PDA

View Full Version : The 2nd Amendment issue is going to come to a head in the next few years


Pages : [1] 2

Specop 007
03-09-2007, 01:56 PM
Wow. The stage it really getting set for a very ugly showdown over the 2nd Amendment issue. Whats so interesting about it is the fact that right now we have legislation taking place to go either way. Some bills call for national conceal carry. Others call for rifle bans. The 9th Circuit has already ruled the 2nd is a collective right while now the 5th ruesl its an individual right.

Things are coming to a head I think, that will set the stage for many many years to come. And hopefully, the results will uphold the Constitution without having to fire a shot.


Click (http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153)

BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.
According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.

Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.

OutHouse
03-09-2007, 01:59 PM
interesting.

BTW, i submitted my paperwork for a CC permit yesterday.

dmcowen674
03-09-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Wow. The stage it really getting set for a very ugly showdown over the 2nd Amendment issue. Whats so interesting about it is the fact that right now we have legislation taking place to go either way. Some bills call for national conceal carry. Others call for rifle bans. The 9th Circuit has already ruled the 2nd is a collective right while now the 5th ruesl its an individual right.

Things are coming to a head I think, that will set the stage for many many years to come. And hopefully, the results will uphold the Constitution without having to fire a shot.


They will outlaw guns, can't have a citizenry that can rise up against a oppresive overtaxation Government.

Genx87
03-09-2007, 02:08 PM
What is interesting about the the dissenters view is if her view was the majorities. She basically tossed out the entire bill of rights for DC because it isnt considered a state.

Specop 007
03-09-2007, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by: Genx87
What is interesting about the the dissenters view is if her view was the majorities. She basically tossed out the entire bill of rights for DC because it isnt considered a state.


Right. And it shows the argument supporting the 2nd was so watertight the ONLY ground to stand on in opposition is that DC isnt a state.

The full document can be read here (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf). While quite long, the ruling was so well laid out it addresses virtually any avenue to overturn it. This is a MAJOR win for our side. Theres still a long ways to go.

dphantom
03-09-2007, 02:18 PM
Outstanding decision. :thumbsup:

No doubt it will be appealed but certainly a big win for individual rights.

eilute
03-09-2007, 02:25 PM
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

dmcowen674
03-09-2007, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

People only = State? :confused:

Read Mein Kempf much?

PingSpike
03-09-2007, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

To me at least, the militia is defined here as the primary reason for the right, whereas the rest of the sentance places no restrictions on that right nor does it define only a narrow group of the people as those who possess this right. It does not say "the right of the People's militia" it just says the people. It it simply states, "shall not be infringed" with no exceptions given.

dphantom
03-09-2007, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

If you read the Federalist papers, you will see the discussion focused on the individual, not hte state as the Court wrote in its opinion. Reading that line in the Constitution does not give the State rights, it guarantees teh People's rights - that is the individuals.

Tab
03-09-2007, 02:46 PM
I think the courts have consistantly ruled that the 2nd amendment is a collective right and not an indiviual one; atleast until now. I am pretty sure that US vs. Miller was the big deciding case on this issuse.

OutHouse
03-09-2007, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

People only = State? :confused:

Read Mein Kempf much?

:thumbsup:

LegendKiller
03-09-2007, 02:56 PM
if one were to apply the historical context of the Constitution you would determine that militias were not comprised of professional soldiery, nor did they have state issued arms. the national guard would be analgous, at least it would have been before they were trated as nothing more than regulars.

I am of the opinion that the fundamental right was inserted to protect the citizens not only from external threats but also internal, especially the government. if the citizenry were deviod of arms they would have no recourse against a despotic government. the very founding of this country was based on the premise of defening ones own rights from a despot, through arms.

to define the second as anything but the above is to completely ignore not only this countrys history, but also historical events that have shown that a disarmed and thus non-threatening popation is easily ruled.


Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

Whoozyerdaddy
03-09-2007, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

The first part is their reasoning for the second. And the second part of that sentence is very clear.

"the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

BaliBabyDoc
03-09-2007, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by: Genx87
What is interesting about the the dissenters view is if her view was the majorities. She basically tossed out the entire bill of rights for DC because it isnt considered a state.


As opposed to Congress' selective throwing out of rights b/c it isn't considered a state?

2Xtreme21
03-09-2007, 03:26 PM
Gun rights... the only right a man needs to have.

Jaskalas
03-09-2007, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Gun rights... the only right a man needs to have.

With it we can ensure all other rights.

Of course, for any criminal the baning of a gun means nothing. We already have military style shipments traveling across our border for the gangs.

2Xtreme21
03-09-2007, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Gun rights... the only right a man needs to have.

With it we can ensure all other rights.

Sorry you need to put that much faith in a device used to kill another person.

Kwaipie
03-09-2007, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Gun rights... the only right a man needs to have.

With it we can ensure all other rights.

Of course, for any criminal the baning of a gun means nothing. We already have military style shipments traveling across our border for the gangs.

Shame our militias are in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of protecting our borders.

Fern
03-09-2007, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by: Genx87
What is interesting about the the dissenters view is if her view was the majorities. She basically tossed out the entire bill of rights for DC because it isnt considered a state.


Yeah, WTH is she talking about?

BTW: The 9th curcuit is loony. IIRC the SCOTUS overturns more of their stuff than any other (maybe all others combined).

Fern

imported_Shivetya
03-09-2007, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Wow. The stage it really getting set for a very ugly showdown over the 2nd Amendment issue. Whats so interesting about it is the fact that right now we have legislation taking place to go either way. Some bills call for national conceal carry. Others call for rifle bans. The 9th Circuit has already ruled the 2nd is a collective right while now the 5th ruesl its an individual right.

Things are coming to a head I think, that will set the stage for many many years to come. And hopefully, the results will uphold the Constitution without having to fire a shot.


They will outlaw guns, can't have a citizenry that can rise up against a oppresive overtaxation Government.



stop that!

Great, whats the world coming too when I agree with Dave?


The 2nd Amendment is the last right they will take from us before Freedom of Speech goes.

tcsenter
03-09-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
As opposed to Congress' selective throwing out of rights b/c it isn't considered a state?Or the Supreme Court and constitution itself? D.C. has been treated differently from states in several respects since it became the federal seat (maybe longer). This is why DC has its own federal court (can't remember if its a district, circuit, or appeals court).
One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.Probably because every pre-eminent constitutional scholar, commentator, and court before the 20th century rejected the 'states and their militias' reading, and even then did it not gain acceptance until 20th century efforts to expand regulations or ordinances previously aimed at disarming blacks, indians, and other minorities (because, you know, those who wouldn't be born for at least 150 years after the constitution was ratified surely knew more about the intent of the framers than those who lived at the same time as the framers and actually knew some of them professionally or personally):

From General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880), Justice Thomas Cooley, Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "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."

It may be supposed from the phraseology of [the Second Amendment] that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.

The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.

Fern
03-09-2007, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

adairusmc
03-09-2007, 04:47 PM
Outstanding news.

tcsenter
03-09-2007, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Outstanding news.And if you think that's something, check out U.S. v. ROCK ISLAND ARMORY, INC. (1991), where the US District Court for Central Illinois dismissed indictments against defendants for violating statutes prohibiting the possession of unregistered machine guns manufactured after the sunset date of May 19, 1986, on the basis that the federal government had no authority to ban the possession of machine guns, and rendered the NFA as modified by contemporary statute unconstitutional.

This ruling still stands as prevailing law in that district (forty-six Illinois counties) because the government chose not to appeal the decision (knowing it would lose):
As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions ? including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 ? are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue.

Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration.

Finally, the prosecution quotes an enactment passed in 1968 that the provisions of Title I of the Gun Control Act shall not modify or affect the National Firearms Act.[15] However, the 1968 Congress cannot bind the Congress of 1986, which decided to ban transfer and possession of machineguns. P.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 453 (May 19, 1986).[16] Further, a Congressional declaration in 1968 does not solve a constitutional problem which arose in 1986. The ban enacted in 1986, and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no constitutional basis. It is the duty of the judiciary to declare such laws unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 176-77, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).

In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED.

-- United States v. Rock Island Armory, Inc., 773 F.Supp. 117 (C.D. Ill. 1991)

Rainsford
03-09-2007, 05:51 PM
While I like the fact that the courts are upholding SOME of our rights, I sort of wish they'd spend a little more time on the other rights. Whatever rhetoric the NRA brings out in cases like this, the 2nd amendment has not, in the history of this country, defending any of our other rights. I think everyone has a right to own a gun, but the argument that the 2nd amendment protects all our other rights is stupid. When the government decided we didn't need the 4th amendment, did the gun nuts storm the White House? Of course not, in fact most of the gun nuts are the same people who SUPPORT the subversion of the rest of our rights.

The 2nd Amendment is certainly worth defending, but the idea that it's indicative of a culture of individuals rights is bullshit. It's a right that's been fractured away from the rest of them, and the ideology that supports the defense of the 2nd amendment for some reason doesn't seem to sustain the defense of the 1st or the 4th. It's great news that the 2nd amendment has been upheld here (city-wide gun bans never seemed like a good idea to me in any case), but I wouldn't read anything more into that. The 2nd amendment has become only about the 2nd amendment, there is no "individual rights" culture or legal thinking surrounding it.

tcsenter
03-09-2007, 06:06 PM
The 2nd Amendment is certainly worth defending, but the idea that it's indicative of a culture of individuals rights is bullshit. It's a right that's been fractured away from the rest of themOne that been fractured away exponentially more than the rest of them. If you could kindly point me to any substantial restriction of your right to free speech, press, religion, and such, where you are prohibited from exercising any of them to any substantial degree, or must register with the government in order to do so, I'd like to see that.

The only thing that has happened to these other rights are modest and narrowly tailored expansions of long-established and long-accepted limitations or restrictions of individual rights that have been upheld since the constitution was drafted. Nothing fundamentally different.

And no, we haven't had to use guns to protect all these other rights. Similarly, I've never actually had to use my fire insurance, either - guess its time to cancel the policy. No fire to date therefore means no fire would happen. Smart.

6000SUX
03-09-2007, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Genx87
What is interesting about the the dissenters view is if her view was the majorities. She basically tossed out the entire bill of rights for DC because it isnt considered a state.


Right. And it shows the argument supporting the 2nd was so watertight the ONLY ground to stand on in opposition is that DC isnt a state.

No. The D.C. Circuit could have ruled along the lines of the 9th, in construing the right as a so-called "collective" right. Other circuit decisions have turned also on construction of the same words, as this decision did, just with different results.

BrunoPuntzJones
03-09-2007, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by: Rainsford
When the government decided we didn't need the 4th amendment, did the gun nuts storm the White House? Of course not, in fact most of the gun nuts are the same people who SUPPORT the subversion of the rest of our rights.



?God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion?. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms?. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.? Thomas Jefferson

While I think it'd be a while, if ever, that any sort of revolution will take place, there are those who see it as unavoidable at the current rate of decline of rights in the US. Take a browse through AR15.com and you'll see folks saying when they can no longer vote in booths, they will vote from rooftops.

6000SUX
03-09-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Wow. The stage it really getting set for a very ugly showdown over the 2nd Amendment issue. Whats so interesting about it is the fact that right now we have legislation taking place to go either way. Some bills call for national conceal carry. Others call for rifle bans. The 9th Circuit has already ruled the 2nd is a collective right while now the 5th ruesl its an individual right.


Unless I'm really confused, this was the D.C. Circuit. The Fifth Circuit has previously expressed its view that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. There is no "showdown" possible as these things get addressed across different circuits over the space of many years-- unless the Supreme Court decides to settle things once and for all.

6000SUX
03-09-2007, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: adairusmc
Outstanding news.And if you think that's something, check out U.S. v. ROCK ISLAND ARMORY, INC. (1991), where the US District Court for Central Illinois dismissed indictments against defendants for violating statutes prohibiting the possession of unregistered machine guns manufactured after the sunset date of May 19, 1986, on the basis that the federal government had no authority to ban the possession of machine guns, and rendered the NFA as modified by contemporary statute unconstitutional.

This ruling still stands as prevailing law in that district (forty-six Illinois counties) because the government chose not to appeal the decision

Hmm...

United States v. Lawton, 366 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2004)
After failing to disclose to a gun dealer that he had been charged with a felony offense, defendant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(A), which makes it unlawful for an individual to make a false statement to a federal firearms licensee. Defendant raised for the first time on appeal a constitutional challenge to the statute, contending that the Second Amendment protects an individual?s right to bear arms. The court rejected the claim, relying on Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000), which rejected the proposition that an individual has a right to bear arms. The Court also noted that even if it "assumed for the sake of argument that the Second Amendment embraces an individual?s right to bear arms . . . there can be little doubt about the government?s authority to regulate" firearms. Id. at 554.

Also, I looked up the Armory case. It was appealed, but the appeal was dismissed. I also think it had more to do with the application of a particular statute than whether the district should follow the individual-rights or collective-rights model. In any event, it is not good law any more, and in the first place the circuit court's dismissal (the only binding law) discussed only the National Firearms Act in the first place.

PrinceofWands
03-09-2007, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

Because you haven't read the history surrounding it. If you read the actual debates, notes, and articles of the framers there is pretty much no question at all what they meant. The 'militia' just meant every able man and boy in the country and wasn't just about a military body used against foreign entities in a war. The idea was most definitely for every person to have the right to their firearms; as a counter to government abuses, as means for defense of the nation, and also as a tool of individual security.

You'll also notice that the Bill of Rights is about enumeration of specific rights which the federal government would never have the right to infringe upon, and the securing of all other rights to the states themselves. This doesn't mesh with the idea that the 2nd is a maverick amendment which applies to federally controlled military assets.

6000SUX
03-09-2007, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

Because you haven't read the history surrounding it. If you read the actual debates, notes, and articles of the framers there is pretty much no question at all what they meant. The 'militia' just meant every able man and boy in the country and wasn't just about a military body used against foreign entities in a war. The idea was most definitely for every person to have the right to their firearms; as a counter to government abuses, as means for defense of the nation, and also as a tool of individual security.

You'll also notice that the Bill of Rights is about enumeration of specific rights which the federal government would never have the right to infringe upon, and the securing of all other rights to the states themselves. This doesn't mesh with the idea that the 2nd is a maverick amendment which applies to federally controlled military assets.

You've got it a little wrong. The "militia" at issue is a state militia, not the federal military, and the collective-rights model still technically addresses individual rights-- just the individual right to carry arms only in service of a state militia.

Lastly, the Bill of Rights is not about "securing of all other rights to the states themselves. It reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." It is not about securing rights for the states per se; it is a statement that the federal government has no rights beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.

6000SUX
03-09-2007, 08:20 PM
I thought I would set the record straight on Silveira v. Lockyer, the important Ninth Circuit case adopting the collective-rights model. It relies on clear language from the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Miller, that the language of the Second Amendment applies to state militias:

"The Supreme Court's most extensive treatment of the amendment is a somewhat cryptic discussion in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). In that case, a criminal defendant brought a Second Amendment challenge to a federal gun control law that prohibited the transport of sawed-off shotguns in interstate commerce. The Court rejected the challenge to the statute. In the only and oft-quoted passage in the United States Reports to consider, albeit somewhat indirectly, whether the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to arms, the Miller Court concluded:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816. The Miller Court also observed more generally that '[w]ith the obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [state militias] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.' Id. Thus, in Miller the Supreme Court decided that because a weapon was not suitable for use in the militia, its possession was not protected by the Second Amendment. As a result of its phrasing of its holding in the negative, however, the Miller Court's opinion stands only for the proposition that the possession of certain weapons is not protected, and offers little guidance as to what rights the Second Amendment does protect. Accordingly, it has been noted, with good reason, that '[t]he Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the scope of [the Second] [A]mendment is quite limited, and not entirely illuminating.' Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 710 (7th Cir.1999). What Miller does strongly imply, however, is that the Supreme Court rejects the traditional individual rights view.

The only post-Miller reference by the Supreme Court to the scope of the amendment occurred in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 915, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980), in which the Court noted, in a footnote dismissing a Second Amendment challenge to a felon-in-possession conviction, that the federal gun control laws at issue did not 'trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties,' citing Miller in support of this observation. In that footnote, Lewis characterized the Miller holding as follows: '[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." ' Id. (quoting Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816). The Lewis Court, like the Miller Court, phrased its statements in terms of what is not protected. Lewis does, however, reinforce the strong implication in Miller that the Court rejects the traditional individual rights model." Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1061-1062 (9th Cir. 2002)

PrinceofWands
03-09-2007, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

Because you haven't read the history surrounding it. If you read the actual debates, notes, and articles of the framers there is pretty much no question at all what they meant. The 'militia' just meant every able man and boy in the country and wasn't just about a military body used against foreign entities in a war. The idea was most definitely for every person to have the right to their firearms; as a counter to government abuses, as means for defense of the nation, and also as a tool of individual security.

You'll also notice that the Bill of Rights is about enumeration of specific rights which the federal government would never have the right to infringe upon, and the securing of all other rights to the states themselves. This doesn't mesh with the idea that the 2nd is a maverick amendment which applies to federally controlled military assets.

You've got it a little wrong. The "militia" at issue is a state militia, not the federal military, and the collective-rights model still technically addresses individual rights-- just the individual right to carry arms only in service of a state militia.


But that completely ignores the entire body of evidence surrounding the drafting of the amendment itself. The argument that the 2nd is about militias is mostly modern. There was never any question until recently that it was an individual right. The federalist papers, the correspondence of participants, notes from conventions and debates, etc...these things all point towards an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, outside of the scope of 'official militias'.

6000SUX
03-09-2007, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

Because you haven't read the history surrounding it. If you read the actual debates, notes, and articles of the framers there is pretty much no question at all what they meant. The 'militia' just meant every able man and boy in the country and wasn't just about a military body used against foreign entities in a war. The idea was most definitely for every person to have the right to their firearms; as a counter to government abuses, as means for defense of the nation, and also as a tool of individual security.

You'll also notice that the Bill of Rights is about enumeration of specific rights which the federal government would never have the right to infringe upon, and the securing of all other rights to the states themselves. This doesn't mesh with the idea that the 2nd is a maverick amendment which applies to federally controlled military assets.

You've got it a little wrong. The "militia" at issue is a state militia, not the federal military, and the collective-rights model still technically addresses individual rights-- just the individual right to carry arms only in service of a state militia.


But that completely ignores the entire body of evidence surrounding the drafting of the amendment itself. The argument that the 2nd is about militias is mostly modern. There was never any question until recently that it was an individual right. The federalist papers, the correspondence of participants, notes from conventions and debates, etc...these things all point towards an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, outside of the scope of 'official militias'.

No. Please post your sources for the non-Federalist Papers information. Also, the Federalist Papers mean much less than someone like Scalia would have you believe; they were written by only three people and in no way are a conclusive record of legislative intent. Also, the argument that the Second Amendment is about militias is anything but mostly modern:


"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-?To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.? U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they *179 were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ?A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.? And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-179 (U.S. 1939).

That's from the Supreme Court, circa 1939. They define what the Constitution means, not the Federalist papers, writtten by a few people and published in a newspaper.

Specop 007
03-09-2007, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by: Rainsford
While I like the fact that the courts are upholding SOME of our rights, I sort of wish they'd spend a little more time on the other rights. Whatever rhetoric the NRA brings out in cases like this, the 2nd amendment has not, in the history of this country, defending any of our other rights. I think everyone has a right to own a gun, but the argument that the 2nd amendment protects all our other rights is stupid. When the government decided we didn't need the 4th amendment, did the gun nuts storm the White House? Of course not, in fact most of the gun nuts are the same people who SUPPORT the subversion of the rest of our rights.

The 2nd Amendment is certainly worth defending, but the idea that it's indicative of a culture of individuals rights is bullshit. It's a right that's been fractured away from the rest of them, and the ideology that supports the defense of the 2nd amendment for some reason doesn't seem to sustain the defense of the 1st or the 4th. It's great news that the 2nd amendment has been upheld here (city-wide gun bans never seemed like a good idea to me in any case), but I wouldn't read anything more into that. The 2nd amendment has become only about the 2nd amendment, there is no "individual rights" culture or legal thinking surrounding it.

BULLSH!T

There have been ARMED REVOLTS as late as 1950's if I remember correctly. IN THIS COUNTRY.

And those very revolts brought about better change. Dont think for a minute firearms arent used to defend our freedoms.

Specop 007
03-09-2007, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

Then you obviously dont understand the Bill of Rights. The judges in this case did.


The right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. Hence, the Amendment acknowledges 'the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,' a right that pre-existed the Constitution like 'the freedom of speech.' Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government, the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right 'shall not be infringed.'"

"The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms was premised on the commonplace assumption that individuals would use them for these private purposes, in addition to whatever militia service they would be obligated to perform for the state. The premise that private arms would be used for self-defense accords with Blackstone?s observation, which had influenced thinking in the American colonies, that the people?s right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation. The right of selfpreservation, in turn, was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government."

"The Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual rights, and the Second Amendment?s inclusion therein strongly indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty."

"With respect to the right to defend oneself against tyranny and oppression, some have argued that the Second Amendment is utterly irrelevant because the arms it protects, even if commonly owned, would be of no use when opposed to the arsenal of the modern state. But as Judge Kozinski has noted, incidents such as the Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943 provide rather dramatic evidence to the contrary. The deterrent effect of a well-armed populace is surely more important than the probability of overall success in a full-out armed conflict."

6000SUX
03-09-2007, 09:16 PM
Specop007, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and in denying certiorari for Silveira v. Lockyer, it certainly permitted what you would call an infringement of rights.

PrinceofWands
03-09-2007, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

Because you haven't read the history surrounding it. If you read the actual debates, notes, and articles of the framers there is pretty much no question at all what they meant. The 'militia' just meant every able man and boy in the country and wasn't just about a military body used against foreign entities in a war. The idea was most definitely for every person to have the right to their firearms; as a counter to government abuses, as means for defense of the nation, and also as a tool of individual security.

You'll also notice that the Bill of Rights is about enumeration of specific rights which the federal government would never have the right to infringe upon, and the securing of all other rights to the states themselves. This doesn't mesh with the idea that the 2nd is a maverick amendment which applies to federally controlled military assets.

You've got it a little wrong. The "militia" at issue is a state militia, not the federal military, and the collective-rights model still technically addresses individual rights-- just the individual right to carry arms only in service of a state militia.


But that completely ignores the entire body of evidence surrounding the drafting of the amendment itself. The argument that the 2nd is about militias is mostly modern. There was never any question until recently that it was an individual right. The federalist papers, the correspondence of participants, notes from conventions and debates, etc...these things all point towards an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, outside of the scope of 'official militias'.

No. Please post your sources for the non-Federalist Papers information. Also, the Federalist Papers mean much less than someone like Scalia would have you believe; they were written by only three people and in no way are a conclusive record of legislative intent. Also, the argument that the Second Amendment is about militias is anything but mostly modern:


"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-?To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.? U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they *179 were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ?A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.? And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-179 (U.S. 1939).

That's from the Supreme Court, circa 1939. They define what the Constitution means, not the Federalist papers, writtten by a few people and published in a newspaper.

I'm of the mind that words are less than the intent, and intent is a culmination of society, reason, and ambition. This is basic nature to me as I also support justice over law, theory over application, and so on. I wanted to make that clear up front so we know that we're discussing something that isn't commonly accepted.

When I try to think about the Constitution I'm trying to think about what was going on at the time and how the founders arrived at the conclusions that they did regarding all sorts of things. Most prominent to me is looking at influential theoretical writings and thinking of the times. There is no way to understand the American Revolution without reading Locke and Hobbes and so on. Likewise there is no way to understand a debate about firearm ownership without looking at who was writing what at the time.

Cesare Beccaria was a contemporary theorist and among the first famous for the 'if firearms are outlawed only outlaws will have firearms' line of reasoning. His works were much debated during the day (though often in matters of crime and punishment as opposed to individual liberties). This influence is easy to see in the writings of Jefferson (who frequently mentions Beccaria), such as his suggestions to the Virginia Constitution: "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]." ~The Papers of Thomas Jefferson.

George Mason was more influenced by English theorist James Burgh, who was most interested in firearm ownership as a counter to government abuses. This represents the more widely debated aspect of the 2nd amendment process. The key to these theories, however, is that 'militias' were about a civil counter to government power - firearms were a way for the people to have power over those who would rule them. Not that militias were an enforcment arm of government (state or federal). Again, what we're establishing is an environment of rational debate.

Sir William Blackstone was another much discussed commentator of the day and many of his direct quotes and phrases appear in various sources relating to the writing of the Constitution. One of his more often used quotes relates to the right of every individual to arms..."The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

I'm a bit busy right now doing a research paper on slavery and the law in Florida so I can't keep going on this, but from my studies I've been generally led to see a prominent global discussion about the rights of individuals not only to defend their rights from an oppressive government through force of arms, but a natural right of the individual to use arms to defend themselves when the larger society is unable or unwilling to do so. Certainly you can argue about the difference of weapons (muskets versus machine guns), but the basic debate of the day supports an awareness on the part of the founders regarding arms ownership as an individual right (even as it was also connected to civic duty).

Specop 007
03-09-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Specop007, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and in denying certiorari for Silveira v. Lockyer, it certainly permitted what you would call an infringement of rights.


And at that point the only option left is armed revolution. If the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, doesnt support the Constitution then what avenues are left?

Additionally, no other Right is defined as a "collective" right, I have no idea why anyone would think the 2nd was penned with the intent to be a collective right when all others were penned as individual rights.

Specop 007
03-09-2007, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

Because you haven't read the history surrounding it. If you read the actual debates, notes, and articles of the framers there is pretty much no question at all what they meant. The 'militia' just meant every able man and boy in the country and wasn't just about a military body used against foreign entities in a war. The idea was most definitely for every person to have the right to their firearms; as a counter to government abuses, as means for defense of the nation, and also as a tool of individual security.

You'll also notice that the Bill of Rights is about enumeration of specific rights which the federal government would never have the right to infringe upon, and the securing of all other rights to the states themselves. This doesn't mesh with the idea that the 2nd is a maverick amendment which applies to federally controlled military assets.

You've got it a little wrong. The "militia" at issue is a state militia, not the federal military, and the collective-rights model still technically addresses individual rights-- just the individual right to carry arms only in service of a state militia.


But that completely ignores the entire body of evidence surrounding the drafting of the amendment itself. The argument that the 2nd is about militias is mostly modern. There was never any question until recently that it was an individual right. The federalist papers, the correspondence of participants, notes from conventions and debates, etc...these things all point towards an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, outside of the scope of 'official militias'.

No. Please post your sources for the non-Federalist Papers information. Also, the Federalist Papers mean much less than someone like Scalia would have you believe; they were written by only three people and in no way are a conclusive record of legislative intent. Also, the argument that the Second Amendment is about militias is anything but mostly modern:


"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-?To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.? U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they *179 were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ?A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.? And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-179 (U.S. 1939).

That's from the Supreme Court, circa 1939. They define what the Constitution means, not the Federalist papers, writtten by a few people and published in a newspaper.

I'm of the mind that words are less than the intent, and intent is a culmination of society, reason, and ambition. This is basic nature to me as I also support justice over law, theory over application, and so on. I wanted to make that clear up front so we know that we're discussing something that isn't commonly accepted.

When I try to think about the Constitution I'm trying to think about what was going on at the time and how the founders arrived at the conclusions that they did regarding all sorts of things. Most prominent to me is looking at influential theoretical writings and thinking of the times. There is no way to understand the American Revolution without reading Locke and Hobbes and so on. Likewise there is no way to understand a debate about firearm ownership without looking at who was writing what at the time.

