2nd Amendment...

[chucker34]

BTW, per all the Jim Zumbo comments, I know no one else on this board ever made a big mistake. They must not have if they feel the need to keep beating that dead horse - or shoud I say career.

Dead because the NRA, sponsors and all his so called supporters left him for so after one screw up that he corrected immediately by going before Congress and testifying against his previous comments, clarifying what he meant - that he didn't care for that firearm but not that it should be outright banned. That it was his opinion, not outright suggestion for a new law.

Yes sir, I hope that those people will be man enough to admit their mistakes if they ever make one.

I do know one thing, I will never join the NRA nor purchase anything from Mr. Zumbo's former sponsors again - regardless of whether or not they ever jump back on his bandwagon. Because he's done more for hunting in the past 30 years during his career than they have.

[Barony]

"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."

Now I know grammar isn't a strength for some on this site, and at the risk of being crucified by many, let's look at the grammar our forefathers used in the writing of the 2nd Amendment. This is where a lot of the conflict about the intent of the amendment comes into play, and it's a legitimate conflict. If the original intent of the amendment was to say people have the right to keep and bear arms, wouldn't there be a period after the word state? If the period is added, it is clarified. It would then read:

"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."

In my opinion, that is where legitimately the problem lies, and good luck coming up with what Madison, Franklin, et al intended to say in the original document. I also think that the 2nd Amendment is not in jeopardy either with the court's current political makeup/leanings.

[HuskerBen]

Quote:

---

What I find disturbing about the court rulings is that they claim the ammendment applies more toward militias such as the modern National Guard. No, that's not what the founding fathers had in mind. The revolutionary war militias were not as organized as today's government-backed counterparts. They were ordianry civilians who brought their hunting rifles to battle and to help protect their newly declared freedom.

---

That's the point that I keep making when I talk with friends about the 2nd ammendment. A militia, in the sense that our founding fathers knew it, is by definition separate from the government. The National Guard is a branch of the US Government-controlled armed service. Necessary and important, yes, but not a militia. And what do we do when our National Guard is overseas?

The constitution provides checks and balances between the branches of government, and in the 2nd ammendment, it provides one of the most important checks for the people (the other being our voting rights).

I'm not a single issue voter. I never have been. Nor do I associate myself with either major political party. But I do pay attention to my gun rights. We should not give them (anti-gunners) the first inch.

[BobT]

Not necessarily. Read that 2nd ammendment again in correct gramatical context. In other words, leave out the descriptive phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free state".

Read it without the descriptive statement:

A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This ammendment clearly states that the states have a right to maintain well regulated militias and the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Try this example to put in a simple sentance form that may make more sense.

The snow, at 32 degrees faherenheit, ice is typically at a temperature of 32 degrees fahrenheit. The descriptive statement about the snow and/or ice is that it is 32 degrees.

Bob

[deerhuntr8]

Quote:

---

BTW, per all the Jim Zumbo comments, I know no one else on this board ever made a big mistake. They must not have if they feel the need to keep beating that dead horse - or should I say career.

---

Most of us aren't in the public eye making stupid comments, either. His comments gave the anti-gun clowns more ammo-so to speak.

[GunDr]

It was well over a week before the NRA made any statement about Zumbo, and it was never in a negetive way. His demise, brought on himself, was perpetuated by the tens of thousands that emailed and called his sponsors.

[SDbowhunter]

I cant believe that anyone who is a gun owner would not want to be a member of the NRA. I am a proud NRA member and let everyone I know that I am. I agree the NRA been on the extreme end of gun control and opposed alot of legitimate legislation. But what I see them doing today has been much better then in the past. You do realize that your hunting semi-auto rifles could be classified as an assualt rifles just as your bolt action rifles could be classified as sniper rifles, just as your shotguns can be cut off and made into crowd pleasers. Once the bans start it gets easier to ban the next. If you are not a member of the NRA please join. This is the only group that has the power to protect our right to bear arms and continue our great hunting traditions.

[Ufatz]

Hey Gundr! You may not think NRA ruined Zumbo, but it is pretty well conceded in the industry (and a source of pride within the NRA leadership) that Jim Z. was zapped because he said things they didn't like. Jim Z. who is not a personal friend, has supported ALL outdoors people for more than a quarter-century. He had the audacity to say something the NRA big-wigs (LaPierre) didn't like so they drummed up a lynch mob and destroyed him.

Maybe we all might want to ask whether we really want to be members of an organization that will ruin a man because once, just once, he says something we don't approve. Don't we pride ourselves on Freedom of Expression in this country?

The NRA is dragging down a great many decent, law abiding and rational American sportsmen with their fanaticism-making all of us look like AR-15 30 round clip carrying nut cases.

And before you jump: Yes I am NRA. No I don't carry an AR-15 since there are a couple hundred better hunting rifles around. And NO, I don't like to play "lets pretend I'm a Delta warrior" by running throuhg the woods with a black rifle, lazer sights and a dagger in my belt.

That is all. Have at it.

