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

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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It also has links to all kinds of historical documents.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

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
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It also has links to all kinds of historical documents.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

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
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

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
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

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
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

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
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

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
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

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
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

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
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

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
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

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
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

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
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

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
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

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
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

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
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

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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.