TexasCHLforum.com

Sorry if my post read that way. The body of the Constitution takes the collective view and that is why the 2nd Amendment was needed. It does not make any changes to the body of the document, but it does add the part about bearing arms being an individual right.

jimlongley wrote:

SCone wrote: . . . By reading the entire Constitution, with the Amendment, the entire meaning of the 2nd Amendment can be seen...

I invite you to reinvent the wheel and do it for yourself, or you could just read the well reasoned treatises on the subject and probably reach the opposite conclusion to that you presented.

Been there, done that... In the early 80s, I had doubts on whether my belief in "the right to bear arms" was real or just an emotional attachment to my guns. It was clear to me that only the original documents could help find the right answers. I read everything available. Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, Gun Control Act of 1934 (and the court documents), English law, and too many more to remember.

After weeks of study, I came to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right of every individual in the United States. Plain and simple, it says what it means, "...the right of the people shall not be infringed."

Every gun law passed since the original passage of the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional.

In the early days of our country, some knew how fragile those freedoms were and our Constitution is their attempt at maintaining those same freedoms for all future generations. It is only from the destruction of that document that our country can fail.

Here's the reasoning that I take with the 2nd Amendment.

1) What is the purpose of an amendment? - An amendment changes something that has been previously agreed upon.

2) What is in the body of the Constitution that our fore-fathers tried to alter by adding the 2nd Amendment (remember, it was passed in 1791, along with the other 9)? - Section 8, Powers of Congress, in particular, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

3) Why would an amendment be needed for this portion of the Constitution? - Congress has the power to raise, train, arm & discipline the militia. The 2nd Amendment does not give the Congress any additional powers, it changes nothing that has been previously stated. In fact, the 2nd Amendment reinforces the need for the militia with the words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... " and then states, ""...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Since the "militia" is made up of every "able-bodied," one could interpret the Constitution as giving the Congress the authority over the "arming" that same group. Without the words, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" one could make the arguement that anyone not part of the "militia" could be denied arms.

By reading the entire Constitution, with the Amendment, the entire meaning of the 2nd Amendment can be seen...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; 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.

brianko wrote:Reasoned debate will win the day, not childish namecalling and fiery rhetoric

"In this there is good news and bad news for gun owners. First the good news: The federal government, your elected officials, never have and are not now conspiring to take our guns. No such legislation has ever been introduced in the U.S. Congress."

"The bad news? Groups such as the NRA have been hoodwinking you about that very issue -- wastefully spending your hard-earned dues money on politics, and useless protesting by having people like Charlton Heston give that phony 'pry it from my cold dead fingers' speech"

These two paragraphs are quoted from "Some Facts About Gun Control" written by Pat Williams, nine time Representative of Montana.

OK, here's the debate...

1791
The Second Amendment is ratified.

1934
The National Firearms Act imposes a tax on the sale and transfer of machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. Passed just after Prohibition's repeal, it follows widespread outrage over gangsters like John Dillinger and Al Capone.

1938
The Federal Firearms Act requires federal licensing of gun dealers.

1968
The Gun Control Act, following the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr., expands licensing and record-keeping requirements. It prohibits felons and the mentally ill from buying guns and bans the sale of mail-order firearms, including rifles and shotguns.

1972
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is created to oversee the regulation of gun sales.

1986
The Firearms Owners Protection Act eases some gun sale restrictions and bars the government from creating a database of gun dealer records. The law, which also authorizes sales of guns between private owners, reflects the growing influence of the National Rifle Association and a strongly pro-gun Reagan administration.

1993
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named for the press secretary disabled by the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981, requires gun dealers—although not private sellers—to run background checks on purchasers and authorizes the creation of a national database.

1994
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, passed by a Democratic Congress, bans the sale of new assault weapons for 10 years.

2003
The Tiahrt Amendment prohibits the disclosure of trace data about guns used in crimes. Following a wave of lawsuits against gun dealers, Congress also protects gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits if their guns are used in crimes.