[deerhuntr8]

Quote:

---

The NRA is dragging down a great many decent, law abiding and rational American sportsmen with their fanaticism-making all of us look like AR-15 30 round clip carrying nut cases.

And before you jump: Yes I am NRA. No I don't carry an AR-15 since there are a couple hundred better hunting rifles around. And NO, I don't like to play "lets pretend I'm a Delta warrior" by running throuhg the woods with a black rifle, lazer sights and a dagger in my belt.

That is all. Have at it.

---

This is yet another reason we are called Fudds-because of things like this. I guess everyone with an AR-15 thinks they are a delta warrior.

[BoxMN]

edit:

I have no dog in this race, but I do own a "black gun" and I do think that many in the industry threw Jim Z. to the wolves. I am not proud of what they did, and I vote with my wallet.

Good luck.

[chucker34]

I think you are kidding yourself if you think the NRA played a passive role in it. They are all about crushing the opposing viewpoint through their massive financial and political power. In this case, I would be extremely surprised if they didn't lean heavily on everyone, including Outoor Life. They just didn't, for obvious reasons, call the press to let them know. Of course, I am just speculating on this. But I have many first hand accounts of similar occurrences in other situations because the nature of my work. i.e., I have freinds involved in national politics that have shared instances of one phonecall from the organization getting committee appointments squashed right before they were about to go through because the person in question wasn't "pro-gun" enough.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about the 2nd ammendment and the ability to carry guns. But I'm not about ruining someone's life and career because their opinion didn't match up 100 percent with your's...And again, it all goes back to in my mind, Zumbo did much more and will hopefully still do more to promote hunting than the NRA in the past several decades. They are so dang concerned with the ability of not being able to use this type of handgun or that that they've lost focus in my opinion.

[FrankGWP]

The Supreme Court could come out pro-gun control on this case. The two biggest knee-jerker right-winger on the court [Thomas and Scalia - may be Alito, no one knows yet] are also the most dedicated originalists.

If they determine that the framers intended the 2nd Amendment as a state-based communal right dedicated to limiting the influence of the federal government, then the decision could open the door to more limits on guns.

If this happens it will be the NRA's (read the gun lobby) fault - period. They pushed this case as far as they could get it and now we are about to get a Supreme Court ruling based on a constitutional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment where there was none before.

I think that pushing this case was fool hardy at best. If the decision is pro-NRA it better be "modest" because the language and the history is far from clear. Anyone who tells you differently on one side (pro-private right) or the other side (pro-communal right) has chosen sides.

If the decision is not modest it may well lead to a real and substantial anti-gun activity - as opposed to the fake and or unsubstantial anti-gun activity constantly trumped up by the NRA.

I repeat my contention that pushing these cases, which sought to limit handgun ownership in one of the most crime and murder ridden places in the world - Washington DC, was a wrong one. because I can not possibly see any rational argument that such locally proscribed limits to gun ownership have or could ever have the slightest bit of impact EVER on my trips afield scatter-gun in tow, or those to be taken in the future by my family.

Further, If local communities are allowed to legislatively adopt RATIONAL [subject to local/state based determination] limits on gun ownership we will have some evidence of proof as to weather I am safer because I keep a handful of guns in my house and people are allowed to carry guns in public places where I live, or weather I would be safer being able to keep a handful of guns in my house and people were not allowed to carry firearms in the public place where I live.

Finally, who is trying to take away our right to hunt and our general right to own guns? Is this a credible threat? Or is the mere idea that hunting/gun ownership rights might be contested so earth shaking that some lose focus on more urgent matters? I contest the later and suggest that the emotional response involved in this issue is exploited by those who make a profit from the extremely liberal gun laws in this country.

Just my $.02.

[GunDr]

Frank,

Do you rally want to stand behind your last statement...

"Finally, who is trying to take away our right to hunt and our general right to own guns? Is this a credible threat? Or is the mere idea that hunting/gun ownership rights might be contested so earth shaking that some lose focus on more urgent matters? I contest the later and suggest that the emotional response involved in this issue is exploited by those who make a profit from the extremely liberal gun laws in this country."

I don't think my grandfathers, that fought WW1, my uncles who fought in WW2, and many in my family currently serving in the armed forces, would agree with you that securing ALL of our rights, is just for those looking to make a buck.

Here's a little cartoon straight from the Sarah Brady site, in case you think all of this is just smoke in the wind.

[FrankGWP]

GunDr - I meant no offense to anyone who has or does serve this country - in any capacity. I am not exactly sure how that could be inferred, but-none-the-less I STAND BY MY EARLIER REMARKS.

What I am saying is that the "threat(s)" to American gun ownership is puffed-up for the benefit of a few. The "threats" that I am aware of are a scatter-shot of extremely specified conditions on gun ownership is certain locations. In all places these reasonable conditions have been legislatively (read: through elected representatives) enacted.

