US Supreme Court and 2nd Amendment

[Vic]

That's the 'concise' part, Zen. The states were keeping the military power to themselves, as opposed to in the federal govt. That was something that would continue well up to WWII even.
There was also the issue that the newly-formed federal govt at the time in no way had the money and resources to maintain an army, much less arm it.
Keeping the populace armed was just in their own best interests.

This isn't cynicism, this is reality. Even the Founding Fathers only bargained with the masses as much as they had to, and gave up only what they had to in order to defeat the British. This is one reason why I often say, democracy is an armed truce.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: Craig234
Are you saying that rocket launchers and nuclear weapons aren't military-grade weaponry?

If one purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the public to be able to battle a corrupt government, then shoudln't they need far more advanced weaponry like those rocket launchers? They can hardly fight our modern military with handguns, and so the second amendment is not working.

Scalia wrote that the purpose of the 2nd is for self-defense from criminals and from the oppressive government. He also wrote that SBS's, nukes and bazookas aren't common among the people for self-defense (as handguns, rifles and shotguns are).

So? You just said one of the purposes is protection from the oppresive government. To serve that purpose, the people need weapons powerful enough to defend against our modern military. Whether or not the public has handguns has no effect on whether they can defend themselves against the military, if they can't have the more powerful weapons like rocket launchers. What does what's common have to do with it?

So, is the amendment there for the public to have that defense or isn't it?

The amendment was written so that a militia could be formed to overthrow an opressive government using commonly available weapons that citizens would already have in possession.

As I said earlier:

Upon further reading, the court was saying that militias were formed by common citizens bringing with them common arms that they would have used for hunting or self-defense.

If the purpose was for the public to have the right to form such a militia, then the priority is that right, and not the 'common weapons', which only happened tobe adequate for the task at the time. As the weaponry advanced, the people would need the right to have the more advanced weaponry to keep the same right regarding a militia. I won't even get into the circular reasoning of what's common, when the law has prevented some weapons from becoming common.

You want to avoid the fallacy of confusing the way things were done in popular culture in the late 18th century, with the principle involved in the constitution.

Just as home computers are protected from unreasonable searches even though they didn't exist then, it's not the technology but the principle.

I see three main choices for the 2nd amendment:

1. No or little individual right, the right is for the individual for the purpoe of the militia.

2. Individual right, for the purpose of defending your home (the amendment says nothing about this).

3. Individual right, for the purpose of the public at large being a militia when they want to. This would at least include resisting foreign invaders, possibly our own government.

Popular opinion seems to be (2); the amendment seems to read as (1); and gun advocates often argue (3).

I think (1) is what it says; to paraphrase how I interpret it:

Because the security of our nation relies upon invaders being resisted by militias made of armed citizens, the right of citizens to keep and bear those arms is guaranteed.

The founding fathers did not see the nation having a standing army; Jefferson railed against it as one of the top threats to democracy. And that was about a bunch of guys with muskets, not the modern 'Military Industrial Complex' army Eisenhower warned us threated to undermine democracy. It seems to me you have to consider what the founding fathers were trying to do, and apply the constitution to fit the changing situation. In this case, the whole assumption about militias being our national defense is now obsolete.

Tell you what though. I'll agree to full gun rights for the public as a militia, if you agree to dismantling our standing military.

Of course, that's not a good idea, is it? Times change, and now that we have a real need for some standing military, the second amendment is less relevant.

It seems to me that finding handguns in big cities fulfill some more important home defense or militia purpose than the need for cities to try to deal with the criminals who find their concealibility very useful, is not reading the constitution, it's just making up what you would like it to say. This isn't a post about the (in-)effectiveness of local handgun restrictions, but about what the constitution says.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: Craig234
Are you saying that rocket launchers and nuclear weapons aren't military-grade weaponry?

If one purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the public to be able to battle a corrupt government, then shoudln't they need far more advanced weaponry like those rocket launchers? They can hardly fight our modern military with handguns, and so the second amendment is not working.

Scalia wrote that the purpose of the 2nd is for self-defense from criminals and from the oppressive government. He also wrote that SBS's, nukes and bazookas aren't common among the people for self-defense (as handguns, rifles and shotguns are).

So? You just said one of the purposes is protection from the oppresive government. To serve that purpose, the people need weapons powerful enough to defend against our modern military. Whether or not the public has handguns has no effect on whether they can defend themselves against the military, if they can't have the more powerful weapons like rocket launchers. What does what's common have to do with it?

