Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in DC Gun Ban case today

[Little-Acorn]

Oral arguments are today, and the ruling is expected I believe in midsummer.

The 2nd amendment, in modern language, says:

Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

Surprising how many people have trouble with it, though. Talking like Shakespeare talked, is difficult for some, I guess, though people of that period had no problem reading and understanding it. It still means now, exactly what it meant then. Neither the 2nd amendment, nor the society it is meant to protect, has fundamentally changed. Cars, iPods, and computers don't change human nature.

The gun issue, generally, revolves around the question of whether politicians trust the citizens to make their own decisions about guns, personal protection, etc. Conservatives (when you can find them) do trust people to do so and learn from their mistakes. The southpaws among us mostly don't, and feel that government (that is, the southpaws) should take that responsibility from them.

The Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether in DC, an attempt to take that right (and responsibility) away from the people, violates the Constitution.

----------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579647855943453.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

Gun-Rights Showdown

by RANDY E. BARNETT
March 18, 2008

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, a suit brought by several D.C. citizens contending that the ban on the possession of operable firearms inside one's home violates the Second Amendment. The Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. agreed and held the ban to be unconstitutional. However it is decided, Heller is already historic. For the first time in recent memory, the Supreme Court will consider the original meaning of a significant passage of the Constitution unencumbered by its own prior decisions. The majority and dissenting opinions in this case will be taught in law schools for years to come. Here's a layman's guide to the significance of the case:

- Heller will be decided on originalist grounds. Among law professors, enforcing the original meaning of the Constitution is highly controversial. Critics of originalism deny that we should be ruled by the "dead hand of the past." They prefer following Supreme Court precedents that may or may not be consistent with original meaning. Any justice who today professes a commitment to originalism is branded a radical; and all Supreme Court nominees are now grilled on their commitment to the doctrine of stare decisis. But what are old precedents if not the "dead hand" of dead justices?

Significantly, then, both sides in Heller are making only originalist arguments. The challengers of the law contend that the original meaning of the Second Amendment protects an individual "right to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed." In response, the District does not contend that this right is outmoded and that the Second Amendment should now be reinterpreted in light of changing social conditions. Not at all. It contends instead that, because the original intention of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to protect the continued existence of "a well regulated militia," the right it protects was limited to the militia context.

So one thing is certain. Whoever prevails, Heller will be an originalist decision. This shows that originalism remains the proper method of identifying the meaning of the Constitution.

- The Second Amendment protects an individual right. In the 1960s, gun control advocates dismissed the Second Amendment as protecting the so-called "collective right" of states to preserve their militias -- notwithstanding that, everywhere else in the Constitution, a "right" of "the people" refers to an individual right of persons, and the 10th Amendment expressly distinguishes between "the people" and "the states." Now even the District asserts the new theory that, while this right is individual, it is "conditioned" on a citizen being an active participant in an organized militia. Therefore, whoever wins, Heller won't be based on a "collective" right of the states.

Still, a ruling upholding an unconditioned individual right to arms and invalidating the ban is unlikely to have much effect on current gun laws. Here's why:

- Heller is a federal case. Because the District of Columbia is a federal entity, Heller provides a clean application of the Second Amendment which, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally applied only to the federal government. Before a state or municipal gun law can be challenged, the Supreme Court will have to decide that the right to keep and bear arms is also protected by the 14th Amendment, which limits state powers.

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[hjmick]

I was watching the HBO mini-series John Adams the other night, in the second episode they had a depiction of the aftermath of the "Shot heard 'round the world" when a contingent of militiamen repelled an attempt by British troops to seize the stores of powder, muskets, and musket balls at Old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775. My first though upon being reminded of the incident was that it was a wonderful example of why we have the Second Amendment and why it has been interpreted and applied as it has through the years. The people should be able to possess the ability to lead a revolt. The people, should the need arise, should have the ability to fight an oppressive government. We should have the ability to defend ourselves, our family, and our home.

Fear the government that fears your guns.

[Little-Acorn]

Hear the oral arguments over the net right now at http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS .

[Little-Acorn]

Oral arguments are concluded. And the transcript is already posted!

Damn, those guys are fast! 110 pages, including a huge index! Very cool. Machine-generated index, I'm sure.

See it at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf .

