Your non-typical Arizona gun owner.

[ileus]

http://www.registerguard.com/web/updates/26886705-55/police-woman-intruders-medical-shot.html.csp


All right, maybe only non-typical because the robbery was over Medical Pot by folks pretending to be cops, but this is Arizona we're talking about. Gun availability to citizens who are able to defend themselves and their property are what the second amendment is all about. Who's to blame Criminals or the legal pot growers?


The good news is the argument guns save lives, the John Lott theory applies here.

Discuss:

[Deep13]

1. Glad he avoided a robbery. Disagree on the 2nd.

The 2nd Am. says what it is about. Defense of state security.

[LAGC]

2. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

The same "people" mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendments.

Really, except for the 10th Amendment, the entire Bill of Rights is about INDIVIDUAL rights, not state rights.

[Deep13]

3. two points,

first, you mentioned the purpose of the amendment. the purpose is plainly spelled out in the first clause. second, people is a collective noun like army and group. it is not the plural of person. like all of the bill of rights, the 2nd does not create rights but only prevents the Feds and later the state from interfering with rights that already exist. the 2nd was never meant to be a universal guarantee. it was never meant to apply to Indians, slaves, indentured servants, women or children. indeed the origin of the gun culture can be traced to early 18th century virginia where gun ownership came to be synonymous with white, male citizenship since only white men were allowed to have them.

now as a matter of policy, i think states should be pretty reluctant to restrict gun rights, but the 2nd amendment really has little to do with it. it is one of those myths about america that every believes, but is wrong nonetheless.

[ileus]

4. The good thing is now the 2nd applies to everyone.

[Remmah2]

10. Correction

U.S. Citizens in good standing.

[Deep13]

15. Yes, now it guarantees everyone's right to insure state security.

Still has nothing to do with personal protection.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. May want to let the Supreme Court know that

They completely disagree with your assessment - and not just the ones currently on the bench.

[ileus]

19. and all 50 states...

[jmg257]

23. M16s for all! Though it clearly recognizes the necessity of the Militia, how can you be sure

the right secured in the 2nd is secured only for Militia use? It clearly does NOT say that.

Curiously, it seems the Militia-related 'right' (or duty) is the one that was first, and most often, infringed upon; the people's access to military-grade weapons is typically restricted. Clearly not the intent of the Militia clauses, Acts, etc.

Since everbody has a right (and actually a constitutional duty) to ensure state security (actually its the people's liberties (justice, tranquility, defence) we are foremost securing), do we all get M-16s now?

[PavePusher]

24. Hahahahahahahah!

Whew!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

6. Sorry but you're wrong.

The idea that the word "people" in the 2nd Amendment somehow means something different than it does in the rest of the document is absurd on its face. I would love to see your proof that it was never intended to apply to Indians, slaves, indentured servants, women or children, and your support for the idea that gun ownership was synonymous with only white males.

[Deep13]

16. point of common grammar

Everywhere the Constitution says people, it is a collective noun. Where it talks of intividual rights, it says "persons" or "citizens."

For the proof of firearms ownership as being synonymous with white males citizenship (the only citizenship in those days) I refer you to the writings of Kathleen Brown, specifically her ground-breaking work on the origins of racial and gender classification in colonial America, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia (Chapel Hill, 1996).

As far as as not applying to those other groups, did you really think the Founders wanted to arm them?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

18. That's all you've got?

One text full of conjecture from a gender studies professor? Really?

Um - ok - somehow I'm thinking that's probably not the best source.

And as far as the founders wanting those other groups to be armed, the onus is upon you to prove they did not. Bear in mind my friend, there were women and blacks who owned property and voted at the beginning of this country. Indians too.

With regards to "people" in the Constitution, you're completely wrong on it being applied only to a collective group, and once again, you have not demonstrated how a document which defines and limits the power of the federal government magically creates a point of control over the individual in one specific 27 word amendment.

[jmg257]

7. Do all the securities listed in the Bill of Rights which refer to 'the People'

only protect the rights of those white males with citizenship?

What about 'the people' as used in the body and in subsequent amendments?

Was securing the rights of only a select few the original intent of the phrase when used amendments?

How is the scope of the phrase and its use in amendments now understood?

[Deep13]

20. okay, each in turn.

"Do all the securities listed in the Bill of Rights which refer to 'the People' only protect the rights of those white males with citizenship?"

Yes. People, grammatically, is a collective noun. It was assumed that the wealthy, white men would be speaking for "the people." In most places, the franchise was restricted to property owners which automatically excludes women, servants, slaves and Indians. The parts that refer to "persons" were intended to apply to everyone. This was a paternalistic society where wealthy white men replaced the king as patriarchs. No one had ever heard of a society where everyone was theoretically equal as everyone was defined by his or her relationship to a master. Masters owned land. Women, children and male servants were attached to that master and his property. Masters were citizens, those others were not. The idea of personal autonomy is as much a legacy of the industrial revolution and the rise of nation-states in the 19th century as it was of the Enlightenment.

"What about 'the people' as used in the body and in subsequent amendments?"

