US Supreme Court and 2nd Amendment

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
LOL @ the "God given right" comment. I support the right to bear arms but that's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.




We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.



Not so bizarre when one reads the language of the day.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
...

If the majority of citizens took up arms against the govt, even using just rifles and hand guns, it would be EASY to topple them. This is our turf, our cities, the military is made up of our own sons, how many do you think would shoot americans? Who do you thinks makes thier guns, supplies thier ammo, refines the gas for thier tanks? We do!

Hell look what the Afghani's did with nothing but AK's and some improvised explosives against entire armored divisions of soviets.

The whole "Times have changed" argument against the 2nd ammendment is complete and utter BS.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: ahurtt
...

If the majority of citizens took up arms against the govt, even using just rifles and hand guns, it would be EASY to topple them. This is our turf, our cities, the military is made up of our own sons, how many do you think would shoot americans? Who do you thinks makes thier guns, supplies thier ammo, refines the gas for thier tanks? We do!

Hell look what the Afghani's did with nothing but AK's and some improvised explosives against entire armored divisions of soviets.

The whole "Times have changed" argument against the 2nd ammendment is complete and utter BS.

But it's obvious from your argument that kitchen knives would serve as well, or rocks or pitch forks, gas bombs, ant spray, etc. But, in my opinion, it won't happen as long as there's TV. Americans are frogs in a pot that was put on slow heat a long time ago. We'll be cooked before we even know it.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: MadRat
People are going to shit bricks when the Supremes knock down the right to own a gun. The feds will move fast on regulating us even more once they do. You can bet the house on it.

wich is why they won't do it...at least not yet. but i am willing to bet within the next 30 years it may.

 

[Mavtek3100]

I hope they do say individuals can't have guns, only militias. Then you will see a mass militia movement like no other movement on the Earth before or since. Texas alone would have a Militia with over 3 million men, it would be a well funded organized militia as well. $10 dues per year, maybe a ragtag army of millions with decent funding would scare the hell out of our POS government?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I hope they do say individuals can't have guns, only militias. Then you will see a mass militia movement like no other movement on the Earth before or since. Texas alone would have a Militia with over 3 million men, it would be a well funded organized militia as well. $10 dues per year, maybe a ragtag army of millions with decent funding would scare the hell out of our POS government?

that won't happen. the US will either make it against the law, delcare them traitors or send them ot Iraq

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: stlcardinals
It will only hurt the people who actually follow the law.

This. How many violent criminals have legally registered their guns before shooting someone? I've heard NY city and New Jersey have a specific problem with illegitimate guns being shipped in without serial numbers and sold on the streets.

I have to ask, in the event that they actually decide to disallow the general public to carry firearms, what is the likelihood that the government will also evoke existing licenses? i.e. Should I go apply for one now, before they change it? Heh.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Fern
Another thing.

Here is the way the SCOTUS phrased the issue in the upcoming Heller case:

?Whether the following provisions ? D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 ? violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

If you read carefully it suggests that the court already recognizes an "individual" right. They don't say that they are examing whether or not an individual DOES have a (non-collective) 2nd Amendment right, but whether the DC rules violate that right.

I.e., their phrasing strongly suggests the supposition that the individual right exists. Can't violate something that doesn't exists.

Fern

Another quality post by Fern on this topic.

I might also add that, being very literal myself, they are only considering whether it is lawful or not to have "in their homes". If the wording proves to be literal as most situations involving the law do, CC will not even enter the discussion.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
When the constitution was written, the most dangerous thing people had were probably muskets and muzzle-loaders. Not full/semi automatic assault rifles with laser scopes and 30 round clips of ammunition that you could use to mow down dozens of people in short order. The founding fathers couldn't have conceived of such a thing. Now if you want to go out and buy and carry around a 200 year-old muzzle loading musket, nobody should be allowed under the constitution to stop you. But get real. . .times have changed, weapons have changed. There definitely needs to be a line drawn to delineate what is needed and allowed for home and personal defense and what is clearly offensive assault weaponry. Should people be allowed guns? Yes. Absolutely. Any gun they want? Absolutely no way in hell.

"When the constitution was written, the most people could do is use presses to spread political speech. Not blogs, internet, email and whatever else media that you could use to spread hate, libel, terrorism and other undesirable information. The founding fathers couldn't have thought about such things. Times have changed and line needs to be drawn between freedom of speech and hate and terror spreading internet. Should people have the right to use presses as a method of expression? Yes...."

Your argument is void.

 

[piasabird]

Militia is a very vague term. In the revoulutionary war, a malitia was a group of free men who owned their own weapons which were often used to shoot game and hunt for food or defend their house on the frontier. These men would volunteer for free to fight for their wives, their children, their land and property, and their very freedom. They were not in a regular military unit. In no way was the citizen soldier in any kind of organized military unit. This is what the formers of the constitution was set up to defend. It is the right to bear arms against the tyranny of a centralized government.

