Did LHO know how to drive? Does it matter?

[Jerry Organ]

Not really?nothing like the suffering of the victims and the families.

The second amendment doesn?t even say that everybody has the right to own weapons, but rather that they should be held by a well-regulated militia.

Doubt it.

10 years after Heller: Fiery gun rights rhetoric, but courts back Second Amendment limits ( Link )

In days past, the "militia" referred to usually took the form of the National Guard. In 2008, the Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment did cover the individual. But they didn't say the "right" was absolute, as the NRA and a few gun nuts might like people to think.

[John Mytton]

Mass shootings are rare. 99.999% of Americans shouldn't suffer because of them.

If mass shootings are rare then obviously you don't need a gun for protection, so tell us why do you need a gun?

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

10 years after Heller: Fiery gun rights rhetoric, but courts back Second Amendment limits ( Link )

In days past, the "militia" referred to usually took the form of the National Guard. In 2008, the Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment did cover the individual. But they didn't say the "right" was absolute, as the NRA and a few gun nuts might like people to think.

You quoted a op-ed by guys identified as "Eric Tirschwell is the director of litigation and national enforcement policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, and Mark Falsetto is senior counsel, Second Amendment litigation for Everytown." Probably not the most highly extremely unbiased dogs in the fight.

And your take on what the word "militia" has previously meant is wrong. We know what the Founding-Father types thought the word meant because they defined it in the Militia Act of 1792. It assigned to the militia "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." 18th century commentators like Spooner (no, not Spat thooner, the other one) understood that the militia was something that was formed organically from the people from the bottom up.

And every one of these guys "shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball"

Every man between 18 and 45 was not only allowed to possess firearms, they were required to possess them, Swiss style!

"Militia" being therefore definedvery broadly, the 2nd amendment goes on to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Heller decision turns on fact that, when the Constitution says "the people," it really does mean "the people" and not "the States" or "the government." The guys who wrote the Constitution feared what they called "the Mob." But they feared tyranny radiating from centralized power even more. That fear informs the structure of the Federal government from the basement up. It's why there are three explicit branches of government entwined in a tangle of checks and balances. And why they wanted a small army that could only be funded one year at a time and very large militia.

[Jerry Organ]

You quoted a op-ed by guys identified as "Eric Tirschwell is the director of litigation and national enforcement policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, and Mark Falsetto is senior counsel, Second Amendment litigation for Everytown." Probably not the most highly extremely unbiased dogs in the fight.

Is anyone really unbiased?

And your take on what the word "militia" has previously meant is wrong. We know what the Founding-Father types thought the word meant because they defined it in the Militia Act of 1792. It assigned to the militia "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." 18th century commentators like Spooner (no, not Spat thooner, the other one) understood that the militia was something that was formed organically from the people from the bottom up.

Who would be under the control of a "Uniform Militia", sometimes called an early National Guard. They would only be enrolled "when called out to exercise, or into service".

And every one of these guys "shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball"

Every man between 18 and 45 was not only allowed to possess firearms, they were required to possess them, Swiss style!

The sole purpose of the Act was to create state militias, at least theoretically. There was no penalty in the Act for non-compliance. Estimates of compliance go as low as 10%. Weapons were a major expense at the time.

"Militia" being therefore defined very broadly, the 2nd amendment goes on to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Heller decision turns on fact that, when the Constitution says "the people," it really does mean "the people" and not "the States" or "the government." The guys who wrote the Constitution feared what they called "the Mob." But they feared tyranny radiating from centralized power even more. That fear informs the structure of the Federal government from the basement up. It's why there are three explicit branches of government entwined in a tangle of checks and balances. And why they wanted a small army that could only be funded one year at a time and very large militia.

And the Militia Act of 1903 repealed the 1792 Act, defining the militia as Unorganized (able-bodied men 17-45 who might be called up, I guess, with whatever arms they owned) and Organized (the National Guard). The Guard was to modernize, standardize, and have more interaction with the US Army. This is the era I was referring to with "in past days".

[Mitch Todd]

Is anyone really unbiased?

No. But, so far as bias goes, there's a mighty gulf separating "anyone" from paid activists.

We know what the Founding-Father types thought the word meant because they defined it in the Militia Act of 1792. It assigned to the militia "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia."

Who would be under the control of a "Uniform Militia", sometimes called an early National Guard. They would only be enrolled "when called out to exercise, or into service".

Which is beside the point. The Militia Act of 1792 defines "the militia" as, essentially, every able-bodied free man. That's what they were thinking of when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

The sole purpose of the Act was to create state militias, at least theoretically. There was no penalty in the Act for non-compliance. Estimates of compliance go as low as 10%.

