exploiters on both sides of these issues).

WOW!! What an informative discussion. Really good straight forward opinions, and we all have a right to have an opinion. Just as Mr. Campbell put it a "civil debate". I myself took it as a mini history lesson. I want to thank all the contributors to this thread it was an interesting read. Thank you again.
Tom P.

My, my... we may as well be discussing "global warming" as gun rights.

Indeed - what's become of us?






.

Thank you Mark, Kensal and Robin - very, very good posts. If some would step back and see where the 2A was written - in the Bill of Rights - those are God given rights - not governments rights. I don't understand what anyone finds difficult to understand who's rights they where writing about.

Can somebody help me find Gods words in the Bible where it says I can have an assault rifle ? I'm no biblical scholar but when when I find it there I'm going to buy a full auto M 16. Would it be Old Testament or New?

No assault rifle. Maybe God says it is my right to have a shotgun. I'll take a Parker , surely that is in the Bible .

Or if not that , how about at least a Marlin bolt action shotgun. Old or New Testament ?

Here you go! Not the Bible but our Declaration of Independence:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...

Yep that's the Bible. Got it. Gods word, right in the Declaration of Independence. God wrote the Declaration of Independence.

And Gods word in the Declaration of Independence says I can have a rifle or shotgun all my own to smite people , right ?

By the way, Joel Osteen says God wants me to have a Cadillac. Guess I am entitled and ordered.

Who is to say that our founding fathers were not inspired by God? While not perfect by any means, our country being a hodge podge of almost every culture in the world somehow survives and in most recent decades, leads the world. Not a bad afternoon's work for, well your guess is as good as mine.

I don't believe anyone said it is in the Bible to own any particular type of firearm. Just that they believe it is a God given right to defend themselves. If you don't wish to defend yourself or loved ones fine, just don't tell me I can't. If you don't think certain types of firearms are necessary don't buy one. Again just don't tell me I can't. I do hope God forbid that if I am ever attacked the bad guy has a Musket. That way maybe my AR will give me the upper hand do to my diminishing shooting skills. If we gun owners are divided we are doomed. They take my AR today your Parker and Deer rifle are next.

Look, I like my shotguns and rifles, I've always owned guns. The Second Amendment is not as clear as some people would like to believe or behave , God never said you can have a gun, and the thing that keeps reasonable gun laws are elected officials. So vote for whom you want.

You fellows who demand all or nothing on the assault rifles I fear may sink us all. There will come a point when the anti gun folks throw us all in the same pot and cook us all and my ability to own a few hundred year old shotguns will be compromised because of the insistence of some people to own butt ugly assault rifles.

I'm going fishing.

As far as "they" are concerned, we can hang together or we can hang separately... but hang we all will if "they" have their way.

I say we stick together - what say you?





.

I'm with you Dean. It is documented in plans on anti-gun groups to chip away at gun rights, on at a time. Finally they plan to tax the heck of ammo and guns so that while we may still have the right to a muzzleloader, very few will be able to afford them!

Besides, the second amendment isn't about antique collector guns as much as it is about having the ability as a people to defend against a tyrannical government. I can think of better weapons than a Parker or Colt SAA for that. I however pray I never see the need. But hey, as long as a good portion of the American population has Parkers, Colts, bolt action rifles, AR's and AK's we never will have a tyrannical government!

I hope your are playing the role of the devil's advocate here Bruce as you have fallen into the media's "assault rifle" hogwash. I don't own an AR platform rifle nor do I wish to own one. But many of my friends do and they use them the same way we use our double guns: to hunt with and to target shoot. If I "assaulted" someone with a handgun or even with one of my Parkers would'nt that be deemed an assault weapon? The AR platform rifle is nothing more than the evolution of the musket available in 1776, much like the hammerless shotgun is the evolution of the matchlock weapon.

Lawmakers DO NOT give us the right to own weapons, the 2nd amendment does. I'ts just that simple. The Declaration also assures us certain unalienable rights; Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All three are protected by the 2nd Amend. I'm certainly not a black helicopter kind of guy but when things go to hell in a handbasket, which they will, you can defend your property with a lovely graded Parker. I'll take an AR with a couple thousand rounds loaned to me by my one of my "black gun" buddies.

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Lest we forget...

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

-- Rev. Martin Niemoller

OR, at the moment:

First they came for the AR-15s, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own an AR-15.

Then they came for the all the Assault Rifles, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own an Assault Rifle.

Then they came for ALL the semi-autos, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own a semi-auto.

Then they came for my Parker—and there was no one left to speak for me.


It is worth noting that in Nazi Germany, as in many other totalitarian states, the rights, property and lives of citizens were taken with the acquiescence, complicity and/or full cooperation of politicians, courts, judges, lawyers, police - and unquestioning military leaders and personnel. Thus, the Nuremberg Trials highlighted the concept of an "illegal order."