Cesare Beccaria was a contemporary theorist and among the first famous for the 'if firearms are outlawed only outlaws will have firearms' line of reasoning. His works were much debated during the day (though often in matters of crime and punishment as opposed to individual liberties). This influence is easy to see in the writings of Jefferson (who frequently mentions Beccaria), such as his suggestions to the Virginia Constitution: "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]." ~The Papers of Thomas Jefferson.

George Mason was more influenced by English theorist James Burgh, who was most interested in firearm ownership as a counter to government abuses. This represents the more widely debated aspect of the 2nd amendment process. The key to these theories, however, is that 'militias' were about a civil counter to government power - firearms were a way for the people to have power over those who would rule them. Not that militias were an enforcment arm of government (state or federal). Again, what we're establishing is an environment of rational debate.

Sir William Blackstone was another much discussed commentator of the day and many of his direct quotes and phrases appear in various sources relating to the writing of the Constitution. One of his more often used quotes relates to the right of every individual to arms..."The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

I'm a bit busy right now doing a research paper on slavery and the law in Florida so I can't keep going on this, but from my studies I've been generally led to see a prominent global discussion about the rights of individuals not only to defend their rights from an oppressive government through force of arms, but a natural right of the individual to use arms to defend themselves when the larger society is unable or unwilling to do so. Certainly you can argue about the difference of weapons (muskets versus machine guns), but the basic debate of the day supports an awareness on the part of the founders regarding arms ownership as an individual right (even as it was also connected to civic duty).

I'm impressed.

Rainsford
03-09-2007, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Rainsford
While I like the fact that the courts are upholding SOME of our rights, I sort of wish they'd spend a little more time on the other rights. Whatever rhetoric the NRA brings out in cases like this, the 2nd amendment has not, in the history of this country, defending any of our other rights. I think everyone has a right to own a gun, but the argument that the 2nd amendment protects all our other rights is stupid. When the government decided we didn't need the 4th amendment, did the gun nuts storm the White House? Of course not, in fact most of the gun nuts are the same people who SUPPORT the subversion of the rest of our rights.

The 2nd Amendment is certainly worth defending, but the idea that it's indicative of a culture of individuals rights is bullshit. It's a right that's been fractured away from the rest of them, and the ideology that supports the defense of the 2nd amendment for some reason doesn't seem to sustain the defense of the 1st or the 4th. It's great news that the 2nd amendment has been upheld here (city-wide gun bans never seemed like a good idea to me in any case), but I wouldn't read anything more into that. The 2nd amendment has become only about the 2nd amendment, there is no "individual rights" culture or legal thinking surrounding it.

BULLSH!T

There have been ARMED REVOLTS as late as 1950's if I remember correctly. IN THIS COUNTRY.

And those very revolts brought about better change. Dont think for a minute firearms arent used to defend our freedoms.

Care to cite any examples?

Maybe it's more recent than I thought, but with few exceptions, gun-rights and the rest of our rights seem to be treated as totally separate issues...and that's a black mark against BOTH sides of the debate. You have civil liberties organizations that conveniently forget about the 2nd amendment, and the gun lobby that could care less WHAT the government does as long as it leaves our guns alone. Neither side can reasonably claim to be "pro-freedom" in the general sense, yet both sides do.

But as annoying as it is when the ACLU doesn't step up to the plate on gun rights, it's even more annoying when the NRA supports virtually any suppression of liberty as long as it doesn't touch the 2nd amendment...if only because the NRA seems more selective in what rights they support. And while there are certainly exceptions, I think that the majority of gun owners are among the biggest tools when it comes to government oppression. I'm not saying there aren't gun owners who would use their guns to defend our freedoms, I'm just saying that if the revolution comes, all we'll need is for a Republican to be in the White House to have gun owners roaming the streets gunning down "undesirables".

Rainsford
03-10-2007, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by: tcsenter

The 2nd Amendment is certainly worth defending, but the idea that it's indicative of a culture of individuals rights is bullshit. It's a right that's been fractured away from the rest of themOne that been fractured away exponentially more than the rest of them. If you could kindly point me to any substantial restriction of your right to free speech, press, religion, and such, where you are prohibited from exercising any of them to any substantial degree, or must register with the government in order to do so, I'd like to see that.

The only thing that has happened to these other rights are modest and narrowly tailored expansions of long-established and long-accepted limitations or restrictions of individual rights that have been upheld since the constitution was drafted. Nothing fundamentally different.

And no, we haven't had to use guns to protect all these other rights. Similarly, I've never actually had to use my fire insurance, either - guess its time to cancel the policy. No fire to date therefore means no fire would happen. Smart.

You need to pay more attention.

How about the government jailing reporters for refusing to give up the names of confidential informants? Or of trying to limit what's published because the government doesn't like how it paints the issue? How about elected officials suggested we need to reinstate the sedition act, or otherwise make it an act of treason to disagree with the President? How about those same elected officials wanting to amend freedom of religion to not include the right to practice Islam? How about warrantless wiretaps, secret searches, detention without the right to a trial, or the torture of anyone the President feels like?

THIS is what I hate about some gun folks...this rabid defense of the 2nd amendment combined with an extremely impressive ability to rationalize any suppression of any other civil liberty. And you'll note that whatever I think about guns, I never suggested banning them or otherwise restricting you from owning them. That doesn't mean I'm going to become best buddies with certain gun owners, not as long as they keep voting for jackasses who could care less about civil liberties that DON'T involve guns.

K1052
03-10-2007, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

Because you haven't read the history surrounding it. If you read the actual debates, notes, and articles of the framers there is pretty much no question at all what they meant. The 'militia' just meant every able man and boy in the country and wasn't just about a military body used against foreign entities in a war. The idea was most definitely for every person to have the right to their firearms; as a counter to government abuses, as means for defense of the nation, and also as a tool of individual security.

You'll also notice that the Bill of Rights is about enumeration of specific rights which the federal government would never have the right to infringe upon, and the securing of all other rights to the states themselves. This doesn't mesh with the idea that the 2nd is a maverick amendment which applies to federally controlled military assets.

You've got it a little wrong. The "militia" at issue is a state militia, not the federal military, and the collective-rights model still technically addresses individual rights-- just the individual right to carry arms only in service of a state militia.


But that completely ignores the entire body of evidence surrounding the drafting of the amendment itself. The argument that the 2nd is about militias is mostly modern. There was never any question until recently that it was an individual right. The federalist papers, the correspondence of participants, notes from conventions and debates, etc...these things all point towards an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, outside of the scope of 'official militias'.

No. Please post your sources for the non-Federalist Papers information. Also, the Federalist Papers mean much less than someone like Scalia would have you believe; they were written by only three people and in no way are a conclusive record of legislative intent. Also, the argument that the Second Amendment is about militias is anything but mostly modern:


"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-?To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.? U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they *179 were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ?A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.? And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-179 (U.S. 1939).

That's from the Supreme Court, circa 1939. They define what the Constitution means, not the Federalist papers, writtten by a few people and published in a newspaper.

Yea that damn Madison had nothing to do with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, what does he know!

If the Federalist papers are so useless and out of touch with the intentions of the founders why have the various Supreme Courts been continually citing them in their decisions for the last 200+ years?

mc00
03-10-2007, 12:19 AM
I'm "liberal" support and protect(don't own a gun) 2nd Amendment and understand its purpose.. yes I fear may get shot by some dumb fck or trigger happy played some gta.. why would I blame 2nd Amendment because some dumb shumuck shot me?

edit: oops

Rainsford
03-10-2007, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by: mc00
I'm "liberal" support and protect 2nd Amendment and understand its purpose.. yes I fear may get shot by some dumb fck or trigger happy played some gta.. why would I blame 2nd Amendment because some dumb shumuck shot me?

Exactly. Not to mention that the jackass who's most likely to shoot you is also not very likely to be bothered by gun laws. He's shooting you, clearly he is not a law abiding citizen in the first place.

Specop 007
03-10-2007, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Rainsford
While I like the fact that the courts are upholding SOME of our rights, I sort of wish they'd spend a little more time on the other rights. Whatever rhetoric the NRA brings out in cases like this, the 2nd amendment has not, in the history of this country, defending any of our other rights. I think everyone has a right to own a gun, but the argument that the 2nd amendment protects all our other rights is stupid. When the government decided we didn't need the 4th amendment, did the gun nuts storm the White House? Of course not, in fact most of the gun nuts are the same people who SUPPORT the subversion of the rest of our rights.

The 2nd Amendment is certainly worth defending, but the idea that it's indicative of a culture of individuals rights is bullshit. It's a right that's been fractured away from the rest of them, and the ideology that supports the defense of the 2nd amendment for some reason doesn't seem to sustain the defense of the 1st or the 4th. It's great news that the 2nd amendment has been upheld here (city-wide gun bans never seemed like a good idea to me in any case), but I wouldn't read anything more into that. The 2nd amendment has become only about the 2nd amendment, there is no "individual rights" culture or legal thinking surrounding it.

BULLSH!T

There have been ARMED REVOLTS as late as 1950's if I remember correctly. IN THIS COUNTRY.

And those very revolts brought about better change. Dont think for a minute firearms arent used to defend our freedoms.

Care to cite any examples?

Maybe it's more recent than I thought, but with few exceptions, gun-rights and the rest of our rights seem to be treated as totally separate issues...and that's a black mark against BOTH sides of the debate. You have civil liberties organizations that conveniently forget about the 2nd amendment, and the gun lobby that could care less WHAT the government does as long as it leaves our guns alone. Neither side can reasonably claim to be "pro-freedom" in the general sense, yet both sides do.

But as annoying as it is when the ACLU doesn't step up to the plate on gun rights, it's even more annoying when the NRA supports virtually any suppression of liberty as long as it doesn't touch the 2nd amendment...if only because the NRA seems more selective in what rights they support. And while there are certainly exceptions, I think that the majority of gun owners are among the biggest tools when it comes to government oppression. I'm not saying there aren't gun owners who would use their guns to defend our freedoms, I'm just saying that if the revolution comes, all we'll need is for a Republican to be in the White House to have gun owners roaming the streets gunning down "undesirables".

Care to quit making baseless claims about the uselessness of firearms?

And for the record, it was late 40's. I was a bit off in my dates. The point still stands though. There are those who will use firearms to defend our rights. There are those who will defend your rights and your freedoms against enemies both foreign and domestic.
Whats the easiest way to strip them of that ability......
You wonder why politicians push so damned hard to strip away our gun rights? Maybe because in doing so they will make us truly powerless to stop them.

Click (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/tnrevolt.shtml)

Click (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens)

And I will agree, many gun owners dont give enough attention to other rights. But you have to realize, we've been in the "fight for our lives" for 70 YEARS. Thats a long damned time to fight for your rights. A LOOONG time. And its a constant battle. Name me one other right that has been under constant attack for the past 2 decades, and under attack for the last almost century.

You wonder why gun owners are so fixated on their rights to own guns? Because its daily battle.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Specop007, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and in denying certiorari for Silveira v. Lockyer, it certainly permitted what you would call an infringement of rights.


And at that point the only option left is armed revolution. If the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, doesnt support the Constitution then what avenues are left?

Additionally, no other Right is defined as a "collective" right, I have no idea why anyone would think the 2nd was penned with the intent to be a collective right when all others were penned as individual rights.

No, you misunderstand. The Supreme Court defines what the Consitution means. If they say that the Second Amendment doesn't include an individual right to bear arms, it doesn't.

The Consitution cannot possibly guarantee you a right of armed insurrection. It is inherently illogical to suppose this, and I hope you aren't... A revolution against America, of course, is a revolution against the Consitution and the Second Amendment. There is no valid support for the notion that the Framers intended to support rebellion against local governments, either... It would tend to call into question vertical separation of powers.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

Because you haven't read the history surrounding it. If you read the actual debates, notes, and articles of the framers there is pretty much no question at all what they meant. The 'militia' just meant every able man and boy in the country and wasn't just about a military body used against foreign entities in a war. The idea was most definitely for every person to have the right to their firearms; as a counter to government abuses, as means for defense of the nation, and also as a tool of individual security.

You'll also notice that the Bill of Rights is about enumeration of specific rights which the federal government would never have the right to infringe upon, and the securing of all other rights to the states themselves. This doesn't mesh with the idea that the 2nd is a maverick amendment which applies to federally controlled military assets.

You've got it a little wrong. The "militia" at issue is a state militia, not the federal military, and the collective-rights model still technically addresses individual rights-- just the individual right to carry arms only in service of a state militia.


But that completely ignores the entire body of evidence surrounding the drafting of the amendment itself. The argument that the 2nd is about militias is mostly modern. There was never any question until recently that it was an individual right. The federalist papers, the correspondence of participants, notes from conventions and debates, etc...these things all point towards an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, outside of the scope of 'official militias'.

No. Please post your sources for the non-Federalist Papers information. Also, the Federalist Papers mean much less than someone like Scalia would have you believe; they were written by only three people and in no way are a conclusive record of legislative intent. Also, the argument that the Second Amendment is about militias is anything but mostly modern:


"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-?To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.? U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they *179 were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ?A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.? And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-179 (U.S. 1939).

That's from the Supreme Court, circa 1939. They define what the Constitution means, not the Federalist papers, writtten by a few people and published in a newspaper.

Yea that damn Madison had nothing to do with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, what does he know!

If the Federalist papers are so useless and out of touch with the intentions of the founders why have the various Supreme Courts been continually citing them in their decisions for the last 200+ years?

They have been cited in dicta mostly by judges in dissents... such as Scalia. Again, they were written by three people and published in the paper, and are not a record of the debates by the Framers. Here you are choosing to completely disregard the U.S. Supreme Court. All I can say is, that's a losing battle.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 08:18 AM

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Cesare Beccaria was a contemporary theorist and among the first famous for the 'if firearms are outlawed only outlaws will have firearms' line of reasoning. His works were much debated during the day (though often in matters of crime and punishment as opposed to individual liberties). This influence is easy to see in the writings of Jefferson (who frequently mentions Beccaria), such as his suggestions to the Virginia Constitution: "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]." ~The Papers of Thomas Jefferson.


Of course, this doesn't have direct bearing against the Constitution. I believe the first Virginia Declaration of Rights had no provision related to the right to bear arms, a startling oversight if they considered it to be such a basic right. In addition, what we need to decide this issue is not a few asides from several people of the time, but evidence as to what was discussed and decided when the amendment was enacted.


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
George Mason was more influenced by English theorist James Burgh, who was most interested in firearm ownership as a counter to government abuses. This represents the more widely debated aspect of the 2nd amendment process. The key to these theories, however, is that 'militias' were about a civil counter to government power - firearms were a way for the people to have power over those who would rule them. Not that militias were an enforcment arm of government (state or federal). Again, what we're establishing is an environment of rational debate.


See above, and the articles below. It appears that the Second Amendment was more a part of the slavery compromise than even a general guarantee of a right to serve in a militia.

In the end, all insurrectionist theories must fail. It is inherently illogical to suppose that the Framers wished to guarantee private individuals the power to overthrow the government they were constructing, for whatever reason they wished (guns are amoral).


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Sir William Blackstone was another much discussed commentator of the day and many of his direct quotes and phrases appear in various sources relating to the writing of the Constitution. One of his more often used quotes relates to the right of every individual to arms..."The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."


I am not saying that there did not appear in the annals of world society at the time some evidence of general thought on both sides regarding the right to bear arms (and there is plenty of discussion about the militia angle, too). However, the mere mention of Blackstone's name or theories in a letter etc. from the period does not indicate that his or complementary theories carried the day... and that's what you would need.


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I've been generally led to see a prominent global discussion


Again, a prominent global discussion doesn't bear all that much on the meaning of the Second Amendment. It just indicates facts and arguments of which the drafters were aware.


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
the basic debate of the day supports an awareness on the part of the founders regarding arms ownership as an individual right (even as it was also connected to civic duty).

Yes, an awareness of the theory of such a right, and a recognition of it elsewhere, and even a tendency on the part of a few to argue for it here. However, this is a far cry from awareness/recognition of an existing right here.

A few interesting articles:
one (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm) two (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm) three (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_200301/ai_n9186804)

In the end, of course, arguments for an individual have to get past four or five very influential Supreme Court decisions, and the wording of the amendment itself, which indicates the reason in plain language for the inclusion of the amendment.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 08:56 AM
For the record, I am for the individual right to possess firearms. I just don't think it's obvious that it is guaranteed by the Constitution-- in fact, it seems that it is not. I don't see any chance in hell that there will ever be an amendment prohibiting individual possession; the biggest thing to fear is a Supreme Court decision clearly stating, once and for all, that the guaranteed right is a "collective" right. And that could well happen in our lifetime... but to keep things in perspective, the only effect would be to leave it up to the states whether to recognize an individual right or not.

smack Down
03-10-2007, 09:02 AM
Lets take a quick look at other times people is used


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So I guess that means the state milita has the right to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, but individuals do not.



Amendment II

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.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Odd here when talking about the military the framers use the word soldiers instead of people.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I really don't see why only the militia should have this rights.

Any claim that people, in the bill of rights doesn't refer to all people (while white men but that is a different thread) is completely BS.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by: smack Down
Lets take a quick look at other times people is used


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So I guess that means the state milita has the right to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, but individuals do not.



Amendment II

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.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Odd here when talking about the military the framers use the word soldiers instead of people.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I really don't see why only the militia should have this rights.

Any claim that people, in the bill of rights doesn't refer to all people (while white men but that is a different thread) is completely BS.

Two problems. First, the other places are not introduced in the context of a need for militias, and the words "bear arms" smack of some sort of military service (although this does not imply being a professional soldier). The use of "soldier" is not odd; a soldier is not a private citizen but a member of the military.

Specop 007
03-10-2007, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Specop007, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and in denying certiorari for Silveira v. Lockyer, it certainly permitted what you would call an infringement of rights.


And at that point the only option left is armed revolution. If the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, doesnt support the Constitution then what avenues are left?

Additionally, no other Right is defined as a "collective" right, I have no idea why anyone would think the 2nd was penned with the intent to be a collective right when all others were penned as individual rights.

No, you misunderstand. The Supreme Court defines what the Consitution means. If they say that the Second Amendment doesn't include an individual right to bear arms, it doesn't.

The Consitution cannot possibly guarantee you a right of armed insurrection. It is inherently illogical to suppose this, and I hope you aren't... A revolution against America, of course, is a revolution against the Consitution and the Second Amendment. There is no valid support for the notion that the Framers intended to support rebellion against local governments, either... It would tend to call into question vertical separation of powers.

Thats not true. Hence the saying "enemies foreign and domestic. The founding Fathers knew very well that government could become too controlling. One reason for the right to bear arms is to overthrow a dictator type government.

Specop 007
03-10-2007, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
For the record, I am for the individual right to possess firearms. I just don't think it's obvious that it is guaranteed by the Constitution-- in fact, it seems that it is not. I don't see any chance in hell that there will ever be an amendment prohibiting individual possession; the biggest thing to fear is a Supreme Court decision clearly stating, once and for all, that the guaranteed right is a "collective" right. And that could well happen in our lifetime... but to keep things in perspective, the only effect would be to leave it up to the states whether to recognize an individual right or not.

What do you think scares the government more.
Individuals owning firearms, or individuals banding together and forming militias and owning firearms?

PrinceofWands
03-10-2007, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Cesare Beccaria was a contemporary theorist and among the first famous for the 'if firearms are outlawed only outlaws will have firearms' line of reasoning. His works were much debated during the day (though often in matters of crime and punishment as opposed to individual liberties). This influence is easy to see in the writings of Jefferson (who frequently mentions Beccaria), such as his suggestions to the Virginia Constitution: "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]." ~The Papers of Thomas Jefferson.


Of course, this doesn't have direct bearing against the Constitution. I believe the first Virginia Declaration of Rights had no provision related to the right to bear arms, a startling oversight if they considered it to be such a basic right. In addition, what we need to decide this issue is not a few asides from several people of the time, but evidence as to what was discussed and decided when the amendment was enacted.


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
George Mason was more influenced by English theorist James Burgh, who was most interested in firearm ownership as a counter to government abuses. This represents the more widely debated aspect of the 2nd amendment process. The key to these theories, however, is that 'militias' were about a civil counter to government power - firearms were a way for the people to have power over those who would rule them. Not that militias were an enforcment arm of government (state or federal). Again, what we're establishing is an environment of rational debate.


See above, and the articles below. It appears that the Second Amendment was more a part of the slavery compromise than even a general guarantee of a right to serve in a militia.

In the end, all insurrectionist theories must fail. It is inherently illogical to suppose that the Framers wished to guarantee private individuals the power to overthrow the government they were constructing, for whatever reason they wished (guns are amoral).


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Sir William Blackstone was another much discussed commentator of the day and many of his direct quotes and phrases appear in various sources relating to the writing of the Constitution. One of his more often used quotes relates to the right of every individual to arms..."The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."


I am not saying that there did not appear in the annals of world society at the time some evidence of general thought on both sides regarding the right to bear arms (and there is plenty of discussion about the militia angle, too). However, the mere mention of Blackstone's name or theories in a letter etc. from the period does not indicate that his or complementary theories carried the day... and that's what you would need.


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I've been generally led to see a prominent global discussion


Again, a prominent global discussion doesn't bear all that much on the meaning of the Second Amendment. It just indicates facts and arguments of which the drafters were aware.


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
the basic debate of the day supports an awareness on the part of the founders regarding arms ownership as an individual right (even as it was also connected to civic duty).

Yes, an awareness of the theory of such a right, and a recognition of it elsewhere, and even a tendency on the part of a few to argue for it here. However, this is a far cry from awareness/recognition of an existing right here.

A few interesting articles:
one (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm) two (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm) three (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_200301/ai_n9186804)

In the end, of course, arguments for an individual have to get past four or five very influential Supreme Court decisions, and the wording of the amendment itself, which indicates the reason in plain language for the inclusion of the amendment.

It does have direct bearing on the Constitution, because nothing exists in a vacuum. The framers didn't create anything out of nothing, they reacted to the prevailing debates and considerations of the day and argued their way to compromises. Anything they came up with is a nearly direct result of what they were exposed to. That's how life works: we grow up within an environment subject to the ideas and beliefs of all those around us...we take some, modify some, and disregard some. In the end our own thoughts are little more than a synthesis of those all around us. Nothing new on heaven or earth sort of thing. This is more than idle conjecture an theory, it's the fundamental basis of all thought and human activity. Hence, the writings and philosophies of major thinkers of the time ARE directly related to the intent of the framers. As to what was discussed, yes, that's important too. The largest focus of the 2nd during the time was how to allow religious exemption from military service (ie do Quakers have to be a part of the militia). That's the majority of writing. There is more however, such as Jefferson and Madison writings which are laced with references to the things I'm talking about. I gave a couple examples, but there are volumes available.

It is inherently illogical to assume the framers were unmoved by the ENORMOUS body of work dedicated to the right of the citizen to rise up against the government...especially given the fact that America was created in exactly that way. The framers were FIRM believers in the right of the citizenry to overpower the government, though I never said it should be possible at a whim. There is such an incredible body of philosophy, political science, and so on dedicated to these ideas that argument against their weight on the minds of the framers is ignorant, if not outright lunacy.

You are saying what the supreme court says is what we MUST accept. I am saying that intent is what we MUST fight for, no matter the cost. Let's not forget that the Supreme court has made some monumentally unjust (and borderline illegal) decisions. Of course, so has every other branch of government. Just because the court or congress says a thing is a certain way does not make it so, nor does it morally or ethically require our consent. We are not subjects of the government however, the members of government (including every justice on every court) are our representatives and servants. You are arguing for law, I am arguing for justice. The two aren't wholly incompatible, but we have to acknowledge what we are dealing with. There is truth in the world, as well as opinion and belief, and these things too are we beholden to. I'm not saying there was consensus on the exact meaning and scope of the 2nd amendment, I'm arguing that the total knowledge and considerations of the framers regarding any piece of legislation carries more weight (to me) than subsequent interpretations by unavoidably biased courts.

TehMac
03-10-2007, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Genx87
What is interesting about the the dissenters view is if her view was the majorities. She basically tossed out the entire bill of rights for DC because it isnt considered a state.


Right. And it shows the argument supporting the 2nd was so watertight the ONLY ground to stand on in opposition is that DC isnt a state.

The full document can be read here (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf). While quite long, the ruling was so well laid out it addresses virtually any avenue to overturn it. This is a MAJOR win for our side. Theres still a long ways to go.

Define our side.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Cesare Beccaria was a contemporary theorist and among the first famous for the 'if firearms are outlawed only outlaws will have firearms' line of reasoning. His works were much debated during the day (though often in matters of crime and punishment as opposed to individual liberties). This influence is easy to see in the writings of Jefferson (who frequently mentions Beccaria), such as his suggestions to the Virginia Constitution: "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]." ~The Papers of Thomas Jefferson.


Of course, this doesn't have direct bearing against the Constitution. I believe the first Virginia Declaration of Rights had no provision related to the right to bear arms, a startling oversight if they considered it to be such a basic right. In addition, what we need to decide this issue is not a few asides from several people of the time, but evidence as to what was discussed and decided when the amendment was enacted.


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
George Mason was more influenced by English theorist James Burgh, who was most interested in firearm ownership as a counter to government abuses. This represents the more widely debated aspect of the 2nd amendment process. The key to these theories, however, is that 'militias' were about a civil counter to government power - firearms were a way for the people to have power over those who would rule them. Not that militias were an enforcment arm of government (state or federal). Again, what we're establishing is an environment of rational debate.


See above, and the articles below. It appears that the Second Amendment was more a part of the slavery compromise than even a general guarantee of a right to serve in a militia.

In the end, all insurrectionist theories must fail. It is inherently illogical to suppose that the Framers wished to guarantee private individuals the power to overthrow the government they were constructing, for whatever reason they wished (guns are amoral).


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Sir William Blackstone was another much discussed commentator of the day and many of his direct quotes and phrases appear in various sources relating to the writing of the Constitution. One of his more often used quotes relates to the right of every individual to arms..."The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."


I am not saying that there did not appear in the annals of world society at the time some evidence of general thought on both sides regarding the right to bear arms (and there is plenty of discussion about the militia angle, too). However, the mere mention of Blackstone's name or theories in a letter etc. from the period does not indicate that his or complementary theories carried the day... and that's what you would need.


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I've been generally led to see a prominent global discussion


Again, a prominent global discussion doesn't bear all that much on the meaning of the Second Amendment. It just indicates facts and arguments of which the drafters were aware.


Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
the basic debate of the day supports an awareness on the part of the founders regarding arms ownership as an individual right (even as it was also connected to civic duty).

Yes, an awareness of the theory of such a right, and a recognition of it elsewhere, and even a tendency on the part of a few to argue for it here. However, this is a far cry from awareness/recognition of an existing right here.

A few interesting articles:
one (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm) two (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm) three (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_200301/ai_n9186804)

In the end, of course, arguments for an individual have to get past four or five very influential Supreme Court decisions, and the wording of the amendment itself, which indicates the reason in plain language for the inclusion of the amendment.

