Pat Oliphant for January 08, 2013

Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress; here is the text of Clause 16:.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;-And for those who think the 2nd Amendment was written so people could be armed to fight a tyrannical government, just the opposite is true. Here is the text for Clause 15 of Section 8: .To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTION and repel Invasions;.(My caps to emphasize that militias exist to fight against those who seek to overthrow the government. Washington called the militias into service during the Whiskey Rebellion.)

The 2nd Amendment says nothing to counter Clause 16:.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 question is, who regulates the Militia, and the answer is Congress. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment takes away that power.The present day Militia, the National Guard, still follow training procedures set by the Federal Government and are still subject to being put under Federal authority.The 2nd Amendment was adopted in December 1791. Congress still saw it as their responsibility to regulate Militias in May 1792 when they passed a law requiring Uniform Militias throughout the United States.Washington used his powers to call up Militias more than 2 years after the 2nd Amendment was adopted to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

For those who talk about original intent, history is a b—— ain’t it?

Just a reminder that the ANTI-Federalists were quite clear on the dangers of “Standing Armies” and we are seeing, on a daily basis, that THEIR forecassting skills were CLEARLY SUPERIOR to those of the Federalists.

@Newshound, Mickey, and Richard- Great debate with well stated views. Keep it up.The great comments above the one I’m posting gives me little to add, however…As I looked at the cartoon, I suddenly recalled that delightful scene from Crocodile Dundee where the ’Roo hunters found themselves being shot at by a kangaroo.A deer with an anti tank gun would fit in real nice in this toon.@ Nightgaunt – I used to think the NRA was a lobbying arm for sportsmen. It is now my opinion you are correct and the NRA is now the lobbying arm for manufacturers, distributors, and anti government militias.Respectfully,C.

Okay, next scene is Bambi with an RPG!

Shot a rabbit with a friends .50 caliber muzzle loader that he’d “under-charged”. The ball barely rolled out of the barrel, hit the rabbit on the head, just like hitting him with a rock. It crushed his skull, but didn’t penetrate the skin!

Had a guy say he wanted a Barrett .50 caliber to use for hunting! I asked him if he planned to use a kitchen strainer to retrieve any deer he might shoot with it.

There is absolutely NO SENSE in trying to compare modern weapons to those the founding fathers wanted available: TO THE MILITIAS!

Newshound: No, Article II, Section 2 gives that power to the President, same as with the Army and Navy.

District of Colombia v Heller.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

NRA, Tea Party, KKK.

Gee, seems to me that most folks who meet the police (or any other law officers) with gunfire end up dead. Don’t think it much matters who’s right or wrong in the particular situation either.

After a forum’s software dumps a comment or two, I try to remember to compose in an editor and paste it in when I’m done. Then I get lulled into a false sense of security and forget.

Garry Wills takes a careful look at the second amendment in context of language as it was used at the time of its writing, as well as the context of other discussions and rulings from the framers of the Constitution: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/?pagination=false

Google “The Whiskey Rebellion.” This was one of the first tests of the new republic in exerting authority on a federal level. It was a taxation issue and very contentious. George Washington himself rode at the head of a conscripted militia to intervene. There were a few deaths, destruction of property, and a lot of threats. Several tax agents were tarred and feathered.. I see in that circumstance a precursor to future resistance to gun control that our present federal government is attempting futilely to impose. It might seem a foolish conflict to many of us now, but it was very important to people at the time.. It had all the elements of present citizen-government concerns: rich vs. poor, east vs. west, business vs. consumer, possible government corruption, much debate and no real final resolution – both sides claimed victory. A few years later, it helped lead to separate political parties (according to some)..I agree it is impossible to regulate guns in one state with tough laws and to prevent guns coming in, anyway, from other areas. I also think gun laws need to be tougher. How, I will not say. .Be prepared for predictable resistance, and a backward look at The Whiskey Rebellion is, I think, instructive. We got through that, we will get through this – through realistic thinking and compromise. Too bad that’s a dirty word at present..I guess I didn’t make clear the intent of my post. Either that, or you were eager to vent on somebody. I hesitated to even venture my opinion on this issue, but my typing fingers got to tingling… Either way, very interesting. Thank you, friend.

I’m guessing that at the time that the bill of rights (which included the second amendment right to bear arms) was passed into law, the individual states probably regulated ( meaning taxed) their own militias! The NRA came along much later.

One last comment, and that’s it..You’re getting too intense, it seems, for an informal discussion. And that’s why I refuse to say. Whatever I say will be too much or too little. “Technology” sounds great – what’s your idea?.I have never had to respond this way before to anyone, and I am really sorry to come to this point. It’s futile. The last time I commented on gun control, I was sarcasticallycalled “comrade” etc etc. as if I don’t get nearly enough normal abuse and aggravation each day..Nothing I couldn’t handle, but at first it’s surprising in its intensity. I supervise people who suffer from bouts of hyper-anger, and I just have to walk away. A half-hour later and they’re nice as pie, but they don’t apologize, either. Religion, politics, and gun control discussions – not for amateurs..Other people commenting in this string have been calmer than usual. I’m sure this is an important subject to you; maybe you’ve suffered through misuse of guns. (I have, through family and friends. I’ve nearly been shot by hunters in my back yard. They don’t realize, apparently, shot doesn’t automatically stop at property lines.) .I doubt the world is aching for my opinion to any greater extent. Do I have the magic words to change the world? .Man, you have correctly pegged me as a Fatalist! I admit it – how could I not? I think that’s obvious in everything I write. I’m also a confirmed cheerful pessimist..So much dishonest, cynical thought is why these controversies persist. And why not, it’s profitable and gets attention. Some people make careers of it. It calls to mind this from Confucius, THE ANALECTS:.“Conduct that is firm while perverse, words that are eloquent while crafty, the transmission of what is wrong with erudition, the following of what is evil while giving it a gloss – these are prohibited by the sage king.”.Day is done. Take it easy – but take it.

Cartoonist threatens to lynch the President:http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2013/01/10/

Hey, trying to remember things is my hobby too! Put ’er there!

Hi, friend. I see in you myself many years ago. I hope I have tempered my sarcasm since then, having turned it into satire. I choke on the memories of many rought things I wrote that stemmed from misunderstanding the comments of others. I used verbal sledge hammers to thread needles..Your technological ideas, while they might be practical, will not work until such time gun ownership issue can be discussed calmly. I don’t think that will happen for at least another generation. In fact, I foresee a concentrated effort to counteract all your ideas if they are put in place, many illegal industries to service those who want to disable safety measures. .I do like your idea to make guns inoperable in public places. Still, it would be very controversial. Do conceal and carry laws also give the right to use a weapon? Statutes might vary by state and municipality..I am involved in simulations as to how to act in emergencies in industry. Most people badly need training because they react in many wrong ways, sometimes almost exactly opposite the way they should. To expect people to act smoothly and effectively in shoot-outs with maniacs is fantasy. Most likely, casualties from friendly fire would be horrendous..As explained earlier, debates about gun issues are distasteful to me, and I usually avoid them. I seldom read them anymore, because it’s the same thing over and over. And look what happened – I weakened and took part because I read Oliphant on a daily basis. And now I’m involved in a futile discussion where both parties are talking past each other..And lastly:.Was “Dopler effect” a word play on “dope,” or did you just misspell “Doppler”?

I want all you anti-gun persons to put a sign on your front door, saying Gun Free Zone.