[manu1959]

I was watching the HBO mini-series John Adams the other night, in the second episode they had a depiction of the aftermath of the "Shot heard 'round the world" when a contingent of militiamen repelled an attempt by British troops to seize the stores of powder, muskets, and musket balls at Old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775. My first though upon being reminded of the incident was that it was a wonderful example of why we have the Second Amendment and why it has been interpreted and applied as it has through the years. The people should be able to possess the ability to lead a revolt. The people, should the need arise, should have the ability to fight an oppressive government. We should have the ability to defend ourselves, our family, and our home.

Fear the government that fears your guns.

very true except this time around the gvt will have tanks and automatic weapons.....

[hjmick]

very true except this time around the gvt will have tanks and automatic weapons.....

True that, but at least we won't be tossing bottles and rocks if it ever happens. Unless of course they take our guns first.

[Little-Acorn]

A great point made by Justice Antonin Scalia today:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---------------------------------

I always like it when a Supreme Court justice agrees with me. :)

[hjmick]

A great point made by Justice Antonin Scalia today:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---------------------------------

I always like it when a Supreme Court justice agrees with me. :)

That has always been one of my arguing points. It's logical and not even a stretch to think that it is what was intended.

On a side note, I was reading an article about today's proceedings in which the author mentioned that people from both camps showed up to protest, gun rights advocates and those opposed to gun violence. As if those of us who support the right to own guns are in favor of gun violence.

[hjmick]

Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html)

[Mr. P]

I'm pleased by the comments the court made.

[5stringJeff]

A great point made by Justice Antonin Scalia today:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---------------------------------

I always like it when a Supreme Court justice agrees with me. :)

If this paragraph makes it into the final decision, I might climax.

[Joe Steel]

A great point made by Justice Antonin Scalia today:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---------------------------------

I always like it when a Supreme Court justice agrees with me. :)

The right of the People to "keep and bear arms" is not the same thing as a individual right to have a gun. "People" is not the plural of person. It's use narrows the right substantially.

[Dilloduck]

The right of the People to "keep and bear arms" is not the same thing as a individual right to have a gun. "People" is not the plural of person. It's use narrows the right substantially.

So who do you define as "people" ?

[Monkeybone]

The right of the People to "keep and bear arms" is not the same thing as a individual right to have a gun. "People" is not the plural of person. It's use narrows the right substantially.

that is such a load of shit. the People...Americans..have the right

[Little-Acorn]

Kind of shows you how desperate the anti-gun-rights folks are getting. They have lost every argument that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says, and have been reduced to inventing bizarre bits of wishful thinking such as "people" is somehow different from "persons", which is somehow not the plural of "person", etc. etc. Makes Bill Clinton look almost reasonable with his "depends on what the definition of 'is', is", by comparison - a difficult feat.

Do you suppose they even know how silly they sound, mouthing such absurd bunk?

[Joe Steel]

So who do you define as "people" ?

The citizens of the United States considered in the aggregate as the sovereign.

[Mr. P]

Irregular plural forms
There are several other irregularities in the plural forms of English nouns. Here are examples:

Man becomes men
Woman becomes women
Fungus becomes fungi
Thief becomes thieves (note that not all words ending in "f" follow this patttern: roof/roofs)
Species remains species
Medium becomes media
Person becomes people


The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: “those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes” (Thomas Jefferson).

"We the people", plural.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Plural.

[Joe Steel]

Kind of shows you how desperate the anti-gun-rights folks are getting. They have lost every argument that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says, and have been reduced to inventing bizarre bits of wishful thinking such as "people" is somehow different from "persons", which is somehow not the plural of "person", etc. etc. Makes Bill Clinton look almost reasonable with his "depends on what the definition of 'is', is", by comparison - a difficult feat.

Do you suppose they even know how silly they sound, mouthing such absurd bunk?

"(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures.

UNITED STATES V. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U. S. 259 (1990)

"Term of art

A word or phrase used by legal professionals that has a precise meaning in a particular subject area.

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/tutorials/definitions/term_art.html

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has traditionally been considered a "term of art," like such other constitutional phrases as "levying war" and "due process." The Supreme Court has held in that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the farmers meant when they adopted them.

Murray v Hoboken Land Co., 52 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1856);
Davidson v New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (1878);
Amith v Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

Try again, dumbass.

