DOD Ends Sale of Expended Military Brass to Remanufacturers

One thing the Second Amendment has never been is clear.

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.

Compound sentence, too many commas, and unclear phrases make this the oddest worded clause in the Bill of Rights.

Hundreds of law review articles have been written on this sentence. Hundreds of court cases have been tried to try and interpret the meaning.

Clear it is not.

Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)
22

Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "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."

The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.

What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/SOURCES.HTM

So an argument can be made that at least one of the purposes of the Second Amendment, if not the sole purpose was to have a citizen's militia that would protect the people so that the government would not build a professional army that could later be used to oppress the people. That has obviously been ignored. There are professional armed forces whose sole purpose is (supposed to be) to protect the population.

In addition, the second statement in bold argues that the carrying of firearms that are designed for "deadly individual encounters" such as handguns may be prohibited."

At this point, any argument that the general citizenry should be able to keep firearms to protect against government oppression is a joke. No single citizen or group of citizens for that matter could withstand an attack from a professional police force or army. They simply do not have the resources and could never have the resources to do so.

The only other argument is self protection from other citizens / criminals. The goal of gun control in countries that no longer allow handguns is to limit access to all so that criminals can no longer have a source. Are we past this point? Possibly. There are SO many handguns and automatic weapons out there that even a total ban on the sale and distribution of guns would still result in YEARS of removing them from criminal hands.

Other option: get rid of the bullets or maybe as Chris Rock joked, make bullets SO expensive that people would REALLY have to be motivated to use one on someone. Imagine if the cost of a bullet was $100.00? You really think a gang member is going to do a drive-by on someone, spraying their house with hundreds of bullets if they were $100 a piece...

Me personally?

Handguns - TOTAL BAN. Only police should have them.

Hunting Rifles - SINGLE SHOT ONLY. Only after a background check and a yearly paid renewal. Must present a valid, up to date license to purchase ammunition. Limit on the ammunition purchased. Treat it like BAIT. You don't buy a thousand lures or worms at a time. No reason to buy that much for a hunt.

Assault rifles and automatic weapons - TOTAL BAN. SWAT units and Military ONLY.

 

I support a ban on assualt rifles.

I also support a "sin tax" on all bullets. Perhaps if you are actually hunting you could purchase bullets without the tax (not sure how easy that would be to implement).

Basically, I'm pro-gun ownership within reason. I should be able to hunt, and own a moderate amount of guns/ammo at home for defense, provided I am willing to pay for them. Moreover, any gun owner should be required to get a full background check.

 

What about just enjoying a hobby? Why is that a sin? Why is taxing always the answer to everything? Let freedom ring.

 

I wonder how Carl Landry feels about Guns today?

Funny how the US has the highest gun crime rate in the civilized world.

DD

 

I did not say it was an answer (what was the question?). The objective of a sin tax is to discourage something that is known to cause public harm. Bullets would certainly apply.

As for a hobby - I already said I think hunting should be exempt (somehow). If your hobby is just shooting all sorts of guns, I'm not terribly sympathetic, sorry.

 

Please enlighten me, what hobby includes the use of assault weapons?

 

Why not? This is the USA. I should have that freedom.

 

Shooting guns.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dYdkt7yIFLY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dYdkt7yIFLY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

SINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

probably wishing he had one whn running for his life and jumping fences and banging on doors.


dunta robinson got smart after his home was invaded.

 

hunting?


jk

I don't know everyone is against assault rifles so much. They are used in less then 1% of crimes involving firearms. Which makes sense considering the only place to conceal an assault rifle is in a trench coat or inside of your pants, which would make it quite inconvenient. Its the handguns everyone should be worried about, a gun you can stash in your pocket and whip out at a moments notice.

 

The AR15 is one of the most often used rifles in sanctioned shooting contests.

 

Well, change the contest then....LOL.

DD

 

no thanks

 

SKS's have become popular "cheap" hunting guns. They're certainly not as popular as bolt-action or lever guns, but they're not uncommon. I have a cousin that hunted deer with an AK-47, though that is rare. AR's and similar guns are really common for varmint hunting.

If I remember correctly, the Brady campaign admitted that the Assault Weapon ban was really about assault weapons, it was a test law to ban guns that they thought were easy targets to test the public's taste for gun control. The analogy is the nanny-staters fight for ban on smoking on international flights originating in the US paving the way for the smoking bans we see today.

 

I really doubt taking assault weapons away from participants would end shooting contests.

 

There are shooting contests with virtually every kind of gun you can imagine. A couple of weeks ago, I shot 850-yard targets with reproduction blackpowder .50-cal and .45-120 Sharps buffalo rifles. Guns with bullets slow enough to see in the air. All of the guys with these guns shoot them competitively.

 

well you were wrong about them not being used now you are making further assumptions based on zero knowledge.

 

Can't wait for the Nanny State..

Gun ban 'damaging Olympic hopes'

BY VALERIE ELLIOTT

Campaigners are seeking a change in the law to boost Britain’s
medal chances

MINISTERS are under growing pressure to relax a ban on handguns
to allow Britain’s champion shooters to train for the Olympic and
Commonwealth Games.

At present about 100 competitors spend up to £10,000 a year
travelling to Switzerland, where their guns are kept locked in an
armoury at a shooting range in Zurich.

Members of the national squad are being handicapped by the ban,
because it means that they can train for only 30 days a year. The ban
also makes talent-spotting difficult, as it prevents shooting
organisations from arranging a domestic competition circuit for the
.22 hand pistol 25m event to identify the best shooters.
The issue has been raised by Lord Coe, chairman of the London
Olympic Games Organising Committee, but there is caution over
such an emotive matter. The ban was imposed in the Firearms
Amendments Act 1997 after the massacre in 1996 of 16 children and
a teacher at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, a gun
collector. The ban applies in England, Wales and Scotland.

There is a handgun ban in Japan, but the Japanese Government
allows competition shooters to own and keep charge of their
weapons. A similar plan for Britain was put forward by sports
organisations but was rejected. The Countryside Alliance is mounting
a campaign for the Government to make a special case for
competition shooters. A poll conducted by the alliance indicated that
73 per cent of people opposed the ban.

Kate Hoey, a Labour MP and chairman of the alliance, said: “The ban
on lawful pistol shooters is damaging the chances for British medals,
but it has done nothing to diminish illegally held weapons for criminal
purposes.”

A general exemption already exists allowing Crown servants, police
and military to carry small arms. The Home Secretary may also issue
certificates to allow individuals to carry handguns for specific reasons.
A meeting will take place this month between Richard Caborn, the
Sports Minister, and Philip Boakes, chairman of the Great Britain
Target Shooting Federation.

John Leighton-Dyson, who trains the national squad, said: “We want
the ability to train on a daily basis and we don’t want our guns locked
away or kept by others. We also need regional competitions. We
really need the team to do daily training . . . Anything less than that
will be a disadvantage to our team. This ban is a complete anomaly
and was kneejerk legislation.”

 

Your assumption that I have "zero knowledge" is going a bit too far. I have been trained in the proper care and firing of rifles and handguns and was taught to shoot properly by my dad who was an MP in the Air Force and an NRA expert rated handgun marksman. He taught me to fire a .45 as well as he does. I just don't see the point in owning a gun any longer. I am also no longer able to see the point in having dangerous guns in the hands of citizens for the sake of being able to spray bullets as a hobby.

 

It's for the sake of freedom and liberty.