No. States already had their own militias, ones that generally existed before the Revolution itself. But that's also beside the point. As far as we are concerned,  and I know I'm being tedious and repetitive here, but the MAo1792 defines the militia and opens a window into the minds of the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights as to what they mean by "militia."

Weapons were a major expense at the time.

Automobiles and other motor vehicles are a major expense now. That doesn't prevent most Americans from owning at least one.

And the Militia Act of 1903 repealed the 1792 Act, defining the militia as Unorganized (able-bodied men 17-45 who might be called up, I guess, with whatever arms they owned) and Organized (the National Guard). The Guard was to modernize, standardize, and have more interaction with the US Army. This is the era I was referring to with "in past days".

That era wasn't the one that produced the second amendment, though. The argument over the the meaning of "militia" must not only begin with the 1792 act, but also center around it. Even then, as Scalia notes, bearing arms is a right given directly to the people. There were reasons for that. Someone can argue that it's an obsolete notion, but the remedy is via democratic activity and Constitutional amendment rather than by trying to twist words around.

[Jerry Organ]

No. But, so far as bias goes, there's a mighty gulf separating "anyone" from paid activists.

I just found that article randomly in a Google Search. I believe those "activists" mostly sought magazine restrictions and background checks, and recently tried to stop the 3-D printing of guns. Their advocacy and disruption of democracy is nothing compared to the NRA.

Which is beside the point. The Militia Act of 1792 defines "the militia" as, essentially, every able-bodied free man. That's what they were thinking of when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

Depends on how the Amendment is parsed. It's introduced with "A well regulated Militia". This confers onto the states the responsibility of militia, including that militia members have a right to keep (in their homes or militia arsenal) and "bear arms" (military-wise) which "shall not be infringed" upon by the federal gov't.

John Paul Stevens, associate justice of the Supreme Court 1975-2010 said a more-appropriate wording of the Second Amendment would go like this:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
     of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
     Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

The original version of the Amendment (passed by the House) was much like that:

    "A well regulated militia composed of the body of the people,
     being the best security of a free state, the right of the people
     to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one
     religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to
     render military service in person."

No. States already had their own militias, ones that generally existed before the Revolution itself. But that's also beside the point.

The state militia (and the need to man them) goes back a long way. The colonies were supposed to supply arms but fell short. Bonuses were offered men who supplied their own weapon, but few showed up. When war came, the militias weren't very effective, mostly older poorly-armed men serving on their state's home-front; very little training firing-wise because of ammunition shortages. Hence the need to regulate the militia into something more effective.

As far as we are concerned,  and I know I'm being tedious and repetitive here, but the MAo1792 defines the militia and opens a window into the minds of the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights as to what they mean by "militia."

Open that window a little higher.

Automobiles and other motor vehicles are a major expense now. That doesn't prevent most Americans from owning at least one.

Not many farmhands today (say, the equivalent of a laborer or farmer then) buy brand-new cars.

One estimate has a musket then costing about two-months wages for a skilled worker (that's about $14,400 today, based on manufacturer-worker $20-hourly-rate). That would be like a farmhand today (making an average of $4000-per-month) having to produce a lump-sum of $14,000 for a weapon that was sporadically-needed and ineffective at hunting.

That era wasn't the one that produced the second amendment, though. The argument over the the meaning of "militia" must not only begin with the 1792 act, but also center around it. Even then, as Scalia notes, bearing arms is a right given directly to the people. There were reasons for that.

I think he said the Constitution overall applied to the People.

Someone can argue that it's an obsolete notion, but the remedy is via democratic activity and Constitutional amendment rather than by trying to twist words around.

That last part ("twist words") sums up the NRA. "Democratic activity" better-applies to that Everytown group. The opinion of the people is what ought to prevail, though that process is undermined by NRA lobbying and pay-offs to corrupt politicians living the lives of millionaires.



Seems neck-and-neck.

[John Iacoletti]

Perhaps the gun control debate would be better conducted in the Off Topic section?

[Rob Caprio]

What does having a "ride" to do with leaving the rifle?  If Oswald had a car, was he going to carry his rifle down the stairs and out of the building to the parking lot?  LOL.  Very funny.  Isn't it a better question why his rifle was found in the building and your hero was making tracks like the place was on fire?

Why couldn't he have disassembled the rifle first? You laugh at this idea, but fully support the WC's claim that he brought in a disassembled rifle to his place of work with NO supporting evidence.  What's the difference?