Ted "Vigilante" Nugent.

If only he respected the due process of the 14th Amendment as much as he does 2nd Amendment.  It doesn't appear that that is the case.

And that clause "A well regulated militia" seems to be missing from Ted's argument.  That means we need to eliminate our standing military in order for Ted's argument to be valid.

I'm just reading the words of the Constitution.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I wonder if the gaggle of numb nuts will ask Unkle Ted to address them differently.

The definition and meaning in the spirit of "A well regulated militia" is still as well defined as the definition if "is" is

That is such baloney, joe.  A well regulated militia, by definition, means that the militia comes from the citizenry and only the citizenry.  It is not drafted, nor is it mandated, nor is it implemented by government.   'Militia' does not mean 'military.'  There is a clear and obvious distinction between the two terms by those with a brain.

If you can't figure that out, I guess we know what you are lacking.

Ooooohhh NGA..that was NASTY.

I'm all for the right to bear arms. Most people are. I'm not so sure I want every woman driving a car pool mini-van  in the U.S. to be packing all the time. Not everyone is stable. "I told you kids to shutup, pow pow! " LOL

And of course, I don't want anyone carrying around fully automatic AK-47s either. But most people believe that you have the right to own guns, and everyone has pretty much the same line about what you can own. Nobody is going to pry Ted's gun out of his cold hands, unless of course he goes beserk someday. Which is a possibility. Rock and Roll Hoochie Coo!!!!

Njal,

It seems that you write your posts pretty late in the evening and early morning. You need to get to bed earlier. You sound really cranky most of the time.

We must look at things from a historical context.  At the time of the American Revolution, there wasn't what we would today consider an organized police force.  At the very least, there was usually a local sherrif or constable, but there usually were not trained men whose only job was to police the city, town or borough in which they lived.  The right to bear arms was originally to ensure that a town would have a night watch, and in extreme circumstances, be able to defend itself as a whole.  This would evolve The British attempted to disarm the colonists, but they were able to use previous law and precidence as an argument opposed to such action.

After the Revolution, the first form of our government was instituted under the Articles of Confederation, which was a lose allignment between the States.  Without a real establishment of a Federal Government, the Confederation was unable to formulate a military response to an armed rebellion (Shay's Rebellion) in Massachusettes.  This, combined with other factors, convinced enough politicians and legislators that a new Federal government with more power to regulate economic conditions and protect private property should be formed.

While anti-Federalists were unable to get the 2nd amendment in the original constitution, they were able to make their case that a non-civilian controlled army could infringe upon civil liberties and the entire democratic process if the general populace did not have a means of forming militias in response.  Each State had a different opinion of what the right to bear arms was - some specifically stated that each State needed a trained militia, while others defended the right to hunt game.

There were many debates and alterations of what would become the 2nd Amendment, but in the end it was created to ensure that a Federal Military could not invade and take control of individual states - and was thereby more of a State's Rights issue, than anything else. 

Now, we'll fast forward to present day.  Each State has it's own armed police force, as does each city or town, and county. Each State has also has it's own trained militia - currently the National Guard, which is broken up into 50 components for each state, and technically under each State's jurisdiction unless authority is given to the Federal Goverment. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment is still being honored.

Now, on to my personal beliefs on this issue:

I believe that because the original State's had different ideas about what defines a right to bear arms, it proves that there are underlying additional reasons in which a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own them.  However, I do not see how a creation of gun-control laws would infringe upon said rights.  Regardless of intent, the 2nd Amendment does not disallow for the regulation of firearms.  We must also look at the evolution of firearms, and recognize that the ability to fire on average 3 rounds per minute from a musket (by a trained soldier) has now evolved into 12-15 rounds per second with such weapons as an AK-47.  I see absolutely no reason why the average U.S. citizen would need such a weapon, unless they intend to commit a crime.  I also see where waiting a certain period of time for a background check infringes on any rights.

Therefore, I believe that the right to bear arms is a legitimate right, however there's no reason why we cannot adopt modern laws to ensure that such a right is only given to those who honestly deserve them.

Funny how people want to put the constitution in "context" when it suits their purpose.

Nancy - care to expand upon that statement?

So Nanc, do you feel that every (non felon) American should have the right to carry a concealed weapon?

Is this early enough for you, Markhanc?

And if I sound cranky to you, markhanc, that probably means I'm saying something right, as my post from 1 AM reflects.

Any Law abiding American with no criminal record should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon if he/she chooses. End of argument.

anti.. do you feel that every (non felon) American should have the right to carry a concealed weapon?

ABSOTOOTLEY..California is backward..my son lives in Washington and he has a concealed weapons permit...all he had to do was show his drivers liscense..try looking around out of your box you have settled into..offender threatens me or my family ..cornors report..died from lead poisoning..

Sometimes that little permit can create a lot of hassle.  I knew a few people in FL with their CWP's, and it used to create additional drama whenever pulled over for a regular traffic stop.  I guess it's not as updated as in WA...