It does have direct bearing on the Constitution, because nothing exists in a vacuum. The framers didn't create anything out of nothing, they reacted to the prevailing debates and considerations of the day and argued their way to compromises. Anything they came up with is a nearly direct result of what they were exposed to. That's how life works: we grow up within an environment subject to the ideas and beliefs of all those around us...we take some, modify some, and disregard some. In the end our own thoughts are little more than a synthesis of those all around us. Nothing new on heaven or earth sort of thing. This is more than idle conjecture an theory, it's the fundamental basis of all thought and human activity. Hence, the writings and philosophies of major thinkers of the time ARE directly related to the intent of the framers. As to what was discussed, yes, that's important too. The largest focus of the 2nd during the time was how to allow religious exemption from military service (ie do Quakers have to be a part of the militia). That's the majority of writing. There is more however, such as Jefferson and Madison writings which are laced with references to the things I'm talking about. I gave a couple examples, but there are volumes available.


Your problems are twofold. First, you abuse the word "direct". Evidence of some global theories of the day does not mean that the Constitution was written in agreement with them. "Direct" evidence would be notes by the participants saying that they had written the legislation with those theories specifically in mind. Also, you rely too heavily on just one or two people. There were many at the conference. So you have no direct evidence, and your offhand mentions in letters etc. come only from a few people.



It is inherently illogical to assume the framers were unmoved by the ENORMOUS body of work

No. The enormity of a body of work (which is not such, but rather scattered references and theories that do not comprise a single body, but I will not debate it because it's a waste of time) does not establish even that the framers were moved. It certainly doesn't establish their legislative intent. Similarly, my reading a story about revolution in the New York Times do not establish my revolutionary intent.


especially given the fact that America was created in exactly that way

Sorry, the fact that the U.S. arose by revolt does not support your argument. If anything, the framers would have been worried about setting up the government to avoid or prevent revolt-- and chief on their list was not ensuring the right to revolt.


The framers were FIRM believers in the right of the citizenry to overpower the government

Nope. You can pull up a few incendiary quotes from George Mason et al. made in the attempts to sway other people's minds, perhaps. The framers were definitely not believers in the right of the citizenry to overpower the government. Else they would have sent military aid to the citizens of New Hampshire in their attempt to overthrow the state government.


I never said it should be possible at a whim.

I didn't say you said it. It is a direct, logical consequence of a position that guns must be allowed to the citizenry in order to give them a right to revolt. When you put power in the hands of those not under your control, you are at their whim. This whole "right of revolt" thing is ridiculous-- you should drop it. They would have enumerated it as a right for sure if that were intended.


There is such an incredible body of philosophy, political science, and so on dedicated to these ideas that argument against their weight on the minds of the framers is ignorant, if not outright lunacy.

Stating that global political ideas are direct evidence of legislative intent in America is lunacy and poor scholarship, if not an outright lie.


You are saying what the supreme court says is what we MUST accept. I am saying that intent is what we MUST fight for, no matter the cost.

You can't fight city hall. You are not fighting the good fight here, just posting on a discussion board. In what way are you fighting? :confused: Don't take my word for it, but you do indeed have to accept what the Supreme Court says. Maybe I'll see you on the news someday, being shot down next to Specop 007 by the National Guard after the Supreme Court rules that you never had an individual right to possess a firearm guaranteed by the Constitution.


Let's not forget that the Supreme court has made some monumentally unjust (and borderline illegal) decisions.

The fact that they may have made unjust decisiosn doesn't change the fact that they are the authority when it comes to the Constiution, period. And it doesn't change the fact that you are bound by their decisions, whether you agree with them or not.


Just because the court or congress says a thing is a certain way does not make it so

Yes, in this case it does, because the Supreme Court's most major function is to define what the Constitution means. In other words, you don't know what the Constitution means until they tell you-- although you may argue otherwise on an anonymous forum until you're blue in the face.


You are arguing for law, I am arguing for justice. The two aren't wholly incompatible, but we have to acknowledge what we are dealing with.

I'm not arguing against justice, just stating things the way they are. The law of the United States is what holds us together, not desires by gun aficionados or anyone else. You want the right to do something that is not in the law, make sure it's put there. If something is not in the Constitution that needs to be, it's time for an amendment-- not shaky readings in support of a position in direct conflict with the final authority on the matter.


I'm arguing that the total knowledge and considerations of the framers regarding any piece of legislation carries more weight (to me) than subsequent interpretations by unavoidably biased courts.

Your own interpretation is unavoidably biased. You have a picture of a few bits of knowledge and consideration and are drawing hasty conclusions.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Specop007, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and in denying certiorari for Silveira v. Lockyer, it certainly permitted what you would call an infringement of rights.


And at that point the only option left is armed revolution. If the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, doesnt support the Constitution then what avenues are left?

Additionally, no other Right is defined as a "collective" right, I have no idea why anyone would think the 2nd was penned with the intent to be a collective right when all others were penned as individual rights.

No, you misunderstand. The Supreme Court defines what the Consitution means. If they say that the Second Amendment doesn't include an individual right to bear arms, it doesn't.

The Consitution cannot possibly guarantee you a right of armed insurrection. It is inherently illogical to suppose this, and I hope you aren't... A revolution against America, of course, is a revolution against the Consitution and the Second Amendment. There is no valid support for the notion that the Framers intended to support rebellion against local governments, either... It would tend to call into question vertical separation of powers.

Thats not true. Hence the saying "enemies foreign and domestic. The founding Fathers knew very well that government could become too controlling. One reason for the right to bear arms is to overthrow a dictator type government.

No, there is no individual right to bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. If there were, it certainly would not be in order to overthrow the government. The oath to which you refer certainly does not, when soldiers are sworn in, encourage them to attack the government as a "domestic enemy". :laugh: A domestic enemy could be, for instance, a misguided revolt by the citizenry...

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
For the record, I am for the individual right to possess firearms. I just don't think it's obvious that it is guaranteed by the Constitution-- in fact, it seems that it is not. I don't see any chance in hell that there will ever be an amendment prohibiting individual possession; the biggest thing to fear is a Supreme Court decision clearly stating, once and for all, that the guaranteed right is a "collective" right. And that could well happen in our lifetime... but to keep things in perspective, the only effect would be to leave it up to the states whether to recognize an individual right or not.

What do you think scares the government more.
Individuals owning firearms, or individuals banding together and forming militias and owning firearms?

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)

dmcowen674
03-10-2007, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)

You sound like you are in the Guard or something and remind me of the guy that went nuts in Earthquake against Victoria Principal.

Are you itching to pull the trigger on fellow American citizens?

JD50
03-10-2007, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
For the record, I am for the individual right to possess firearms. I just don't think it's obvious that it is guaranteed by the Constitution-- in fact, it seems that it is not. I don't see any chance in hell that there will ever be an amendment prohibiting individual possession; the biggest thing to fear is a Supreme Court decision clearly stating, once and for all, that the guaranteed right is a "collective" right. And that could well happen in our lifetime... but to keep things in perspective, the only effect would be to leave it up to the states whether to recognize an individual right or not.

What do you think scares the government more.
Individuals owning firearms, or individuals banding together and forming militias and owning firearms?

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)


Yea, I mean, look at Iraq, those guys with rifles stand no chance against our "tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers".

Also, look at Vietnam, we really showed them with our "tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers".

:roll:

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)

You sound like you are in the Guard or something and remind me of the guy that went nuts in Earthquake against Victoria Principal.

Are you itching to pull the trigger on fellow American citizens?

Sorry, can't keep up with you in the pop culture area here. I will just note that you are widely known as a wack job on this forum. No, I am not in the Guard or something. It's curious that you don't accuse Specop 007, a borderline revolutionary, of itching to pull the trigger on his fellow citizens if he doesn't get his way.

JD50
03-10-2007, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

Great point, our resident gun grabber has not addressed this point.

How could someone honestly think that the second amendment was directed towards the modern day national guard?

JD50
03-10-2007, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

People only = State? :confused:

Read Mein Kempf much?


:thumbsup:

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
For the record, I am for the individual right to possess firearms. I just don't think it's obvious that it is guaranteed by the Constitution-- in fact, it seems that it is not. I don't see any chance in hell that there will ever be an amendment prohibiting individual possession; the biggest thing to fear is a Supreme Court decision clearly stating, once and for all, that the guaranteed right is a "collective" right. And that could well happen in our lifetime... but to keep things in perspective, the only effect would be to leave it up to the states whether to recognize an individual right or not.

What do you think scares the government more.
Individuals owning firearms, or individuals banding together and forming militias and owning firearms?

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)


Yea, I mean, look at Iraq, those guys with rifles stand no chance against our "tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers".

Also, look at Vietnam, we really showed them with our "tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers".

:roll:



I think you were going for the "confused" smiley and got the wrong one. These are completely different from quashing a rebellion here in America. In both cases we were not allowed to take many measures the government would certainly take in quashing a real rebellion, such as forced internment, and the complete armed forces were never deployed in either area. Don't believe me, that's fine... live with your delusions of grandeur.

JD50
03-10-2007, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
For the record, I am for the individual right to possess firearms. I just don't think it's obvious that it is guaranteed by the Constitution-- in fact, it seems that it is not. I don't see any chance in hell that there will ever be an amendment prohibiting individual possession; the biggest thing to fear is a Supreme Court decision clearly stating, once and for all, that the guaranteed right is a "collective" right. And that could well happen in our lifetime... but to keep things in perspective, the only effect would be to leave it up to the states whether to recognize an individual right or not.

What do you think scares the government more.
Individuals owning firearms, or individuals banding together and forming militias and owning firearms?

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)


Yea, I mean, look at Iraq, those guys with rifles stand no chance against our "tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers".

Also, look at Vietnam, we really showed them with our "tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers".

:roll:



I think you were going for the "confused" smiley and got the wrong one. These are completely different from quashing a rebellion here in America. In both cases we were not allowed to take many measures the government would certainly take in quashing a real rebellion, such as forced internment, and the complete armed forces were never deployed in either area. Don't believe me, that's fine... live with your delusions of grandeur.



No, I was rolling my eyes at you, hence the smiley...

Vietnam and Iraq are perfect examples of what a determined "militia" can do against the worlds strongest military. Guerilla warfare works, its worked for thousands of years, it will probably always work.

dmcowen674
03-10-2007, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)

You sound like you are in the Guard or something and remind me of the guy that went nuts in Earthquake against Victoria Principal.

Are you itching to pull the trigger on fellow American citizens?

Sorry, can't keep up with you in the pop culture area here. I will just note that you are widely known as a wack job on this forum. No, I am not in the Guard or something. It's curious that you don't accuse Specop 007, a borderline revolutionary, of itching to pull the trigger on his fellow citizens if he doesn't get his way.

Yeah, you're probably not old enough to have seen that movie, it was from the mid 1970's.

Yes, labels are a fun thing, Whack Job, Moron, Asshole, you name it but guess what?

I'm a American and that is the only important "label".

Oh and Spec is certainly right up there along with you.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by: JD50
Vietnam and Iraq are perfect examples of what a determined "militia" can do against the worlds strongest military. Guerilla warfare works, its worked for thousands of years, it will probably always work.


Again, nothing like quashing an armed insurrection here. Measures were not taken that would be taken to quash a rebellion, and the complete force of the military was never brought to bear. Enjoy your delusions.

smack Down
03-10-2007, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50
Vietnam and Iraq are perfect examples of what a determined "militia" can do against the worlds strongest military. Guerilla warfare works, its worked for thousands of years, it will probably always work.


Again, nothing like quashing an armed insurrection here. Measures were not taken that would be taken to quash a rebellion, and the complete force of the military was never brought to bear. Enjoy your delusions.

I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50
Vietnam and Iraq are perfect examples of what a determined "militia" can do against the worlds strongest military. Guerilla warfare works, its worked for thousands of years, it will probably always work.


Again, nothing like quashing an armed insurrection here. Measures were not taken that would be taken to quash a rebellion, and the complete force of the military was never brought to bear. Enjoy your delusions.

I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses.

There's a good example, actually. The government did not stand back and permit the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right to revolt. :laugh: And that was when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution.

From that article: "The military suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wished to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means; otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the peace with force."

Jaskalas
03-10-2007, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
For the record, I am for the individual right to possess firearms. I just don't think it's obvious that it is guaranteed by the Constitution-- in fact, it seems that it is not. I don't see any chance in hell that there will ever be an amendment prohibiting individual possession; the biggest thing to fear is a Supreme Court decision clearly stating, once and for all, that the guaranteed right is a "collective" right. And that could well happen in our lifetime... but to keep things in perspective, the only effect would be to leave it up to the states whether to recognize an individual right or not.

What do you think scares the government more.
Individuals owning firearms, or individuals banding together and forming militias and owning firearms?

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)


Yea, I mean, look at Iraq, those guys with rifles stand no chance against our "tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers".

Also, look at Vietnam, we really showed them with our "tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers".

:roll:


Insurgency ONLY works if the superior force refuses to commit genocide. 20 million Russians learned that lesson from Stalin.

You keep growing our government and the abuses of power today will be dwarfed.

Moonbeam
03-10-2007, 10:52 AM
Interesting debate Prince and 6000.

I am fascinated by the notions and relationship between law and justice and the evolution of the latter toward the former. Is there nothing truly new in the world or does justice evolve as we do. Are we moving toward an absolute or does justice move around according to changing circumstance. The framers refereed to inalienable rights but were themselves miles away from where we think we are today in insuring them for all people, no? Clearly slaves had a right to freedom when the Constitution was penned and yet they didn't have that freedom in fact. What the framers intended is not what they intended, apparently.

I would speculate that if our culture were to move far in the direction of personal gun violence causing the death of many many members of society who make it a habit to vote, we could see some change in what we now have as rights. I could see a situation in which, without arms, we could similarly move in a direction where we might also have less of other rights. It seems that ultimately our laws are in some ways our effort to make common sense out of change over time. What is absolute changes over time?

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Interesting debate Prince and 6000.

I am fascinated by the notions and relationship between law and justice and the evolution of the latter toward the former. Is there nothing truly new in the world or does justice evolve as we do. Are we moving toward an absolute or does justice move around according to changing circumstance. The framers refereed to inalienable rights but were themselves miles away from where we think we are today in insuring them for all people, no? Clearly slaves had a right to freedom when the Constitution was penned and yet they didn't have that freedom in fact. What the framers intended is not what they intended, apparently.

I would speculate that if our culture were to move far in the direction of personal gun violence causing the death of many many members of society who make it a habit to vote, we could see some change in what we now have as rights. I could see a situation in which, without arms, we could similarly move in a direction where we might also have less of other rights. It seems that ultimately our laws are in some ways our effort to make common sense out of change over time. What is absolute changes over time?

Thanks. You seem to feel as I do, that there are certain constitutional rights that exist outside of particular interpretations. The worrisome part is that we only know what they are by construing words that really need to be general in a document of that nature, and which aren't well supported by the historical record in some ways.

And whether we have these constitutional rights or not, it is a mistake to speak of them as being constitutionally guaranteed-- if the Supreme Court or anyone else can whisk them away by a different reading, they are not guaranteed by the Constitution alone. It is too vague in some ways for its own good. Today, when Congress pens legislation, there is often a wealth of commentary and notation from the legislators themselves. Constitutional construction, by contrast, often turns over the placement of a particular comma, which is bound to lead to a lot of disagreement.

I don't think slaves originally had a Constitutional right to freedom, although they certainly had a moral right. The words "all men are created equal" are very general, but obviously didn't even apply completely to women in the minds of the Framers, sadly. Luckily the Constitution can be amended to fix glaring problems, which seems a better approach than reading the old words in a new way to fit the situation.

I think that justice evolves and the law and Constitution need to evolve with it.

Vic
03-10-2007, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Gun rights... the only right a man needs to have.

With it we can ensure all other rights.

Sorry you need to put that much faith in a device used to kill another person.

Why? Governments do. In fact, that is where most governments derive their power.

What private gun ownership does is encourage governments to derive their power from the consent of the people instead.

johnnobts
03-10-2007, 12:17 PM
I loved the movie Red Dawn where the Cubans and Russians invade at the very beginning, and it shows a pickup truck with a bumper sticker saying, "If you want my gun you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand" or something like that. then it shows the guy dead with a gun in his hand and the cuban soldier takes it away...

that's pretty much how most of us southerners feel about the right to bear arms. we'll fight to keep it.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by: johnnobts
I loved the movie Red Dawn where the Cubans and Russians invade at the very beginning, and it shows a pickup truck with a bumper sticker saying, "If you want my gun you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand" or something like that. then it shows the guy dead with a gun in his hand and the cuban soldier takes it away...

that's pretty much how most of us southerners feel about the right to bear arms. we'll fight to keep it.

It just occurred to me that this is exactly the sort of issue that would best be decided by a national referendum.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 12:24 PM
EDIT: repost (and not my fault)

Moonbeam
03-10-2007, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by: johnnobts
I loved the movie Red Dawn where the Cubans and Russians invade at the very beginning, and it shows a pickup truck with a bumper sticker saying, "If you want my gun you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand" or something like that. then it shows the guy dead with a gun in his hand and the cuban soldier takes it away...

that's pretty much how most of us southerners feel about the right to bear arms. we'll fight to keep it.

I know Jesus was a big believer in firearms because it's right in the Bible where he says, "Turn the other gun.".

JD50
03-10-2007, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

Great point, our resident gun grabber has not addressed this point.

How could someone honestly think that the second amendment was directed towards the modern day national guard?



Still waiting for someone to address this...

Why would our founders feel it necessary to say that our military has the right to keep and bear arms? They were obviously referring to individuals.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

Great point, our resident gun grabber has not addressed this point.

How could someone honestly think that the second amendment was directed towards the modern day national guard?



Still waiting for someone to address this...

Why would our founders feel it necessary to say that our military has the right to keep and bear arms? They were obviously referring to individuals.


Thought you were addressing someone else (who is the "resident gun-grabber"?). I don't understand the question, I think. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Second Amendment refers to the military. I have seen claims, and made them, that the right to bear arms described by the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms in a militia.

smack Down
03-10-2007, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

Great point, our resident gun grabber has not addressed this point.

How could someone honestly think that the second amendment was directed towards the modern day national guard?



Still waiting for someone to address this...

Why would our founders feel it necessary to say that our military has the right to keep and bear arms? They were obviously referring to individuals.


Thought you were addressing someone else (who is the "resident gun-grabber"?). I don't understand the question, I think. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Second Amendment refers to the military. I have seen claims, and made them, that the right to bear arms described by the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms in a militia.


So can anyone be part of this militia, or create there own militia and there for own a gun? I'm still not sure who you think has the right to keep and bear arms?

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

Great point, our resident gun grabber has not addressed this point.

How could someone honestly think that the second amendment was directed towards the modern day national guard?



Still waiting for someone to address this...

Why would our founders feel it necessary to say that our military has the right to keep and bear arms? They were obviously referring to individuals.


Thought you were addressing someone else (who is the "resident gun-grabber"?). I don't understand the question, I think. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Second Amendment refers to the military. I have seen claims, and made them, that the right to bear arms described by the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms in a militia.


So can anyone be part of this militia, or create there own militia and there for own a gun? I'm still not sure who you think has the right to keep and bear arms?

Read the articles and it'll be clear. There was a great deal of fear and rhetoric in those days concerning standing armies, and also over the preservation of the status quo regarding slavery. Provisions for state militias were one solution to these supposed problems. Yes, anyone could be a part of the militia, but AFAIK not just anyone could create them. When you see "militia" it often means "state militia" in documents related to the Constitution.

When the Ninth Circuit and some others construe the language of the Second Amendment, they take a very hard-line approach, essentially saying that one can only carry arms in service of a militia. It seems clear that the Second Amendment connects the right to bear arms to service in a militia, but the problem is the exact nature of the connection.

By the way, the word "keep" does not necessarily imply ownership. It could have been intended to mean that militia members would take their state-issued arms home with them, to keep and train with against the day when they would be used in service of the militia.

smack Down
03-10-2007, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

Great point, our resident gun grabber has not addressed this point.

How could someone honestly think that the second amendment was directed towards the modern day national guard?



Still waiting for someone to address this...

Why would our founders feel it necessary to say that our military has the right to keep and bear arms? They were obviously referring to individuals.


Thought you were addressing someone else (who is the "resident gun-grabber"?). I don't understand the question, I think. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Second Amendment refers to the military. I have seen claims, and made them, that the right to bear arms described by the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms in a militia.


So can anyone be part of this militia, or create there own militia and there for own a gun? I'm still not sure who you think has the right to keep and bear arms?

Read the articles and it'll be clear. There was a great deal of fear and rhetoric in those days concerning standing armies, and also over the preservation of the status quo regarding slavery. Provisions for state militias were one solution to these supposed problems. Yes, anyone could be a part of the militia, but AFAIK not just anyone could create them. When you see "militia" it often means "state militia" in documents related to the Constitution.

When the Ninth Circuit and some others construe the language of the Second Amendment, they take a very hard-line approach, essentially saying that one can only carry arms in service of a militia. It seems clear that the Second Amendment connects the right to bear arms to service in a militia, but the problem is the exact nature of the connection.

By the way, the word "keep" does not necessarily imply ownership. It could have been intended to mean that militia members would take their state-issued arms home with them, to keep and train with against the day when they would be used in service of the militia.

So you think the 2nd amendment was about militia members benefits package? Of course to use your reading we would have to ignore that the state didn't issue arms for the militia.

You still haven't answered the question about why we would need an Amendment in the bill of rights to saying that people active in the official government militia have the right to keep and bear arms.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
So can anyone be part of this militia, or create there own militia and there for own a gun? I'm still not sure who you think has the right to keep and bear arms?

Read the articles and it'll be clear. There was a great deal of fear and rhetoric in those days concerning standing armies, and also over the preservation of the status quo regarding slavery. Provisions for state militias were one solution to these supposed problems. Yes, anyone could be a part of the militia, but AFAIK not just anyone could create them. When you see "militia" it often means "state militia" in documents related to the Constitution.

When the Ninth Circuit and some others construe the language of the Second Amendment, they take a very hard-line approach, essentially saying that one can only carry arms in service of a militia. It seems clear that the Second Amendment connects the right to bear arms to service in a militia, but the problem is the exact nature of the connection.

By the way, the word "keep" does not necessarily imply ownership. It could have been intended to mean that militia members would take their state-issued arms home with them, to keep and train with against the day when they would be used in service of the militia.

So you think the 2nd amendment was about militia members benefits package? Of course to use your reading we would have to ignore that the state didn't issue arms for the militia.

You still haven't answered the question about why we would need an Amendment in the bill of rights to saying that people active in the official government militia have the right to keep and bear arms.[/quote]

I don't know what you mean by "benefits package", but the language and evidence of legislative intent clearly show that the Second Amendment pertains to militias. It's not exactly my reading, either, but the reading of the Supreme Court and most other federal courts. You don't have to ignore anything except the supposed right to revolt. ;)

I did answer your question. Go read the articles. Due to fears of standing armies and the alteration of the status quo regarding slavery, everyone was granted the power to keep and bear arms in the interest of maintaining state militias. Please don't come back and say again I haven't answered-- I'll just post a link back to this post.

By the way, you can check your snotty-ass attitude at least until you've done a little reading on the subject.

Specop 007
03-10-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Genx87
What is interesting about the the dissenters view is if her view was the majorities. She basically tossed out the entire bill of rights for DC because it isnt considered a state.


Right. And it shows the argument supporting the 2nd was so watertight the ONLY ground to stand on in opposition is that DC isnt a state.

The full document can be read here (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf). While quite long, the ruling was so well laid out it addresses virtually any avenue to overturn it. This is a MAJOR win for our side. Theres still a long ways to go.

Define our side.

Our side being those who own or believe in the ownership of firearms.

Specop 007
03-10-2007, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)

You sound like you are in the Guard or something and remind me of the guy that went nuts in Earthquake against Victoria Principal.

Are you itching to pull the trigger on fellow American citizens?

Sorry, can't keep up with you in the pop culture area here. I will just note that you are widely known as a wack job on this forum. No, I am not in the Guard or something. It's curious that you don't accuse Specop 007, a borderline revolutionary, of itching to pull the trigger on his fellow citizens if he doesn't get his way.

You make too many assumptions. I dont wish to pull the trigger on anyone. In fact I hope to put off the day I have to start shooting people as long as humanly possible. A such, I take the time to write my representatives when issues like this come up asking them to support the side of firearms ownership.

Specop 007
03-10-2007, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

Great point, our resident gun grabber has not addressed this point.

How could someone honestly think that the second amendment was directed towards the modern day national guard?



Still waiting for someone to address this...

Why would our founders feel it necessary to say that our military has the right to keep and bear arms? They were obviously referring to individuals.


Thought you were addressing someone else (who is the "resident gun-grabber"?). I don't understand the question, I think. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Second Amendment refers to the military. I have seen claims, and made them, that the right to bear arms described by the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms in a militia.


And your wrong. Which is fine, as many people misinterpret the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by: Specop 007
And your wrong. Which is fine, as many people misinterpret the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Nope. You are going against lots of people more educated than both of us put together, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Which is fine, as many crackpots choose to read into the Constitution whatever they like.

6000SUX
03-10-2007, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)

You sound like you are in the Guard or something and remind me of the guy that went nuts in Earthquake against Victoria Principal.

Are you itching to pull the trigger on fellow American citizens?

Sorry, can't keep up with you in the pop culture area here. I will just note that you are widely known as a wack job on this forum. No, I am not in the Guard or something. It's curious that you don't accuse Specop 007, a borderline revolutionary, of itching to pull the trigger on his fellow citizens if he doesn't get his way.

You make too many assumptions. I dont wish to pull the trigger on anyone. In fact I hope to put off the day I have to start shooting people as long as humanly possible. A such, I take the time to write my representatives when issues like this come up asking them to support the side of firearms ownership.

You will never have to illegally pull the trigger on anyone, although you may choose to do it. If that day comes, I hope you remember these conversations as you sit in a jail cell awaiting sentencing, unless of course you are killed first. (I tend to think you're full of hot air, but it's not impossible you really are the crazy you try hard to seem to be.)

Stoneburner
03-11-2007, 03:20 AM
This won't come to a head. The supreme court has gone soft since Warren and Brennan came through, knocking down buildings. The S.Ct will decide any such case on the narrowest grounds, most likely some technicality and continue to allow the issue be muddled for ages to come.

And it's probably for the best :)

Specop 007
03-11-2007, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007
And your wrong. Which is fine, as many people misinterpret the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Nope. You are going against lots of people more educated than both of us put together, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Which is fine, as many crackpots choose to read into the Constitution whatever they like.

Perhaps you should read the ruling from the courts on the issue. I posted the entire 40 some page pdf in my first post.

Specop 007
03-11-2007, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.

(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)

You sound like you are in the Guard or something and remind me of the guy that went nuts in Earthquake against Victoria Principal.

Are you itching to pull the trigger on fellow American citizens?

Sorry, can't keep up with you in the pop culture area here. I will just note that you are widely known as a wack job on this forum. No, I am not in the Guard or something. It's curious that you don't accuse Specop 007, a borderline revolutionary, of itching to pull the trigger on his fellow citizens if he doesn't get his way.

You make too many assumptions. I dont wish to pull the trigger on anyone. In fact I hope to put off the day I have to start shooting people as long as humanly possible. A such, I take the time to write my representatives when issues like this come up asking them to support the side of firearms ownership.

You will never have to illegally pull the trigger on anyone, although you may choose to do it. If that day comes, I hope you remember these conversations as you sit in a jail cell awaiting sentencing, unless of course you are killed first. (I tend to think you're full of hot air, but it's not impossible you really are the crazy you try hard to seem to be.)

Ah, so you have no problems with the government stripping away your rights then do you. Hell, lets just get right to the chase then and implement a dictator type government and throw the BoR right in the trash then.

