RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Okay. So, without starting another poll Swampcollie, if it came to a vote in your county to ban gun hunting and make it bow only, what's your vote? No variables. Healthy deer heard. They just want to eliminate gun hunting in your county. What say you sir?

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

There were steps put in place (via Article 5 of theUS Constitution)to alter the constitution. You know....."amendments";). The second amendment was ratified as part of a 10 part amendment,known in popular terms as the "Bill of Rights". It's been done (amended and ratified) I "think" 27 times.

So.....the 2nd amendment wasn't originally part of the original doctrine.

If the proper steps are followed.....I'll accept the process outcome. It's the American way.

For ****s and giggles.....it would have been nice to ask a black MAN (prior to 1869) and ANY woman (prior to 1920) what they thought of our forefather's "foresight".

Constituitonal amendments have their place.....and if the proper channels are followed....I'll live with (AND accept)them......bar none.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Isn't it rather ironic, that a majority of those who are anti-bowhunting due to they think the animal suffers too much are also anti-gun, for even home protection?

I have yet to meet to a liberal anti-hunter who is pro-gun. Usually its across the board.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

I know many of them;)

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

I would never hunt again if it meant giving up my second amendment!

Loose that one and all of the rest WILL follow.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

John - I just read 150+ pages last night of the Heller case, as well as each respective dissent- and honest to god, this stuff is mind-blowing.It's unbelievable how tight this case really was.

The Second Amendment provides: “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."

Let me start off by saying that there is nothing more frustrating than hearing gun advocates - egregiously misuse the terms "right," "freedom," "carry," and "gun" from a constitutional perspective. These terms are far from being absolutes.

Justice Scalia prefaces the entire opinion by reiterating that the "right" to keep a weapon is not absolute, and is subject to whatever necessary limitations (i.e. mentally ill or criminals). Likewise, these "rights" stop at the school door or in certain buildings or when certain conditions present.

9 of the greatest legal minds in the Union. 5 votes required.

As many of you know, the crux of this case turns on the meaning of "keep and bear," but not in the context of 2008. Instead, the heart of the matter centers around the original framers' intent for those particular words. We wind the clocks back to the late 1700's and try to putHumpty Dumpty back together again.

The Petitioners proffered a very strong argument, alleging that the definition of "keep and bear" is relegated strictly to militia service.
The Respondents alleged that the definition of "keep and bear" extendsbeyond militia serviceto personal protection.

Simple, right? Hardly.

We can all agree that the framers carefully chose their words... The language of every sentence was carefully calculated, and parsed withaneye into the future.

The Petitioners hung their hat on two arguments:

First, they pointed out that two states (Pennsylvania and Vermont) specifically had express language inserted in their respective "Declarations of Rights" that provided for the right tobear arms for"self-defense" and "hunting." Such language was conspicuously and intentionally absent from the Second Amendment, as we know it. This is the only time that "hunting" arises in the context of the second amendment. Personally, I agree with Justice Stevens' dissent, and find this to be a defining material omission.

Secondly, during the ratification process, there was significant tension among the colonies to retain the right to raise a State-Army as a check-and-balance on the Federal Government. A federal army posed a direct threat to state sovereignty. There is voluminous support for this, and it is largely undisputed.

The Respondents were able to construct an argument, citing Blackstonian principles and old English law dating back 17th century Protestants, whereby the terms "keep and bear" were used not only in a military context, but also for personal protection. The majority followed. Through portions of the opinion, it feels as though Scalia is grasping at straws, trying to forge a valid argument where none realistically exists. Other times, he cites persuasive authority and several uses of the term in a non-military context.

Both sides tabled very strong arguments, but at the end of the day, we were trying to add a subtextual interpretation where no facial language existed.

I'm a strict constitutional constructionist, and am keenly aware that the U.S. Constitution was modeled with English and existing state legal principles in mind. Being cognizant of this, I can't help but note the framers' intentional variance from the PA and VT Declarations of Rights. I can't help but believe in my heart that the framers were simply paying homage to state sovereignty, and offering a built-in check against the Federal Government.

I don't think you could find an impartial adjudicator who would disagree that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to maintain a citizen militia. However, when you're vacating the plain language of the Amendment, by implying that they meant to create some type of contructive right to self-defense, it just never sits well. From a constructionists' perspective, this decision, in its mode of execution,leaves a lot to be desired. I feel that the framers bent over backwards to AVOID using the words "self-defense" and here we are, 200+ years later, putting words in their mouth.