My brother in law that lives here has his federal firearms liscense..he can sale guns etc..he has a permit but he has to keep updating it..its not a life long relationship..he knows the law on when and how you can defend yourself and the reprecussions if you cross the lines..you would be amazed at the rights they give the perps here in california..well maybe not

Anti....yes.

FSG...no.

Whose the blowhard on local talk. Is he Ted’s brother? Neither one of them has a nickels worth of sense.
They both would fair better shoving their crap back up their butts than wasting their time on me.
They are entertainers. They are the Hollywood types that you despise so much.
When you need attention. Jump up and down and make funny faces.
Both those bimbo’s are proof that my fore mentioned plan works.

After they both get their attention rush. They kick back in their little chairs a Cigar in their mouth. Shaking their heads and wondering how they got away with their performance again. 

Rush something is his name I think.

tkozy...  rattle rattle BS

Nancy,

Just think Nancy. You would wish me a CCW.

Keep me in your prayers.  Ha Ha Ha.

 FSG...no

I provide a detailed, well organized and factual basis for the advent of the 2nd amendment, even alluding to the fact that there were underlying disagreements between those who ratified the Bill of Rights, thereby giving credence to those who still believe that the 2nd amendment allows all law abiding citizens the right to bear arms.  Yet, at the same time, I point out the fact that the 2nd amendment does not specify the kind of arms, or how they are allowed to obtain them. 

The entire point of our constitution was to be a living document (though some like Scalia seem to ignore the historical basis) - not whereas we should look for loopholes, but moreas there was an implied understanding that society is always evolving, and therefore the constitution always needs to be re-analyzed and in some cases amended to address issues which back in the late 18th and early 19th centurys did not exist.  The reality is that our nation is far different from centuries ago, and therefore we must address this difference while remaining within the basic framework of the document.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

I find it honestly insulting that you would insinuate that I pick and choose and alter the context of the Constitution based upon my own personal convictions, and I implore you to provide me with concrete examples that could prove how I've done such things.

Tk, now that IS a scary thought.  I may have to re-think my position. 

FSG, it's obvious that you are not a stupid person so even you should be able to see how, right here on these very blogs, how people use the constitution to suit their agenda.  One time it's "oh the constitution grants us this or that right."  Then you come along and want to put it in historical context basically saying that  times are different now so this is what it means today.

I find it a little funny when people (not necessarily you) start talking about what the founding fathers meant when they wrote it like they were there and knew what they were thinking.  Sorry, your (and others) crystal ball just isn't that good.  Like the Bible, so much of that document is up for interpretation when applied to todays world and that has been proved by the many different ways people use it for their agenda.  Either it means what it says it is or it doesn't.  When trying to apply it to todays world, that's when we start having arguments like yours.

If you can't see that then I submit while you aren't stupid, you certainly blind to the posts that have been made here by all manner of people.  What you, and other, are saying is that your interpretation of the constitution is correct while others with whom you disagree are wrong.

My comment was not so much directed at you as it was to all who commented on the topic, you just chose to make it all about you.

Your last comment

"I find it honestly insulting that you would insinuate that I pick and choose and alter the context of the Constitution based upon my own personal convictions, and I implore you to provide me with concrete examples that could prove how I've done such things."

indicates that you take this blog way too seriously and your umbrage over my comment is awfully extreme considering it's really not all about you.  In spite of my earlier answer of "no" I relented and commented after all.  But to your very last sentence/request, the answer is still "no."  Don't be so silly.  You're going to give yourself apoplexy.

After reading this, I couldn't help but think of this email that was sent to me yesterday.  Hopefully, you guys will find it funny like I did.  A pretty strong argument against everyone carrying, I would say, haha. ;)

A MAN WHO KNOWS HIS MATH

         He writes:

         I was riding to work yesterday when I observed a female driver, who cut right in front of a pickup truck, causing the driver to
drive onto the shoulder to avoid hitting her.  This evidently angered the driver enough that he hung his arm
out his window and gave the woman the finger.  'Man, that guy is stupid,' I thought to myself. I ALWAYS smile
nicely and wave in a sheepish manner whenever a female does anything to
me in traffic, and here's why:

       I drive 48 miles each way every day to work.  That's 96 miles each day.

       Of these, 16 miles each way is bumper-to bumper,   Most of the bumper-to-bumper is on an 8 lane highway.

       There are 7 cars every 40 feet for 32 miles.  That works out to 982 cars every mile, or 31,424 cars.

       Even though the rest of the 32 miles is not bumper-to-bumper, I figure I pass at least another 4000 cars.

       That brings the number to something like 36,000 cars that I pass every day,  Statistically, females drive half of these.

       That's 18,000 women drivers!

       In any given group of females, 1 in 28 has PMS.

       That's 642.

       According to Cosmopolitan, 70% describe their love life as
dissatisfying or unrewarding.

       That's 449.