Maybe some of us actually value our rights.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007
And your wrong. Which is fine, as many people misinterpret the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Nope. You are going against lots of people more educated than both of us put together, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Which is fine, as many crackpots choose to read into the Constitution whatever they like.

Perhaps you should read the ruling from the courts on the issue. I posted the entire 40 some page pdf in my first post.

Don't try to school me on the "courts of law"-- you're out of your league. The ruling from the D.C. Circuit affects only the District of Columbia. Contrast that, for instance, with the state of California... or the clear language from the Supreme Court. You are claiming, in essence, that the U.S. Supreme Court is misinterpreting the Bill of Rights and Constitution, which is impossible.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Ah, so you have no problems with the government stripping away your rights then do you. Hell, lets just get right to the chase then and implement a dictator type government and throw the BoR right in the trash then.

Maybe some of us actually value our rights.

You are saying you will commit murder if legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S., dare to tell you you're wrong about the meaning of the Bill of Rights. You are one step away from conspiring to commit murder.

You and your rifle have zero chance of guaranteeing my rights. You have a pretty good chance, with your mindset, of going out in a blaze of glory, Waco-style. You have only the haziest notion of what your rights actually are, from reading extremist websites in line with your fringe views.

smack Down
03-11-2007, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Ah, so you have no problems with the government stripping away your rights then do you. Hell, lets just get right to the chase then and implement a dictator type government and throw the BoR right in the trash then.

Maybe some of us actually value our rights.

You are saying you will commit murder if legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S., dare to tell you you're wrong about the meaning of the Bill of Rights. You are one step away from conspiring to commit murder.

You and your rifle have zero chance of guaranteeing my rights. You have a pretty good chance, with your mindset, of going out in a blaze of glory, Waco-style. You have only the haziest notion of what your rights actually are, from reading extremist websites in line with your fringe views.

I'm sorry but I don't need "legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S" to tell me what "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means There can be no honest debate that the intent was that every man could keep and bear arms. There is zero ambiguity.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Ah, so you have no problems with the government stripping away your rights then do you. Hell, lets just get right to the chase then and implement a dictator type government and throw the BoR right in the trash then.

Maybe some of us actually value our rights.

You are saying you will commit murder if legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S., dare to tell you you're wrong about the meaning of the Bill of Rights. You are one step away from conspiring to commit murder.

You and your rifle have zero chance of guaranteeing my rights. You have a pretty good chance, with your mindset, of going out in a blaze of glory, Waco-style. You have only the haziest notion of what your rights actually are, from reading extremist websites in line with your fringe views.

I'm sorry but I don't need "legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S" to tell me what "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means There can be no honest debate that the intent was that every man could keep and bear arms. There is zero ambiguity.

You're wrong, but there's no need to be sorry about it. It's understandable, with your level of knowledge. However, legal experts agree that these terms are ambiguous. Any time you see a court go into an analysis of such words (called "construction") it is because there is ambiguity. Your understanding, with no legal or historical knowledge and attempting a hasty reading of the plain language of the Constitution merely in order to support your opinion, is a little different from the construction of a court.

You seem to have a serious disconnect about just how valuable your insight is. You may not feel like you need legal experts (judges et al.) to tell you what the Constitution means, but they will tell you nonetheless and it will have an impact on your life.

DealMonkey
03-11-2007, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by: johnnobts
I loved the movie Red Dawn where the Cubans and Russians invade at the very beginning, and it shows a pickup truck with a bumper sticker saying, "If you want my gun you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand" or something like that. then it shows the guy dead with a gun in his hand and the cuban soldier takes it away...

that's pretty much how most of us southerners feel about the right to bear arms. we'll fight to keep it.

Don't make us come down there and remind you why the North won. ;) :P

catnap1972
03-11-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: johnnobts
I loved the movie Red Dawn where the Cubans and Russians invade at the very beginning, and it shows a pickup truck with a bumper sticker saying, "If you want my gun you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand" or something like that. then it shows the guy dead with a gun in his hand and the cuban soldier takes it away...

that's pretty much how most of us southerners feel about the right to bear arms. we'll fight to keep it.

Don't make us come down there and remind you why the North won. ;) :P

Aw come on...people like johnnobts already have enough holes in their head! :P;)

smack Down
03-11-2007, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Ah, so you have no problems with the government stripping away your rights then do you. Hell, lets just get right to the chase then and implement a dictator type government and throw the BoR right in the trash then.

Maybe some of us actually value our rights.

You are saying you will commit murder if legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S., dare to tell you you're wrong about the meaning of the Bill of Rights. You are one step away from conspiring to commit murder.

You and your rifle have zero chance of guaranteeing my rights. You have a pretty good chance, with your mindset, of going out in a blaze of glory, Waco-style. You have only the haziest notion of what your rights actually are, from reading extremist websites in line with your fringe views.

I'm sorry but I don't need "legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S" to tell me what "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means There can be no honest debate that the intent was that every man could keep and bear arms. There is zero ambiguity.

You're wrong, but there's no need to be sorry about it. It's understandable, with your level of knowledge. However, legal experts agree that these terms are ambiguous. Any time you see a court go into an analysis of such words (called "construction") it is because there is ambiguity. Your understanding, with no legal or historical knowledge and attempting a hasty reading of the plain language of the Constitution merely in order to support your opinion, is a little different from the construction of a court.

You seem to have a serious disconnect about just how valuable your insight is. You may not feel like you need legal experts (judges et al.) to tell you what the Constitution means, but they will tell you nonetheless and it will have an impact on your life.

Like I said HONEST argument. People can come up with what ever BS they want to support their position, that doesn't make it an honest argument. When you need thousands of pages of text to try and twist people into the government and explain two sentences that is when they are full of it and have decided an out come and need to justify it.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by: smack Down
Like I said HONEST argument. People can come up with what ever BS they want to support their position, that doesn't make it an honest argument. When you need thousands of pages of text to try and twist people into the government and explain two sentences that is when they are full of it and have decided an out come and need to justify it.

You make yourself look ridiculous when you call any courts dishonest who dare to disagree with your position. Your argumentation skills are nonexistent; here you are merely making conclusive statements. Again, you may sneer at what courts do every day (which is your right), but they will continue to do it and making decisions binding on you.

palehorse
03-11-2007, 10:26 AM
Be careful posting on the internet if you are in, or from, DC. After all, Judge Henderson does not believe that the BoR applies to you...

1EZduzit
03-11-2007, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
Like I said HONEST argument. People can come up with what ever BS they want to support their position, that doesn't make it an honest argument. When you need thousands of pages of text to try and twist people into the government and explain two sentences that is when they are full of it and have decided an out come and need to justify it.

You make yourself look ridiculous when you call any courts dishonest who dare to disagree with your position. Your argumentation skills are nonexistent; here you are merely making conclusive statements. Again, you may sneer at what courts do every day (which is your right), but they will continue to do it and making decisions binding on you.

LOL, remember, judges used to be lawyers.

1EZduzit
03-11-2007, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Be careful posting on the internet if you are in, or from, DC. After all, Judge Henderson does not believe that the BoR applies to you...

Especially with the Patriot act being abused by the FBI. :P

smack Down
03-11-2007, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
Like I said HONEST argument. People can come up with what ever BS they want to support their position, that doesn't make it an honest argument. When you need thousands of pages of text to try and twist people into the government and explain two sentences that is when they are full of it and have decided an out come and need to justify it.

You make yourself look ridiculous when you call any courts dishonest who dare to disagree with your position. Your argumentation skills are nonexistent; here you are merely making conclusive statements. Again, you may sneer at what courts do every day (which is your right), but they will continue to do it and making decisions binding on you.

That is the point no argument is need to support the reading that "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means just what it says. To debate that the 2nd amendment applies to a different set of people then all other times people is used is just ridiculous. There was no debate 200 years ago what it meant. The debate only appeared because of the increasing power and effectiveness of weapons.

Jaskalas
03-11-2007, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Be careful posting on the internet if you are in, or from, DC. After all, Judge Henderson does not believe that the BoR applies to you...

Nor the entire country for that matter. The Government has already been grown big enough to circumvent the constitution. That?s why we need more of it.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
Like I said HONEST argument. People can come up with what ever BS they want to support their position, that doesn't make it an honest argument. When you need thousands of pages of text to try and twist people into the government and explain two sentences that is when they are full of it and have decided an out come and need to justify it.

You make yourself look ridiculous when you call any courts dishonest who dare to disagree with your position. Your argumentation skills are nonexistent; here you are merely making conclusive statements. Again, you may sneer at what courts do every day (which is your right), but they will continue to do it and making decisions binding on you.

That is the point no argument is need to support the reading that "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means just what it says. To debate that the 2nd amendment applies to a different set of people then all other times people is used is just ridiculous. There was no debate 200 years ago what it meant. The debate only appeared because of the increasing power and effectiveness of weapons.

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

There was no debate 200 years ago because states and the federal government did not attempt to restrict individuals from possessing firearms, the court systems were relatively weak, and people brought fewer lawsuits-- it had nothing to do with how powerful the weapons were. It just didn't come up. Like I said before, though, this debate is not new; Miller was decided in the early part of the 20th century, and relied on earlier cases.

smack Down
03-11-2007, 10:47 AM
You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

smack Down
03-11-2007, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

No, no special glasses. You have repeatedly pwned yourself; that's all that's happening here. Next time, come with a little more knowledge instead of just a dumb attitude. You have zero argumentation ability, you quote things out of context, and deny the power of the highest court in the nation. LOL

It's not me you are really disagreeing with-- it is the majority of federal courts and the Supreme Court you are calling dumbasses. Have a great life! You will never be in a position of responsibility on these matters, unless you change greatly. You will merely continue to beat your head against the wall in places like this.

Specop 007
03-11-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

No, no special glasses. You have repeatedly pwned yourself; that's all that's happening here. Next time, come with a little more knowledge instead of just a dumb attitude. You have zero argumentation ability, you quote things out of context, and deny the power of the highest court in the nation. LOL

It's not me you are really disagreeing with-- it is the majority of federal courts and the Supreme Court you are calling dumbasses. Have a great life! You will never be in a position of responsibility on these matters, unless you change greatly. You will merely continue to beat your head against the wall in places like this.

Acting like a know it all blowhard is getting you nowhere.

READ THE COURT PAPERS

The court *clearly* spelled out its an individual right, NOT a militia or collective right.

So, it is you we are disagreeing with. Because you are disagreeing with the court interpretation.

EDIT
Because your more concerned with trying to impress everyone with your vast knowledge of all things federal, let me save you the time.

From the court case....


To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

smack Down
03-11-2007, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

No, no special glasses. You have repeatedly pwned yourself; that's all that's happening here. Next time, come with a little more knowledge instead of just a dumb attitude. You have zero argumentation ability, you quote things out of context, and deny the power of the highest court in the nation. LOL

It's not me you are really disagreeing with-- it is the majority of federal courts and the Supreme Court you are calling dumbasses. Have a great life! You will never be in a position of responsibility on these matters, unless you change greatly. You will merely continue to beat your head against the wall in places like this.

You haven't presented an argument, all you have done is made repeated and ill informed calls to authority.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

No, no special glasses. You have repeatedly pwned yourself; that's all that's happening here. Next time, come with a little more knowledge instead of just a dumb attitude. You have zero argumentation ability, you quote things out of context, and deny the power of the highest court in the nation. LOL

It's not me you are really disagreeing with-- it is the majority of federal courts and the Supreme Court you are calling dumbasses. Have a great life! You will never be in a position of responsibility on these matters, unless you change greatly. You will merely continue to beat your head against the wall in places like this.

Acting like a know it all blowhard is getting you nowhere.

READ THE COURT PAPERS

The court *clearly* spelled out its an individual right, NOT a militia or collective right.

So, it is you we are disagreeing with. Because you are disagreeing with the court interpretation.

EDIT
Because your more concerned with trying to impress everyone with your vast knowledge of all things federal, let me save you the time.

From the court case....


To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Yes, and the court is in the minority, is currently in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's reading, and its ruling affects the entirety of Washington, D.C. You, of all people, should not be doing anything but bowing out of this debate... you originally thought the ruling was from the Fifth Circuit. You're teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs here. I never said that the misguided D.C. Circuit did not rule as it did.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

No, no special glasses. You have repeatedly pwned yourself; that's all that's happening here. Next time, come with a little more knowledge instead of just a dumb attitude. You have zero argumentation ability, you quote things out of context, and deny the power of the highest court in the nation. LOL

It's not me you are really disagreeing with-- it is the majority of federal courts and the Supreme Court you are calling dumbasses. Have a great life! You will never be in a position of responsibility on these matters, unless you change greatly. You will merely continue to beat your head against the wall in places like this.

You haven't presented an argument, all you have done is made repeated and ill informed calls to authority.

May wanna go back and read the thread again. None of my calls to authority was ill-informed... that's funny coming from you. :laugh: The argument is this: the Second Amendment clearly pertains to state militias, as is evidenced by the text itself, evidence of legislative intent, and the more-powerful-than-yours readings by the Supreme Court and the majority of federal courts.

This may help clear things up. (http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=52&threadid=2017958&frmKeyword=&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear)

palehorse
03-11-2007, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You have zero argumentation ability
:confused:

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You have zero argumentation ability
:confused:

Some of the better gems from "smack down" in this very thread:

"Odd here when talking about the military the framers use [sic] the word soldiers instead of people." (referring to the Third Amendment, and failing to perceive the difference between soldiers and private citizens, or the military he discusses and militias)

"So can anyone be part of this militia, or create there [sic] own militia and there for [sic] own a gun?"

"So you think the 2nd amendment [sic] was about militia members [sic] benefits package? Of course to use your reading we would have to ignore that the state didn't issue arms for the militia." (fighting a straw man, and factually wrong (http://www.militarymuseum.org/Sherman.html))

"I'm sorry but I don't need 'legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S' to tell me what 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means " (quoting a portion of the Second Amendment out of context, and flatly denying the authority and function of the Supreme Court in construing the Constitution)

"[N]o argument is need [sic] to support the reading that 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means just what it says. [circular argument quoting out of context] To debate that the 2nd amendment [sic] applies to a different set of people then [sic] all other times people is used [sic] is just ridiculous. [straw man, and lack of understanding of the debate over construction of the term 'people'] There was no debate 200 years ago what it meant [sic]. [no Internet discussion board, with poster 'smack down', existed at that time] The debate only appeared because of the increasing power and effectiveness of weapons. [self-serving conclusive statement with no justification]"

"I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses." (I think this is sarcasm, but it's hard to be sure with the author's mangling of the language. In any event he posted almost the best example possible of a reason why it is ludicrous to suppose that the Constitution includes a right to revolt, one of the supposed justifications for the private individual right to "bear arms".)

palehorse
03-11-2007, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You have zero argumentation ability
:confused:

Some of the better gems from "smack down" in this very thread:

"Odd here when talking about the military the framers use [sic] the word soldiers instead of people." (referring to the Third Amendment, and failing to perceive the difference between soldiers and private citizens, or the military he discusses and militias)

"So can anyone be part of this militia, or create there [sic] own militia and there for [sic] own a gun?"

"So you think the 2nd amendment [sic] was about militia members [sic] benefits package? Of course to use your reading we would have to ignore that the state didn't issue arms for the militia." (fighting a straw man, and factually wrong (http://www.militarymuseum.org/Sherman.html))

"I'm sorry but I don't need 'legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S' to tell me what 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means " (quoting a portion of the Second Amendment out of context, and flatly denying the authority and function of the Supreme Court in construing the Constitution)

"[N]o argument is need [sic] to support the reading that 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means just what it says. [circular argument quoting out of context] To debate that the 2nd amendment [sic] applies to a different set of people then [sic] all other times people is used [sic] is just ridiculous. [straw man, and lack of understanding of the debate over construction of the term 'people'] There was no debate 200 years ago what it meant [sic]. [no Internet discussion board, with poster 'smack down', existed at that time] The debate only appeared because of the increasing power and effectiveness of weapons. [self-serving conclusive statement with no justification]"

"I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses." (I think this is sarcasm, but it's hard to be sure with the author's mangling of the language. In any event he posted almost the best example possible of a reason why it is ludicrous to suppose that the Constitution includes a right to revolt, one of the supposed justifications for the private individual right to "bear arms".)
there will always be two interpretations to this single line in the BoR... and people will always disagree on this issue. You consistently dismiss those opposing your viewpoint simply because of your personal evaluation and interpretation of the issue. Therefore, you will view any opposing argumentation as inarticulate.

If your only argument is that those who oppose you are too stupid to argue with you, then one could say the same of you.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You have zero argumentation ability
:confused:

Some of the better gems from "smack down" in this very thread:

"Odd here when talking about the military the framers use [sic] the word soldiers instead of people." (referring to the Third Amendment, and failing to perceive the difference between soldiers and private citizens, or the military he discusses and militias)

"So can anyone be part of this militia, or create there [sic] own militia and there for [sic] own a gun?"

"So you think the 2nd amendment [sic] was about militia members [sic] benefits package? Of course to use your reading we would have to ignore that the state didn't issue arms for the militia." (fighting a straw man, and factually wrong (http://www.militarymuseum.org/Sherman.html))

"I'm sorry but I don't need 'legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S' to tell me what 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means " (quoting a portion of the Second Amendment out of context, and flatly denying the authority and function of the Supreme Court in construing the Constitution)

"[N]o argument is need [sic] to support the reading that 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means just what it says. [circular argument quoting out of context] To debate that the 2nd amendment [sic] applies to a different set of people then [sic] all other times people is used [sic] is just ridiculous. [straw man, and lack of understanding of the debate over construction of the term 'people'] There was no debate 200 years ago what it meant [sic]. [no Internet discussion board, with poster 'smack down', existed at that time] The debate only appeared because of the increasing power and effectiveness of weapons. [self-serving conclusive statement with no justification]"

"I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses." (I think this is sarcasm, but it's hard to be sure with the author's mangling of the language. In any event he posted almost the best example possible of a reason why it is ludicrous to suppose that the Constitution includes a right to revolt, one of the supposed justifications for the private individual right to "bear arms".)
there will always be two interpretations to this single line in the BoR... and people will always disagree on this issue. You consistently dismiss those opposing your viewpoint simply because your pre-established personal bias on the issue. Therefore, you will view any argumentation, at all, as inarticulate.

If your only argument is that those who oppose you are too stupid to argue with you, then one could say the same of you.

Unfortunately for your post, that's not my only argument. Read the goddamned thread before spouting off. The bulk of this thread has not been about me saying that only one interpretation is possible-- it has been my rejection of ill-considered arguments by 'Specop 007' and 'smack down' that there is only one possible interpretation, and it is the one they prefer, which incidentally is in conflict with the readings of the great majority of federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Also, I have a right to point out the extreme lack of knowledge of an opponent. It's not underhanded if it is true; I am merely pointing out the shaky foundation of the assumptions of my opponents. For fvck's sake, Specop started by trumpeting this new decision of the Fifth Circuit. He's so deeply embedded in the gun-rights scene that he didn't know that the Fifth Circuit has recognized an individual right to gun possession for years, and that this new decision is only binding on federal cases in the District of Columbia... :disgust:

You, too, cannot argue if this is the best you can do. You took one phrase of mine out of context and decided that my only argument is that my opponents are stupid, when the whole thread is full of my arguments. You won't win any prizes for logic this way.

smack Down
03-11-2007, 01:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Is all you have done and is not an argument.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Is all you have done and is not an argument.

Wrong. Anyone is free to go read the many, many, many arguments I've made that are not appeals to authority, numbskull. You have committed so many errors I'm not going to attempt to list them all, but you can scan up in this very same page and see some of them there.

In addition, you persistently fail to realize that the major function of the Supreme Court is to define what the Constitution means! Referring to the authority of the Supreme Court is as valid as referring to the text of the Constitution itself. In this way, it is a way of obtaining propositional knowledge (and I will point out yet again that the validity of a Constitutional construction made by the Supreme Court is beyond question, and underpins our system of government). In fact, if you knew much about the law, you'd realize that a great bulk of argumentation in the law takes just this form... including in the opinion linked to by the OP, the one favoring your interpretation.

Next time, make an argument instead of a conclusive, incorrect statement, and you will be believable. I will take a moment to easily refute your latest stupid attack, by pointing to just one argument (of the many) that is not just a reference to some sort of authority:


Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
...
I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses.

There's a good example, actually. The government did not stand back and permit the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right to revolt. :laugh: And that was when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution.

From that article: "The military suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wished to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means; otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the peace with force."

smack Down
03-11-2007, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Is all you have done and is not an argument.

Wrong. Anyone is free to go read the many, many, many arguments I've made that are not appeals to authority, numbskull. You have committed so many errors I'm not going to attempt to list them all, but you can scan up in this very same page and see some of them there.

In addition, you persistently fail to realize that the major function of the Supreme Court is to define what the Constitution means! Referring to the authority of the Supreme Court is as valid as referring to the text of the Constitution itself. In this way, it is a way of obtaining propositional knowledge (and I will point out yet again that the validity of a Constitutional construction made by the Supreme Court is beyond question, and underpins our system of government). In fact, if you knew much about the law, you'd realize that a great bulk of argumentation in the law takes just this form... including in the opinion linked to by the OP, the one favoring your interpretation.

Next time, make an argument instead of a conclusive, incorrect statement, and you will be believable. I will take a moment to easily refute your latest stupid attack, by pointing to just one argument (of the many) that is not just a reference to some sort of authority:


Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
...
I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses.

There's a good example, actually. The government did not stand back and permit the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right to revolt. :laugh: And that was when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution.

From that article: "The military suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wished to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means; otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the peace with force."


Umm that has nothing to do with gun ownership. Notice how you don't even mention guns in the post.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Is all you have done and is not an argument.

Wrong. Anyone is free to go read the many, many, many arguments I've made that are not appeals to authority, numbskull. You have committed so many errors I'm not going to attempt to list them all, but you can scan up in this very same page and see some of them there.

In addition, you persistently fail to realize that the major function of the Supreme Court is to define what the Constitution means! Referring to the authority of the Supreme Court is as valid as referring to the text of the Constitution itself. In this way, it is a way of obtaining propositional knowledge (and I will point out yet again that the validity of a Constitutional construction made by the Supreme Court is beyond question, and underpins our system of government). In fact, if you knew much about the law, you'd realize that a great bulk of argumentation in the law takes just this form... including in the opinion linked to by the OP, the one favoring your interpretation.

Next time, make an argument instead of a conclusive, incorrect statement, and you will be believable. I will take a moment to easily refute your latest stupid attack, by pointing to just one argument (of the many) that is not just a reference to some sort of authority:


Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
...
I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses.

There's a good example, actually. The government did not stand back and permit the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right to revolt. :laugh: And that was when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution.

From that article: "The military suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wished to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means; otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the peace with force."


Umm that has nothing to do with gun ownership. Notice how you don't even mention guns in the post.

Evasion (and dead wrong, anyway). You are officially pwned. Have a nice life.

smack Down
03-11-2007, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Is all you have done and is not an argument.

Wrong. Anyone is free to go read the many, many, many arguments I've made that are not appeals to authority, numbskull. You have committed so many errors I'm not going to attempt to list them all, but you can scan up in this very same page and see some of them there.

In addition, you persistently fail to realize that the major function of the Supreme Court is to define what the Constitution means! Referring to the authority of the Supreme Court is as valid as referring to the text of the Constitution itself. In this way, it is a way of obtaining propositional knowledge (and I will point out yet again that the validity of a Constitutional construction made by the Supreme Court is beyond question, and underpins our system of government). In fact, if you knew much about the law, you'd realize that a great bulk of argumentation in the law takes just this form... including in the opinion linked to by the OP, the one favoring your interpretation.

Next time, make an argument instead of a conclusive, incorrect statement, and you will be believable. I will take a moment to easily refute your latest stupid attack, by pointing to just one argument (of the many) that is not just a reference to some sort of authority:


Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
...
I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses.

There's a good example, actually. The government did not stand back and permit the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right to revolt. :laugh: And that was when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution.

From that article: "The military suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wished to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means; otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the peace with force."


Umm that has nothing to do with gun ownership. Notice how you don't even mention guns in the post.

Evasion (and dead wrong, anyway). You are officially pwned. Have a nice life.



Evade what you haven't posted anything that is worth of a response. Maybe you should talk about the supreme court some more. I think it makes you feel special. Oh the issue of indivual/collective rights you have not made any argument you just cite court case like we are supposed to be impressed by your Google skills.

BTW Supreme Court is not beyond question any jury or judge in the land can question and reject any ruling from the Supreme court or other higher court. (Of course in the case of judge if the higher court may override the judge's opinions but it might not.)

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down
Evade what you haven't posted anything that is worth of a response. Maybe you should talk about the supreme court some more. I think it makes you feel special. Oh the issue of indivual/collective rights you have not made any argument you just cite court case like we are supposed to be impressed by your Google skills.

BTW Supreme Court is not beyond question any jury or judge in the land can question and reject any ruling from the Supreme court or other higher court. (Of course in the case of judge if the higher court may override the judge's opinions but it might not.)

I can't bring myself to smack you down any further. Perhaps someone else can explain your mistake... I don't consider you qualified to enter into this debate, although I will continue to respond to you in other threads. This is just painfully bad.

smack Down
03-11-2007, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
Evade what you haven't posted anything that is worth of a response. Maybe you should talk about the supreme court some more. I think it makes you feel special. Oh the issue of indivual/collective rights you have not made any argument you just cite court case like we are supposed to be impressed by your Google skills.

BTW Supreme Court is not beyond question any jury or judge in the land can question and reject any ruling from the Supreme court or other higher court. (Of course in the case of judge if the higher court may override the judge's opinions but it might not.)

I can't bring myself to smack you down any further. Perhaps someone else can explain your mistake... I don't consider you qualified to enter into this debate, although I will continue to respond to you in other threads. This is just painfully bad.



Ahh how cute.

So what prevents say a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel rejecting the supreme courts reading on the second amendment. Well look at that a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel did just that wow looks like I'm right and your just a fool. And juries can do what ever they want no questions asked they can find the guilty not guilty and the not guilty guilty.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
Evade what you haven't posted anything that is worth of a response. Maybe you should talk about the supreme court some more. I think it makes you feel special. Oh the issue of indivual/collective rights you have not made any argument you just cite court case like we are supposed to be impressed by your Google skills.

BTW Supreme Court is not beyond question any jury or judge in the land can question and reject any ruling from the Supreme court or other higher court. (Of course in the case of judge if the higher court may override the judge's opinions but it might not.)

I can't bring myself to smack you down any further. Perhaps someone else can explain your mistake... I don't consider you qualified to enter into this debate, although I will continue to respond to you in other threads. This is just painfully bad.



Ahh how cute.

So what prevents say a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel rejecting the supreme courts reading on the second amendment. Well look at that a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel did just that wow looks like I'm right and your just a fool. And juries can do what ever they want no questions asked they can find the guilty not guilty and the not guilty guilty.

:o

JD50
03-11-2007, 03:58 PM
6000SUX, start using some GD common sense. This is just ridiculous, I have never seen anyone twist the 2nd amendment like you do. It is obvious to anyone without a gun grabbing agenda that they were referring to individuals owning firearms. If they were against individuals owning firearms, why wouldn't they have just taken them away back then? Did George Washington make a call for everyone to surrender their firearms because they are illegal?

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX, start using some GD common sense. This is just ridiculous, I have never seen anyone twist the 2nd amendment like you do. It is obvious to anyone without a gun grabbing agenda that they were referring to individuals owning firearms. If they were against individuals owning firearms, why wouldn't they have just taken them away back then? Did George Washington make a call for everyone to surrender their firearms because they are illegal?


