Durbin's Reply

[Deebz]

"I think that some people get carried away with it"

There is nothing wrong with thinking that. There is nothing wrong with the fact that Senator Durbin apparently also thinks that. The problem begins the instant that anyone tries to interfere with MY RIGHT to do so.

I can get as carried away as I'd like, as long as what I am doing is not infringing on the rights or well-being of other people.

There's been a lot of talk about people thinking it's ridiculous to worry about the government coming to take complete control of the population. It's not impossible. It's happened before. What I think is more likely would be a large group of so-called "regular people" running amok. I'm talking riots. The point is that I have a right to have the ability to protect myself and my family. Nuclear war is a possibility. I live in IL, and I'm well within the blast radius of several Nuclear Power Plants. These are known to be terrorist targets. I don't live my life in fear and paranoia of these things happening, but the fact of the matter is that they could. I'd rather have the ability to deter a group of panicked people from trying to take away my ability to survive.

It still boils down to one simple phrase: "...shall not be infringed." These 4 words were written over 200 years ago, and they mean the same thing now as they did then.

[Woods Walker]

What Deebz said!

[JPH]

I can get as carried away as I'd like, as long as what I am doing is not infringing on the rights or well-being of other people.

It still boils down to one simple phrase: "...shall not be infringed." These 4 words were written over 200 years ago, and they mean the same thing now as they did then.

Deebz, I do not agree that you have the right to go as far as you wish with your rights. You do not live on an island, you live in a modern society. I mean I can be trusted with a flame thrower. I'd never use one to burn down the town. So by your logic should they be legal?

The phrase "...shall not be infringed" cannot be separated from the phrase "well regulated".

[Woods Walker]

Flame thrower?? LOL! We're talking about firearms! Hand held firearms used to shoot things with. Not incinerate them or blow them up. Not hand grenades, not bazookas, or RPGs. Firearms. Bullets...NON exploding ones...

Again, we either have the right to keep and bear them, or we don't. IMO once elected officials start deciding what an "arm" is for the sake of what they will "let us have" (which BTW, they have no right to do), then any thought you may have about having any 2A "rights' is a fantasy, because what they define as "reasonable" today will change as they see fit.

Not too long ago it was handguns that were the boogeyman. Remember the old buzzword "Saturday Night Specials"? LOL! That went over like a lead ballon once people realized that a "Saturday Night Special" is a BEHAVIOR exhibited by a human being and not a piece of metal. Now ALL of the states have a concealed carry law and crime overall is DOWN. Now it's "assault weapons" which for the most part is another made up boogeyman term. Why do we keep repeating the same thing but with different names?

[JPH]

Flame thrower?? LOL! We're talking about firearms! Hand held firearms used to shoot things with. Not incinerate them or blow them up. Not hand grenades, not bazookas, or RPGs. Firearms. Bullets...NON exploding ones...

Again, we either have the right to keep and bear them, or we don't. IMO once elected officials start deciding what an "arm" is for the sake of what they will "let us have" (which BTW, they have no right to do), then any thought you may have about having any 2A "rights' is a fantasy, because what they define as "reasonable" today will change as they see fit.

The analogy between firearms and other individual or crew served weapons is valid. What is the historical precedent to limiting this to a discussion of firearms with non-exploding ammunition? What about the history of fully automatic weapons? You are smart WW. You know the regulation of arms has evolved through our history. The historical militia has many cases in which private citizens on the frontier owned swivel guns (small cannons). This could easily translate to today's grenade launchers but we both know that our modern understanding of a well regulated militia does not include them.

If you assert that the people have no right to regulate the armament available to private citizens, then you must be prepared to defend that position all the way to the extreme. Or...we can agree that the "well regulated" part of the 2A does allow for the people to make adjustments to the level of firepower a militia member can access.

Oh, and on a side note. The slavery discussion in the thread you referenced was quite valid as well. It demonstrated two key points. One, that the militia has a checkered past. Two, that some on the pro-gun side will defend even the most heinous of injustices if it protects their guns.

[Deebz]

I can get as carried away as I'd like, as long as what I am doing is not infringing on the rights or well-being of other people.

It still boils down to one simple phrase: "...shall not be infringed." These 4 words were written over 200 years ago, and they mean the same thing now as they did then.