So, is the amendment there for the public to have that defense or isn't it?

The amendment was written so that a militia could be formed to overthrow an opressive government using commonly available weapons that citizens would already have in possession.

As I said earlier:

Upon further reading, the court was saying that militias were formed by common citizens bringing with them common arms that they would have used for hunting or self-defense.

If the purpose was for the public to have the right to form such a militia, then the priority is that right, and not the 'common weapons', which only happened tobe adequate for the task at the time. As the weaponry advanced, the people would need the right to have the more advanced weaponry to keep the same right regarding a militia. I won't even get into the circular reasoning of what's common, when the law has prevented some weapons from becoming common.

You want to avoid the fallacy of confusing the way things were done in popular culture in the late 18th century, with the principle involved in the constitution.

Just as home computers are protected from unreasonable searches even though they didn't exist then, it's not the technology but the principle.

I see three main choices for the 2nd amendment:

1. No or little individual right, the right is for the individual for the purpoe of the militia.

2. Individual right, for the purpose of defending your home (the amendment says nothing about this).

3. Individual right, for the purpose of the public at large being a militia when they want to. This would at least include resisting foreign invaders, possibly our own government.

Popular opinion seems to be (2); the amendment seems to read as (1); and gun advocates often argue (3).

I think (1) is what it says; to paraphrase how I interpret it:

Because the security of our nation relies upon invaders being resisted by militias made of armed citizens, the right of citizens to keep and bear those arms is guaranteed.

The founding fathers did not see the nation having a standing army; Jefferson railed against it as one of the top threats to democracy. And that was about a bunch of guys with muskets, not the modern 'Military Industrial Complex' army Eisenhower warned us threated to undermine democracy. It seems to me you have to consider what the founding fathers were trying to do, and apply the constitution to fit the changing situation. In this case, the whole assumption about militias being our national defense is now obsolete.

Tell you what though. I'll agree to full gun rights for the public as a militia, if you agree to dismantling our standing military.

Of course, that's not a good idea, is it? Times change, and now that we have a real need for some standing military, the second amendment is less relevant.

It seems to me that finding handguns in big cities fulfill some more important home defense or militia purpose than the need for cities to try to deal with the criminals who find their concealibility very useful, is not reading the constitution, it's just making up what you would like it to say. This isn't a post about the (in-)effectiveness of local handgun restrictions, but about what the constitution says.

That's your opinion and you're fully entitled to it. Myself, the Supreme Court and 70% of Americans disagree with you.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

That's your opinion and you're fully entitled to it. Myself, the Supreme Court and 70% of Americans disagree with you.

Wrong. Try actually making a real post with examples of the claim you're makng and you will do better, by which I mean, you can have your errors specifically identified.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Poll on individual right of the 2nd amendment: http://www.usatoday.com/news/q...november/popup5895.htm

And you can read the opinion of the supreme court to see that they also support the idea that the 2nd is independent of militia service. This is what the whole thread has been about. I'm not really sure how you missed it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
Poll on individual right of the 2nd amendment: http://www.usatoday.com/news/q...november/popup5895.htm

And you can read the opinion of the supreme court to see that they also support the idea that the 2nd is independent of militia service. This is what the whole thread has been about. I'm not really sure how you missed it.

I didn't. I don't know how you missed that what my post actually said was that popular opinion, of the three choices I listed, sides with individual right for home defense.

And five of nine Justices took the position you say the court took; while strictly accurate, it's more accurate to note that four did not when describing 'ths court's position'.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I see three main choices for the 2nd amendment:

1. No or little individual right, the right is for the individual for the purpoe of the militia.

2. Individual right, for the purpose of defending your home (the amendment says nothing about this).

3. Individual right, for the purpose of the public at large being a militia when they want to. This would at least include resisting foreign invaders, possibly our own government.

None of the above.

4. Individual right, no restrictions.

In order to support a reading in which #1 is the actual scope of the Amendment, the 2nd Amendment would need to be phrased as, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms when in the active service of the militia shall not be infringed." That phraseology necessarily restricts the right to active militia participation.

The phraseology of, "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." does not explicitly restrict the right only to active participants in a militia. The grammatical construction of the sentence just doesn't make that tie-in.