Okay, everyone disagreeing with you lacks common sense. :roll: Why don't you start using some GD common sense? The plain text of the amendment refers to militias, there is a lot of support for the notion that legislative intent had to do with militias, and courts have ruled accordingly. You certainly have seen someone read the Second Amendment the same way-- go back and read the text I posted before.

I don't twist the Second Amendment more than the majority of federal courts, including the Supreme Court; take your (un)argument to them. We can't argue about what you consider to be common sense. Obviously, your common sense will always be in support of your opinion. I can't address an argument until you make one.

EDIT: You're making even less sense than when you claimed that Vietnam guerrilla warfare shows that citizens with rifles could take over the United States government. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Now, that's some impressive common sense.

JD50
03-11-2007, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX, start using some GD common sense. This is just ridiculous, I have never seen anyone twist the 2nd amendment like you do. It is obvious to anyone without a gun grabbing agenda that they were referring to individuals owning firearms. If they were against individuals owning firearms, why wouldn't they have just taken them away back then? Did George Washington make a call for everyone to surrender their firearms because they are illegal?


Okay, everyone disagreeing with you lacks common sense. :roll: Why don't you start using some GD common sense? The plain text of the amendment refers to militias, there is a lot of support for the notion that legislative intent had to do with militias, and courts have ruled accordingly. You certainly have seen someone construe the Second Amendment-- go back and read the text I posted before.

I don't twist the Second Amendment more than the majority of federal courts, including the Supreme Court; take your (un)argument to them. We can't argue about what you consider to be common sense. Obviously, your common sense will always be in support of your opinion. I can't address an argument until you make one.


No, I do not think that everyone that disagrees with me lacks common sense, I think that you lack common sense when reading the 2nd amendment.

Why didn't the founders try and take everyones guns if they didn't think that everyone had the right to own a gun? They had their chance to do this if this is what they really meant by the 2nd amendment.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX, start using some GD common sense. This is just ridiculous, I have never seen anyone twist the 2nd amendment like you do. It is obvious to anyone without a gun grabbing agenda that they were referring to individuals owning firearms. If they were against individuals owning firearms, why wouldn't they have just taken them away back then? Did George Washington make a call for everyone to surrender their firearms because they are illegal?


Okay, everyone disagreeing with you lacks common sense. :roll: Why don't you start using some GD common sense? The plain text of the amendment refers to militias, there is a lot of support for the notion that legislative intent had to do with militias, and courts have ruled accordingly. You certainly have seen someone construe the Second Amendment-- go back and read the text I posted before.

I don't twist the Second Amendment more than the majority of federal courts, including the Supreme Court; take your (un)argument to them. We can't argue about what you consider to be common sense. Obviously, your common sense will always be in support of your opinion. I can't address an argument until you make one.


No, I do not think that everyone that disagrees with me lacks common sense, I think that you lack common sense when reading the 2nd amendment.

Why didn't the founders try and take everyones guns if they didn't think that everyone had the right to own a gun? They had their chance to do this if this is what they really meant by the 2nd amendment.


I think I'm in good company, so I'm not worried. Better company, at least, than those who think a valid means of changing the law is to shoot down fellow citizens...

Um, for starters, they didn't do everything it was in their power to do. They also didn't paint themselves red and run naked through the streets. You are laboring under a basic fallacy, I guess, that those who write the laws and Constitution must immediately confiscate confiscatable things after penning a new provision. You are also looking past what the Second Amendment, under the collective-rights model, is: not an order for confiscation, but a guarantee that citizens can bear arms in a militia without fear of confiscation by anyone. You are also overlooking the difference between the legislative and executive branches, and scads of other things.

What all this means is that they did not have their chance for confiscating guns, even under the collective-rights model. IOW if a state government gives you the right to individual possession of firearms, the Second Amendment does not allow the federal government to take them away. And there was no provision at the time specifying that the federal government could have confiscated guns in individual possession. Are you clear on this now?

JD50
03-11-2007, 05:49 PM
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Are you clear on this now?

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by: JD50
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Are you clear on this now?

Quoted out of context. I guess this is your cutesy way of conceding the previous point you were trying to make.

3chordcharlie
03-11-2007, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by: JD50
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Are you clear on this now?

Although it's the most poorly written statement I've ever seen in a law, it's at least passingly clear that the intent of the second amendment includes allowing private ownership of guns.

Of course, it also has something (I don't know what, and if you read the amendment closely, neither will you) to do with militia, and failed to predict the advent of one-man-army type firearms becoming common and affordable enough to matter, but I think this properly requires an amendment to correct, not the sort of BS legislating that has been used to ban guns (and outlaw gay marriage, for that matter).

CallMeJoe
03-11-2007, 06:16 PM
The "militia" clause does cloud the issue, but the "right to bear" clause sounds like an individual right, not a collective State right. Also, as previously noted, this Amendment does not Grant the right to citizens, but rather prohibits the Government from infringing an existing right of those citizens.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Are you clear on this now?

Although it's the most poorly written statement I've ever seen in a law, it's at least passingly clear that the intent of the second amendment includes allowing private ownership of guns.

Of course, it also has something (I don't know what, and if you read the amendment closely, neither will you) to do with militia, and failed to predict the advent of one-man-army type firearms becoming common and affordable enough to matter, but I think this properly requires an amendment to correct, not the sort of BS legislating that has been used to ban guns (and outlaw gay marriage, for that matter).

I agree it's piss-poor. I think it's not all that clear, though. Note that instead of talking about "owning" guns, it talks of "keeping and bearing arms" along with the mention of a militia. In addition, the arguments that "bearing arms" is a term of art referring to use of weapons in military/militia service are not easy to dismiss for an open-minded person, especially as the phrase does have a vaguely military connotation to start with. Add in the absolutely unavoidable discussions of standing armies etc. and you have at least a rational basis for belief in the collective-rights model.

The thing I don't understand is how anyone can say that it's absolutely unambiguous to start with, and dismiss out of hand all the learned readings by the majority. But then, it seems some people just really want their possession of guns to be a Constitutional right, even if it means avoiding the messy details of constitutional construction.

I think they ought to pass a slew of amendments to clear up important issues, and this is one of them. In the meantime, the Supreme Court should at least rule on the issue. If it truly is a states' rights issue, it should not be left to the circuit courts because their jurisdiction may span several states.

Stunt
03-11-2007, 06:19 PM
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
?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 hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
?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.?

Both versions are commonly used in official Government publications.
The US has "a well regulated militia"?? That's news to me...

3chordcharlie
03-11-2007, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Are you clear on this now?

Although it's the most poorly written statement I've ever seen in a law, it's at least passingly clear that the intent of the second amendment includes allowing private ownership of guns.

Of course, it also has something (I don't know what, and if you read the amendment closely, neither will you) to do with militia, and failed to predict the advent of one-man-army type firearms becoming common and affordable enough to matter, but I think this properly requires an amendment to correct, not the sort of BS legislating that has been used to ban guns (and outlaw gay marriage, for that matter).

I agree it's piss-poor. I think it's not all that clear, though. Note that instead of talking about "owning" guns, it talks of "keeping and bearing arms" along with the mention of a militia. In addition, the arguments that "bearing arms" is a term of art referring to use of weapons in military/militia service are not easy to dismiss for an open-minded person, especially as the phrase does have a vaguely military connotation to start with. Add in the absolutely unavoidable discussions of standing armies etc. and you have at least a rational basis for belief in the collective-rights model.

The thing I don't understand is how anyone can say that it's absolutely unambiguous to start with, and dismiss out of hand all the learned readings by the majority. But then, it seems some people just really want their possession of guns to be a Constitutional right, even if it means avoiding the messy details of constitutional construction.

I think they ought to pass a slew of amendments to clear up important issues, and this is one of them. In the meantime, the Supreme Court should at least rule on the issue. If it truly is a states' rights issue, it should not be left to the circuit courts because their jurisdiction may span several states.
I'm not sure that it protects 'bearing arms in the street, outside of a militia context', but I'm not sure it doesn't, either. I think leaving that as a state decision is probably the most accurate interpretation.

It is rather amazing that gun rights advocates tend to be 'strict constructionists' with respect to other parts of the constitution, but ignore the first half of the relevant sentence entirely. Kind of like "NO TAXATION (without representation)".

smack Down
03-11-2007, 06:53 PM
I agree it's piss-poor. I think it's not all that clear, though. Note that instead of talking about "owning" guns, it talks of "keeping and bearing arms" along with the mention of a militia. In addition, the arguments that "bearing arms" is a term of art referring to use of weapons in military/militia service are not easy to dismiss for an open-minded person, especially as the phrase does have a vaguely military connotation to start with. Add in the absolutely unavoidable discussions of standing armies etc. and you have at least a rational basis for belief in the collective-rights model.

You can have no rational basis for the collective-rights model until why explain why people was used instead of a something specific to the militia. When people is has a specific mean in the bill of rights. Even with a military reading of bear arms it is still the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

There is nothing odd with the righting of the amendment. The "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part isn't a limitation on the second part it is public policy accomplished by the second part.

Do you have any historical evidence to support the claim the gun ownership isn't a basic right?

3chordcharlie
03-11-2007, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

I agree it's piss-poor. I think it's not all that clear, though. Note that instead of talking about "owning" guns, it talks of "keeping and bearing arms" along with the mention of a militia. In addition, the arguments that "bearing arms" is a term of art referring to use of weapons in military/militia service are not easy to dismiss for an open-minded person, especially as the phrase does have a vaguely military connotation to start with. Add in the absolutely unavoidable discussions of standing armies etc. and you have at least a rational basis for belief in the collective-rights model.

You can have no rational basis for the collective-rights model until why explain why people was used instead of a something specific to the militia. When people is has a specific mean in the bill of rights. Even with a military reading of bear arms it is still the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

There is nothing odd with the righting of the amendment. The "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part isn't a limitation on the second part it is public policy accomplished by the second part.

Do you have any historical evidence to support the claim the gun ownership isn't a basic right?

Read it again, and again, and again, and again, and realize that you're offering an interpretation.

It is, by and large, the closest thing to an accepted interpretation, but you're still making asusmptions about how the clauses do and do not relate to on another.

6000SUX
03-11-2007, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

I agree it's piss-poor. I think it's not all that clear, though. Note that instead of talking about "owning" guns, it talks of "keeping and bearing arms" along with the mention of a militia. In addition, the arguments that "bearing arms" is a term of art referring to use of weapons in military/militia service are not easy to dismiss for an open-minded person, especially as the phrase does have a vaguely military connotation to start with. Add in the absolutely unavoidable discussions of standing armies etc. and you have at least a rational basis for belief in the collective-rights model.

You can have no rational basis for the collective-rights model until why explain why people was used instead of a something specific to the militia. When people is has a specific mean in the bill of rights. Even with a military reading of bear arms it is still the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

There is nothing odd with the righting of the amendment. The "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part isn't a limitation on the second part it is public policy accomplished by the second part.

Do you have any historical evidence to support the claim the gun ownership isn't a basic right?

Read it again, and again, and again, and again, and realize that you're offering an interpretation.

It is, by and large, the closest thing to an accepted interpretation, but you're still making asusmptions about how the clauses do and do not relate to on another.

Actually, as I understand it the most-accepted interpretation is the collective-rights interpretation, screwy as it may seem. This whole time I really have been arguing with these people in order for it not to be disregarded in their glee about the D.C. Circuit ruling; I really see both sides. But the Supreme Court and most federal courts actually adopt some flavor of a collective-rights interpretation, although the Supreme Court has so far not made it binding. How would the current Court rule on the issue? No one knows for sure.

smack Down
03-11-2007, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

I agree it's piss-poor. I think it's not all that clear, though. Note that instead of talking about "owning" guns, it talks of "keeping and bearing arms" along with the mention of a militia. In addition, the arguments that "bearing arms" is a term of art referring to use of weapons in military/militia service are not easy to dismiss for an open-minded person, especially as the phrase does have a vaguely military connotation to start with. Add in the absolutely unavoidable discussions of standing armies etc. and you have at least a rational basis for belief in the collective-rights model.

You can have no rational basis for the collective-rights model until why explain why people was used instead of a something specific to the militia. When people is has a specific mean in the bill of rights. Even with a military reading of bear arms it is still the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

There is nothing odd with the righting of the amendment. The "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part isn't a limitation on the second part it is public policy accomplished by the second part.

Do you have any historical evidence to support the claim the gun ownership isn't a basic right?

Read it again, and again, and again, and again, and realize that you're offering an interpretation.

It is, by and large, the closest thing to an accepted interpretation, but you're still making asusmptions about how the clauses do and do not relate to on another.

Yeah so one has to make assumptions and interpretations otherwise you can not apply the text (any text no matter how unambiguous it is).

3chordcharlie
03-11-2007, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

I agree it's piss-poor. I think it's not all that clear, though. Note that instead of talking about "owning" guns, it talks of "keeping and bearing arms" along with the mention of a militia. In addition, the arguments that "bearing arms" is a term of art referring to use of weapons in military/militia service are not easy to dismiss for an open-minded person, especially as the phrase does have a vaguely military connotation to start with. Add in the absolutely unavoidable discussions of standing armies etc. and you have at least a rational basis for belief in the collective-rights model.

You can have no rational basis for the collective-rights model until why explain why people was used instead of a something specific to the militia. When people is has a specific mean in the bill of rights. Even with a military reading of bear arms it is still the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

There is nothing odd with the righting of the amendment. The "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part isn't a limitation on the second part it is public policy accomplished by the second part.

Do you have any historical evidence to support the claim the gun ownership isn't a basic right?

Read it again, and again, and again, and again, and realize that you're offering an interpretation.

It is, by and large, the closest thing to an accepted interpretation, but you're still making asusmptions about how the clauses do and do not relate to on another.

Yeah so one has to make assumptions and interpretations otherwise you can not apply the text (any text no matter how unambiguous it is).

True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

smack Down
03-11-2007, 09:36 PM
True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

No it is obvious. No other reading makes senses. Congress regulates the militia to have an amendment that says congress can't remove a militia's guns but can disband the militia (the current state) just doesn't make senses.

3chordcharlie
03-11-2007, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

No it is obvious. No other reading makes senses. Congress regulates the militia to have an amendment that says congress can't remove a militia's guns but can disband the militia (the current state) just doesn't make senses.

No, it is not 'obvious'. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

BlancoNino
03-12-2007, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

IMO, it doesn't matter what it exactly means. What we should take a look at are some facts. Gun control isn't synonymous with low crime rates. The Police aren't the first line of defense for crimes. Guns put everyone on a level playing field.

Is that not enough? How about the fact that when there is a demand for a product (in the case of fire arms, we're talking a really high demand) that is illegal, a dangerous black market is created? Is that a good thing?

The only people we'd be regulating and banning fire arms against are the people that wouldn't commit crimes with them in the first place.

3chordcharlie
03-12-2007, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

IMO, it doesn't matter what it exactly means. What we should take a look at are some facts. Gun control isn't synonymous with low crime rates. The Police aren't the first line of defense for crimes. Guns put everyone on a level playing field.

Is that not enough? How about the fact that when there is a demand for a product (in the case of fire arms, we're talking a really high demand) that is illegal, a dangerous black market is created? Is that a good thing?

The only people we'd be regulating and banning fire arms against are the people that wouldn't commit crimes with them in the first place.
A much better argument, though of course not related to the constitutional issue;)

smack Down
03-12-2007, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

No it is obvious. No other reading makes senses. Congress regulates the militia to have an amendment that says congress can't remove a militia's guns but can disband the militia (the current state) just doesn't make senses.

No, it is not 'obvious'. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

I'm not pretending any assumptions are fact nor due I assume any interpretation. But I guess that is any easy way to ignore any arguments made.

The collective model simply doesn't protect anything because congress gets to define who is the militia and they can do as today and say no one is in the militia. The language of the amendment doesn't support this view either. It talks about people and inherent rights. A group created and disbanded at the will of congress can have no inherent rights. I don't think it is rational that congress would have included an amendment that doesn't protect anything.

The individual model on the other hand does have an effect. The language makes sense for the individual model because they used people to described a group who rights where not to be infringed.

3chordcharlie
03-12-2007, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

No it is obvious. No other reading makes senses. Congress regulates the militia to have an amendment that says congress can't remove a militia's guns but can disband the militia (the current state) just doesn't make senses.

No, it is not 'obvious'. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

I'm not pretending any assumptions are fact nor due I assume any interpretation. But I guess that is any easy way to ignore any arguments made.

The collective model simply doesn't protect anything because congress gets to define who is the militia and they can do as today and say no one is in the militia. The language of the amendment doesn't support this view either. It talks about people and inherent rights. A group created and disbanded at the will of congress can have no inherent rights. I don't think it is rational that congress would have included an amendment that doesn't protect anything.

The individual model on the other hand does have an effect. The language makes sense for the individual model because they used people to described a group who rights where not to be infringed.

I don't think it's a collective model either, particularly. But you want to treat the amendment as two almost completely different thoguhts. Why are they in a single sentence?

I gave my interpretation earlier, and it isn't a collective model, but I was also able to admit that with such ambiguous language, it is very difficult to choose a single meaning with great confidence.

BlancoNino
03-12-2007, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
A much better argument, though of course not related to the constitutional issue;)

Which is exactly what I was going for. The constitutional issue can be debated by scholars and twisted to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean...so I don't think we should even take the time to debate it (which is what you were saying earlier).

3chordcharlie
03-12-2007, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
A much better argument, though of course not related to the constitutional issue;)

Which is exactly what I was going for. The constitutional issue can be debated by scholars and twisted to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean...so I don't think we should even take the time to debate it (which is what you were saying earlier).

The only conclusive conclusion I've come to, is that if it becomes illegal to own and keep (i.e. at home, with security requirements or not) a gun - any gun - then the 2nd amendment has definitely been violated. Not the most useful 'highest lower bound' or whatever you want to call it.

Within the framework of 'it must clearly be legal to own a gun, and keep it', the rest is probably best left to states to decide.

Fern
03-12-2007, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

Great point, our resident gun grabber has not addressed this point.

How could someone honestly think that the second amendment was directed towards the modern day national guard?



Still waiting for someone to address this...

Why would our founders feel it necessary to say that our military has the right to keep and bear arms? They were obviously referring to individuals.


Thought you were addressing someone else (who is the "resident gun-grabber"?). I don't understand the question, I think. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Second Amendment refers to the military. I have seen claims, and made them, that the right to bear arms described by the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms in a militia.


My initial post above uses the term "militia". Pardon me, but you seem to insert the term "military" (which I might ad isn't altogether different) in an effort to dodge my point.

Moreover, the founding fathers were quite educated and articulate. I contend if they wished merely to guarantee that states had a right to their armed militia they would've clearly indicated that by writing something along these lines:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the states' right to well regulated militia, shall not be infringed.

Absolutely no need for the language they chose, unless they intended to make clear that individuals had a right to keep and bear arms.

Fern

eleison
03-12-2007, 04:22 PM
I've been following this thread. I believe 6000SUX is wrong. His position boils down to: "you don't have a right to defend yourself from the government, you cannot have arms to protect yourself; arms are only for the government"....

Basically, in his eyes the 2nd Amendment was created to limit firearms.. was specifically created to take away firearms from the common folks.... which makes no sense whatsoever considering who actually originated the constitution - a bunch of rebels scared of big centralized governments; after all, it was jefferson who said something to the affect that a "revolution is good every now and then"...

His most cogent argument is that the Supreme court has stated that it is "only for militias"... he, IIRC, also states serveral cases. While logical.. it doesn't stand up to reasoning. It only works if people consider the Supreme court as being infallible... Since "a happened, b has happened.. therefore c has happened"... logically if these court cases, stated it this way.. and another court validates it... how can it be wrong???? They are all very smart judges, etc... he appeals to authority (as a poster earlier stated ).

In a way he is using the chewbacca_defense... everything he says is based on arguments that IMHO are not prevalent to the issue at hand.. yes, what if the courts have decided that only militas are allowed to have guns? Is it really important. Are courts not fallible? Remember at one time, the Supreme court.. the highest court in the land has said that blacks are only worth 2/3 of a worth (or something to that effect).... however, he keeps on pounding these facts.. blahahha.. ballaha.. this decision here.. this decision there.. as if these courts are perfect and infallible.

Without using these court decision to muddle and confuse people, he would have no argument.. so in a way, he is using the chewbacca defense :-)

6000SUX
03-12-2007, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

Great point, our resident gun grabber has not addressed this point.

How could someone honestly think that the second amendment was directed towards the modern day national guard?



Still waiting for someone to address this...

Why would our founders feel it necessary to say that our military has the right to keep and bear arms? They were obviously referring to individuals.


Thought you were addressing someone else (who is the "resident gun-grabber"?). I don't understand the question, I think. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Second Amendment refers to the military. I have seen claims, and made them, that the right to bear arms described by the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms in a militia.


My initial post above uses the term "militia". Pardon me, but you seem to insert the term "military" (which I might ad isn't altogether different) in an effort to dodge my point.

Moreover, the founding fathers were quite educated and articulate. I contend if they wished merely to guarantee that states had a right to their armed militia they would've clearly indicated that by writing something along these lines:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the states' right to well regulated militia, shall not be infringed.

Absolutely no need for the language they chose, unless they intended to make clear that individuals had a right to keep and bear arms.

Fern

Straw man. Go back and read the words of the post before mine. Your construction is in agreement with the minority... what else can I say. If you've taken the time to read up, you know the arguments for the collective-rights model by now. If you choose to base your constitutional construction on your common-sense notions, I'm not going to argue.

dmcowen674
03-12-2007, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
A much better argument, though of course not related to the constitutional issue;)

Which is exactly what I was going for.

The constitutional issue can be debated by scholars and twisted to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean...so I don't think we should even take the time to debate it (which is what you were saying earlier).

The "Constitution" is owned by the people for the people.

When the Government or scholars or anyone else twists it to the point the people no longer recognize they will revolt until they can write a new one.

6000SUX
03-12-2007, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by: eleison


I've been following this thread. I believe 6000SUX is wrong. His position boils down to: "you don't have a right to defend yourself from the government, you cannot have arms to protect yourself; arms are only for the government"....

I said you don't have a constitutional right to revolt, which you don't. Specop 007 has a decidedly fringe mentality on this point.


Basically, in his eyes the 2nd Amendment was created to limit firearms..

Nope. You haven't understood what I've said. The collective-rights model views the Second Amendment not as a limitation on the right to carry arms, but as a specification of a right to carry arms that just isn't as expansive as Specop 007 (and, I guess, you) would like. It's not "limiting firearms" or even limiting the right to carry firearms... it's recognizing the right to bear arms in a specific context.


which makes no sense whatsoever considering who actually originated the constitution - a bunch of rebels scared of big centralized governments; after all, it was jefferson who said something to the affect that a "revolution is good every now and then"...

It's possible to read the meaning of an entire Amendment into a different-context offhand comment by one person. I know because it's been done several times in this thread already. The collective-rights model makes a lot of sense if you understand it.


His most cogent argument is that the Supreme court has stated that it is "only for militias"...

Anope


It only works if people consider the Supreme court as being infallible...

You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.


Since "a happened, b has happened.. therefore c has happened"... logically if these court cases, stated it this way.. and another court validates it... how can it be wrong???? They are all very smart judges, etc... he appeals to authority (as a poster earlier stated ).

Nope. You don't understand the wikipedia article the numbskull posted any better than he does... and it appears you don't understand legal precedent.

eleison
03-12-2007, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

"blababababababahhahahah... babllalbalblllblbaaa.... more babablllahaahah.."
"blahahahha... balallaahl... etc"

Nope. You don't understand the wikipedia article the numbskull posted any better than he does... and it appears you don't understand legal precedent.




Whats 6000SUX point???? He comes here trying to sound like hes' "smarter" than everyone else because of his pedantic knowledge of "precedent", court case, etc... spouting out platitudes that ever lawyer (or two bit lawyer :) has ever spouted against individual rights....

Even when the supreme court has failed to protect people... has interpreted laws that have hurt millions of americans.... have upheld "jim crow laws", etc, he still has the gall to say: "It(the supreme court) overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me. " How can he say a such a statement when EVEN he has stated that the Supreme Court is fallible???? Another chewbacca_defense... confuse the person with mindless debate and double talk without getting to the heart of the issue?

Sometimes I think that 6000SUX is so in love with the judicial system, that if the supreme court or if any court for that matter decided that African americans should be made to sit in the back of a bus, 6000SUX would defend it..

Yes, professor... we all know how Jefferson, was, as 6000SUX puts it... "one person" and his offhand comment to the affect that a "revolution is good every now and then" doesn't mean anything. Nevermind he was a major contributor to the Constitution itself... Strange to say such a thing.. maybe 6000SUX.. oops, I mean professor has been thinking too hard :-)

yea, maybe the professor is right, I "don't understand legal precedent." What I do know is that "legal precedent" doesn't necessary make something right. All the founding fathers were gun owners and by their statements alone, I think they would not have issues with people being armed...

smack Down
03-12-2007, 08:41 PM
You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

1EZduzit
03-12-2007, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

No it is obvious. No other reading makes senses. Congress regulates the militia to have an amendment that says congress can't remove a militia's guns but can disband the militia (the current state) just doesn't make senses.

No, it is not 'obvious'. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

I'm not pretending any assumptions are fact nor due I assume any interpretation. But I guess that is any easy way to ignore any arguments made.

The collective model simply doesn't protect anything because congress gets to define who is the militia and they can do as today and say no one is in the militia. The language of the amendment doesn't support this view either. It talks about people and inherent rights. A group created and disbanded at the will of congress can have no inherent rights. I don't think it is rational that congress would have included an amendment that doesn't protect anything.

The individual model on the other hand does have an effect. The language makes sense for the individual model because they used people to described a group who rights where not to be infringed.

I don't think it's a collective model either, particularly. But you want to treat the amendment as two almost completely different thoguhts. Why are they in a single sentence?

I gave my interpretation earlier, and it isn't a collective model, but I was also able to admit that with such ambiguous language, it is very difficult to choose a single meaning with great confidence.


Not really confusing at all if you read between the lines. The people owned guns, nobody had to go through local militia to aquire a gun. Indeed, gunsmiths were a thriving business in those days and you could probably buy a gun in almost any town.

6000SUX
03-12-2007, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

No it is obvious. No other reading makes senses. Congress regulates the militia to have an amendment that says congress can't remove a militia's guns but can disband the militia (the current state) just doesn't make senses.

No, it is not 'obvious'. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

I'm not pretending any assumptions are fact nor due I assume any interpretation. But I guess that is any easy way to ignore any arguments made.

The collective model simply doesn't protect anything because congress gets to define who is the militia and they can do as today and say no one is in the militia. The language of the amendment doesn't support this view either. It talks about people and inherent rights. A group created and disbanded at the will of congress can have no inherent rights. I don't think it is rational that congress would have included an amendment that doesn't protect anything.

The individual model on the other hand does have an effect. The language makes sense for the individual model because they used people to described a group who rights where not to be infringed.

I don't think it's a collective model either, particularly. But you want to treat the amendment as two almost completely different thoguhts. Why are they in a single sentence?

I gave my interpretation earlier, and it isn't a collective model, but I was also able to admit that with such ambiguous language, it is very difficult to choose a single meaning with great confidence.


Not really confusing at all if you read between the lines. The people owned guns, nobody had to go through local militia to aquire a gun. Indeed, gunsmiths were a thriving business in those days and you could probably buy a gun in almost any town.

