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

[6000SUX]

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]

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]

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]

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]

EDIT: repost (and not my fault)

 

[Moonbeam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.