The militia portion is an explanation for the granting of an unrestricted individual right. The idea of a "collective" right for civilians is one of the more ridiculous claims invented by modern "scholars". A collective is necessarily made up of individuals and it is simply impossible for a collective of civilians to have rights that the individual members of that collective do not have.

Anyone wishing to tie the 2nd Amendment to only those engaged in militia service must necessarily accept the following:

1. The "militia" (at the time the Amendment was written) was every single able-bodied man, with no requirement to sign up or otherwise publicly or privately commit to service in the militia.

2. Demanding that the right be restricted to only "militias" necessarily allows every able-bodied man to own a firearm without restrictions.

3. Demanding that the right be restricted to only "militias" necessarily revokes the right of firearms ownership from disabled persons who may be otherwise unable to defend themselves.

4. Demanding that the right be restricted to only "militias" necessarily revokes the right of firearms ownership from women, who may otherwise have no viable defense against a 300 pound rapist.

ZV

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
I see three main choices for the 2nd amendment:

1. No or little individual right, the right is for the individual for the purpoe of the militia.

2. Individual right, for the purpose of defending your home (the amendment says nothing about this).

3. Individual right, for the purpose of the public at large being a militia when they want to. This would at least include resisting foreign invaders, possibly our own government.

None of the above.

4. Individual right, no restrictions.

In order to support a reading in which #1 is the actual scope of the Amendment, the 2nd Amendment would need to be phrased as, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms when in the active service of the militia shall not be infringed." That phraseology necessarily restricts the right to active militia participation.

The phraseology of, "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." does not explicitly restrict the right only to active participants in a militia. The grammatical construction of the sentence just doesn't make that tie-in.

The militia portion is an explanation for the granting of an unrestricted individual right. The idea of a "collective" right for civilians is one of the more ridiculous claims invented by modern "scholars". A collective is necessarily made up of individuals and it is simply impossible for a collective of civilians to have rights that the individual members of that collective do not have.

Anyone wishing to tie the 2nd Amendment to only those engaged in militia service must necessarily accept the following:

1. The "militia" (at the time the Amendment was written) was every single able-bodied man, with no requirement to sign up or otherwise publicly or privately commit to service in the militia.

2. Demanding that the right be restricted to only "militias" necessarily allows every able-bodied man to own a firearm without restrictions.

3. Demanding that the right be restricted to only "militias" necessarily revokes the right of firearms ownership from disabled persons who may be otherwise unable to defend themselves.

4. Demanding that the right be restricted to only "militias" necessarily revokes the right of firearms ownership from women, who may otherwise have no viable defense against a 300 pound rapist.

ZV

What is the difference between the second amendment with the first part, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State", and without it?

According to you, none; the phrase has no effect. You suggest it's there as "an explanation" for the right.

Funny, no other right has an explanation. It doesn't say, "the free exchange of ideas being essential to a democracy, the right to speech shall not be abridged." It doesn't say, "the danger of oppresive government outweighing the benefits against criminal behavior, the right be secure from unreasonable search shall not be infringed". No other right has an explanation.

And if it IS an explanation, it appears to me to be one that's constraining.

It's not saying "this one purpose being important, the unlimited right for a thousand reasons shall not b infringed".

No, it's saying, 'because of this one purpose, the right shall not be infringed". *If that weren't the case, its unlimited, why didn't they just leave the first part off*?

Of course, your 'no restrictions' view is far to the right even of Scalia, who was quick to say lots of restrictions are fine.

To your numbered points: #1, why do you think they added the words "well-regulated"?
If your view was correct, they wouldn't add those words.

To your point #2, there's nothing in the constitution limiting militais to men AFAIK. If there were, it'd be little different from only men voting, but there isn't.

To your points 3 and 4, note you have far left what the amendment says, and entered the topic of 'what is the right policy'.

Rather than even discuss that other issue, I'll just note for you that the second amendment being limited to militias *does not restrict states from granting the additional protections*.

In fact, 44 states have additional gun rights protections. It's not as if acknowledging the second amendment is for militias means you are not allowed to have a gun. Rather, it means that the only right the *federal constitution* protects is regarding the militias. And the question isn't 'do you like that', it's 'does the constitution say it'. At least, that should be the question. Scalia is a sort of ideological thug who uses 'original intent' selectively when it suits his purposes and for cover for his agenda.