You're confused about the Second Amendment, though. It definitely describes a right to bear arms... it is not a restriction at all, which you get wrong just as many others here have done. Now we have the "read between the lines" approach to constitutional construction. Will wonders never cease.

6000SUX
03-12-2007, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:o

1EZduzit
03-12-2007, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

No it is obvious. No other reading makes senses. Congress regulates the militia to have an amendment that says congress can't remove a militia's guns but can disband the militia (the current state) just doesn't make senses.

No, it is not 'obvious'. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

I'm not pretending any assumptions are fact nor due I assume any interpretation. But I guess that is any easy way to ignore any arguments made.

The collective model simply doesn't protect anything because congress gets to define who is the militia and they can do as today and say no one is in the militia. The language of the amendment doesn't support this view either. It talks about people and inherent rights. A group created and disbanded at the will of congress can have no inherent rights. I don't think it is rational that congress would have included an amendment that doesn't protect anything.

The individual model on the other hand does have an effect. The language makes sense for the individual model because they used people to described a group who rights where not to be infringed.

I don't think it's a collective model either, particularly. But you want to treat the amendment as two almost completely different thoguhts. Why are they in a single sentence?

I gave my interpretation earlier, and it isn't a collective model, but I was also able to admit that with such ambiguous language, it is very difficult to choose a single meaning with great confidence.


Not really confusing at all if you read between the lines. The people owned guns, nobody had to go through local militia to aquire a gun. Indeed, gunsmiths were a thriving business in those days and you could probably buy a gun in almost any town.

You're confused about the Second Amendment, though. It definitely describes a right to bear arms... it is not a restriction at all, which you get wrong just as many others here have done. Now we have the "read between the lines" approach to constitutional construction. Will wonders never cease.


Of course it describes a right to bear arms. Some people try to interpret it as having something to do with a militia. I guess they're just easily confused if they can't understand that when it was written everybody owned arms. Firearms was big business then, even more so then now.

smack Down
03-12-2007, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:o


Prove me wrong. It is called balance of powers no one branch is allowed to rule and the jury is the final check on the government.

1EZduzit
03-12-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:o


Prove me wrong. It is called balance of powers no one branch is allowed to rule and the jury is the final check on the government.

Well, I don't think anybody has assainated a Supreme Court Justice..... not yet anyway. That would be the "final check" on them.

JD50
03-12-2007, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

No it is obvious. No other reading makes senses. Congress regulates the militia to have an amendment that says congress can't remove a militia's guns but can disband the militia (the current state) just doesn't make senses.

No, it is not 'obvious'. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

I'm not pretending any assumptions are fact nor due I assume any interpretation. But I guess that is any easy way to ignore any arguments made.

The collective model simply doesn't protect anything because congress gets to define who is the militia and they can do as today and say no one is in the militia. The language of the amendment doesn't support this view either. It talks about people and inherent rights. A group created and disbanded at the will of congress can have no inherent rights. I don't think it is rational that congress would have included an amendment that doesn't protect anything.

The individual model on the other hand does have an effect. The language makes sense for the individual model because they used people to described a group who rights where not to be infringed.

I don't think it's a collective model either, particularly. But you want to treat the amendment as two almost completely different thoguhts. Why are they in a single sentence?

I gave my interpretation earlier, and it isn't a collective model, but I was also able to admit that with such ambiguous language, it is very difficult to choose a single meaning with great confidence.


Not really confusing at all if you read between the lines. The people owned guns, nobody had to go through local militia to aquire a gun. Indeed, gunsmiths were a thriving business in those days and you could probably buy a gun in almost any town.

You're confused about the Second Amendment, though. It definitely describes a right to bear arms... it is not a restriction at all, which you get wrong just as many others here have done. Now we have the "read between the lines" approach to constitutional construction. Will wonders never cease.


Of course it describes a right to bear arms. Some people try to interpret it as having something to do with a militia. I guess they're just easily confused if they can't understand that when it was written everybody owned arms. Firearms was big business then, even more so then now.


Great point, I'm no sure why it is so hard for people to get this.

smack Down
03-12-2007, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:o


Prove me wrong. It is called balance of powers no one branch is allowed to rule and the jury is the final check on the government.

Well, I don't think anybody has assainated a Supreme Court Justice..... not yet anyway. That would be the "final check" on them.



I'm talking about with in the legal framework that the Supreme Court can be overruled.

1EZduzit
03-12-2007, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

I'm talking about with in the legal framework that the Supreme Court can be overruled.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign

Blocking out the scenery, blowing my mind

Do this, don't do that, Can't you read the SIGN!! ;)

mect
03-13-2007, 12:32 AM
While I disagree with a lot of what 6000sux has said, I can't believe the number of people who are just completely not getting his basic argument: the role of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution. Now, I admit, I disagree with many of his other arguments. I disagree that the framers of the constitution would be opposed to Americans rising up against the government if it sought to remove the rights the framers attempted to ensure them. I think they tried to prepare an avenue that would negate the need, but I believe that they would approve of that course should the need arise, as evidenced by a quote someone posted earlier by Jefferson. While I agree that it would be a horrible thing, I agree with the sentiment that firearms are the last protection of our rights, and if the government seeks to remove our rights, it is our responsibility to rise up against the government (although yes, I fully acknowledge it would be illegal). However, this would only happen in extreme circumstances which I doubt will ever arise. I also do disagree with the supreme courts interpretation of this portion of the constitution. I accept, however, that my interpretation has no legal bearing, other than the ability to cast a vote to elect officials to elected offices who will defend what I consider to be a right. I imagine 6000sux's main point against all the gun talk is that realistically, this is the course that America will follow, which is what we saw last election. If the government moves to block too many of what the citizens view as rights, they will swing the position of power.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

No it is obvious. No other reading makes senses. Congress regulates the militia to have an amendment that says congress can't remove a militia's guns but can disband the militia (the current state) just doesn't make senses.

No, it is not 'obvious'. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

I'm not pretending any assumptions are fact nor due I assume any interpretation. But I guess that is any easy way to ignore any arguments made.

The collective model simply doesn't protect anything because congress gets to define who is the militia and they can do as today and say no one is in the militia. The language of the amendment doesn't support this view either. It talks about people and inherent rights. A group created and disbanded at the will of congress can have no inherent rights. I don't think it is rational that congress would have included an amendment that doesn't protect anything.

The individual model on the other hand does have an effect. The language makes sense for the individual model because they used people to described a group who rights where not to be infringed.

I don't think it's a collective model either, particularly. But you want to treat the amendment as two almost completely different thoguhts. Why are they in a single sentence?

I gave my interpretation earlier, and it isn't a collective model, but I was also able to admit that with such ambiguous language, it is very difficult to choose a single meaning with great confidence.


Not really confusing at all if you read between the lines. The people owned guns, nobody had to go through local militia to aquire a gun. Indeed, gunsmiths were a thriving business in those days and you could probably buy a gun in almost any town.

You're confused about the Second Amendment, though. It definitely describes a right to bear arms... it is not a restriction at all, which you get wrong just as many others here have done. Now we have the "read between the lines" approach to constitutional construction. Will wonders never cease.


Of course it describes a right to bear arms. Some people try to interpret it as having something to do with a militia. I guess they're just easily confused if they can't understand that when it was written everybody owned arms. Firearms was big business then, even more so then now.

Of course, there's that clear language in the amendment showing the militia context, and the evidence of legislative intent. Some people actually go further than just trying, and actually do interpret it as having something to do with a militia. Levels of gun ownership, which may not have been as prevalent as you think in those days, have nothing to do with it.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by: mect
While I disagree with a lot of what 6000sux has said, I can't believe the number of people who are just completely not getting his basic argument: the role of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution. Now, I admit, I disagree with many of his other arguments. I disagree that the framers of the constitution would be opposed to Americans rising up against the government if it sought to remove the rights the framers attempted to ensure them. I think they tried to prepare an avenue that would negate the need, but I believe that they would approve of that course should the need arise, as evidenced by a quote someone posted earlier by Jefferson. While I agree that it would be a horrible thing, I agree with the sentiment that firearms are the last protection of our rights, and if the government seeks to remove our rights, it is our responsibility to rise up against the government (although yes, I fully acknowledge it would be illegal). However, this would only happen in extreme circumstances which I doubt will ever arise. I also do disagree with the supreme courts interpretation of this portion of the constitution. I accept, however, that my interpretation has no legal bearing, other than the ability to cast a vote to elect officials to elected offices who will defend what I consider to be a right. I imagine 6000sux's main point against all the gun talk is that realistically, this is the course that America will follow, which is what we saw last election. If the government moves to block too many of what the citizens view as rights, they will swing the position of power.

Finally, another rational person. You have my respect, as do PrinceOfWands, Moonbeam, and 3chordcharlie. It takes a lot to look past the blather and take the time to understand the actual arguments in a bloated quote-fest like this.

I am glad that someone besides me is sane enough to realize that rising up against the government is illegal and not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I agree that it is a moral duty of every citizen to act against an unjust government, though; I am merely a stickler for accuracy.

I am hoping that you are right about swinging the balance of power, and I hope that our freedom to privately possess firearms is preserved. I'm guessing that the Supreme Court hasn't forced the issue because they know the outcry they would cause if they adhere to their past dicta. I'm a little worried that they may take away this freedom, but I think that if they did, an amendment would soon follow.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:o


Prove me wrong. It is called balance of powers no one branch is allowed to rule and the jury is the final check on the government.

:laugh::o:(

eleison
03-13-2007, 09:44 AM
6000SUX way of arguing reminds me of bill Clintons when he was trying to defend himself from saying he didn't have sex with Monica. The infamous "meaning of is" argument:

http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/


Still trying to wrap my head arround that one :-)

when everyone even their dog owned a firearm, to assume that the founding fathers who were also firearm owners who even used these very same firearms to cause a violent revolution; to assume that they were against owning firearms.. "its madness!!!!" Or "is" it??? I guess that depends on if you believe in the "meaning of is" argument :-)

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by: eleison
6000SUX way of arguing reminds me of bill Clintons when he was trying to defend himself from saying he didn't have sex with Monica. The infamous "meaning of is" argument:

http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/


Still trying to wrap my head arround that one :-)

when everyone even their dog owned a firearm, to assume that the founding fathers who were also firearm owners who even used these very same firearms to cause a violent revolution; to assume that they were against owning firearms.. "its madness!!!!" Or "is" it??? I guess that depends on if you believe in the "meaning of is" argument :-)

Have fun fighting your straw man. I would suspect you to be the alter ego of "smack Down" except that you are more intelligible. You have failed to understand the import of this entire thread. I never said that anyone was against owning firearms.

JD50
03-13-2007, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: eleison
6000SUX way of arguing reminds me of bill Clintons when he was trying to defend himself from saying he didn't have sex with Monica. The infamous "meaning of is" argument:

http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/


Still trying to wrap my head arround that one :-)

when everyone even their dog owned a firearm, to assume that the founding fathers who were also firearm owners who even used these very same firearms to cause a violent revolution; to assume that they were against owning firearms.. "its madness!!!!" Or "is" it??? I guess that depends on if you believe in the "meaning of is" argument :-)

Have fun fighting your straw man. I would suspect you to be the alter ego of "smack Down" except that you are more intelligible. You have failed to understand the import of this entire thread. I never said that anyone was against owning firearms.



And you have falied to rebut that point, over and over again. It isn't a straw man, it is a very valid point, really, its just common sense, that's why you have been unable to come up with an argument against it.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: eleison
6000SUX way of arguing reminds me of bill Clintons when he was trying to defend himself from saying he didn't have sex with Monica. The infamous "meaning of is" argument:

http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/


Still trying to wrap my head arround that one :-)

when everyone even their dog owned a firearm, to assume that the founding fathers who were also firearm owners who even used these very same firearms to cause a violent revolution; to assume that they were against owning firearms.. "its madness!!!!" Or "is" it??? I guess that depends on if you believe in the "meaning of is" argument :-)

Have fun fighting your straw man. I would suspect you to be the alter ego of "smack Down" except that you are more intelligible. You have failed to understand the import of this entire thread. I never said that anyone was against owning firearms.



And you have falied to rebut that point, over and over again. It isn't a straw man, it is a very valid point, really, its just common sense, that's why you have been unable to come up with an argument against it.


LOL You failed to understand the few sentences I just wrote. Let me provide cliffs for you and your ADHD-afflicted pals:

- I say that I never said anyone was against owning firearms
- You say I have failed to rebut that point over and over again

:confused: Not sure what sort of mental disorder prompted your post here.

JD50
03-13-2007, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: eleison
6000SUX way of arguing reminds me of bill Clintons when he was trying to defend himself from saying he didn't have sex with Monica. The infamous "meaning of is" argument:

http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/


Still trying to wrap my head arround that one :-)

when everyone even their dog owned a firearm, to assume that the founding fathers who were also firearm owners who even used these very same firearms to cause a violent revolution; to assume that they were against owning firearms.. "its madness!!!!" Or "is" it??? I guess that depends on if you believe in the "meaning of is" argument :-)

Have fun fighting your straw man. I would suspect you to be the alter ego of "smack Down" except that you are more intelligible. You have failed to understand the import of this entire thread. I never said that anyone was against owning firearms.



And you have falied to rebut that point, over and over again. It isn't a straw man, it is a very valid point, really, its just common sense, that's why you have been unable to come up with an argument against it.


LOL You failed to understand the few sentences I just wrote. Let me provide cliffs for you and your ADHD-afflicted pals:

- I say that I never said anyone was against owning firearms
- You say I have failed to rebut that point over and over again

:confused: Not sure what sort of mental disorder prompted your post here.

No, the point is, that in context, the 2nd amendment is describing the individuals right to own a firearm. Everyone had firearms at the time, that is the only reason that the revolution was successful, they even say "the right of the people". Even if you want to go into fantasy land and claim that they were only referring to a militia, how would a militia even be possible if individuals don't have firearms? If it is a state sponsored militia, why would you need to say that the state has the right to keep and bear arms?

This didn't become an issue until liberals started trying to take away individual firearms.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by: JD50
No, the point is, that in context, the 2nd amendment is describing the individuals right to own a firearm. Everyone had firearms at the time, that is the only reason that the revolution was successful, they even say "the right of the people". Even if you want to go into fantasy land and claim that they were only referring to a militia, how would a militia even be possible if individuals don't have firearms? If it is a state sponsored militia, why would you need to say that the state has the right to keep and bear arms?

This didn't become an issue until liberals started trying to take away individual firearms.


All I have to do is mention that the collective-rights model exists, and it is very well-received by the majority of the federal courts. You and your pals have repeatedly claimed it is hogwash, but you're siding with the minority.

The problem is, you can't comprehend that the situation is not black-and-white. All I keep saying over and over and over is that your interpretation is not the only one; not only is it not, there is a considerable weight of opinion of people smarter than lil' ol' me supporting the collective rights model that you have not successfully disproven.

You've never established that everyone had firearms back then, no one has. Even if they did, it doesn't settle the issue of what the Second Amendment means. Even under the collective-rights model, it is not a restriction on owning firearms.

You're sneering at the Supreme Court and the majority of the federal courts, in addition to anyone here who doesn't agree with your minority views, when you talk about "fantasy land". In fact it is the reality that many people agree with the collective-rights model. The view is grounded in reality.

State militias did often issue firearms to people who didn't have them. You are fighting a straw man when you claim that the collective-rights model describes a state right. Go back and read the thread, and you'll realize that I said that the collective-rights model describes an individual right to bear arms in service of a militia. The only states' rights issue that exists in this matter of construing the Second Amendment is whether it leaves individual possession of firearms up to the states or supports it directly. However, under both models it describes an individual right.

Again, I never said anyone was against owning firearms. Please get this right if you choose to respond, or I can't "argue" with you any more.

JD50
03-13-2007, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50
No, the point is, that in context, the 2nd amendment is describing the individuals right to own a firearm. Everyone had firearms at the time, that is the only reason that the revolution was successful, they even say "the right of the people". Even if you want to go into fantasy land and claim that they were only referring to a militia, how would a militia even be possible if individuals don't have firearms? If it is a state sponsored militia, why would you need to say that the state has the right to keep and bear arms?

This didn't become an issue until liberals started trying to take away individual firearms.


All I have to do is mention that the collective-rights model exists, and it is very well-received by the majority of the federal courts. You and your pals have repeatedly claimed it is hogwash, but you're siding with the minority.

The problem is, you can't comprehend that the situation is not black-and-white. All I keep saying over and over and over is that your interpretation is not the only one; not only is it not, there is a considerable weight of opinion of people smarter than lil' ol' me supporting the collective rights model that you have not successfully disproven.

You've never established that everyone had firearms back then, no one has. Even if they did, it doesn't settle the issue of what the Second Amendment means. Even under the collective-rights model, it is not a restriction on owning firearms.

You're sneering at the Supreme Court and the majority of the federal courts, in addition to anyone here who doesn't agree with your minority views, when you talk about "fantasy land". In fact it is the reality that many people agree with the collective-rights model. The view is grounded in reality.

State militias did often issue firearms to people who didn't have them. You are fighting a straw man when you claim that the collective-rights model describes a state right. Go back and read the thread, and you'll realize that I said that the collective-rights model describes an individual right to bear arms in service of a militia. The only states' rights issue that exists in this matter of construing the Second Amendment is whether it leaves individual possession of firearms up to the states or supports it directly. However, under both models it describes an individual right.

Again, I never said anyone was against owning firearms. Please get this right if you choose to respond, or I can't "argue" with you any more.

Ok, so I guess that all I have to do is mention that the individual rights model exists....

Your obsession with going along with whatever the supreme court says has been addressed previously in this thread, there is really no need to go back over that.

You are still not addressing the main point, what is the point of making a whole amendment saying that "an individual right to bear arms in service of a militia"? Of course an individual would need a gun if they are in a militia.....Thats like making an amendment saying that its ok for someone in the military to carry a weapon...

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by: JD50
I guess that all I have to do is mention that the individual rights model exists....


Sure. It's not like I don't understand it completely. It is a valid construction which has been adopted... I was never arguing that the individual-rights model doesn't exist, or that it is inherently unreasonable.

Now we're getting somewhere. Both models are currently valid, just in different jurisdictions. I feel compelled to keep mentioning that the collective-rights model is adopted by the majority of them only because of your repetitive, mindless insistence that it makes no sense. Just the weight of opinion going against your viewpoint should tell you something. If you want to know the justifications for the collective-rights model, learn about it.


Originally posted by: JD50
Your obsession with going along with whatever the supreme court says has been addressed previously in this thread, there is really no need to go back over that.


No, no need-- especially because it doesn't exist. I don't have an obsession with going along with anything. What I've repeatedly actually said is that the validity of the Supreme Court's constitutional construction is beyond question. Why? Because until they overrule themselves, it is the ultimate authority for that constitutional issue.


Originally posted by: JD50
You are still not addressing the main point, what is the point of making a whole amendment saying that "an individual right to bear arms in service of a militia"? Of course an individual would need a gun if they are in a militia.....Thats like making an amendment saying that its ok for someone in the military to carry a weapon...


The point, according to the collective-rights model, is/was to make sure that individuals had the right to keep and bear arms (not necessarily own) in service of a militia. That's it, the whole point. The reasons which may have prompted this are concerns over standing armies etc.

1EZduzit
03-13-2007, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

True, but this text is not unambiguous, and you have to recognize and state your assumptions, or your position isn't very meaningful. You're trying to say it is 'obvious' when in fact it is not.

No it is obvious. No other reading makes senses. Congress regulates the militia to have an amendment that says congress can't remove a militia's guns but can disband the militia (the current state) just doesn't make senses.

No, it is not 'obvious'. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Think of it this way - what does 'regulation' of the militia have to do with the necessity of bearing arms?

You just keep right pretending that your assumptions are fact. The difference between you and me is that while our conclusions are similar, I'm not arrogant enough to assume an interpretation of poorly written text that exactly matches what I want.

I'm not pretending any assumptions are fact nor due I assume any interpretation. But I guess that is any easy way to ignore any arguments made.

The collective model simply doesn't protect anything because congress gets to define who is the militia and they can do as today and say no one is in the militia. The language of the amendment doesn't support this view either. It talks about people and inherent rights. A group created and disbanded at the will of congress can have no inherent rights. I don't think it is rational that congress would have included an amendment that doesn't protect anything.

The individual model on the other hand does have an effect. The language makes sense for the individual model because they used people to described a group who rights where not to be infringed.

I don't think it's a collective model either, particularly. But you want to treat the amendment as two almost completely different thoguhts. Why are they in a single sentence?

I gave my interpretation earlier, and it isn't a collective model, but I was also able to admit that with such ambiguous language, it is very difficult to choose a single meaning with great confidence.


Not really confusing at all if you read between the lines. The people owned guns, nobody had to go through local militia to aquire a gun. Indeed, gunsmiths were a thriving business in those days and you could probably buy a gun in almost any town.

You're confused about the Second Amendment, though. It definitely describes a right to bear arms... it is not a restriction at all, which you get wrong just as many others here have done. Now we have the "read between the lines" approach to constitutional construction. Will wonders never cease.


Of course it describes a right to bear arms. Some people try to interpret it as having something to do with a militia. I guess they're just easily confused if they can't understand that when it was written everybody owned arms. Firearms was big business then, even more so then now.

Of course, there's that clear language in the amendment showing the militia context, and the evidence of legislative intent. Some people actually go further than just trying, and actually do interpret it as having something to do with a militia. Levels of gun ownership, which may not have been as prevalent as you think in those days, have nothing to do with it.

LOL, the people just got done fighting (and winning) a revolution and your going to try and imply that the levels of gun ownership weren't "as high as I think"?? 90% of the population was engaged in agriculture. Even today wild game makes up a large portion of most farm families diets. Arms were necessary not only to put food on the table, but for self-protection. It's not like they could just call 911 when the Indians attacked them or if someone was trying to steal something from them.

Article II says "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".

They already had the arms in their possesion. Article II was written to insure they they ALWAYS KEPT THEM in their possesion.



Sorry, but not only do I own guns, I just owned you.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL, the people just got done fighting (and winning) a revolution and your going to try and imply that the levels of gun ownership weren't "as high as I think"??

Nope, all I did was say that it wasn't necessarily as high as you think. You said "everyone", and now you say 90%, again without offering more than your opinion, stated as fact.


Even today wild game makes up a large portion of most farm families diets.

You have convinced me, finally, that the individual-rights model is correct. I never considered the wild game.


Arms were necessary not only to put food on the table, but for self-protection. It's not like they could just call 911 when the Indians attacked them or if someone was trying to steal something from them.

Yes, of course. I was forgetting about the lack of 911 and the Indian menace.


They already had the arms in their possesion.

It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, and you haven't shown how many people had arms anyway. Some people certainly owned their own weapons, but certainly not "everybody" as you said. Now you're backing off to 90%, which I guess we should take on your word... LOL


Article II was written to insure they they ALWAYS KEPT THEM in their possesion.

So you think. Nobody knows. You're with the minority in an area where experts differ.


Sorry, but not only do I own guns, I just owned you.

Nope. You have engaged in mental masturbation.

1EZduzit
03-13-2007, 12:32 PM
LMAO at you, your the one masturbating when you try dissecting every word of everyone's argument. :laugh: It's obvious to me that you are trying to overlook the clear intent of Article II in order to more restrictions of some type on firearms.

If we aren't free to posess firearms, we're not "citizens", we're "subjects".

Vic
03-13-2007, 12:48 PM
I wouldn't bother with 6000SUX if I were you. He's an idiot. He argued with me for pages last week because he couldn't understand the dictionary definition differences between how and why, even after he posted them! :laugh:

The framers of the constitution guaranteed the right of the people to bear arms because, in our form of government, it is the people who are sovereign. As was already said, we are citizens, not subjects. Being against private gun ownership is like being against democracy itself.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by: Vic
I wouldn't bother with 6000SUX if I were you. He's an idiot. He argued with me for pages last week because he couldn't understand the dictionary definition differences between how and why, even after he posted them! :laugh:

The framers of the constitution guaranteed the right of the people to bear arms because, in our form of government, it is the people who are sovereign. As was already said, we are citizens, not subjects. Being against private gun ownership is like being against democracy itself.

Vic, an intelligent-design advocate and Christian, argued on the basis that science cannot possibly explain why the human race exists, by assuming the point he was trying to prove. You certainly shouldn't argue with me if you're going to do it like Vic. ;)

Vic
03-13-2007, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Vic, an intelligent-design advocate, argued on the basis that science cannot possibly explain why the human race exists, by assuming the point he was trying to make. You certainly shouldn't argue with me if you're going to do it like Vic. ;)

Funny thing is, I'm not an intelligent design advocate. I don't know where you got that except you assumed it for the sake of reinforcing your fallacious argument that science tells people why they exist.
Ah... small-minded people. They just can't stand it when their faith is questioned.

Obviously anyone who disagrees with you is your enemy, right, 6000SUX? ;)


edit: and to clarify from that thread, 6000SUX's position was that evolution can tell people WHY they exist, i.e. the "purpose" of life, the universe, and everything, etc. When called on the carpet for it, he backpedaled for pages redefining why as how and insisting that how was why... all the while in complete ignorant denial of what it was doing (and he's obviously still in denial). Then he started a personal attack thread against me by taking statements of mine (from more than a year ago, I guess the search function does work if you try hard enough) playing devils advocate about the concept of "Spinoza's God" out of context (said thread was promptly locked by the mods). It was funny sh!t.

Fern
03-13-2007, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Now we have the "read between the lines" approach to constitutional construction. Will wonders never cease.


The so-called "read between the lines" was, IMHO, created by the Warren Court and the whole "penumbra" business.


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 2nd Amemdment is clear in stating that the People have a right to keep and bear arms.

Any assertion to the contrary serves to invalidate the entire Amendment. Militias are composed of regular citizens pressed into service for some need. If citizens are unarmed, have no right to keep and bear arms, you have only an unarmed militia. And that's not really a militia is it?

In other words, as seems extremely clear to me given the wording, the 2nd provides an individual right to keep & bear, and a collective right to states & militia. And the two are intertwined, the one dependant upon the other.

Furthermore, as has been previously pointed out IIRC, if one contrues the phrase "The right of the people" as a collective right, instead of an individual right, the 4th amenment loses all meaning. We would have no individual right against unreasonable search etc.
----------------------------


You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me

Basically I agree. And up till now that's the way it's been. However, I dare SCOTUS to take it upon themselves to redefine the 2nd. We'll see exactly how far judicial activism can be pushed. I beleive that'll be the breaking point. Large swaths of this country will likely be in revolt. I expect the Southeast & Western states to explode.

Somebody could prolly make an interesting movie about that possibility. ;)

Fern

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Vic, an intelligent-design advocate, argued on the basis that science cannot possibly explain why the human race exists, by assuming the point he was trying to make. You certainly shouldn't argue with me if you're going to do it like Vic. ;)

Funny thing is, I'm not an intelligent design advocate. I don't know where you got that except you assumed it for the sake of reinforcing your fallacious argument that science tells people why they exist.
Ah... small-minded people. They just can't stand it when their faith is questioned.

Obviously anyone who disagrees with you is your enemy, right, 6000SUX? ;)


edit: and to clarify from that thread, 6000SUX's position was that evolution can tell people WHY they exist, i.e. the "purpose" of life, the universe, and everything, etc. When called on the carpet for it, he backpedaled for pages redefining why as how and insisting that how was why... all the while in complete ignorant denial of what it was doing (and he's obviously still in denial). Then he started a personal attack thread against me by taking statements of mine (from more than a year ago, I guess the search function does work if you try hard enough) playing devils advocate about the concept of "Spinoza's God" out of context (said thread was promptly locked by the mods). It was funny sh!t.