You guys need to study history.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
In the past though, a well regulated militia and the army had roughly the same technological levels of weaponry available to them. A common farmer could afford to go out and buy and own the same kind of rifle a soldier would carry. The playing field was pretty even. Now the balance has shifted massively toward the side of the established national defense forces by an overwhelming margin. Your average citizen can no longer afford even close to the level of advanced weaponry at the disposal of those already in power who command our armed forces. Do your realistically believe that today, if it came down to it, the citizenry of the United States of America would even stand a snowballs chance in hell at overthrowing the government in an armed revolution? It would be a slaughter, so help us, if it ever came down to that. The only hope for overthrowing the government would be the hope that the armed forces decided to break allegiance to the existing government and side with the citizens they are sworn to protect. The balance of power has already shifted long ago. The playing field is no longer level. So as I said in my original post. . .times have changed. That was then. . .200 years ago. This is now. The world and the United States are different. Weapons today have considerably more destructive power than they did 200 years ago. The only thing that hasn't changed much is people. They are still as flawed, dangerous, and unpredictable as they always have been. So realistically speaking, today, the only reason an individual U.S. citizen needs to have a firearm is for self defense or hunting. Because you don't stand a chance at an armed confrontation with a government that has the kind of capabilities of our modern day armed forces at their disposal. And you don't need automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, and friggin lazer beams for that.

I don't generally go off on tangents when discussing the 2nd amendment. But I'll indulge myself here. 🙂

I don't disagree with much you've posted, I think many of the "details" are fine. It's your "whole point" I disagree with - the idea that the people could not overthrow the US government, that they would be slaughtered by the military.

The US government depends upon the voluntary compliance of the people. This is not a country built upon "force", as we see in various brutal dictatorships

For example, look at our tax system. On average, only 2% of taxpayers are audited each year. Of that 2% only a fraction will owe taxes. Of that fraction most will pay willingly. The government will only bring bring any "force" to bear on some minor fraction far below even 1%. If the government had to bring force to make even 50% of the people pay they simply couldn't do it. No way.

Likewise with law enforcement. They have their hands completely full with some extremely small fraction of the population that continues to break laws repeatedly. They'd be hopelessly overwhelmed. We don't have jail space for what we've got now.

Our military, even if willing (which I doubt) is simply insufficient to force a population our size in an area as big as the US to comply. We don't even have enough people in the military to adequately occupy a country the size of Iraq.

Bombs and such? Please. What are you going to bomb? Cities? Power plants? Dams? Factories? Ports of commerce? Why? How would that in any way help the government?

Our government would simply collapse without our voluntary compliance.

Personally, I don't think we need much in the way of arms to overthrow our government. It's who you choose to follow that leads. We could simply ignore them, pick a new government and go about our business following the new one. The old government couldn't do squat other than be a minor inconvenience for a temporary period of time. They could sit in Washington and stew with nobody paying them any attention.

Fern

 

[waggy]

i been thinking about htis. i see in teh next 30-50 years guns will be outlawed. And stuff like this is just a test.


with the continuing "terriost attacks" by US citizens, School shootings etc are going to the reason.

Eventually you will see places outlaw guns and the US courts will uphold it.

Then it will spread all over.

Eventually the goverment will tell states/county's that if they want goverment funding they have to pass laws makeing it against the law to have them or severly restricting them. If they do not pass the law they don't get goverment funding.


I just think its a matter of time.

 

[piasabird]

It is not the job of private citizens to comply with the military or the government. Freedom is not about compliance. Instead it is the government that is suppose to comply with the voice of the people. You misunderstand the people are the government. Only dictatorships and facists think it is there job to make the people comply.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ahurtt
In the past though, a well regulated militia and the army had roughly the same technological levels of weaponry available to them. A common farmer could afford to go out and buy and own the same kind of rifle a soldier would carry. The playing field was pretty even. Now the balance has shifted massively toward the side of the established national defense forces by an overwhelming margin. Your average citizen can no longer afford even close to the level of advanced weaponry at the disposal of those already in power who command our armed forces. Do your realistically believe that today, if it came down to it, the citizenry of the United States of America would even stand a snowballs chance in hell at overthrowing the government in an armed revolution? It would be a slaughter, so help us, if it ever came down to that. The only hope for overthrowing the government would be the hope that the armed forces decided to break allegiance to the existing government and side with the citizens they are sworn to protect. The balance of power has already shifted long ago. The playing field is no longer level. So as I said in my original post. . .times have changed. That was then. . .200 years ago. This is now. The world and the United States are different. Weapons today have considerably more destructive power than they did 200 years ago. The only thing that hasn't changed much is people. They are still as flawed, dangerous, and unpredictable as they always have been. So realistically speaking, today, the only reason an individual U.S. citizen needs to have a firearm is for self defense or hunting. Because you don't stand a chance at an armed confrontation with a government that has the kind of capabilities of our modern day armed forces at their disposal. And you don't need automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, and friggin lazer beams for that.

