More bad news for UK gun enthusiasts...

Exactly. The Constitution, particularly the 2nd Amendment. is to protect the people from the government. The gun industry exists because of the people's right to bear arms. Not the other way around. That the gun industry turns a profit is simply a result of the market supplying product to the people. If you prefer a system that has the government determining the rights of the people, look for another one that does not have our Constitution.

 

OP, a "national guard" back in the late 1700s would have been called a "select militia" and was distrusted by the framers almost as much as a standing army. The militia of that day meant all males capable of military service that were citizens and eligible to vote.

The only crap I hear is the call for "sensible regulations" that will be more and more restrictive as time goes on until our nation becomes just like Europe and Asia where gun ownership is more or less prohibited for the average citizen. The persons pushing this crap believe that the average citizen is a child that needs to be told what to do, think and behave by our "betters". There are places in the USA that do have high gun murder rates but interestingly enough, they're usually the places that severely restrict gun ownership. Hmmmm.... I live in a state that has an extremely high rate of gun ownership. If you factor out the suicides (we do have a high suicide rate) our rate of deaths by firearms is less than average. We can walk out of our homes, leave the doors unlocked and come back hours later confident that our home hasn't been invaded. I walk down the streets of my town sometimes carrying, sometimes not, extremely confident that the need to use that gun is very remote. (I have pulled my gun in all seriousness only once; when a large dog lunged over a fence, bit me in the shoulder and was trying to climb the fence so as to do me more harm. Fortunately for him, the dog couldn't quite scale the fence on so lived to bite another day.) The very, very great majority of citizens are law-abiding folk who can be trusted with any weapon up to, and including, an atomic bomb! There are a very few in our society that are violent criminals who can't be trusted with so much as a toothbrush. The latter need to be locked up, or if necessary, killed. Honest people don't go around abusing their right to carry arms.

This idea that the framers of the constitution and the Bill of Rights just meant that the states could have a "national guard" is totally wrong. If you read the writings of the authors, the 2nd amendment was definitely an individual and collective right. So, if one is an "originalist" judge one goes back to what the framers had intended; just like the courts do when they interpret a law. If the judge believes that the Bill of Rights is a so-called "living document" that can be interpreted any old way to fit the circumstances then they are a threat to our liberty.

 

I have seen some documents that at least suggest that what was meant was that the right to posses and indeed the possession of arms was a precondition for the existence of the militia. People who have grown up with firearms and especially those who hunt regularly don't require the training to get to a minimal skill level that others do. I've heard that there's still a pretty strong correlation between those who have prior experience with fire arms and especially hunting and those who do well at certain MOSs.

 

That's exactly right and it is explained with great clarity in the Federalist Papers which detail the reasons behind each of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights, thus the wording "...militia being necessary... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..." And the militia isn't about Indians or burglars, it is a check against the federal military forces. A free, armed man (the unorganized militia) has at least the basic skills should a militia be called up, and thus organized. Many people don't understand the preciseness of the wording in the founding document. Government, States, And People are precise terms. The Government (federal) has powers, while the States and People have rights, and the document is more or less a description of the checks and balances between those rights and powers. Government powers end where States and Peoples rights are enumerated.

 

You mean people who can read?

 

Just consider it another step in your education!

 

The ability to read is not their problem...Their problem is a complete lack of reading comprehension.

If so, Opana should ask for a refund.

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.

 

I already posted this back in Post 14.

The militia is the 'body of the people' and the 'people' are quite simply the people. You can't call up the militia in an emergency unless they are armed unless you just want to use them lieu of sandbags.
Furthermore, the term 'militia" is codified in US law as:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10]

Note they use organized and unorganized, which refers to training. The older term 'regulated" meant armed, not subject to monthly drill.

Furthermore, every man who ever served in any branch, no matter their age, is subject to recall into the militia, so even the 45 year old limit is meaningless for about half the population. And note further, these groups are under the control of the individual states, not the federal government. The federalist papers (which clarify such things) makes clear that one of the duties of the militia is to overthrow the federal government should it become autocratic or exceed its powers.

So, if you didn't serve and you're over 45, you can claim you aren't in the militia, but you're still a "people" and thus subject to be called up. Everyone else is in the militia (organized or unorganized) whether they like it or not. If you don't own a gun, you're still in the militia, just not very good at it.

 

Right, a conspiracy started by James Madison and codified in federal law.

 

I'm not pro-gun nor do I own any, but the 2nd amendment is fairly clear, especially that second portion after the comma. Whatever your position on guns is, the second amendment cannot be interpreted as anything but a right to bear arms. To my eye,the only way the anti-gun lobbyist will succeed is to repeal the 2nd amendment.

 

Comparing with what? Toddler car seat manuals?
Gun grab is what happened in Australia.
Total gun ban is what happened in the UK and many other countries.
They happened so gun enthusiasts are talking about them. As simple as that.

 

You sure???

Here in PA, we had a militia long before we had James Madison...

 

Total gun ban? You sure?

Then why are there some 1.8 million legal guns owned in the UK...Total gun ban...Not.

 

Those are sporting rifles and shotguns to be used in tightly controlled circumstances, i.e. at shooting ranges. Any others including self-defense guns are forbidden. The right of self-defense is severely restricted in the UK anyway.

 

Not sure you're right there-
English Law-
Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

Scots Law-
http://salvas.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Self-Defence-Memov1_1.pdf

Think the law in Ulster is the same as England.

And I'm only posting this for info-
UK gun owners could fight terror attack, says police chief | Daily Mail Online

 

Yes, I thought your "total gun ban" was a figment of your overactive imagination.