State House says yes to guns at work -- Lobbying, Palm Beach (P...

[PGFlorida]

Bud wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's look at the text: "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."
I think it a valid argument that if you strictly construe the above, the first clause, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is talking about having a military. Why else put in "security" of the "state". Individual rights are not part of this clause, if read strictly and literally.
The problem is the interaction between this clause and the second, regarding the right of the people to bear arms not being ingfringed. The question is, is the second clause dependent on the first - meaning that the wauy in which the citizens maintain their right is to be in the military? Courts currently do not interpret the Second Amendment this way, but I think a true Strict Constructionist (or at least one that is not a hypocrite), would agree that holding the causes as related and dependent is the correct way of reading it.
I don't agree, but then I don't agree with Strict Constructionism in general. I believe the courts have expanded this right beyond what the Framers meant when they wrote it - and that is OK. Updating interpretations is something necessary to keep the law relevant.
Other provisions shouldn't be strictly construed either. This had led to decisions like Roe v. Wade that people often disagree with, but I do not understand how disagreement on a single issue is grounds to view the Constitution as a static document that must be strictly construed in the face of societal and technological changes that the Framers could never have dreamed of.

That makes a huge assumption that the "militia" is defined as the military, which just doesn't jive with the stated views of the founders as well as current US Law defining the militia as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. Historical context is everything. Individual citizens, such as the minutemen, were responsible for the "security" of the "state".

[Bud]

No I take militia to mean militia - I don't necessarily disagree with the definition you provided.

*I* would still construe the Second to mean that private citizens can own guns - but I think the state has the power to regulate this right to meet a compelling state interest - just like restrictions of free speech.

It's a compelling state interest that we do not have people walking around with automatic assault rifles, for instance. They are just too dangerous to have loose in the general population. So I differ from the NRA on that point.

[SCurtis]

Bud wrote:

<quoted text>
Other provisions shouldn't be strictly construed either. This had led to decisions like Roe v. Wade that people often disagree with, but I do not understand how disagreement on a single issue is grounds to view the Constitution as a static document that must be strictly construed in the face of societal and technological changes that the Framers could never have dreamed of.

The Constitution was designed to be Amended, no reinterpretted.

[Valigator]

*I* would still construe the Second to mean that private citizens can own guns - but I think the state has the power to regulate this right to meet a compelling state interest - just like restrictions of free speech.

I dont see the state making compelling restrictions to ensure my liberty and safety after watching for years the poor excuses of DNA they let back out on our streets or fail to prosecute in a fair manner, that jepordizes my well being as an average taxpaying citizen. When the state puts me above the criminal instead of the other way around then the state even then may not mandate my right to bear arms. What your not getting is as a law-abiding citizen who has never been convicted of a crime, should have no restraints on the kind of weapons they own. If I want a mounted 50 calibur in my living room, its none of the states business. You start nickle and diming weapons, then in effect you have taken the spirit of the People to protect themselves. I never much saw the use of taking a knife to a gunfight..

[Bud]

SCurtis wrote:

<quoted text>
The Constitution was designed to be Amended, no reinterpretted.

It's both. Marbury, 1803.

That issue is so long settled, it amazes me that people try to bring it up.

[Bud]

Valigator wrote:

*I* would still construe the Second to mean that private citizens can own guns - but I think the state has the power to regulate this right to meet a compelling state interest - just like restrictions of free speech.
I dont see the state making compelling restrictions to ensure my liberty and safety after watching for years the poor excuses of DNA they let back out on our streets or fail to prosecute in a fair manner, that jepordizes my well being as an average taxpaying citizen. When the state puts me above the criminal instead of the other way around then the state even then may not mandate my right to bear arms. What your not getting is as a law-abiding citizen who has never been convicted of a crime, should have no restraints on the kind of weapons they own. If I want a mounted 50 calibur in my living room, its none of the states business. You start nickle and diming weapons, then in effect you have taken the spirit of the People to protect themselves. I never much saw the use of taking a knife to a gunfight..

I am glad you went to UF. Kook.

[Valigator]

Bud wrote:

<quoted text>
I am glad you went to UF. Kook.

Yea and you wear ladies undergarments behind closed doors. You have the right to agree or disagree with anything anyone contributes here...in fact automatic weapons gave you that right...

[Bud]

Valigator wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea and you wear ladies undergarments behind closed doors. You have the right to agree or disagree with anything anyone contributes here...in fact automatic weapons gave you that right...

No, automatic weapons preseved that right. I had the right all along.

So you think it would be OK if I built a missle launcher in my back yard, to ward off burglars?

IF a .50 is OK, where do you draw the line? Nerve gas? Nuclear weapons?

Have some sense. I am very much a supporter of the right to bear arms but there is NO reason the state should let people walk around with such weapons. There is a compelling state interest in public safety. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and drawing it so automatic weapons are not allowed is the only rational place to do so.

[Valigator]

Bud wrote:

<quoted text>
No, automatic weapons preseved that right. I had the right all along.
So you think it would be OK if I built a missle launcher in my back yard, to ward off burglars?
IF a .50 is OK, where do you draw the line? Nerve gas? Nuclear weapons?
Have some sense. I am very much a supporter of the right to bear arms but there is NO reason the state should let people walk around with such weapons. There is a compelling state interest in public safety. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and drawing it so automatic weapons are not allowed is the only rational place to do so.

All I can say is I use to believe along the same lines as you for many years...figured if you couldnt hunt with it or target shoot with it, then what was the point? How can I word this without sounding like I am supporting making mustard gas in my garage? The premise of citizens having the right to bear arms goes beyond what "type of arms" the government says I may own. Along with that right comes a huge responsibility to secure my firearms in a manner that ensures their safe-keeping. If some warehouse down in SW Miami dade industrial center is making and selling fully automatic weapons out the backdoor (and they do) or if your local police are carrying these weapons, then by right, the law abiding public should be just as well armed. Ahhh its too early for this debate...but you get my drift..