It's interesting to note how willing people are to let the Supreme Court say something at odds with the constitution if it's a result they like.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
To your numbered points: #1, why do you think they added the words "well-regulated"?
If your view was correct, they wouldn't add those words.

"Well-regulated", as used at the time the 2nd Amendment was written did NOT mean "limited by regulations" as it means today. A "well-regulated" militia, using the language in use around 1787, means a militia that is proficient with its weaponry and proficient in its tactics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with regulations placed upon the formation of a militia nor with regulations placed upon the members of a militia. It is a common mistake among unstudied individuals to attempt to use the modern meaning of "regulated" when such meaning is clearly in error.

If my view is correct, then those words are even more important than if they were trying to grant this imaginary "collective right" of yours.

It is patently impossible to gather together a "well-regulated" militia if the individuals of which said militia is composed are not already proficient with military-grade firearms before the militia is activated. Logically, the only way to guarantee a "well-regulated" militia is to guarantee the individual right to own military-grade firearms independent of active participation in a militia.

Originally posted by: Craig234
To your point #2, there's nothing in the constitution limiting militais to men AFAIK. If there were, it'd be little different from only men voting, but there isn't.

You have done precious little research into the history of the US militia if you do not know that it was, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, limited exclusively to males. This is widely verifiable.

Originally posted by: Craig234
To your points 3 and 4, note you have far left what the amendment says, and entered the topic of 'what is the right policy'.

Which is precisely what you do when you claim that the amendment grants a collective right.

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rather than even discuss that other issue, I'll just note for you that the second amendment being limited to militias *does not restrict states from granting the additional protections*.

In fact, 44 states have additional gun rights protections. It's not as if acknowledging the second amendment is for militias means you are not allowed to have a gun. Rather, it means that the only right the *federal constitution* protects is regarding the militias. And the question isn't 'do you like that', it's 'does the constitution say it'. At least, that should be the question. Scalia is a sort of ideological thug who uses 'original intent' selectively when it suits his purposes and for cover for his agenda.

Other amendments in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated. The US Supreme Court has never ruled on the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment (though it seems to be covered quite clearly under the 14th Amendment), so this is an unknown point. I will agree that this has not been tested, but I firmly believe that it is covered under the 14th Amendment and that, Constitutionally, it should be incorporated.

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's interesting to note how willing people are to let the Supreme Court say something at odds with the constitution if it's a result they like.

What is interesting to me is how people can completely invent the idea of a "collective right" and then claim that their revisionist positions are based on the Constitution when, in fact, they have mangled that document and show no desire whatsoever to legitimately understand it.

ZV

 

[Lemon law]

Somewhat missing in my understanding, is an understanding of when the US armed forces rejected the use of a private militia. But certainly during the civil war, especially on the Southern side, a wealthy individual would fund the the raising of a private militia, and that in turn would be somehow attached the the regular army command structure. But the officers would often be elected by the militia members themselves or the officer role would simply be assumed by the sponsor himself.

During the Spanish American war, the so called rough riders were a private militia sponsored and hand picked by Teddy Roosevelt, but an regular army officer, A Col. Wood as I recall, was placed in overall command. Thereafter, there are almost no references to private militias I can think of thereafter actually subsequently attached to US armed forces. To a certain extent, something like the WW2 flying tigers was a mainly US volunteer force, but was not attached to the US army itself. And actually more fought for the Chinese government and opposed the Japanese.

And since the use of a militia, public or private, is now past living memory, its hard to interpret the phrase a well regulated militia being used in the same sentence as the people's right to bear arms. But we must also ask would the definition of a militia extend to the rights of a group of mafia thugs willing to bear arms to prevent their members
from being imprisoned for breaking State or Federal laws?

 

[Vic]

What part about banning guns is a harmful restriction of freedom with no benefit to the people is it so hard for the gun grabbers to understand? Give it up already.

 

[Craig234]

Your reading comprehension is not doing too well on issue after issue.

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
To your numbered points: #1, why do you think they added the words "well-regulated"?
If your view was correct, they wouldn't add those words.

"Well-regulated", as used at the time the 2nd Amendment was written did NOT mean "limited by regulations" as it means today. A "well-regulated" militia, using the language in use around 1787, means a militia that is proficient with its weaponry and proficient in its tactics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with regulations placed upon the formation of a militia nor with regulations placed upon the members of a militia. It is a common mistake among unstudied individuals to attempt to use the modern meaning of "regulated" when such meaning is clearly in error.