Vic has chosen to lie. My position was not that evolution could explain the origin of the universe. His, though, was that knowing the origin of the universe would tell you everything you need to know about the origin of the human race-- a stupid idea even for a religious person. In the hilarity of his arguments, he argued that we should resolve the issue based on the Portuguese definition of "why".

And now Vic has come here, to thread crap. He needs a vacation. I won't continue to argue here about the other thread, as he seems to want to do.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by: Fern
The so-called "read between the lines" was, IMHO, created by the Warren Court and the whole "penumbra" business.


:) Good one. Or, maybe, the "read between the amendments" approach... And the Ninth Amendment would be a perfect place to locate the individual right to own firearms-- who could argue with that?

Vic
03-13-2007, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Vic, an intelligent-design advocate, argued on the basis that science cannot possibly explain why the human race exists, by assuming the point he was trying to make. You certainly shouldn't argue with me if you're going to do it like Vic. ;)

Funny thing is, I'm not an intelligent design advocate. I don't know where you got that except you assumed it for the sake of reinforcing your fallacious argument that science tells people why they exist.
Ah... small-minded people. They just can't stand it when their faith is questioned.

Obviously anyone who disagrees with you is your enemy, right, 6000SUX? ;)


edit: and to clarify from that thread, 6000SUX's position was that evolution can tell people WHY they exist, i.e. the "purpose" of life, the universe, and everything, etc. When called on the carpet for it, he backpedaled for pages redefining why as how and insisting that how was why... all the while in complete ignorant denial of what it was doing (and he's obviously still in denial). Then he started a personal attack thread against me by taking statements of mine (from more than a year ago, I guess the search function does work if you try hard enough) playing devils advocate about the concept of "Spinoza's God" out of context (said thread was promptly locked by the mods). It was funny sh!t.

Vic has chosen to lie. My position was not that evolution could explain the origin of the universe. His, though, was that knowing the origin of the universe would tell you everything you need to know about the origin of the human race-- a stupid idea even for a religious person. In the hilarity of his arguments, he argued that we should resolve the issue based on the Portuguese definition of "why".

And now Vic has come here, to thread crap. He needs a vacation. I won't continue to argue here about the other thread, as he seems to want to do.


Why don't you PM the mods then? I didn't lie, I told the factually truth that anyone else here can look up with a simple search for that thread. You OTOH actually did lie when you called me an "intelligent design advocate and a Christian."

Nor am I threadcrapping. I was/am giving the others here a legitimate warning as to what they are dealing with, namely an idiot. Your mind is like a tabloid -- you come to your conclusions first, then make up the story to fit your conclusions. What's the point in arguing with a person like that?

Vic
03-13-2007, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Fern
The so-called "read between the lines" was, IMHO, created by the Warren Court and the whole "penumbra" business.


:) And the Ninth Amendment would be a perfect place to locate the individual right to own firearms-- who could argue with that?

You are confused. The Constitution grants powers to the government, not rights to the people. That's what the 9th Amendment says.

BoberFett
03-13-2007, 01:41 PM
The only thing this thread has proven without a doubt is that this does, in fact, "SUX". Vic an intelligent design backer? Lay off the drugs.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Fern
The so-called "read between the lines" was, IMHO, created by the Warren Court and the whole "penumbra" business.


:) And the Ninth Amendment would be a perfect place to locate the individual right to own firearms-- who could argue with that?

You are confused. The Constitution grants powers to the government, not rights to the people. That's what the 9th Amendment says.

No, I am not confused. I did not say that the Ninth Amendment granted rights to the people. I said it was a good place to locate a right. The Ninth Amendment actually says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You cannot win this argument either, because you don't have the necessary knowledge and brainpower. I am glad you have decided to stop thread-crapping.

Genx87
03-13-2007, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Fern
The so-called "read between the lines" was, IMHO, created by the Warren Court and the whole "penumbra" business.


:) And the Ninth Amendment would be a perfect place to locate the individual right to own firearms-- who could argue with that?

You are confused. The Constitution grants powers to the government, not rights to the people. That's what the 9th Amendment says.

No, I am not confused. I did not say that the Ninth Amendment granted rights to the people. I said it was a good place to locate a right. The Ninth Amendment actually says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You cannot win this argument either, because you don't have the necessary knowledge and brainpower. I am glad you have decided to stop thread-crapping.

Ha! If I had a dime for every time somebody said this to Vic before getting a spanking. I would be a rich rich man. :D

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by: Genx87
Ha! If I had a dime for every time somebody said this to Vic before getting a spanking. I would be a rich rich man. :D


:) Okay, we'll see... Until then I will continue to ask myself, "Por que?" as I contemplate the Creator's actions in causing the Big Boom.

Vic
03-13-2007, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Fern
The so-called "read between the lines" was, IMHO, created by the Warren Court and the whole "penumbra" business.


:) And the Ninth Amendment would be a perfect place to locate the individual right to own firearms-- who could argue with that?

You are confused. The Constitution grants powers to the government, not rights to the people. That's what the 9th Amendment says.

No, I am not confused. I did not say that the Ninth Amendment granted rights to the people. I said it was a good place to locate a right. The Ninth Amendment actually says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You cannot win this argument either, because you don't have the necessary knowledge and brainpower. I am glad you have decided to stop thread-crapping.

Ha! If I had a dime for every time somebody said this to Vic before getting a spanking. I would be a rich rich man. :D



Heh. There's nothing to argue here. 6000SUX has a habit of spanking himself and not even realizing it.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. There's nothing to argue here. 6000SUX has a habit of spanking himself and not even realizing it.

I can well believe that you cannot think of an argument. I can also see how you got such a high post count. BTW you failed to acknowledge your first spanking in this thread, in exposure of your lack of constitutional knowledge.

JD50
03-13-2007, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. There's nothing to argue here. 6000SUX has a habit of spanking himself and not even realizing it.

I can well believe that you cannot think of an argument. I can also see how you got such a high post count. BTW you failed to acknowledge your first spanking in this thread, in exposure of your lack of constitutional knowledge.

Your only arguments have been a twisted interperatation of the 2nd amendment, ignoring how it would be possible to have a milita if the people did not privately own firearms, downplaying the importance of firearms when the 2nd amendment was written, and falling back on the ruling of the courts (because we know they are always right:roll;).

1EZduzit
03-13-2007, 02:52 PM
6000SUX, here's a good link to the Bill of Rights.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/constitution/BillofRights.shtml

It also has links to all kinds of historical documents. I think you should read up a bit on things. I'd recommend reading "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/arms.shtml

And Patrick Henry's famous "Give me Liberty or give me Death" speech.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml


This is what I mean about "reading between the lines".

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. There's nothing to argue here. 6000SUX has a habit of spanking himself and not even realizing it.

I can well believe that you cannot think of an argument. I can also see how you got such a high post count. BTW you failed to acknowledge your first spanking in this thread, in exposure of your lack of constitutional knowledge.

Your only arguments have been a twisted interperatation of the 2nd amendment, ignoring how it would be possible to have a milita if the people did not privately own firearms, downplaying the importance of firearms when the 2nd amendment was written, and falling back on the ruling of the courts (because we know they are always right:roll;).



Nope, wrong. You made a conclusive statement and committed a factual error, besides misstating my arguments, all in this very post.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
6000SUX, here's a good link to the Bill of Rights.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/constitution/BillofRights.shtml

It also has links to all kinds of historical documents. I think you should read up a bit on things. I'd recommend reading "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/arms.shtml

And Patrick Henry's famous "Give me Liberty or give me Death" speech.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml


This is what I mean about "reading between the lines".

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA

Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs, troll. You should begin by reading up on the subject before coming back here and embarrassing yourself. If you're about to go into the tired argument that the Constitution recognizes a right to revolt, my best advice is... just don't go there.

1EZduzit
03-13-2007, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
6000SUX, here's a good link to the Bill of Rights.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/constitution/BillofRights.shtml

It also has links to all kinds of historical documents. I think you should read up a bit on things. I'd recommend reading "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/arms.shtml

And Patrick Henry's famous "Give me Liberty or give me Death" speech.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml


This is what I mean about "reading between the lines".

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA

Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs, troll. You should begin by reading up on the subject before coming back here and embarrassing yourself. If you're about to go into the tired argument that the Constitution recognizes a right to revolt, my best advice is... just don't go there.


What you trying to do, hurt my feelings? ROTFLMAO@U Do you reqally think people that are ready to revolt would give a crap what the Constituion or anything/anybody else says?

You haven't made one single point or influenced anybody here. I actually am starting to feel sorry for you, but not sorry enough to sit around and argue with a fool.

/thread AFAIC

Fern
03-13-2007, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eilute
The Second Amendment reads:

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.

One can make the argument that the right only applies to states and their militias. That is the way it reads to me. I don't understand why the court thought otherwise.

So in your opinion it was necessary to add into the Constitution that militia/soldiers had a right to bear arms while in service. That being necessary because in the absence of the 2nd amendment our armies/militia would be composed of unarmed men?

Huh?

Fern

Great point, our resident gun grabber has not addressed this point.

How could someone honestly think that the second amendment was directed towards the modern day national guard?



Still waiting for someone to address this...

Why would our founders feel it necessary to say that our military has the right to keep and bear arms? They were obviously referring to individuals.


Thought you were addressing someone else (who is the "resident gun-grabber"?). I don't understand the question, I think. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Second Amendment refers to the military. I have seen claims, and made them, that the right to bear arms described by the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms in a militia.


My initial post above uses the term "militia". Pardon me, but you seem to insert the term "military" (which I might ad isn't altogether different) in an effort to dodge my point.

Moreover, the founding fathers were quite educated and articulate. I contend if they wished merely to guarantee that states had a right to their armed militia they would've clearly indicated that by writing something along these lines:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the states' right to well regulated militia, shall not be infringed.

Absolutely no need for the language they chose, unless they intended to make clear that individuals had a right to keep and bear arms.

Fern

Straw man. Go back and read the words of the post before mine. Your construction is in agreement with the minority... what else can I say. If you've taken the time to read up, you know the arguments for the collective-rights model by now. If you choose to base your constitutional construction on your common-sense notions, I'm not going to argue.


Regarding your comment about using a "common sence" approach to the interpretation & understanding of law.

For more than 20 years I have been a professional in (and student of) tax law. It is not uncommon for us to have to go back to the Constitution or the floor debates therefrom to adequently determine some matter of law, not to mention the constant need to read case law. My point being that all the years I've found the better law professional to adopt a "common sense" approach as part of their efforts in interpretation of law.

I've found it's the younger inexperienced lawyers just out of college who disdain such an approach, and that coupled with recent education and no experience makes them know "just enough to be dangerous".

Fern

marincounty
03-13-2007, 04:53 PM
Great discussion.
Sorry to threadcrap, but...It looks like the two leading candidates for president, Hillary and Rudy, are both in favor of gun control. It's going to be an interesting next couple of years.

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by: Fern
Regarding your comment about using a "common sence" approach to the interpretation & understanding of law.

For more than 20 years I have been a professional in (and student of) tax law. It is not uncommon for us to have to go back to the Constitution or the floor debates therefrom to adequently determine some matter of law, not to mention the constant need to read case law. My point being that all the years I've found the better law professional to adopt a "common sense" approach as part of their efforts in interpretation of law.

I've found it's the younger inexperienced lawyers just out of college who disdain such an approach, and that coupled with recent education and no experience makes them know "just enough to be dangerous".

Fern

I made no comment about using common sense to interpret the law in general, or that one should not attempt a natural reading of any document, including the Constitution. However you, of all people, should know by now that a purely common-sense or plain-text approach to the Constitution doesn't have a prayer of reaching a correct result. Originalist or non-originalist, a correct reading of the Constitution depends on a knowledge of terms of art, legislative history, etc. In fact I don't remember ever reading a Supreme Court opinion on the Constitution that just relied on common sense or policy alone. And neither does Parker, delving into numerous historical treatises to establish legislative intent, speaking of terms of art and canons of construction, etc. ...

I'm sorry, but despite your purported tax-law knowledge, I really don't consider you an expert here if you are seriously advocating a reading of the Constitution, a document famous for vagueness and multiplicity of meaning written hundreds of years ago, based only on the common sense of Internet blatherskites eager to prop up their views without any actual justification. I am fairly sure that you are less skilled than I in formal argumentation, too, if the best you can do is rely on your years of experience as authority. I've found that this is a dishonest tactic used by frustrated people to discount the arguments of others without having to do any work.


Are you a lawyer, or paralegal, or student, or what?

6000SUX
03-13-2007, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
6000SUX, here's a good link to the Bill of Rights.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/constitution/BillofRights.shtml

It also has links to all kinds of historical documents. I think you should read up a bit on things. I'd recommend reading "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/arms.shtml

And Patrick Henry's famous "Give me Liberty or give me Death" speech.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml


This is what I mean about "reading between the lines".

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA

Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs, troll. You should begin by reading up on the subject before coming back here and embarrassing yourself. If you're about to go into the tired argument that the Constitution recognizes a right to revolt, my best advice is... just don't go there.


What you trying to do, hurt my feelings? ROTFLMAO@U Do you reqally think people that are ready to revolt would give a crap what the Constituion or anything/anybody else says?

You haven't made one single point or influenced anybody here. I actually am starting to feel sorry for you, but not sorry enough to sit around and argue with a fool.

/thread AFAIC

Here, when you point to revolutionary documents as material aiding in reading between the lines of the Constitution, you are beginning an argument for the constitutional protection of revolt, same as the other tired attempts earlier in this thread. I am glad you abandoned this bad approach, and the thread. Instead of supporting any statements, you merely sling insults and retire like a petulant child.

smack Down
03-13-2007, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX


Originally posted by: JD50
You are still not addressing the main point, what is the point of making a whole amendment saying that "an individual right to bear arms in service of a militia"? Of course an individual would need a gun if they are in a militia.....Thats like making an amendment saying that its ok for someone in the military to carry a weapon...


The point, according to the collective-rights model, is/was to make sure that individuals had the right to keep and bear arms (not necessarily own) in service of a militia. That's it, the whole point. The reasons which may have prompted this are concerns over standing armies etc.



But why would that be need. Congress gets to regulate the militia including creation and disbanding of the militia. They get to decided who is in the militia and therefor who gets to keep and bear arms.

Lets make this real simple for you. What rights can I claim right now under the second amendment assuming your collective model for the amendment?

1EZduzit
03-13-2007, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
6000SUX, here's a good link to the Bill of Rights.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/constitution/BillofRights.shtml

It also has links to all kinds of historical documents. I think you should read up a bit on things. I'd recommend reading "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/arms.shtml

And Patrick Henry's famous "Give me Liberty or give me Death" speech.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml


This is what I mean about "reading between the lines".

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA

Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs, troll. You should begin by reading up on the subject before coming back here and embarrassing yourself. If you're about to go into the tired argument that the Constitution recognizes a right to revolt, my best advice is... just don't go there.


What you trying to do, hurt my feelings? ROTFLMAO@U Do you reqally think people that are ready to revolt would give a crap what the Constituion or anything/anybody else says?

You haven't made one single point or influenced anybody here. I actually am starting to feel sorry for you, but not sorry enough to sit around and argue with a fool.

/thread AFAIC

Here, when you point to revolutionary documents as material aiding in reading between the lines of the Constitution, you are beginning an argument for the constitutional protection of revolt, same as the other tired attempts earlier in this thread. I am glad you abandoned this bad approach, and the thread. Instead of supporting any statements, you merely sling insults and retire like a petulant child.

I'm the one slinging insults like a petulant child? LOL, Clockwork Orange, huh!

Fern
03-14-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Fern
Regarding your comment about using a "common sence" approach to the interpretation & understanding of law.

For more than 20 years I have been a professional in (and student of) tax law. It is not uncommon for us to have to go back to the Constitution or the floor debates therefrom to adequently determine some matter of law, not to mention the constant need to read case law. My point being that all the years I've found the better law professional to adopt a "common sense" approach as part of their efforts in interpretation of law.

I've found it's the younger inexperienced lawyers just out of college who disdain such an approach, and that coupled with recent education and no experience makes them know "just enough to be dangerous".

Fern

I made no comment about using common sense to interpret the law in general, or that one should not attempt a natural reading of any document, including the Constitution. However you, of all people, should know by now that a purely common-sense or plain-text approach to the Constitution doesn't have a prayer of reaching a correct result. Originalist or non-originalist, a correct reading of the Constitution depends on a knowledge of terms of art, legislative history, etc. In fact I don't remember ever reading a Supreme Court opinion on the Constitution that just relied on common sense or policy alone. And neither does Parker, delving into numerous historical treatises to establish legislative intent, speaking of terms of art and canons of construction, etc. ...

I'm sorry, but despite your purported tax-law knowledge, I really don't consider you an expert here if you are seriously advocating a reading of the Constitution, a document famous for vagueness and multiplicity of meaning written hundreds of years ago, based only on the common sense of Internet blatherskites eager to prop up their views without any actual justification. I am fairly sure that you are less skilled than I in formal argumentation, too, if the best you can do is rely on your years of experience as authority. I've found that this is a dishonest tactic used by frustrated people to discount the arguments of others without having to do any work.


Are you a lawyer, or paralegal, or student, or what?

You wrote (so deeply nestly I just pulled this one sentance you wrote):


If you choose to base your constitutional construction on your common-sense notions

AND


I made no comment about using common sense to interpret the law in general

I took your first sentance to mean otherwise.

Above you wrote:


based only on the common sense

I never posted "only" on comon sense. I wrote that it be used as part of one's efforts.

Here's my sentance:


a "common sense" approach as part of their efforts

So, I contend it s/b part of one's effort to understand/interpret the law. Pertinent case law, including dissents etc should also be among the information examined.

I do not hold myself as any sort of expert in constitutional law, haven't made any such comment here. I'm a tax CPA with graduate work in tax law, we do use the same court system including SCOTUS that other areas of law use. I've worked in USA/world and Euro HQ for a Big 4 firm. My job was analyzing tax law, drafting opinions for the firm worldwide and writing books on tax law published by the firm, analyzing proposed tax law (a risky afair given there is no case law yet) and communicating possible consequences of said proposed law to concerned parties.

How about you?

Fern

heartsurgeon
03-14-2007, 04:38 PM
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.

JD50
03-14-2007, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.


Very well said, a point that 6000SUX has never been able to refute.

6000SUX
03-15-2007, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.


Very well said, a point that 6000SUX has never been able to refute.


Don't lie; it only makes you look stupid. There's really nothing to refute here... what can I do to refute someone's guess? There is no support for me to attack. I am not goint to say that heartsurgeon's take on the matter is definitely wrong, but it's not supported in any way. In addition it is a fact that militias did sometimes provide arms to citizens.

6000SUX
03-15-2007, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
6000SUX, here's a good link to the Bill of Rights.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/constitution/BillofRights.shtml

It also has links to all kinds of historical documents. I think you should read up a bit on things. I'd recommend reading "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/arms.shtml

And Patrick Henry's famous "Give me Liberty or give me Death" speech.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml


This is what I mean about "reading between the lines".

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA

Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs, troll. You should begin by reading up on the subject before coming back here and embarrassing yourself. If you're about to go into the tired argument that the Constitution recognizes a right to revolt, my best advice is... just don't go there.


What you trying to do, hurt my feelings? ROTFLMAO@U Do you reqally think people that are ready to revolt would give a crap what the Constituion or anything/anybody else says?

You haven't made one single point or influenced anybody here. I actually am starting to feel sorry for you, but not sorry enough to sit around and argue with a fool.

/thread AFAIC

Here, when you point to revolutionary documents as material aiding in reading between the lines of the Constitution, you are beginning an argument for the constitutional protection of revolt, same as the other tired attempts earlier in this thread. I am glad you abandoned this bad approach, and the thread. Instead of supporting any statements, you merely sling insults and retire like a petulant child.

I'm the one slinging insults like a petulant child? LOL, Clockwork Orange, huh!

Thought you were outta here... I guess not. Looks like you are giving up on even trying to support your mistaken notion about revolt. Good for you; that's a sort of progress.

6000SUX
03-15-2007, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Fern
Regarding your comment about using a "common sence" approach to the interpretation & understanding of law.

For more than 20 years I have been a professional in (and student of) tax law. It is not uncommon for us to have to go back to the Constitution or the floor debates therefrom to adequently determine some matter of law, not to mention the constant need to read case law. My point being that all the years I've found the better law professional to adopt a "common sense" approach as part of their efforts in interpretation of law.

I've found it's the younger inexperienced lawyers just out of college who disdain such an approach, and that coupled with recent education and no experience makes them know "just enough to be dangerous".

Fern

I made no comment about using common sense to interpret the law in general, or that one should not attempt a natural reading of any document, including the Constitution. However you, of all people, should know by now that a purely common-sense or plain-text approach to the Constitution doesn't have a prayer of reaching a correct result. Originalist or non-originalist, a correct reading of the Constitution depends on a knowledge of terms of art, legislative history, etc. In fact I don't remember ever reading a Supreme Court opinion on the Constitution that just relied on common sense or policy alone. And neither does Parker, delving into numerous historical treatises to establish legislative intent, speaking of terms of art and canons of construction, etc. ...

I'm sorry, but despite your purported tax-law knowledge, I really don't consider you an expert here if you are seriously advocating a reading of the Constitution, a document famous for vagueness and multiplicity of meaning written hundreds of years ago, based only on the common sense of Internet blatherskites eager to prop up their views without any actual justification. I am fairly sure that you are less skilled than I in formal argumentation, too, if the best you can do is rely on your years of experience as authority. I've found that this is a dishonest tactic used by frustrated people to discount the arguments of others without having to do any work.


Are you a lawyer, or paralegal, or student, or what?

You wrote (so deeply nestly I just pulled this one sentance you wrote):


If you choose to base your constitutional construction on your common-sense notions

AND


I made no comment about using common sense to interpret the law in general

I took your first sentance to mean otherwise.

Above you wrote:


based only on the common sense

I never posted "only" on comon sense. I wrote that it be used as part of one's efforts.

Here's my sentance:


a "common sense" approach as part of their efforts

So, I contend it s/b part of one's effort to understand/interpret the law. Pertinent case law, including dissents etc should also be among the information examined.

I do not hold myself as any sort of expert in constitutional law, haven't made any such comment here. I'm a tax CPA with graduate work in tax law, we do use the same court system including SCOTUS that other areas of law use. I've worked in USA/world and Euro HQ for a Big 4 firm. My job was analyzing tax law, drafting opinions for the firm worldwide and writing books on tax law published by the firm, analyzing proposed tax law (a risky afair given there is no case law yet) and communicating possible consequences of said proposed law to concerned parties.

How about you?

Fern

Fern, you held yourself out as a "professional in tax law", and now it turns out you're an accountant. This provides exactly zero support for you as some sort of authority, and also makes you look a mite dishonest. I'd rather stick to actual arguments than get into a battle about legal credentials with a CPA. It just doesn't matter. If it does, I admit that I am Antonin Scalia.

I guess you are making an un-statement about common sense, then-- and I never said common sense should not be used. What are you trying to say that adds to the conversation?

Here's what I actually said, complete: "If you choose to base your constitutional construction on your common-sense notions, I'm not going to argue." I will break this down for you, since you obviously misunderstood my meaning. I meant this: if you want to guess at the meaning of the Second Amendment based on words you think the framers should have chosen if they meant to convey a different meaning from the one you personally find in the Second Amendment, I will not argue with you. There is no debate over your opinion. Also, there is no correct way to read that sentence of mine as a condemnation of the use of common sense in dealing with the law! :laugh: It's looking like you tried to make something out of nothing, now, isn't it?

What are you arguing for? Excluding normal principles of construction in dealing with the Constitution? Because that's what most people repeating over and over again that "it just makes sense" etc. are doing.

JD50
03-15-2007, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.


Very well said, a point that 6000SUX has never been able to refute.


Don't lie; it only makes you look stupid. There's really nothing to refute here... what can I do to refute someone's guess? There is no support for me to attack. I am not goint to say that heartsurgeon's take on the matter is definitely wrong, but it's not supported in any way. In addition it is a fact that militias did sometimes provide arms to citizens.




Lie? Where did I lie? By the way, lying doesn't make you look stupid.

Anyways, if you want to cop out and say that everyone against your point of view is just guessing and you won't refute their points because of that then that is making YOU look stupid.....All anyone can do is guess as to what someones intent was when writing something over 200 years ago. The best that you can do is look at the way things were back then, and that will give you a pretty good idea of what they were thinking. Seeing as the only way that the revolution was even possible was because of individual firearm ownership, it seems pretty clear that that is what they were talking about. Now, I'd like to hear how you think that it is possible to have a militia, without individual citizens having firearms.

6000SUX
03-15-2007, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.


Very well said, a point that 6000SUX has never been able to refute.


Don't lie; it only makes you look stupid. There's really nothing to refute here... what can I do to refute someone's guess? There is no support for me to attack. I am not goint to say that heartsurgeon's take on the matter is definitely wrong, but it's not supported in any way. In addition it is a fact that militias did sometimes provide arms to citizens.




Lie? Where did I lie? By the way, lying doesn't make you look stupid.

Anyways, if you want to cop out and say that everyone against your point of view is just guessing and you won't refute their points because of that then that is making YOU look stupid.....All anyone can do is guess as to what someones intent was when writing something over 200 years ago. The best that you can do is look at the way things were back then, and that will give you a pretty good idea of what they were thinking. Seeing as the only way that the revolution was even possible was because of individual firearm ownership, it seems pretty clear that that is what they were talking about.

You lie by saying that heartsurgeon restated a point I haven't been able to refute. Such an obvious lie does indeed make you look stupid.

I'm not saying everyone who doesn't agree with me is guessing. I'm specifically saying that anyone who merely guesses at the meaning of the Constitution based on their own common-sense notions and unsupported (and often wrong) notions of history is... guessing.

If you're going to argue, you really should put together an argument instead of a simple opinion. That's all.



Now, I'd like to hear how you think that it is possible to have a militia, without individual citizens having firearms.

Today the successor of old state militias, the National Guard, does not rely whatsoever upon private gun ownership. I don't know about special state defense militias.

Genx87
03-15-2007, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.

Good point however I do believe they also wanted an armed citzen because an armed citizen isnt easily oppressed by govt.

6000SUX
03-15-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.

Your argument is this, if I understand correctly:

1. miliitias helped in a revolution
2. members of these particular militias often brought their own guns
3. hence, in order to have any militia, you must have citizens who own their own guns

I don't agree with the logic.

JD50
03-15-2007, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.


Very well said, a point that 6000SUX has never been able to refute.


Don't lie; it only makes you look stupid. There's really nothing to refute here... what can I do to refute someone's guess? There is no support for me to attack. I am not goint to say that heartsurgeon's take on the matter is definitely wrong, but it's not supported in any way. In addition it is a fact that militias did sometimes provide arms to citizens.




Lie? Where did I lie? By the way, lying doesn't make you look stupid.

Anyways, if you want to cop out and say that everyone against your point of view is just guessing and you won't refute their points because of that then that is making YOU look stupid.....All anyone can do is guess as to what someones intent was when writing something over 200 years ago. The best that you can do is look at the way things were back then, and that will give you a pretty good idea of what they were thinking. Seeing as the only way that the revolution was even possible was because of individual firearm ownership, it seems pretty clear that that is what they were talking about.

You lie by saying that heartsurgeon restated a point I haven't been able to refute. Such an obvious lie does indeed make you look stupid.

