If anyone is being silly it is you and your characterization of pro-gun rights argument.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htmThe words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.
To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the 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 next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."
Last edited by Diego; 12-22-2012 at 11:53 AM.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htmGeorge Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.
By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."
Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).
Last edited by Diego; 12-22-2012 at 11:53 AM.
The problem as I see it, is that ATF can not possibly track every straw purchase of guns, even under the best of circumstances.
Lets say a bad guy just tells the straw purchasers to buy a particular brand and model from a legitimate gun seller. NO way ATF can track that or prevent such a purchase.
Maybe it time for guns to be tracked the way motor vehicles are tracked. There should be state issued title issued for every firearm sold, just like a motor vehicle title.
If you use a motor vehicle you must have an authorized title issued by the state, should be the same for firearms.
When a vehicle is no longer owned by the person of record, the state is notified, should be the same for firearms.
Then there is the liability issue for motor vehicles, that should apply to firearms.
If I sell you my truck and do not notify the state that you are the new owner and that vehicle is involved in an accident, I would be liable. Should be the same with firearms.
Now is the time for storing bullet tracings for all firearms:
Every vehicle on the road today, has it VIN number registered with the state, does not seem to create a privacy issue.
Should be same with firearm bullet tracings.
And we would have learned from those bullet tracings that the mass murderer at VA Tech was......the dead one with the gun in his hand.
And we would have learned from those bullet tracings that the mass murderer at Luby's in Killeen TX was......the dead one with the gun in his hand.
And we would have learned from those bullet tracings that the mass murderer at McDonalds in San Ysidro was......the dead one with the gun in his hand.
And we would have learned from those bullet tracings that the mass murderers at Columbine were ......the dead ones with the guns in their hands.
You're inventing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Just ask the MD State Police what they think about ballistic fingerprinting:
In its progress report on the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS), the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division recommends that "this program be suspended, a repeal of the collection of cartridge cases from current law be enacted and the Laboratory Technicians associated with the program be transferred to the DNA database unit." So far, Maryland has spent $2.5 million over the past four years, with nothing to show for it. The report admitted, "Guns found to be used in the commission of crime…are not the ones being entered into" the system.
My link is from 2004 not 1994
Not much has changed since 2004. The ATF is still leaderless and doesn't have the resources to enforce gun laws and regulations
From the WaPo:
For decades, the National Rifle Association has lobbied successfully to block all attempts to computerize records of gun sales, arguing against any kind of national registry of firearms ownership. And despite the growth of the gun industry and the nation’s population, ATF has fewer agents today than it did nearly four decades ago: fewer than 2,500.
“If the administration and Congress are serious about addressing this problem, they need to fund the gun police, the agency charged with administering the firearms regulations,” said Michael Bouchard, a former ATF assistant director. “Unless they are going to do this completely, simply passing some form of gun legislation is only part of the solution.”
The man currently at the helm of ATF is B. Todd Jones, an interim acting director who works part time at the agency, juggling his position there with his job as U.S. attorney in Minnesota.
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278