2004
The assault weapons ban expires under a Republican-controlled Congress.

2007
After the massacre at Virginia Tech, Congress closes a loophole in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by requiring states to automate lists of people prohibited from buying firearms, including felons and the mentally ill, and put them in the federal database.

These are the ones that have passed at the federal level. But what about the PROPOSED legislation?

Current legislation (110th Congress)
Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 (H.R. 96)
Domestic Violence Victim Protection Act (H.R. 203)
Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 256)
NICS Improvement Act of 2007 (H.R. 297)
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 1022)
Foreign Felon Gun Prohibition Act of 2007 (H.R.1168)
Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007(H.R.1859)
The Anti-Gun Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.77)

Past legislation
109th Congress (2005-2006)
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 1312)
Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2005(H.R. 3348)
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005 (S. 620)
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005 (S. 645)
Amendment to prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster

108th Congress (2003-2004)
Bill to Reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988--18 U.S.C. 922 (H.R. 3348)
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2004 (S. 2498)
Bill to Extend the sunset on the assault weapons ban for 10 years (H.R.3831)
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003 (S. 1034)
Assault Weapon Ban Enhancement Act of 2003 (H.R. 143)
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (S. 1431)
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (H.R. 2038)

107th Congress (2001-2002)
Assault Weapon Ban Enhancement Act of 2002 (H.R. 3751)

106th Congress (1999-2000)
David Chetcuti Firearm Modification Act (H.R. 1428)
Assault Weapon Ban Enhancement Act of 1999 (H.R. 1809)

105th Congress (1997-1998)
Bill to ban the importation of firearms that have been cosmetically altered (H.R. 2702)

104th Congress (1995-1996)
Handgun Control and Violence Prevention Act of 1995 (H.R. 1321)
Bill to prevent handgun violence and illegal commerce in firearms (S. 631)

103rd Congress (1993-1994)
Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993 (H.R. 1025)



There sure are a lot of laws seeking to regulate, restrict or deny firearms for a government that "never have and are not now conspiring to take our guns."

Years ago, I tried to make my voice heard to Joe Biden. I wrote his office almost daily. He was a strong supporter of the first so-called "Assault Weapon Ban." Since he was an elected official, I thought, that he could be reasoned with by facts and figures. Leaving aside the personal feelings, I set about presenting him with the facts. After several months of constant correspondance with very little response, I began calling. I think I spoke with every person in both his Washington & Delaware offices. They practically knew my voice.

I was finally told, "Senator Biden will NEVER CHANGE his stand on this issue."

Forget the fact that "assault-type weapons" were used in less than 2% of any crime. Despite the fact that the wording of the ban could include ANY semi-automatic rifle. No matter what the evidence, Joe Biden refused to even consider a change to his vote.

Beyond being able to reason with Senator Biden, there was the lack of response from his office. Nothing in the letters sent by his office sought to explain his position, justify his stance, or even try to understand any other thinking beyond his own.

This is the man that will be second in command of the United States come January 20th. Get ready for sweeping legislation, cooked-up in secret, that will criminalize everything we hold as a "right" guaranteed by our Constitution.

One appointment to the Supreme Court & that right will be stripped forever from our hands.

The ONLY way to fight this plan is with an NRA 20,000,000 members strong with one mindset, one goal, one cause. The absolute protection of the 2nd Amendment.

The core belief with the NRA is the 2nd Amendment, and with few exceptions, that is what binds us together. Without their ever vigilant watch over that core belief, we would not have our guns now. Our rights would have been stripped away long ago. They stand rock-solid on NO COMPROMISE with the words, "shall not be infringed."

There are so many ways to "infringe" on our right to bear arms.

What good is a gun without bullets? What is the difference in 5 rounds & 25? Why can't I carry for my own protection everywhere I go? Why does someone elses wrong-doing become my penalty?

This is where we need the NRA to be ever watchfull of our rights, every one of our rights.

The NRA should get Tom Selleck, he's been a good voice for us before.



As for the spam mail, just OPT OUT from the NRA website.