I'm not saying everyone who doesn't agree with me is guessing. I'm specifically saying that anyone who merely guesses at the meaning of the Constitution based on their own common-sense notions and unsupported (and often wrong) notions of history is... guessing.

If you're going to argue, you really should put together an argument instead of a simple opinion. That's all.



Now, I'd like to hear how you think that it is possible to have a militia, without individual citizens having firearms.

Today the successor of old state militias, the National Guard, does not rely whatsoever upon private gun ownership. I don't know about special state defense militias.



Why would you need an amendment to allow a government sanctioned army to carry firearms?

3chordcharlie
03-15-2007, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.

Your argument is this, if I understand correctly:

1. miliitias helped in a revolution
2. members of these particular militias often brought their own guns
3. hence, in order to have any militia, you must have citizens who own their own guns

I don't agree with the logic.
You don't have to agree with the logic. It's relatively clear (though not beyond doubt) that this was the intent of the amendment.

The American government was not created with the intent of being revolution-proof. It was in fact created with the intent that if the time came, it would fall to a revolution. A very unique and admirable effort, if you ask me.

You'll note that heartsurgeon's rather precise and historically accurate statement does not include support for 'the right to carry any gun anywhere, anytime'. It does not include an unlimited right to keep a loaded shotgun in your living room, nor to shoot through the door when somoen rings the bell. It covers what it covers, and ignores many controversies about gun rights (most of which exist now as a result of larger, deser urban populations), thus leaving these as state issues.

Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, hinges on the use of the word 'people', and I think any reasonable person can see that you are reading too much of what you want it to say, and not enough of what it actually says.

JD50
03-15-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.

Your argument is this, if I understand correctly:

1. miliitias helped in a revolution
2. members of these particular militias often brought their own guns
3. hence, in order to have any militia, you must have citizens who own their own guns

I don't agree with the logic.
You don't have to agree with the logic. It's relatively clear (though not beyond doubt) that this was the intent of the amendment.

The American government was not created with the intent of being revolution-proof. It was in fact created with the intent that if the time came, it would fall to a revolution. A very unique and admirable effort, if you ask me.

You'll note that heartsurgeon's rather precise and historically accurate statement does not include support for 'the right to carry any gun anywhere, anytime'. It does not include an unlimited right to keep a loaded shotgun in your living room, nor to shoot through the door when somoen rings the bell. It covers what it covers, and ignores many controversies about gun rights (most of which exist now as a result of larger, deser urban populations), thus leaving these as state issues.

Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, hinges on the use of the word 'people', and I think any reasonable person can see that you are reading too much of what you want it to say, and not enough of what it actually says.



:thumbsup:

3chordcharlie
03-15-2007, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by: JD50

:thumbsup:


As someone who does not support unlimited gun rights (and for whom the second amendment is relatively academic, because I live in Canada), I spent a good deal of mental effort on the same avenue that 6000 is working on.

After trying to wrap my head around it many different ways, I was forced to the conclusion that heartsurgeon outlined above. There is simply no evidence to support a collective interpretation. Once I realized this, I also came to understand that there is nothing 'extremist' about the second amnedment. The protected right is not nearly as expansive as some would have it be, and leaves plenty of leeway to keep guns off the streets on a day-to-day basis, depending on the will of the people in a particular state/city/whatever. Now, if only it had been better written in the first place, perhaps there would be less fighting over what it means.;)

I do support gun ownership, and whatever minor issues I might have, greatly respect the American constitution, specifically because it was created to leave power in the hands of the people, and leave them if nothing else, the power to take back that power by force if all else failed.

6000SUX
03-15-2007, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.


Very well said, a point that 6000SUX has never been able to refute.


Don't lie; it only makes you look stupid. There's really nothing to refute here... what can I do to refute someone's guess? There is no support for me to attack. I am not goint to say that heartsurgeon's take on the matter is definitely wrong, but it's not supported in any way. In addition it is a fact that militias did sometimes provide arms to citizens.




Lie? Where did I lie? By the way, lying doesn't make you look stupid.

Anyways, if you want to cop out and say that everyone against your point of view is just guessing and you won't refute their points because of that then that is making YOU look stupid.....All anyone can do is guess as to what someones intent was when writing something over 200 years ago. The best that you can do is look at the way things were back then, and that will give you a pretty good idea of what they were thinking. Seeing as the only way that the revolution was even possible was because of individual firearm ownership, it seems pretty clear that that is what they were talking about.

You lie by saying that heartsurgeon restated a point I haven't been able to refute. Such an obvious lie does indeed make you look stupid.

I'm not saying everyone who doesn't agree with me is guessing. I'm specifically saying that anyone who merely guesses at the meaning of the Constitution based on their own common-sense notions and unsupported (and often wrong) notions of history is... guessing.

If you're going to argue, you really should put together an argument instead of a simple opinion. That's all.



Now, I'd like to hear how you think that it is possible to have a militia, without individual citizens having firearms.

Today the successor of old state militias, the National Guard, does not rely whatsoever upon private gun ownership. I don't know about special state defense militias.



Why would you need an amendment to allow a government sanctioned army to carry firearms?



Go read the thread, where I addressed this specific ridiculous question. If you ask this again, I won't answer. I am glad you admit that it is possible to have a militia without an individual right of ownership of firearms.

6000SUX
03-15-2007, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a utterly consistent reading of the 2nd amendment, taking into account the historical setting, is that militias, citizen warriors, were instrumental in helping to secure the indepedance of the colonies from foreign rule. These militias (not a national "army") were comprised of citizens who were in many cases not compensated, and were not provided arms. They brought their own guns...

hence, in order to have or maintain a militia, you must have free, armed citizens. The ability of the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign domination is the driving force behind the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.

Your argument is this, if I understand correctly:

1. miliitias helped in a revolution
2. members of these particular militias often brought their own guns
3. hence, in order to have any militia, you must have citizens who own their own guns

I don't agree with the logic.
You don't have to agree with the logic. It's relatively clear (though not beyond doubt) that this was the intent of the amendment.


Again, you are stating an opinion, not an argument, when you make conclusive statements such as "it's relatively clear that x is x". And you are entitled to your opinion... just like I certainly don't need your permission to disagree with obviously flawed logic.


The American government was not created with the intent of being revolution-proof. It was in fact created with the intent that if the time came, it would fall to a revolution. A very unique and admirable effort, if you ask me.

So you think, but cannot prove. More conclusive statements. This has no bearing on the Second Amendment, anyway.


You'll note that heartsurgeon's rather precise and historically accurate statement does not include support for 'the right to carry any gun anywhere, anytime'. It does not include an unlimited right to keep a loaded shotgun in your living room, nor to shoot through the door when somoen rings the bell. It covers what it covers, and ignores many controversies about gun rights (most of which exist now as a result of larger, deser urban populations), thus leaving these as state issues.

Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.


Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, hinges on the use of the word 'people'

No. I believe this is a misconception. All the arguments about a different interpretation of the word "people" being necessary to the collective-rights model are simply wrong. Arguments for the collective-rights model mostly focus on "keep and bear arms" in conjunction with the militia clause.


I think any reasonable person can see that you are reading too much of what you want it to say, and not enough of what it actually says.


I think any reasonable person can see that you're wrong, especially with the way you assume what you set out to prove.

3chordcharlie
03-15-2007, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

You don't have to agree with the logic. It's relatively clear (though not beyond doubt) that this was the intent of the amendment.


Again, you are stating an opinion, not an argument, when you make conclusive statements such as "it's relatively clear that x is x". And you are entitled to your opinion... just like I certainly don't need your permission to disagree with obviously flawed logic.You don't need my permission to disagree with flawed logic. Unfortunately, with or without my permission, disagreeing with good logic and substituting your own bad logic is most likely to make you 'wrong'. If you're fine with being demonstrably wrong, go for it!



The American government was not created with the intent of being revolution-proof. It was in fact created with the intent that if the time came, it would fall to a revolution. A very unique and admirable effort, if you ask me.

So you think, but cannot prove. More conclusive statements. This has no bearing on the Second Amendment, anyway.This is not opinion, unless you believe that the founding fathers and early presidents were only voicing their 'opinion' about how they intended the government that they themselves created to function. This seems a little preposterous.


You'll note that heartsurgeon's rather precise and historically accurate statement does not include support for 'the right to carry any gun anywhere, anytime'. It does not include an unlimited right to keep a loaded shotgun in your living room, nor to shoot through the door when somoen rings the bell. It covers what it covers, and ignores many controversies about gun rights (most of which exist now as a result of larger, deser urban populations), thus leaving these as state issues.

Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment. As far as 'bearing' arms, it's hard to argue that this right extends universally beyond your own private property, but in some places that right is extended further by state legislation.

Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.



Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, hinges on the use of the word 'people'

No. I believe this is a misconception. All the arguments about a different interpretation of the word "people" being necessary to the collective-rights model are simply wrong. Arguments for the collective-rights model mostly focus on "keep and bear arms" in conjunction with the militia clause.
Sadly, you'd be better sticking to 'people'. It's more convincing. You're trying to combine clauses in a very motivated way to produce an outcome thta you know perfectly well does not fit with the way the world worked 200 years ago.


I think any reasonable person can see that you are reading too much of what you want it to say, and not enough of what it actually says.


I think any reasonable person can see that you're wrong, especially with the way you assume what you set out to prove.

I don't think any reasonable person will conclude that I am wrong, though they may think it is possible that I am wrong. Anything is possible.

OFFascist
03-15-2007, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by: marincounty
Great discussion.
Sorry to threadcrap, but...It looks like the two leading candidates for president, Hillary and Rudy, are both in favor of gun control. It's going to be an interesting next couple of years.

I'll probably vote for Bill Richardson or Ron Paul in the primaries.

BoberFett
03-15-2007, 11:30 PM
All another candidate has to do is tie Giuliani to gun control with a single television ad in Texas and that'll be the end of his run.

6000SUX
03-16-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment.

In order for me to be wrong again, I have to be wrong a first time. Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model, and I already indicated that I didn't think it was his intent to support it.


Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.

Your interpretation is a stretch, at best. (My opinion, at least as valid as yours.) I have plenty of agreement, just not by you. However, I am okay with being on the side of the experts and against a few people on Anandtech.

Fern
03-16-2007, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment.

In order for me to be wrong again, I have to be wrong a first time. Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model, and I already indicated that I didn't think it was his intent to support it.


Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.

Your interpretation is a stretch, at best. (My opinion, at least as valid as yours.) I have plenty of agreement, just not by you. However, I am okay with being on the side of the experts and against a few people on Anandtech.

First, this thread has legs, baby :)

Every time I think it's it dead, up it pops to the top.

I'm interested in your remark:


Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model

So, let's say it's been a "collective right" thing all along; It only pertains to states right to have a militia.

We know, right?, that states did not have standing "armies" such as the National Guard at that time, nor was it envisioned (see my tax stuff just keeps popping up here, back then there was NO income tax. That amendment only came about in 1913. Looong after the drafting of the constitution. When the governement wanted to get all "military and stuff" we had to have special temporary war taxes to fund the effort.)

So, we've got no standing/paid militias. And nobody has a right to personal gun ownership, as such let's say they don't.

Help me envision this. Were the arms to be kept by the state government in storage until such times as a militia needed to called together; then the guns provided by the state to those citizens showing up for duty?

Again, "talk" me through this please.

TIA,

Fern

3chordcharlie
03-16-2007, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment.

In order for me to be wrong again, I have to be wrong a first time. Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model, and I already indicated that I didn't think it was his intent to support it.


Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.

Your interpretation is a stretch, at best. (My opinion, at least as valid as yours.) I have plenty of agreement, just not by you. However, I am okay with being on the side of the experts and against a few people on Anandtech.

You would need to be an intellectually bankrupt 'expert' to conclude that the collective rights model is historically accurate. You might get a Supreme Court to decide this, but they would actually be 'legislating from the bench' (unlike most cases, where this is an unfair complaint).

Heartsurgeon's comments are compatible with the collective-rights model, kind of like the Church of the Renaissance declared that the Bible was compatible with all science.

If you try hard enough, you can rationalize anything.

I don't know what your motivation is, but it is certainly not 'correctly interpretting the 2nd amendment', or you would realize how weak your position is, instead of digging your heels in further.

6000SUX
03-16-2007, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment.

In order for me to be wrong again, I have to be wrong a first time. Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model, and I already indicated that I didn't think it was his intent to support it.


Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.

Your interpretation is a stretch, at best. (My opinion, at least as valid as yours.) I have plenty of agreement, just not by you. However, I am okay with being on the side of the experts and against a few people on Anandtech.

First, this thread has legs, baby :)

Every time I think it's it dead, up it pops to the top.

I'm interested in your remark:


Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model

So, let's say it's been a "collective right" thing all along; It only pertains to states right to have a militia.

We know, right?, that states did not have standing "armies" such as the National Guard at that time, nor was it envisioned (see my tax stuff just keeps popping up here, back then there was NO income tax. That amendment only came about in 1913. Looong after the drafting of the constitution. When the governement wanted to get all "military and stuff" we had to have special temporary war taxes to fund the effort.)

So, we've got no standing/paid militias. And nobody has a right to personal gun ownership, as such let's say they don't.

Help me envision this. Were the arms to be kept by the state government in storage until such times as a militia needed to called together; then the guns provided by the state to those citizens showing up for duty?

Again, "talk" me through this please.

TIA,

Fern

You are misunderstanding the purpose of the Second Amendment. It has never been explained by anyone as describing a right of the states. I believe I've stated that many times in this thread. It's getting tiresome. I've never said anyone doesn't have an individual right to gun ownership, either.

6000SUX
03-16-2007, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You would need to be an intellectually bankrupt 'expert' to conclude that the collective rights model is historically accurate. You might get a Supreme Court to decide this, but they would actually be 'legislating from the bench' (unlike most cases, where this is an unfair complaint).


So says 3chordcharlie, Internet expert. You just called all the people who support the collective-rights model intellectually bankrupt, as it is rooted in history. You've made yourself look like an ass and nothing more.


Heartsurgeon's comments are compatible with the collective-rights model, kind of like the Church of the Renaissance declared that the Bible was compatible with all science.

Whatever. You have lost when you cannot mount an argument.


I don't know what your motivation is, but it is certainly not 'correctly interpretting the 2nd amendment', or you would realize how weak your position is, instead of digging your heels in further.

Again, when you result to merely throwing opinions and insults, you are conceding defeat. Thank you.

Fern
03-16-2007, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
[You are misunderstanding the purpose of the Second Amendment. It has never been explained by anyone as describing a right of the states. I believe I've stated that many times in this thread. It's getting tiresome. I've never said anyone doesn't have an individual right to gun ownership, either.

Allow me to explain.

You contsistantly refer to the "collective right"

Here's a appelte court description of said model:


Three Second Amendment Models

The Second Amendment states: "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 appeals court majority identified three "models" of the Second Amendment. The first and second both emphasize the preamble, or "purpose" clause, of the Amendment ? the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The third does not.

The first model holds that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people collectively rather than to individuals, because the right's only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia; it is not for individuals' benefit.

The second model is similar to the first. It holds that the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed.

Under either of the first two models, a private citizen has no right to possess a firearm for personal use. But the court rejected these two models in favor of a third, the individual rights model.

Under this third model, the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech


Under the first two models I think my informal phrasing of it as a "states right" sufficiently summarises it. If you think not, OK.

Then just please state which model you prefer/support as outlined above by the court (or cite a different one if you choose) and kindly have a go at my excercise above (May I suggest you just edit your post above instead of lenghtening this thread further).
----------------------------------------

If you have have not personally stated that individuals don't have the right, OK my mistake. But I was under the impression you were advocating vis-a-vis previously cited court cases that the 2nd was a collective right. Not an individual right, nor both (as I stated I beleive it to be). Hence my remark.

as in


No. The D.C. Circuit could have ruled along the lines of the 9th, in construing the right as a so-called "collective" right. Other circuit decisions have turned also on construction of the same words, as this decision did, just with different results.



thought I would set the record straight on Silveira v. Lockyer, the important Ninth Circuit case adopting the collective-rights model. It relies on clear language from the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Miller, that the language of the Second Amendment applies to state militias:

----------------------------------------

Let's agree to put aside the so-called differences in model 1 & 2. Under either it's going to be a human actually carrying the weapon. And the 2nd model states that only individuals actively serving have the right. I.e., when said individual was at home, he had no right to keep & bears arms according to the 2nd amendment (and as pertains to my excersize above would therefor not have such an arm - it doesn't matter which you refer to, either or both will serve to get this particular discussion where I wish it to go).


TIA

Fern

3chordcharlie
03-16-2007, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You would need to be an intellectually bankrupt 'expert' to conclude that the collective rights model is historically accurate. You might get a Supreme Court to decide this, but they would actually be 'legislating from the bench' (unlike most cases, where this is an unfair complaint).


So says 3chordcharlie, Internet expert. You just called all the people who support the collective-rights model intellectually bankrupt, as it is rooted in history. You've made yourself look like an ass and nothing more.Sadly, you just look, wrong, which you are.

You're model doesn't stand up to history, it only stands up to what you want it to say.



Heartsurgeon's comments are compatible with the collective-rights model, kind of like the Church of the Renaissance declared that the Bible was compatible with all science.

Whatever. You have lost when you cannot mount an argument. I don't need another argument, my first one was more than sufficient considering what you've offered.

This isn't a game of who can keep shouting louder or longer: you are wrong, I've shown you why, and you refuse to accept this. So be it.



I don't know what your motivation is, but it is certainly not 'correctly interpretting the 2nd amendment', or you would realize how weak your position is, instead of digging your heels in further.

Again, when you result to merely throwing opinions and insults, you are conceding defeat. Thank you.
If the constitution had been written by gun-control supporting communists in the 1920s, your position would be historically supportable.

If you want to call that conceding defeat, go ahead. I'm perfectly willing to admit that if you had a completely different set of facts to work with, your story might have a hope of being right.

BoberFett
03-16-2007, 09:33 PM
Has 6000SUX made an argument other than "La la la, I can't hear you?" If he has, I haven't seen it.

JD50
03-16-2007, 09:36 PM
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

6000SUX
03-16-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You would need to be an intellectually bankrupt 'expert' to conclude that the collective rights model is historically accurate. You might get a Supreme Court to decide this, but they would actually be 'legislating from the bench' (unlike most cases, where this is an unfair complaint).


So says 3chordcharlie, Internet expert. You just called all the people who support the collective-rights model intellectually bankrupt, as it is rooted in history. You've made yourself look like an ass and nothing more.Sadly, you just look, wrong, which you are.

You're model doesn't stand up to history, it only stands up to what you want it to say.



Heartsurgeon's comments are compatible with the collective-rights model, kind of like the Church of the Renaissance declared that the Bible was compatible with all science.

Whatever. You have lost when you cannot mount an argument. I don't need another argument, my first one was more than sufficient considering what you've offered.

This isn't a game of who can keep shouting louder or longer: you are wrong, I've shown you why, and you refuse to accept this. So be it.



I don't know what your motivation is, but it is certainly not 'correctly interpretting the 2nd amendment', or you would realize how weak your position is, instead of digging your heels in further.

Again, when you result to merely throwing opinions and insults, you are conceding defeat. Thank you.
If the constitution had been written by gun-control supporting communists in the 1920s, your position would be historically supportable.

If you want to call that conceding defeat, go ahead. I'm perfectly willing to admit that if you had a completely different set of facts to work with, your story might have a hope of being right.

So basically, instead of showing that the collective-rights model is historically inaccurate (which you cannot do), you choose to merely restate the obvious: that you assume you are right.

Since in most of this argumentation your posture has been one of attack, in denying that the collective-rights model is possibly accurate, and since you now offer no further argument, you concede defeat. Sniping just makes you look small.

I'm honestly curious: do you understand that saying things like "your position is unsupportable" is not an argument? An argument requires support. You would have to show that it is unsupportable. Instead all you have done is talk about how your position inherently makes sense. This is a far cry from an argument showing that the collective-rights model does not.

If you can actually prove that the collective-rights model is wrong, come back and see me.

6000SUX
03-16-2007, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Has 6000SUX made an argument other than "La la la, I can't hear you?" If he has, I haven't seen it.

Can you make an argument?

JD50
03-16-2007, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You would need to be an intellectually bankrupt 'expert' to conclude that the collective rights model is historically accurate. You might get a Supreme Court to decide this, but they would actually be 'legislating from the bench' (unlike most cases, where this is an unfair complaint).


So says 3chordcharlie, Internet expert. You just called all the people who support the collective-rights model intellectually bankrupt, as it is rooted in history. You've made yourself look like an ass and nothing more.Sadly, you just look, wrong, which you are.

You're model doesn't stand up to history, it only stands up to what you want it to say.



Heartsurgeon's comments are compatible with the collective-rights model, kind of like the Church of the Renaissance declared that the Bible was compatible with all science.

Whatever. You have lost when you cannot mount an argument. I don't need another argument, my first one was more than sufficient considering what you've offered.

This isn't a game of who can keep shouting louder or longer: you are wrong, I've shown you why, and you refuse to accept this. So be it.



I don't know what your motivation is, but it is certainly not 'correctly interpretting the 2nd amendment', or you would realize how weak your position is, instead of digging your heels in further.

Again, when you result to merely throwing opinions and insults, you are conceding defeat. Thank you.
If the constitution had been written by gun-control supporting communists in the 1920s, your position would be historically supportable.

If you want to call that conceding defeat, go ahead. I'm perfectly willing to admit that if you had a completely different set of facts to work with, your story might have a hope of being right.

So basically, instead of showing that the collective-rights model is historically inaccurate (which you cannot do), you choose to merely restate the obvious: that you assume you are right.

Since in most of this argumentation your posture has been one of attack, in denying that the collective-rights model is possibly accurate, and since you now offer no further argument, you concede defeat. Sniping just makes you look small.

If you can actually prove that the collective-rights model is wrong, come back and see me.


Its quite obvious that the collective-rights model is historically inaccurate, if there was no private gun ownership there would have been no revolution, and there would have been no way to have a militia.

JD50
03-16-2007, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Has 6000SUX made an argument other than "La la la, I can't hear you?" If he has, I haven't seen it.

Can you make an argument?


All that you have done is told everyone that they are wrong, thats it. You claim that in a time where everyone owned guns, when a revolution was made possible by private gun ownership, that somehow they were not talking about private gun ownership. Your argument makes zero sense. You can point to the courts all that you want, it doesn't make them right. They were wrong about slavery, they are wrong about this.

smack Down
03-16-2007, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

I can't believe people are still arguing with the idiot. As the saying goes don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.

JD50
03-16-2007, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

I can't believe people are still arguing with the idiot. As the saying goes don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.


LOL

6000SUX
03-16-2007, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by: Fern
I'm interested in your remark:


Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model

So, let's say it's been a "collective right" thing all along; It only pertains to states right to have a militia.

We know, right?, that states did not have standing "armies" such as the National Guard at that time, nor was it envisioned (see my tax stuff just keeps popping up here, back then there was NO income tax. That amendment only came about in 1913. Looong after the drafting of the constitution. When the governement wanted to get all "military and stuff" we had to have special temporary war taxes to fund the effort.)

So, we've got no standing/paid militias. And nobody has a right to personal gun ownership, as such let's say they don't.

Help me envision this. Were the arms to be kept by the state government in storage until such times as a militia needed to called together; then the guns provided by the state to those citizens showing up for duty?

Again, "talk" me through this please.

TIA,

Fern

There are different flavors of the CRM. In one, people have the right to keep at home arms they were issued by the militia, in order to train and maintain instant readiness. In another, they have the right to own (and keep and bear) arms if they are the member of a militia, although in my opinion this is a little inconsistent. It could work as you say. I think, for someone wishing to discuss the Second Amendment, that it doesn't matter.

You have to remember that no matter what, the language cannot be construed as a restriction. So if you accept for the sake of argument that the collective-rights model is accurate, the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear arms in service to a militia. To "keep" arms is plausibly interpreted as keeping at home, although note that this wouldn't mean that every member of every possible militia would be forced to keep arms at home or anywhere else (Am2 is a safeguard of right(s), not a restriction). Likewise, saying that citizens have the right to bear arms doesn't force them to bear arms in any way. The lack of exact specificity as to the details of the militia means that citizens can bear arms in any type of militia they like. This includes ones that issue arms to citizens in times of need...

6000SUX
03-16-2007, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by: JD50
Its quite obvious that the collective-rights model is historically inaccurate, if there was no private gun ownership there would have been no revolution, and there would have been no way to have a militia.


JD50, I don't think you are being intentionally dense, but I am stumped as to why you can't understand one particular idea. The fact that there was private gun ownership in those days doesn't mean that the collective-rights model is historically inaccurate. If you like you can say that it makes the individual-rights model accurate, which is not saying the same thing.

6000SUX
03-16-2007, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Has 6000SUX made an argument other than "La la la, I can't hear you?" If he has, I haven't seen it.

Can you make an argument?


All that you have done is told everyone that they are wrong, thats it.

All I can do is say "you're wrong" when you make such an obviously, stupidly wrong statement. Go read the thread where I make about a bajillion arguments.


You claim that in a time where everyone owned guns, when a revolution was made possible by private gun ownership, that somehow they were not talking about private gun ownership. Your argument makes zero sense.

Just about all you're capable of is repeating that I make zero sense.


You can point to the courts all that you want, it doesn't make them right. They were wrong about slavery, they are wrong about this.


I'm not just pointing to courts. I mention the Supreme Court and other federal courts supporting the CRM mainly in order to show the ridiculousness of an automatic conclusion that any reasonable person must believe in the IRM.

6000SUX
03-16-2007, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

I can't believe people are still arguing with the idiot. As the saying goes don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.


Originally posted by: smack Down

You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:o

smack Down
03-16-2007, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

I can't believe people are still arguing with the idiot. As the saying goes don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.


Originally posted by: smack Down

You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:o


I guess the idiot is a little confused about how the court works. Maybe you should go look up the term jury nullification, and the go read the constitution and see that there is process for impeaching judges and at the same time look up how the number of Supreme court judges is determined. But I bet that is to complicated for you to understand.

6000SUX
03-16-2007, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

I can't believe people are still arguing with the idiot. As the saying goes don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.


Originally posted by: smack Down

You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:o


I guess the idiot is a little confused about how the court works. May you should go look up the term jury nullification, and the go read the constitution and see that there is process for impeaching judges and at the same time look up how the number of Supreme court judges is determined. But I bet that is to complicated for you to understand.

:roll: Take a class.

smack Down
03-16-2007, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Has 6000SUX made an argument other than "La la la, I can't hear you?" If he has, I haven't seen it.

Can you make an argument?


All that you have done is told everyone that they are wrong, thats it.

All I can do is say "you're wrong" when you make such an obviously, stupidly wrong statement. Go read the thread where I make about a bajillion arguments.


You claim that in a time where everyone owned guns, when a revolution was made possible by private gun ownership, that somehow they were not talking about private gun ownership. Your argument makes zero sense.

Just about all you're capable of is repeating that I make zero sense.


You can point to the courts all that you want, it doesn't make them right. They were wrong about slavery, they are wrong about this.


I'm not just pointing to courts. I mention the Supreme Court and other federal courts supporting the CRM mainly in order to show the ridiculousness of an automatic conclusion that any reasonable person must believe in the IRM.


No, you cite the courts because the CRM, has no basis in the text, history, or the framework of the bill of rights. You can't even answer the simple question is why a militia that is created by the federal government needs an amendment to ensure it has the right to keep and bear arms.

All you have is emotions for an argument.