Again collective. For example, the warrant requirement is the operational part of the 4th Amendment as it was not intended to be a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures, only unreasonable one. So while the people genrally cannot be searched (writs of assistance), specific persons can be by warrants on probable cause. The 5th Am., IIRC, speaks of "persons" not "people." As does the 14th. "All persons born or naturalized...." Of course it is the 14th that makes the BOR applicalble to state law. Other Amendments are blanket prohibitions and do not specify to whom they protect. "Congress shall make no law...." (Seems pretty unambigious.) "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist...."

"Was securing the rights of only a select few the original intent of the phrase when used amendments?"

Phrases don't have intentions, individuals do. There is no single intention for any of these provisions because the Constitution and Amendments were written by committee. The social realities of the day, however strongly suggest that it was indeed the case that white males intended to retain their cultural hegemony. That was in the 18th century. Obviously, things changed after that. The industrial revolution, the settling of western land, the railroad and telegraph, the rise of nation-states and most significantly, the Civil War and Reconstruction.

"How is the scope of the phrase and its use in amendments now understood?"

I can't speak for the common mythology, but the Heller decision indicates that the 14th does make the RKBA a personal right, albeit a limited one so far. The other seven BOR amendments are clearly universal in their application, at least theoretically.

[jmg257]

22. Thank you...I appreciate the time it took for you to respond. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

5. If you believe that is the case

Please, by all means, explain for us how that works grammatically and logically.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment, like ALL of the Bill of Rights, places restrictions upon government, not the people.

With that in mind, explain how you arrived at your conclusion.

[Hoyt]

8. Jared Loughner is another good example of Arizona gun owner/toter.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. Jared Loughner had a history of criminal trouble. Do you think the Sheriff

did not do as he should have do to his possible connection with Loughner's mother?

[Hoyt]

13. Loughner bought a gun "legally" and carried it "legally." Gotta keep all those gun toters happy.

So, we just allow more and more folks like Loughner to buy guns and special accessories so they can shoot a bunch of folks when they decide it's time to make a name for themselves or defend themselves against the demons that haunt them. The so-called "gun culture" is a strange group of folks.

[gravity556]

21. Actually, he was not carrying legally.

The law is specifically written to exclude protection for anyone carrying a firearm with the intent of committing a crime. It works like a sentence enhancement. And since his intent was to shoot a bunch of people (shock! horror! an act already illegal in AZ. if only we had stronger anti-murder laws than capital punishment) he was in violation of the law. And trying to associate Loughner with AZ's "gun culture" is a fool's errand, so I guess you're perfect to attempt it. Here's a clue, Hoyt, gun owners in AZ want Loughner's head. Primarily for his heinous actions, but also for giving you anti-rights, "guns for me but not for thee" hypocrites ammunition in your crusade against the bill of rights.

Believe me when I say that the gun owning community has more than a little bit of hate for the criminal shitbag class in our country. Not simply because of the drain on society that they are, nor only for the lives they take or ruin, but also because every time some sociopath acts out, the chattering peanut gallery that is the anti-rights crowd screams for more laws that will only serve to disarm the law abiding and leave them at the mercy of armed criminals. And all that whining and blame tossing is like listening to a dozen screaming babies on a trans-continental flight.

And if you think that a majority of AZ is on your side of the argument, you're only fooling yourself.

[Hoopla Phil]

26. Any you purposely ignore the point that the sheriff failed to do as he

should have. Had he done so there would have been no legal purchase. And he was not carrying legally - as has already been pointed out to you.

So do you think the reason for the sheriff not doing what he was supposed to do had any thing to do with a possible association with Loughner's mother?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gravity556]

14. Hey! I was right.

Someone posted a picture to compare a woman who quite possibly saved her husband's life to a fucking loon who went on a killing spree. Didn't read the article, did you Hoyt? Just slapped a pic up and made a smug little comment. Well, I guess considering that the anti-rights side doesn't need actual facts when they have hysteria, lies and spin on their side, they aren't interested in the facts of the matter.

So, Hoyt, no complaints about the fact that the sheriff's office had multiple contacts with Loughner but didn't bother to enter that info into NICS? No? Instead you're just going to compare all AZ gun owners to this twisted fucktard. Aren't you a gun owner yourself, Hoyt? And if you are, then by your own logic, you're the same as every other gun owner you just compared to Loughner. Because in the tiny hive mind of the anti-rights crowd, there's no difference between a law abiding gun owner and a shitbag criminal. No room for distinctions, right? Or are some animals more equal than others? "Guns for me but not for thee"? Like Bloomberg-armed security for him and his buddies, but the rest of the city is at the mercy of criminals who don't give a flying fuck that it's illegal to have guns.

Ah, hypocrisy!

[oneshooter]

25. And Hoyt is a perfect example of a anti-rights pusher

Knows nothing about what he speaks of, has no experience to draw a logical conclusion from, stretches the truth as far as possible, repeats the lies of others, has no facts to prove his point, won't look at anything that does not support HIS points.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ileus]

27. Butt Butt....guns kill people and shouldn't have rights.

:)

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.