I don't generally go off on tangents when discussing the 2nd amendment. But I'll indulge myself here. 🙂

I don't disagree with much you've posted, I think many of the "details" are fine. It's your "whole point" I disagree with - the idea that the people could not overthrow the US government, that they would be slaughtered by the military.

The US government depends upon the voluntary compliance of the people. This is not a country built upon "force", as we see in various brutal dictatorships

For example, look at our tax system. On average, only 2% of taxpayers are audited each year. Of that 2% only a fraction will owe taxes. Of that fraction most will pay willingly. The government will only bring bring any "force" to bear on some minor fraction far below even 1%. If the government had to bring force to make even 50% of the people pay they simply couldn't do it. No way.

Likewise with law enforcement. They have their hands completely full with some extremely small fraction of the population that continues to break laws repeatedly. They'd be hopelessly overwhelmed. We don't have jail space for what we've got now.

Our military, even if willing (which I doubt) is simply insufficient to force a population our size in an area as big as the US to comply. We don't even have enough people in the military to adequately occupy a country the size of Iraq.

Bombs and such? Please. What are you going to bomb? Cities? Power plants? Dams? Factories? Ports of commerce? Why? How would that in any way help the government?

Our government would simply collapse without our voluntary compliance.

Personally, I don't think we need much in the way of arms to overthrow our government. It's who you choose to follow that leads. We could simply ignore them, pick a new government and go about our business following the new one. The old government couldn't do squat other than be a minor inconvenience for a temporary period of time. They could sit in Washington and stew with nobody paying them any attention.

Fern

yeap.


not much to add reallly heh

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Is there any evidence either way that it reduces or increases crime?

One professor wrote a book claiming that he conducted in-depth statistical studies that show that gun ownership decreases crime:

More Guns, Less Crime

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: waggy
i been thinking about htis. i see in teh next 30-50 years guns will be outlawed. And stuff like this is just a test.


with the continuing "terriost attacks" by US citizens, School shootings etc are going to the reason.

Eventually you will see places outlaw guns and the US courts will uphold it.

Then it will spread all over.

Eventually the goverment will tell states/county's that if they want goverment funding they have to pass laws makeing it against the law to have them or severly restricting them. If they do not pass the law they don't get goverment funding.


I just think its a matter of time.

We have to hope people aren't really that stupid. If it ever happens it's the end of society as we knew it. Full armed revolution.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
When the constitution was written, the most dangerous thing people had were probably muskets and muzzle-loaders. Not full/semi automatic assault rifles with laser scopes and 30 round clips of ammunition that you could use to mow down dozens of people in short order. The founding fathers couldn't have conceived of such a thing. Now if you want to go out and buy and carry around a 200 year-old muzzle loading musket, nobody should be allowed under the constitution to stop you. But get real. . .times have changed, weapons have changed. There definitely needs to be a line drawn to delineate what is needed and allowed for home and personal defense and what is clearly offensive assault weaponry. Should people be allowed guns? Yes. Absolutely. Any gun they want? Absolutely no way in hell.

Give me a break. They knew exactly what they were doing. It didnt matter if it was sticks and stones or an AK-47. The idea is all that counts. That idea being, the populace can overthrow a corrupt govt or protect themselves from an oppressive govt.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: ahurtt
When the constitution was written, the most dangerous thing people had were probably muskets and muzzle-loaders. Not full/semi automatic assault rifles with laser scopes and 30 round clips of ammunition that you could use to mow down dozens of people in short order. The founding fathers couldn't have conceived of such a thing. Now if you want to go out and buy and carry around a 200 year-old muzzle loading musket, nobody should be allowed under the constitution to stop you. But get real. . .times have changed, weapons have changed. There definitely needs to be a line drawn to delineate what is needed and allowed for home and personal defense and what is clearly offensive assault weaponry. Should people be allowed guns? Yes. Absolutely. Any gun they want? Absolutely no way in hell.

"When the constitution was written, the most people could do is use presses to spread political speech. Not blogs, internet, email and whatever else media that you could use to spread hate, libel, terrorism and other undesirable information. The founding fathers couldn't have thought about such things. Times have changed and line needs to be drawn between freedom of speech and hate and terror spreading internet. Should people have the right to use presses as a method of expression? Yes...."

Your argument is void.

You can't mow down a room full of people with dirty words. Your comparison, much like the space between your ears, is void.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It is not the job of private citizens to comply with the military or the government. Freedom is not about compliance. Instead it is the government that is suppose to comply with the voice of the people. You misunderstand the people are the government. Only dictatorships and facists think it is there job to make the people comply.