5-4. Game over. Razor tight.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Voted #2. It's simply priority.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

I think you don't know diddle:D

It could have been 9-0,8-1,7-2,6-3. It does not matter, Game is over

right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It states PEOPLE;)

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603656.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Deadly Consequences -- But the Right Call

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, June 27, 2008; A17


Few landmark Supreme Court rulings have been so widely predicted as yesterday's decision striking down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The mere fact that the court agreed to hear the case was a pretty good indication that the justices were itching to make some kind of big statement about the Second Amendment. Questions from the bench during oral arguments in March left little doubt as to which way the wind was blowing.
This case, for me, is one of those uncomfortable situations in which my honest opinion is not the one I'd desperately like to be able to argue. As much as I abhor the possible real-word impact of the ruling, I fear that it's probably right.
The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia -- and in just about every city in the nation, big or small -- there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.
I realize that the now-defunct D.C. law was unusually comprehensive and restrictive and thus, in the legal sense, offered a bull's-eye for the pro-gun lobby. I also know that the law was easy to attack on grounds of efficacy: Given all the handgun killings in the city, was the ban really having any beneficial impact?
But come on, it's not as if the law was making gun violence in the city any worse -- and it's not as if striking down the law, and perhaps adding hundreds or thousands of weapons to the city, will make things any better. The law was flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing.
I'd like to be able to thunder about the injustice committed by an activist, archconservative Supreme Court that seeks to return our jurisprudence to the 18th century. I will, almost certainly, about some future outrage. But this time, I can't.
The big problem, for me, is the clarity of the Second Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The traditional argument in favor of gun control has been that this is a collective right, accorded to state militias. This has always struck me as a real stretch, if not a total dodge.
I've never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written -- and give it such pride of place -- the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion. Even Barack Obama, a longtime advocate of gun control -- but also a one-time professor of constitutional law -- has said he believes the amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership.
And even if the Second Amendment was meant to refer to state militias, where did the Founders intend for the militias' weapons to be stored? In the homes of the volunteers is my guess.
More broadly, I've always had trouble believing that a bunch of radicals who had just overthrown their British oppressors would tolerate any arrangement in which government had a monopoly on the instruments of deadly force. I don't mean to sound like some kind of backwoods survivalist, but I think the revolutionaries who founded this nation believed in guns.
Did they believe in assault weapons? Of course not. Would they be appalled that drug gangs are often better armed than the police? Of course they would, and surely they'd want to do something about it.
I believe the Constitution is a living document that has to be seen in light of the times. I believe the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, was right to infer an implicit right to privacy, even though no such thing is spelled out. I think the idea that the Founders' "original intent" should govern every interpretation of the Constitution is loony -- as if men who wrote with quill pens could somehow devise a blueprint for regulating the Internet.
But I also believe that if the Constitution says yes, you can't just blithely pretend it says no. Yesterday's decision appears to leave room for laws that place some restrictions on gun ownership but still observe the Second Amendment's guarantee. If not, then the way to fix the Constitution is to amend it -- not ignore it.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Sure you do Jeff. And besides, it furthers your arguement on this subject.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

That's ONE good line out of your argument, Fran.

It's times like we just witnessed (recent USSC decision) when I feel that the justices form an opinion, beforehand, and "grasp" at intricacies (either written, implied, or otherwise) to support their "beliefs" or political leanings (and yes....they have political leanings).

I'm not saying they got this one wrong. I'm saying exactly what I stated.

If you'll (general HNI community)remove emotionfrom the issue (and this issue, in totality)...you'll gain a further understanding of what Fran is saying. He's not the only one who feels this way. In fact.....MANY strict constructionists agree with him.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Ok Jeff, but the rest is Diddle:D

.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Gary - they go through a few pages to address the term "people" in the decision - citing authority that "people" doesn't mean "everyone." We've already cut criminals and minors from the purview of the 2nd. We've also held that this "right" does not apply in certain buildings, at certain times, or during certain events.

Which is weird, because the other six times "the people" is mentioned, it does mean everyone. Stevens points this out in his dissent.

It's one of many inconsistencies that forced the majority to dance the Irish jig to arrive at their decision. Ironically, the majority sells themselves as "strict constructionists" - but they strayed like dogs in this one.

Stevens calls them on it in his dissent.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Good stuff.

Enter article 5.....and I think this viewpoint is dispelled. They DID have the foresight for that inclusion.

Case in point.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

That is first class Jeff, not very many are that rational unfortunately. There are many names for Jihad.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

I agree, Joe.....and most preface the word "Jihad" with the word (adjective)"radical".

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

The one point that has not been dissected is the fact that gun ownership is only second behind freedom of speech when thought of in order of importance.
Our founders did understand that the government can not and never will be able to protect the very citizens it takes to make up this union.In the days of our founders 911 did not exist,it was a time when weeks or even months could pass before help or protection would arrive.The protection of your family and personal possessions were completely up to yourself.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

I agree Fran, but you still don't know diddle:D
Gun rights are not the only rights a criminal loses.