In my opinion, forcing the Supreme Court to make a constitutional determination of the 2nd amendment creates a far greater threat to gun ownership than the de minis "threat" we currently face (see above). I do not even think it is close. Further, I think that pushing this challenge through the courts is being done for crass political gain at best and at worst for financial benefit. The reality is likely somewhere in between.

Moreover, if you think that the 2nd Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms which cannot be impinged upon by the states IN ANY MANNER, I fully question the legal, historical and philosophical basis of your claim.

However, I am not close-minded and am glad that I not on the bench to decide this one (especially considering that I could not likely be very unbiased).

You seem sure though. Please explain the nature of the Constitutional rights as laid out in our second second amendment.

(1) Based first, on the intent of the founding fathers, then on the western legal history of such rights [the approach likely to be taken by Thomas, Scalia and maybe Alito and Roberts - certainly to be treated with respect by the other justices].

(2) Then look at the rights as it is reflected in the Constitutional jurisprudence of the United states [the approach certainly to be taken by Breyer and Stevens and likely to be treated respectfully by most of the court - excluding Scalia, Thomas and maybe Alito.]

Finally, WHO DO YOU THINK IS PAYING FOR THIS LITIGATION?????? I doubt that it is some guy or gal from DC who was surprised when turned away from their attempt to purchase a handgun. Litigation costs money, people are hesitant to spend money when they do not stand to make more money in return. Hence, I think that people who make money from our liberal gun law might be interested in pushing and bankrolling these suits - because they assume that they will win. I think they are overconfident, misinformed and playing games with our way of life.

Sorry for any offense, but I do not see this as a slam dunk.

[Ufatz]

Well Frank old man, you obviously are an articulate and intelligent fella. But perhaps we should clear away some of the clutter in your posting and get down to the "nut cuttin'" What you are saying, ,more or less, is that the gun industry and the NRA are inflating the danger for their obvious benefit (more coins for LaPierre et al and profit for the gun makers? Well, why not just say that? That is certainly a reasonable argument.And you may very well be correct about the lack of real need for the present challlenge to the 2nd and the court.

Two things are clear to me in reading these boards: the NRA has been successful in convincing most gun owners that there is an imminent threat to their right to own that Remington #870, thus the steady stream or alarums on the boards and (2nd) many gun owners allow themselves to be stampeded into knee jerk reactions without much real grasp of the complexities of the issues. I , like most gun owners, would like it to be black-and-white. Sadly, that will not happen. But always keep in mind that somehow some force of darkness and evil will have to compel the ENTIRE U.S. Congress into taking away your model #870 or your Colt Python or your AR. How likely do you think that is?

Carry on gents. Didn't mean to interrupt.

[DitchPickle13]

Quote:

---

"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."

Now I know grammar isn't a strength for some on this site, and at the risk of being crucified by many, let's look at the grammar our forefathers used in the writing of the 2nd Amendment. This is where a lot of the conflict about the intent of the amendment comes into play, and it's a legitimate conflict. If the original intent of the amendment was to say people have the right to keep and bear arms, wouldn't there be a period after the word state? If the period is added, it is clarified. It would then read:

"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."

In my opinion, that is where legitimately the problem lies, and good luck coming up with what Madison, Franklin, et al intended to say in the original document. I also think that the 2nd Amendment is not in jeopardy either with the court's current political makeup/leanings.

---

I disagree with what you're saying about the absence of a period. There are three clauses in the sentence prior to the fourth and final clause, which is "shall not be infringed."

I'm not going out on a limb when I say the final clause is referring to the first clause and the third clause, which are "A well regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," respectively. The second clause is a descriptor for the first (providing more details, hence the comma).

The alternative two sentences you mentioned don't even offer a conclusion for both.

I WILL say you are right when you said the wording is important in determining intent. Of course, I've also stated why I see the interpretation differently; not based on an erroneous opinion.

By the way, the National Guard is not sufficient enough to fulfill the "well regulated militia" criteria either way. There is far too much federal control for that to be the case. To dispute any credibility concerns, I am a current member of the National Guard.

Shoot straight ladies and gentleman!

[chucker34]

And again, let's not forget another precursor to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

What about:

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Which comes to us from the opening of the Declaration of Independence. And pretty strong supporting evidence that you or I don't just have a right to own guns, we have a responsibility to band together against an unjust government. It is the right of the "people," not a government-sponsored entity that belongs to the unjust government. The Declaration is clear in subsequent paragraphs this responsibility not be taken lightly and not undertaken for trivial reasons.

But if you think there may never come a day when revolution become necessary again, its that line of thinking that may get us to that point - without any way to undertake it.

I'm not crazy. I'm just thinking the way our forefathers did. And before anyone rolls their eyes or calls their way of thinking antiquated, its pretty much the line of thinking that got us where we are today versus living in a third world dictatorship with no freedom or security.

[bigbucks]

Amen

[DitchPickle13]

Good points you mentioned chucker. Also, I believe now is the time to address any precedents because our(pro gun rights people, that is) chances are not getting any better as time goes by. Even cases which might appear inconsequential or irrelevant may not be, since there is a slippery slope that is evident once small rights are compromised.