There is an implicit agreement between the government and the people in a democracy. Since it is the people who elect the government, they implicitly agree to abide by the laws set forth by the government they elect. The job of the government is to make, enforce, and interpret the laws of the land and amend or repeal them if and when necessary in accordance with the will of the majority of the governed. If one side starts ignoring the other then you have either anarchy or dictatorship.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I hope they do say individuals can't have guns, only militias. Then you will see a mass militia movement like no other movement on the Earth before or since. Texas alone would have a Militia with over 3 million men, it would be a well funded organized militia as well. $10 dues per year, maybe a ragtag army of millions with decent funding would scare the hell out of our POS government?

If you want to see a POS government, look at Rick Perry and his promotion of teaching creationism in state universities. Texans are the people you LEAST want forming a militia. TRUST ME, I LIVE IN TEXAS

 

[Throckmorton]

Wait, so how come the states' rights/decentralization folks aren't pushing for DC to be able to ban guns? After all, states can violate federal discrimination law by banning gay marriage can't they?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
LOL @ the "God given right" comment. I support the right to bear arms but that's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

What do you mean?

From my post above regarding the first SCOTUS case on the 2nd Amendment:

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

If inclusion of the word "god" offends you, choose another term such "natural right", "inherent right", or whatever. This is, IIRC, "original language" of that time. Even a cursory reading of documents from that period shows often they referred to "God".

The point is that the right to keep and bear arms is a supra-Constitutional right of all men. Accordingly, such right need not be found in the Constitution to exist. And the 2nd Amendment merely assures (originally to the states) that the federal government will not try to infringe upon this right.

If it's the most bizarre thing you've ever heard, well, just highlights how crappy our civics classes are in school and how little the Constitution is understood. Maybe also how far we've come from understanding it's original meaning.

Fern

It's not the word "God". It's the idea that God gave us the right to own guns, or even taking "God" to mean nature, that it's a natural right to own guns. It sounds bizarre to me because the existence of guns, unlike free speech for example, is dependent on a certain level of technology. It would be like saying owning a battleaxe is a God given right, or owning a dirty bomb is a God given right. It's a constitutional right IMO.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Wait, so how come the states' rights/decentralization folks aren't pushing for DC to be able to ban guns? After all, states can violate federal discrimination law by banning gay marriage can't they?

To what "federal discrimination law" are you referring that states are so wantonly violating?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
LOL @ the "God given right" comment. I support the right to bear arms but that's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

What do you mean?

From my post above regarding the first SCOTUS case on the 2nd Amendment:

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

If inclusion of the word "god" offends you, choose another term such "natural right", "inherent right", or whatever. This is, IIRC, "original language" of that time. Even a cursory reading of documents from that period shows often they referred to "God".

The point is that the right to keep and bear arms is a supra-Constitutional right of all men. Accordingly, such right need not be found in the Constitution to exist. And the 2nd Amendment merely assures (originally to the states) that the federal government will not try to infringe upon this right.

If it's the most bizarre thing you've ever heard, well, just highlights how crappy our civics classes are in school and how little the Constitution is understood. Maybe also how far we've come from understanding it's original meaning.

Fern

It's not the word "God". It's the idea that God gave us the right to own guns, or even taking "God" to mean nature, that it's a natural right to own guns. It sounds bizarre to me because the existence of guns, unlike free speech for example, is dependent on a certain level of technology. It would be like saying owning a battleaxe is a God given right, or owning a dirty bomb is a God given right. It's a constitutional right IMO.

The gun is merely the tool allowing for the basic rights...those of self defense, and political control. Those rights supersede mere Constitutional grant, and enter the realm of 'God given' (rather there is a literal God or not). The right requires that citizens have a level of defense equivalent to that of criminals, and a level of offensive technology capable of exerting their will against a government. Hundreds of years ago, that was a musket, and before that a battleaxe. Today it's a rifle, shotgun, and pistol.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: waggy
i been thinking about htis. i see in teh next 30-50 years guns will be outlawed. And stuff like this is just a test.


with the continuing "terriost attacks" by US citizens, School shootings etc are going to the reason.

Eventually you will see places outlaw guns and the US courts will uphold it.

Then it will spread all over.

Eventually the goverment will tell states/county's that if they want goverment funding they have to pass laws makeing it against the law to have them or severly restricting them. If they do not pass the law they don't get goverment funding.


I just think its a matter of time.

We have to hope people aren't really that stupid. If it ever happens it's the end of society as we knew it. Full armed revolution.

People aren't. BUT when whipped into a frenzy by speeches and pictures and being told the only way they can be safe is to outlaw guns etc it will happen.

people are already willing to give away rights for safety. they don't care that the Goverment can listen in to phon records, they don't care that there land can be taken for a BUSINESS.

long as it is not happening to them they don't care.