[Monkeybone]

actually ReRe, if you read the amendments, it makes sense in how they word it. they use the People, so they just hit everyone. in the Fifth and Sixth they are being more specfic. Like when they use "person" in the fifth.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "no person" makes a lot more sense than, "No people shall be held"

for the sixth Amend
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. well...accused just makes a hell lot more sense than people. just a weak argument thrown in there because people can't read/think others can't read context, or that these men were educated that wrote this and wrote things rather eloquently . pathetically i might add. did you ever have sixth grade grammar? seems illiteracy is as far reaching as studies confirm.

[JohnDoe]

TO ALL:

something to ponder....

-What are the Bill of Rights? Amendments 1-10?

-Who were they writen to protect, and from whom was the protection needed?

The answers to that alone should answer anyone's question on who "the people" are in the 2nd amendment....

Us.

The Bill of rights was our individual protection against government overreach.

The 2nd amendment was writen to protect individuals, AS WITH ALL OTHER amendments in the Bill of Rights, not to protect an imaginary Militia....we are the Militia.... at the time this was writen we had no state national guard or anything like that which could be described as "a militia or the Militia"....Militia was the gathering of citizens, private citizens within the state.

I think the question that the SC has to answer is what does Infringe mean....does it mean that there can never be any limits on the type of arms one can own...machine guns? Bazookas? shoulder missels? Does not to infringe mean that there can be no requirement for registration for anyone? Does not to infringe upon mean that even the mentally can own guns? Does not to infringe mean that everyone can carry a gun anywhere and the gvt can do nothing about it?

Once we say that some restrictions of gun ownership is okay and good, where and when does it become infringing?

jd

[Monkeybone]

TO ALL:

something to ponder....

-What are the Bill of Rights? Amendments 1-10?

-Who were they writen to protect, and from whom was the protection needed?

The answers to that alone should answer anyone's question on who "the people" are in the 2nd amendment....

Us.

The Bill of rights was our individual protection against government overreach.

The 2nd amendment was writen to protect individuals, AS WITH ALL OTHER amendments in the Bill of Rights, not to protect an imaginary Militia....we are the Militia.... at the time this was writen we had no state national guard or anything like that which could be described as "a militia or the Militia"....Militia was the gathering of citizens, private citizens within the state.

I think the question that the SC has to answer is what does Infringe mean....does it mean that there can never be any limits on the type of arms one can own...machine guns? Bazookas? shoulder missels? Does not to infringe mean that there can be no requirement for registration for anyone? Does not to infringe upon mean that even the mentally can own guns? Does not to infringe mean that everyone can carry a gun anywhere and the gvt can do nothing about it?

Once we say that some restrictions of gun ownership is okay and good, where and when does it become infringing?

jd


very nice JD :clap:

but i want a bazooka... :(

[Little-Acorn]

I think the question that the SC has to answer is what does Infringe mean....does it mean that there can never be any limits on the type of arms one can own...machine guns? Bazookas? shoulder missels? Does not to infringe mean that there can be no requirement for registration for anyone? Does not to infringe upon mean that even the mentally can own guns? Does not to infringe mean that everyone can carry a gun anywhere and the gvt can do nothing about it?

Once we say that some restrictions of gun ownership is okay and good, where and when does it become infringing?

Note, JD, that when the Constitution was first ratified, it had no Bill of Rights of course. The first 10 amendments weren't added until years later. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, right against self-incrimination, etc., were not mentioned anywhere in the new Constitution.

And that was just fine with many of the Framers. Not because they didn't want anybody to have those rights... but because the Federal govt was already prohibited from restricting them.

The Constitution created the Federal govt as we see it today... and it gave that govt all its powers. If the authority to do something wasn't listed in the Constitution, then the Fed govt didn't have the power to do it, and was thus prohibited from even trying. And the power to restrict religion, restrict guns, beat confessions out of suspects, etc., were some of the thing the Constitution gave the Fed NO power to do.

But other Framers thought those rights weren't well enough protected, and insisted that some of the most important ones be named, with firm orders that the govt not interfere with them. And so the Bill of Rights was born. Many of the states that ratified the Constitution, insisted on a Bill of Rights as a condition of their agreement.

