DC feels weight of no handgun laws.

#1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_ ... gton_crime

exerpt:

QUOTEAt least 14 people have been killed in Washington already this month, and in the last 30 days robberies have risen 14 percent and armed assaults have jumped 18 percent. Last year, homicides in the city fell to a 20-year low of 195.

Police Chief Charles Ramsey's emergency declaration allows commanders more flexibility to adjust officers' schedules and reassign them to high-crime areas.

"That's a short term solution," Ramsey said Wednesday. "Long-term is a lot more complicated than that, and it's going to take a whole lot more than the police."

what's that, you say? Crime prevention and deterrance requires more than the police? What could help that situation, say, maybe... The CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS so your citizens aren't just fish in a barrel for criminals???

#2

right to bear arms... for a well-organized militia?

#3

Amendment II

Brains, see, here's where the value of words in context is really evident.

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.

This DOES NOT GRANT us the right to Bear Arms,.. it says PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, and IT WILL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Translation:

In as much as a "well-regulated" (i.e. functioning and properly coordinated) militia (a group of citizenry that would be eligible for military service, or be a veteran of such service,.. but are not currently enlisted nor volunteered in professional soldiering) is neccessary (vital for the existence of, insturmental in ensuring existence) the security of a free state (that is to say, a condition of Freedom from Oppression, not a State of the Nation, a state of being) - THE HUMAN RIGHT of the people in the US shall not be subject to govt. regulation, limitation, taxation, or legislation.

Basically, "We will not restrict the INNATE right of any HUMAN to carry ("bear" is (hold or carry), i.e. a state of having a weapon on one's person, (keep) is to own or possess rightfully) weapons, that they themselves own to secure their essential Freedoms, which we uphold. This is a interpretation upheld even by any with a sense of Linguistic context.

Even more basic "Carry guns if you got 'em, cause we know you sometimes need 'em. We don't consider that a crime, in of itself, nor will we make you join the Ranks of our professional soldiers."

The reason for this was because Colonists carrying weapons were often killed and put in concentration camps for "Treason against the crown," even if they did not sympathize with the American Revolution. There were also rumours that the American Revolution conscripted any colonist they saw with a weapon. This was designed to dispel that tension, on the part of the US.

Bot · #4

All I have to say is... People think Toronto is bad... lol

#5

thanks raum.

now. I am not a native English speaker - my mother tongue is Dutch, of Indo-Germanic -> Germanic descent, much like English is. I speak Dutch, French, English and Portuguese. I understand German, Spanish and Italian - if my correspondents are willing. I had a classical education in Latin - immediately admitting that I have not trained it over the last years. But I do not think I fall into the category of someone not having "a sense of Linguistic context".

Anyhow. I still do think that second amendment is very oddly phrased.

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.

(1) "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Clear. You need law enforcement to secure the state.

(2) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Clear. People have the right to keep and bear arms. That right shall not be infringed. That sounds very good indeed... IF there were a point between "State" and "The right".

However, there IS no point; there is a semi-colon, meaning that the first (1) and the second (2) part are connected. so, what does the well refulated militia do and how is it related to the right of the peole to keep and bear arms? I apologize for my stupidity but if the militia is the subject, what is its verb? I suppose "infringed". Which leads me to deduct that a proper way to write that sentence would be: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state and whose people shall have a right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

no?

#6

The Second amendment to the United States Constitution 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.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html

This CLEARLY IS ESTABLISHED and defined clearly in the Consititution, even before the bill of Rights was amended to it:

US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, chapter 13, Sec. 311.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(/cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="B)" border="0" alt="cool.gif" /> The classes of the militia are†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬‚
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Thus the unorganized militia of the US is all able-bodied males 17-44 years old, who are either US citizens, OR are formally awaiting US Citizenship, and those females in the National Guard.

(by equal rights of gender, rights of Militia are also *by proxy* extended to women of 17-45 years of age, due to the ratifications conditions.)

"Your young adults may need to defend their possessions, parents, children, and liberty.. so you can have THE WEAPONS YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN!"

Is that clear enough?

#7

and section 313 of Title 32 also consideres those who are veterans of the Regular Armed forces of National Guard, who are less than 64 years of age.