       According to the National Institute of Health, 22% of all
females have seriously considered suicide or homicide.

       That's 98.

       And 34% describe men as their biggest problem.

       That's 33.

       According to the National Rifle Association, 5% of all females
carry weapons and this number is increasing.

       That means that EVERY SINGLE DAY, I drive past at least one
female that has a lousy love life, thinks men are her biggest problem,
has seriously considered suicide or homicide, has PMS, and is armed.

       Give her the finger?

       I don't think so.

 FSG, it's obvious that you are not a stupid person so even you should be able to see how, right here on these very blogs, how people use the constitution to suit their agenda. 

Pretend I'm 5 years old and stupid - I want to know spefically what examples you're speaking of.  It's as unfair for you to assume that I see everything from your vantage point, just as it's been unfair in the past for me to call people on here ignorant.  I think I've pretty much ended my assumptive claim (and if I haven't, please let me know.. because I'm honestly trying to be more respectful these days).

One time it's "oh the constitution grants us this or that right."  Then you come along and want to put it in historical context basically saying that  times are different now so this is what it means today.

Give me a realistic argument against my statements regarding the 2nd amendment.  Prove to me exactly how my statements would not hold up in a legal battle.  Last I checked, there are bans on specific weapons, and there are limitations on how one purchases a firearm legally.  If these went against constitutional principles, explain to me why the Supreme Court has not overturned any laws currently in place?  The specific wording of the amendment does not deny the government the authority to determine what firearms the people may bear, nor does it deny the government the authority to allow for background checks prior to sale of a firearm.  That is reality, not something made up to get past a loophole.

I find it a little funny when people (not necessarily you) start talking about what the founding fathers meant when they wrote it like they were there and knew what they were thinking.  Sorry, your (and others) crystal ball just isn't that good. 

And what makes you an expert on this subject?  A Bachelor's Degree in History isn't as good as a Doctorate, but it certainly proves that I've learned how to understand and contemplate primary source documentation.  A degree in History is not just about memorizing facts and dates - a large portion of it teaches a student how to look at an event and/or source and analyze it to it's fullest capacity.  90% of my exams were in essay format, whereas I was forced to convey a much more analytical approach to historical issues than you would normally see in a high school environment (for example).

When I state what I believe to be the original intent of the founding fathers, it is taking into account not only what you would normally read in a history book, or see on a TV show, but it also takes into account an analysis of many factors - the time period, the people involved, the location, i.e. every piece of the puzzle imaginable. 

Like the Bible, so much of that document is up for interpretation when applied to todays world and that has been proved by the many different ways people use it for their agenda.  Either it means what it says it is or it doesn't.  When trying to apply it to todays world, that's when we start having arguments like yours.

Two completely different issues. The Bible literally is not the same book that it was 1500+ years ago, per translation and re-translation from the original languages of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek to Latin, German and then English.  Also, if you want to go into technicalities, there are numerous books of scripture that were not included in the Bible - and therefore there is still much debate today as to total interpretation of scriptural meaning.  Being that the Bible is a religous manuscript, I think it is unfair to compare it and it's continued analysis with the US Constitution.

The US Constitution has not changed in either verbage or meaning.  However, once again, when you take into account what the framers of the Constitution specifically stated about the document and other important issues, events and situations of the time period, it can be argued that there was room left within the framework to provide for the advancement of both time and society.  Without such foresight, we would not have seen the Bill of Rights at all, much less an end to Slavery or the right for someone such as yourself, a woman, to vote.  Amendments have been added, and even taken away (such as prohibition).  Therefore, your argument that it either "means what it says or it doesn't" is incorrect, because one could technically argue that the 2nd amendment could be repealed, per historical precident.

If you can't see that then I submit while you aren't stupid, you certainly blind to the posts that have been made here by all manner of people.  What you, and other, are saying is that your interpretation of the constitution is correct while others with whom you disagree are wrong.

I wouldn't say that - what I would say is that my interpretation of the constitution is more in depth and analytical than most.  I'm not a constitutional lawyer (though I've considered the study for future educational aspirations..), and neither are you or anyone else posting on here, that I'm aware of.  Therefore, I go on my knowledge and understanding of history, political science and the context within both.

My comment was not so much directed at you as it was to all who commented on the topic, you just chose to make it all about you.

I specifically asked you to elaborate on your point, you refused, so I made the assumption that the comment was indeed directed at me.  My mistake.

indicates that you take this blog way too seriously and your umbrage over my comment is awfully extreme considering it's really not all about you.  In spite of my earlier answer of "no" I relented and commented after all.  But to your very last sentence/request, the answer is still "no."  Don't be so silly.  You're going to give yourself apoplexy.

Is it wrong to take a debate and/or discussion on constitutional issues seriously?  I believe these are important matters we speak of, and while obviously our discussion isn't going to change the current fabric in either direction, I still value the importance of knowledge.  I'm not giving myself apoplexy.