I view the Bill of rights like this:
If I am a good boy, I have the right to be left alone;)

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

"I" think you're giving them too much credit (to bolster your argument) when you assign "order of importance" to the US Constitution's amendments. In this line of thinking.....it was more important for a man to be able to own a gun than it was for a black man to be considered a "man", at all. In fact..there was a post civil war inclusion to DENY black men their "right" to bear arms......for fear of them being able to protect themselves from the very men who sought to oppress them.

I think....if you asked a black American about the amendments to the US Constitution's"order of importance".....you might get a differing viepoint than the one you hold.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

The right to protect ones self was granted to tax payers, which the union existence was based upon.
At the time there was no death tax so our founders found it important to keep said payers alive.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

"Order of importance?" WTF?

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

My bottom line regarding anything in this country is all about personal freedoms. I should be able to do damn well ANYTHING I please, as long as it doesn’t impair anyone else’s freedom to do the same, or cause severe harm to property, etc.
The Gov’t should be STRICTLY limited to only where it is needed, which is about 1/10 of the places it’s got it’s grubby mitts in currently.

And one last thing is that a person should NOT expect to go thru life without being offended. If what I do offends you, but otherwise does not impact your life in any way…..you are a complete moron. (that was about as nice as I could put it)

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

There are no amendments in the Bill of rights that discuss color at all or anything to which you infer. Those first 10 would have been the ones that were in a particular order for a reason (...although the 2nd should have been first;)). Isn't really relative that other amendments were added at later times is it??

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Quote:

---

My bottom line regarding anything in this country is all about personal freedoms. I should be able to do damn well ANYTHING I please, as long as it doesn’t impair anyone else’s freedom to do the same, or cause severe harm to property, etc.
The Gov’t should be STRICTLY limited to only where it is needed, which is about 1/10 of the places it’s got it’s grubby mitts in currently.

And one last thing is that a person should NOT expect to go thru life without being offended. If what I do offends you, but otherwise does not impact your life in any way…..you are a complete moron. (that was about as nice as I could put it)

---

I couldn't agree more rybo. I am still amazed at some of the "socialist" vibes I am getting from this site. It really is a scary thing!

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

The second ammendmentwas written by REVOLUTIONISTS. The second ammendment was written to protect citizens' rights and obligations to attempt to overthrow a tyranical government should one come to power. That is what is meant by "a well regulated milia". That statement means that the people, us, need the ability to regulate the militia and not the other way around.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

What reason would there be to assign a (perceived) "order of importance? Where is it said that they were put in "order of importance"?

It isn't realtive to the argument....as long as you aren't a black man. Ask a black man about your "order of importance". As far as I'm concerned......the subsequent amendments blow that notion clean out of the water.;)

"Socialist"???....lol....Where in the hell did THAT come from? We're discussing strict constructionism....or...I thought we were.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Quick- I sincerely thank you for taking the time to give your summary of the decision after reading it.

It is obvoius that being an attorney, you are much more versed than most, if not all of us in regard to these matters.

Having said that however, it seems that both sides are conjecturing conclusions that serve the purpose of soldifying their particular point of view.

You stated that the framers went out of their way to differentiate from the PA and VT "Declarations of Rights" in which terms such as self defense and hunting were explicit and went out of their way to avoid such language.

You also stated in your response that the 2nd amendment was to pay homage to state sovereignity and recognizing the need for a citizen militia.

Here is my question.

And I am askingto truly try understand the other side's argument.

Why then did they include the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" if their intent was solely make a provision for State Militia. The sentence would have made perfect sense and accomplished this supposed sole purpose without it, so why was it included?

This is where I get hung up on the argument Stevens is making.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

I voted to keep the second amendment. The minute we start messing with the Bill of Rights is the second we start losing the liberties that our forefathers fought so hard to gain for us. They came to this land and created this nation to get away from tyranny. I won't accept anything that brings us closer to what theyworked to get away from without a fight.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Only reason it has not work is the right people have not been in charge yet:D

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

"Yet" is right and it scares thehell out of me ............especially when I read some of the responses from what I thought was "like minded" people....[&:]

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

There is always someone willing to tell you how to live and take your money, it just happens most of them sit on the Extreme LEFT and RIGHT side of congress;)

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Jack:

It didn't address "State Miitia". It addressed the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms to secure a "free state". Big difference. "State" was referring to the the entire country....and not individual "States'" militias.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

I've never been a fan of any law that is in place to protect a person from himself.The problem is, practically everything is financiallyinter-woven these days.Each of these "rights" have a profoundfinancialimpact onsomebody else.

Take this weekend for example. Anti-fireworks laws... Sickening. Who cares if I want to put off mortars in my yard? It's my yard, my mortars, and my body. Stupid, right?