Deebz, I do not agree that you have the right to go as far as you wish with your rights. You do not live on an island, you live in a modern society. I mean I can be trusted with a flame thrower. I'd never use one to burn down the town. So by your logic should they be legal?

The phrase "...shall not be infringed" cannot be separated from the phrase "well regulated".

JPH, don't forget the part where I said," as long as what i am doing is not infringing on the rights or well-being of other people"...

Also, "well-regulated" as written by the Founding Fathers did not mean regulated in the sense that a specific group of people had the say in what could/should be used for the militia. Well regulated meant maintained and in proper working order.

As far as flame-throwers and such, it has been decided in the courts that the arms to be used for militia purposes are to be the arms that are in common use... I think you'd have a hard time convincing anybody that flame throwers, hand grendades, RPG's, tanks, or even swivel guns in the frontier days could be considered "in common use".

[Woods Walker]

"Or...we can agree that the "well regulated" part of the 2A does allow for the people to make adjustments to the level of firepower a militia member can access."

A ha! We cannot! We cannot because the definition of "well regulated" is NOT what you describe. Please note the last paragraph of the following....

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

quote [The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.] end quote


What the founders were refering to in "well regulated" was a MILITIA that was in "proper working order", or trained and ready, as ..."being necessary to the security of a free state...." (please note the word FREE!!) . They then went on to note that because it's THE PEOPLE who are that milita, then their "....right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Well regulated DOES NOT mean telling the militia what kind of arms it can and cannot have and/or accessories to those arms.

Now, if you want to ask me then if people should be allowed to have fully automatic firearms then I say YES, as long as they are not criminal or insane. Machine gun or not, you STILL need a human being to pull the trigger, and the responsibility for the use of that weapon falls on him and him alone.

When you get into the realm of expolsives and other unstable items who's very storage is matter of public safety then that's another matter.

What else you wanna know?

[kellory]

Even machine guns are legal with the proper permits now. I can buy a flame thrower right now without any permits. If I have


T a few 1000 dollars which is what they cost.

[JPH]

I can get as carried away as I'd like, as long as what I am doing is not infringing on the rights or well-being of other people.

It still boils down to one simple phrase: "...shall not be infringed." These 4 words were written over 200 years ago, and they mean the same thing now as they did then.

Deebz, I do not agree that you have the right to go as far as you wish with your rights. You do not live on an island, you live in a modern society. I mean I can be trusted with a flame thrower. I'd never use one to burn down the town. So by your logic should they be legal?

The phrase "...shall not be infringed" cannot be separated from the phrase "well regulated".

JPH, don't forget the part where I said," as long as what i am doing is not infringing on the rights or well-being of other people"...

Also, "well-regulated" as written by the Founding Fathers did not mean regulated in the sense that a specific group of people had the say in what could/should be used for the militia. Well regulated meant maintained and in proper working order.

As far as flame-throwers and such, it has been decided in the courts that the arms to be used for militia purposes are to be the arms that are in common use... I think you'd have a hard time convincing anybody that flame throwers, hand grendades, RPG's, tanks, or even swivel guns in the frontier days could be considered "in common use".

I understand what well regulated means. When I was in the Army, I had a list of equipment I was expected to have in ready working order when I headed into the field. I could not carry less and I certainly could not carry whatever I wanted. It was regulated. Needless to say, a member of the militia is granted a wider degree of leeway when choosing their individual loadout but I hold that there is still a degree of restraint required.

As for your idea that your rights are virtually unlimited, so long as they do not directly impact another? I disagree. There is a point in which your personal stockpile begins to pose a threat to those around you, even when you are not actively using them. There is a historical president for my argument. Crew served weapons were once allowed in the hands of the disorganized militia. Today they are not. The Firearms Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 have stood up to the scrutiny of the courts.

[JPH]

What the founders were refering to in "well regulated" was a MILITIA that was in "proper working order", or trained and ready, as ..."being necessary to the security of a free state...." (please note the word FREE!!) . They then went on to note that because it's THE PEOPLE who are that milita, then their "....right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Reality check, WW. The militia is not in good working order. Just ask the people of Oklahoma City, Aurora, CO or Newtown, CT. I am of the opinion that we need to make adjustments to the way the militia is armed and operates.