If my view is correct, then those words are even more important than if they were trying to grant this imaginary "collective right" of yours.

It is patently impossible to gather together a "well-regulated" militia if the individuals of which said militia is composed are not already proficient with military-grade firearms before the militia is activated. Logically, the only way to guarantee a "well-regulated" militia is to guarantee the individual right to own military-grade firearms independent of active participation in a militia.

You are proving my point, not yours. You argue against a position I never took, about the meaning of the word 'well-regulated'. My argument fits nicely with your definition.

The point is, that the phrase IS in the amendment, and the unlimited right you advocate whereby people buy guns and keep them without ever being involved in any way with a militia is in contradiction to the "well-regulated militia", using your definition of that phrase, the amendment mentions. The unlimited individual right is in conflict with the amendment's language.

Originally posted by: Craig234
To your point #2, there's nothing in the constitution limiting militais to men AFAIK. If there were, it'd be little different from only men voting, but there isn't.

You have done precious little research into the history of the US militia if you do not know that it was, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, limited exclusively to males. This is widely verifiable.

Again, I never said otherwise. I said that AFAIK, the constitution does not have any requirement for militias to be male-only, so that can change as the culture changes.

You did not quote the second part of my response that it's a red-herring issue anyway, unrelated to the discussion at hand of the recent court decision.

Originally posted by: Craig234
To your points 3 and 4, note you have far left what the amendment says, and entered the topic of 'what is the right policy'.

Which is precisely what you do when you claim that the amendment grants a collective right.

Completely wrong. My position has no basis on what the policy should be, and is completely based on what the amendment says ("well-regulated militia".

But I note your admission that you are basing your position on what the amendment says on what you want the policy to be, not on what it says.

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rather than even discuss that other issue, I'll just note for you that the second amendment being limited to militias *does not restrict states from granting the additional protections*.

In fact, 44 states have additional gun rights protections. It's not as if acknowledging the second amendment is for militias means you are not allowed to have a gun. Rather, it means that the only right the *federal constitution* protects is regarding the militias. And the question isn't 'do you like that', it's 'does the constitution say it'. At least, that should be the question. Scalia is a sort of ideological thug who uses 'original intent' selectively when it suits his purposes and for cover for his agenda.

Other amendments in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated. The US Supreme Court has never ruled on the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment (though it seems to be covered quite clearly under the 14th Amendment), so this is an unknown point. I will agree that this has not been tested, but I firmly believe that it is covered under the 14th Amendment and that, Constitutionally, it should be incorporated.

I'm afraid that I do not see what you are trying to say here.

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's interesting to note how willing people are to let the Supreme Court say something at odds with the constitution if it's a result they like.

What is interesting to me is how people can completely invent the idea of a "collective right" and then claim that their revisionist positions are based on the Constitution when, in fact, they have mangled that document and show no desire whatsoever to legitimately understand it.

ZV

What's not interesting to me is how you can so dishonestly say what you said. It's hardly invented, and there's every interest to 'legitimately understand' the amendment - by me.

You are again projecting your own issue - in this case, your lack of 'desire to legitimately understand it'.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Vic
What part about banning guns is a harmful restriction of freedom with no benefit to the people is it so hard for the gun grabbers to understand? Give it up already.

There is a benefit. i assure you i'd rather be killed by a shot to the head than my head sawed off. did you see that video?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your reading comprehension is not doing too well on issue after issue.

One issue. I've never discussed any issue with you other than the one in this thread.

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
To your numbered points: #1, why do you think they added the words "well-regulated"?
If your view was correct, they wouldn't add those words.

"Well-regulated", as used at the time the 2nd Amendment was written did NOT mean "limited by regulations" as it means today. A "well-regulated" militia, using the language in use around 1787, means a militia that is proficient with its weaponry and proficient in its tactics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with regulations placed upon the formation of a militia nor with regulations placed upon the members of a militia. It is a common mistake among unstudied individuals to attempt to use the modern meaning of "regulated" when such meaning is clearly in error.

If my view is correct, then those words are even more important than if they were trying to grant this imaginary "collective right" of yours.

It is patently impossible to gather together a "well-regulated" militia if the individuals of which said militia is composed are not already proficient with military-grade firearms before the militia is activated. Logically, the only way to guarantee a "well-regulated" militia is to guarantee the individual right to own military-grade firearms independent of active participation in a militia.