But, the flipside is that when some dumbass blows hishand off - who gets the bill? That's right. Everybody except him. The costs are diluted through the insurance system and passed on to the consumers. That's if he has insurance at all. Get Uncle Sam on the phone.

Same goes for drug use. I really couldn't care less if some junkie wants to smoke a pound of crack in a day. But, when they show up at a public clinic for detox with no money and a laundry list of health problems... It sucks.

Freedom has a price. In the 18th century, the price of freedom was measured in pints of blood and human life. In the 21st century, the price of freedom is financial. How much are you willing to pay for it?

If you want gun freedom, be prepared to build lots of prisons and pay the piper when the tax bill comes. If you want drug freedom, be prepared to foot the bill for a lot of healthcare and rehab. If you want free speech, be prepared to watch Muslims rally on the courthouse steps. Be ready to see gay porn on the news stand. If you want to be in charge of your own body, be ready to cope with it when you see a woman stroll into an abortion clinic.

Freedom is never free. And that's the problem.

Rybo: I just don't think the government could be much smaller than it currently is. Time and time and time again, Americans have showed that they cannot function without government intervention. Unless we, as a society, are prepared to watch the poor and downtrodden starve, die, and go without healthcare, Uncle Sam has to step in, where nobody else is willing. It's a total mess.

Were it not for governmental healthcare repricing standards, there isn't a damn soul who could ever afford healthcare. Private citizens aren't going to take money out of their savings to go out and build bridges and highways. Who else would administer the courts? Who would oversee welfare programs. If you have welfare programs, you have welfare abusers. That creates a need for enforcement officials. Army, Navy, AF, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard... Who is going to run the school system? These are just some of the things that private citizens would NEVER do.

Trust me, government dollars are stretched to the max - so it's not like Uncle Sam is out prospecting for new private ventures to invade. Sure, the Fed is a monster, but there's a definite limit as to how "lean" it can really become.

It's easy to sit at home and say "the government is too big." But when the rubber meets the road, it's necessary.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

That time period mentioned is still very much rampant! I feel many time the government doesnt do enough to protect us. This is why I voted to keep the 2nd ammendment. As a youngster (compared to some) I've heard the stories of the men from long ago, and our great grandfather era etc. Sure would be nice to have one of these guys I've heard about in stories growing up as a kid from Great Grandpop back in office or in charge. Would have to think things would get straightened out in a hurry.

I love bowhunting, it is my passion, but being able to protect my family and loved ones from todays world, comes way before that.

Just my 2cents

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

The first 10 amendments (bill of rights) were pretty much written at the same time and would have been the most important insured rights preying upon the minds of the founders. Although there is no official order of importance, they did make a choice on the order (of the first 10, I'm talking). All of them are important but there is also no disclaimer saying " *these are in no particular order".

Thedeclaration of independence expresses the equality of all people

To keep citing other amendments that were added later isn't really relevant to the founding fathers frame of mind at the time of the bill of rights

And by the way, you have no idea how "a black man" feels about anything really do ya??? So it doesn't seem reasonable to specualte about that.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Fran:

Hence my stance on motorcycle helmet laws;)(and yes...I'm a former and future rider).

If the abolition of this law in states would come with the disclaimer that NO insurance; state or federal monies would be spent in the medical aid administered to the accident victims......I'd change my tune. That.....or every rider choosing to ride that way would be forced to aplly a "Do not Resuscitate" sticker to his gas tank.;)

To assign an order of importance to them is to question said "Frame of mind".

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Because it wasn't necessarily strictly relegated to a "state militia." The citizen army could be either raised at the request of the state - OR - by the people - as a check-and-balance against EITHER the sovereign states OR the Federal government.

I think the framers were just leaving it as flexible as possible.

If they would've left out "the right of the people" - it would've ONLY permitted a state-raised militia. By including this language, it expanded the scope of who could raise such a militia - both Citizens AND State.

The framers wanted the states and the people to each have the ability to raise an army, should the situation ever arise where either situation should have presented itself. This protects the States from Federal oppression, AND protects the citizens from State OR Federal oppression.

Jeff: I agree 100% on the Helmet law.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

That's a little too neat and clean isn't it???

The price of freedom is not static. What it is for one person, it may not be for another. It may not be the same for the same person all the time.

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," (Samuel Adams)

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

You voiced my thoughts better than I possibly could. I hear so often people who have all the answers, and without fail it means automatically conforming to their mindset, beliefs, and values. How the heck is that supposed to work with most of us not even able to agree on scentloc, the almighty rage, gospel, not to mention giraffe hunting?

I am sure I was chalked up as 'anti-gun' - or maybe even socialist! - by some from being so impudent earlier as to question the mentality of a all or nothing emotion based approach (the heart of my 'jihad' comment). Nothing is further from the truth.