I agree God never said I could own a gun. But I don't believe he ever said I couldn't own one either. I will use Ct. as a example of how a wedge was driven between the self defense type of gun owner and the Hunter/ collector types. The Hunter/ collector types did not stand shoulder to shoulder with the self defense types. You would hear them make comments about ugly Assault rifles. How they would not own such a thing, you don't need one for hunting or you don't need a mag that holds more than X amount for Hunting. Basically looking down their noses at those types of firearms and those type of firearm owners. It did not affect their firearm hobby so they did not care. So laws were passed. Well guess what. I lost count of how many guys walked into the store to buy a new shotgun to hunt or shoot clays with and were shocked to find out they can't without a permit. What do you mean I can't buy one anymore with my hunting license or a two week wait? I thought that was just for those ugly assault rifles! Or the guys who came in the Friday before opening day to pick up ammo to find out they can't buy it without a permit. My favorite was the 30 year retired FBI agent that could not buy ammo because he did not have a permit. I really felt bad for the guys that lost out on firearms for Christmas or birthday presents because their wives or relatives had no way to purchase them. I remember another guy that has a really extensive Browning Hi-Power collection, he wasn't to happy about 10 round mags only. I don't fish much anymore but I will defend your right to do so because my kids and grandkids like to.

Following is a discussion from Reason.org, the Libertarian website which is definitely pro gun and I think addresses many of the comments on this forum:




"A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed firearm in public. Another appeals court has reached a somewhat different conclusion, and the question is bound eventually to demand the attention of the Supreme Court.

On the general topic of gun rights, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump strongly differ. He got the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, and she won the support of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

He calls her "the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for office." She favors new restrictions she describes as "common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment."

What makes the debate so important is that the basic meaning of the amendment is still being figured out. The Supreme Court has found it guarantees an individual right to own a gun for self-defense—as distinct from a collective right to bear arms in a state militia. But the justices have not ruled on the constitutionality of a variety of regulations.

One of those is California's policy on carrying concealed guns in public. It allows only those with permits to do so and is stingy in giving them out. Anyone who wants a license has to convince the county sheriff she has "good cause" for it. Among the reasons that don't qualify are "self-protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)."

A lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the law. But on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it, saying, "There is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." The odd part was its admission that the Constitution may protect the right of citizens to carry guns openly. California doesn't allow that, either, but the open-carry ban, the court said, was not challenged in this case.

Its verdict diverges from a 2012 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which struck down Illinois' near-total ban on concealed carry. "To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense" recognized by the Supreme Court, that court concluded. "A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home."

Sooner or later, the Supreme Court will have to decide who's right. How it would have ruled in Antonin Scalia's day was hardly certain. But its Second Amendment opinions imply that the Second Amendment prerogative to employ a gun for personal protection extends beyond one's front door.

In 2008, the court listed various restrictions it considered permissible: "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." The list's omission of laws against carrying guns in public was conspicuous.

The justices found that many 19th-century courts allowed states to forbid carrying concealed weapons—while noting that some struck down laws against carrying guns openly. But the right to "bear arms" doesn't sound as though you are entitled just to sleep with a pistol on your nightstand.

If the right to self-defense applies beyond the home, states can hardly forbid law-abiding citizens to venture out in public without the means to protect themselves. A dissenting judge in the California case reached the sensible conclusion: States may ban concealed carry or open carry but not both.

The two landmark Second Amendment cases were decided by 5-4 votes, with Scalia in the majority. Without him, the eight remaining justices might be evenly divided on concealed-carry bans. So the next person to join the court could ultimately cast the deciding vote.

As a general, practical rule, it may not matter much how the Supreme Court finally rules on this question. Most states enacted permissive concealed-carry laws on their own and would keep them regardless.

But it matters in principle, and in some states—like Illinois and California—it matters in practice. To a voting public that includes nearly 13 million people with concealed-carry permits, it will certainly matter on Election Day.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Thats really the nut of it: if you have a constitutional right to carry openly then do you have a constitutional right to carry concealed which is an interesting question and one that probably should be decided by the SCOTUS. I do think there needs to be uniformity throughout the states. I have a permit to carry concealed in MI and there is reciprocity with many states but I have to check with other states before I can carry elsewhere.

Question: I think it is pretty safe to say that regardless how you interpret the 2nd A there are people who for one reason or another should not be carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise. Reasons that go beyond the standard prohabitions against purchasing a firearm. (I wouldn't trust half the people in my CPL class with a pair of sissors let alone a handgun). How do you prevent those people from carrying a firearm?

Look up the definitions of both "assist" and " weapon". After you understand their meanings, put the words together and you can make the case that the use of any inanimate object used in the commission of an attack on another human would be an "assault weapon". So let's drop the misnomer applied to firearms that just look like something made for military or law enforcement use and properly call them by name.

we are in the pot of water , they are slowly turning up the heat, before you know it, we are cooked! with you Dean, stick together!

the entire Bill of Rights
 

However subject to personal interpretation, historical context, etc., the document preponderantly imposes limitations on government, relative to the individual, and not the other way around.

We have the law largely on our side; the political culture is another matter.

Take a non-shooter -- better yet, his whole family -- shooting.
____________________________
THE BILL OF RIGHTS – FULL TEXT
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
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.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

"Militia" is well defined, see below. You fellows over 45 are not in the militia. I am by virtue of being subject to recall by order of the President.

"Well regulated" is not defined in the acts of Congress that I know of.

And by virtue of being in the Militia of the United States, the Constitution , see below, provides for organizing , arming , and disciplining the Militia , see further below.