You are proving my point, not yours. You argue against a position I never took, about the meaning of the word 'well-regulated'. My argument fits nicely with your definition.

The point is, that the phrase IS in the amendment, and the unlimited right you advocate whereby people buy guns and keep them without ever being involved in any way with a militia is in contradiction to the "well-regulated militia", using your definition of that phrase, the amendment mentions. The unlimited individual right is in conflict with the amendment's language.

You miss the point that every single able-bodied citizen is, by definition, a member of his or her state militia. You can look up state definitions of just what a "militia" is. Every citizen of sound body is automatically a member of that state's militia regardless of active participation.

I say again, it is impossible to grant the collective right without granting the individual right unreservedly.

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
To your points 3 and 4, note you have far left what the amendment says, and entered the topic of 'what is the right policy'.

Which is precisely what you do when you claim that the amendment grants a collective right.

Completely wrong. My position has no basis on what the policy should be, and is completely based on what the amendment says ("well-regulated militia".

But I note your admission that you are basing your position on what the amendment says on what you want the policy to be, not on what it says.

You are basing your position on an incorrect understanding of the phrase, "well-regulated militia". It's simply not logically possible to argue for a collective right with a proper understanding of the phrase "well-regulated" as meaning "familiar and proficient in the use of weaponry".

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rather than even discuss that other issue, I'll just note for you that the second amendment being limited to militias *does not restrict states from granting the additional protections*.

In fact, 44 states have additional gun rights protections. It's not as if acknowledging the second amendment is for militias means you are not allowed to have a gun. Rather, it means that the only right the *federal constitution* protects is regarding the militias. And the question isn't 'do you like that', it's 'does the constitution say it'. At least, that should be the question. Scalia is a sort of ideological thug who uses 'original intent' selectively when it suits his purposes and for cover for his agenda.

Other amendments in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated. The US Supreme Court has never ruled on the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment (though it seems to be covered quite clearly under the 14th Amendment), so this is an unknown point. I will agree that this has not been tested, but I firmly believe that it is covered under the 14th Amendment and that, Constitutionally, it should be incorporated.

I'm afraid that I do not see what you are trying to say here.

I am saying that whether the 2nd Amendment does or does not restrict state and local restrictions has not been tested at the Supreme Court level. My opinion is that the 2nd Amendment is covered under the 14th Amendment and will be ruled as being incorporated, but as this has not been tested the most that can be said is that this is unresolved.

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's interesting to note how willing people are to let the Supreme Court say something at odds with the constitution if it's a result they like.

What is interesting to me is how people can completely invent the idea of a "collective right" and then claim that their revisionist positions are based on the Constitution when, in fact, they have mangled that document and show no desire whatsoever to legitimately understand it.

ZV

What's not interesting to me is how you can so dishonestly say what you said. It's hardly invented, and there's every interest to 'legitimately understand' the amendment - by me.

You are again projecting your own issue - in this case, your lack of 'desire to legitimately understand it'.

There is no duplicity in what I say. I am confident that my position is historically accurate. You disagree. We shall have to leave it stand there as neither of us stands a chance of convincing the other.

ZV

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Vic
What part about banning guns is a harmful restriction of freedom with no benefit to the people is it so hard for the gun grabbers to understand? Give it up already.

There is a benefit. i assure you i'd rather be killed by a shot to the head than my head sawed off. did you see that video?

Uhh.... I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[mc00]

II am a supporter of the Second Amendment. I don't support it so I can look cool with a gun. I support solely because this one statement "that it would give the people the ability to defend their liberties if the government ever became tyrannical" If you ask any of current student in HS they have no clue what Second Amendment right is they just think "oh cool
I can carry a gun". I believe one day we going to have to use this right fight for our liberties...
So I hope this judges would make right decision look back at history and see why we need this right...

if they do remove or whatever this right. than later on they going want to remove this and that little by little.

between don't own a gun yet.

 

[vhx]

If they really wanted to get rid of guns from normal people they could.

Just put a ban on bullets, put a ban on permits. Since the government has to actually approve of your permit for you to legally own a gun, they could just stop it themselves. However, this still wouldn't stop people from getting guns... just your everyday citizen. The people who were really intent on a crime would have no problem getting one.

Oh well.