But some of the Framers did NOT want the Bill of Rights included. Not because they were against people having those rights (who could possibly oppose such rights?), but because they were afraid of the effects of naming some rights while leaving out others. It was impossible to name all rights. A slick joesteel-type lawyer might try to argue that, since the right to peaceably assemble was protected but the right to ride horses was not, therefore the people had no right to ride horses. So the Framers agreed on an additional amendment, saying that the rights listed, were not necessarily the only ones people had - they had other rights as well. That was ratified as the 9th amendment.

And then the Framers also worried that that same joesteel-type finagler might try to claim that since the people had rights not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore the Fed govt also had extra powers not mentioned. So the Framers added one more amendment, saying that the powers specifically listed in the Constitution were the ONLY ones the Fed govt had, but that the states and lower groups could exercise other powers if they wanted. This became the 10th amendment. (It also soon became one of the most-violated sections of the Constitution, a dubious distinction it keeps to this day.)

The 9th and 10th amendments became the "bookend" amendments. The people could have more rights than the Const listed, but the Fed govt could NOT have more powers than it listed.

Note that one of the things this means, is that if the 2nd amendment were completely repealed tomorrow, the Fed govt would STILL have no authority to take away or restrict people's guns... because the Constitution never gavethem that power in the first place. The only difference would be, that now the state or city govts COULD restrict them if they wanted, if the 2nd amendment vanished.

But as long as the 2nd is in place as it is, no govt can infringe on the people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

[Little-Acorn]

Unfortunately, the way the 2nd amendment is phrased makes it MANDATORY to allow for "reasonable restrictions". I don't like that at all (giving the govt the power to decide which people shall be disarmed is horribly open to abuse, and govts are poor at resisting temptation), but I see no way around it.

A strict reading of the 2nd, says that even someone who just got arrested for murder, cannot have his gun taken away, even while he is being led off to jail. That's obviously a completely impossible provision, the Framers certainly intended that such a person be disarmed. But they didn't say so in the 2nd - it mentions no exceptions whatsoever. So it is obvious that SOME "reasonable restrictions" must be applied to it.

As you said, it becomes a big tug-of-war over which exceptions are adequately reasonable and which aren't. But I'm afraid the "no exceptions at all" agenda is Dead On Arrival.

I suggest that exceptions be examined, ONLY for people who have broken the law. And I don't mean laws against concealed carry, or laws requiring gun licenses etc. - those laws cover otherwise-law-abiding citizens, and as such should be null and void. People who have killed someone, injured someone, threatened someone, assaulted etc., committed burglary, theft, fraud etc. for starters. Plus those where police have probably cause to suspect them of such crimes. There are others that are similar, of course.

Such restrictions are unfortunately necessary. But NO restrictions should apply to law-abiding people.

[JohnDoe]

Thanks Little Acorn....I do remember reading what you said above and this is how I have also interpreted how the whole thing came down....

Something I heard when watching this SC gun case on c-span the other day though that could throw a wrench in to things is that they said that at the time of the 2nd amendment, there were laws that said that you could not carry your firearm in to the marketplace and that was not considered infringement.

I guess I can understand that it did not stop them from owning guns, but it did stop them from carrying them in the public market square....

jd

[5stringJeff]

The right of the People to "keep and bear arms" is not the same thing as a individual right to have a gun. "People" is not the plural of person. It's use narrows the right substantially.

Once again, wrong. But welcome back.

peo·ple (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=people)
/ˈpipəl/
noun, plural -ples for 4, verb, -pled, -pling.
–noun
1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general

[LOki]

Once again, wrong. But welcome back.

peo·ple (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=people)
/ˈpipəl/
noun, plural -ples for 4, verb, -pled, -pling.
–noun
1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general

Yes. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=82244#post82244)

Welcome (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=82503#post82503) back (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=82737#post82737).

[Pale Rider]

The right of the People to "keep and bear arms" is not the same thing as a individual right to have a gun. "People" is not the plural of person. It's use narrows the right substantially.

YES... IT IS... you fucking moron...

peo·ple /ˈpipəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pee-puhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -ples for 4, verb, -pled, -pling.
–noun
1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
4. the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.
5. the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople.
6. the ordinary persons, as distinguished from those who have wealth, rank, influence, etc.: a man of the people.
7. the subjects, followers, or subordinates of a ruler, leader, employer, etc.: the king and his people.
8. the body of enfranchised citizens of a state: representatives chosen by the people.
9. a person's family or relatives: My grandmother's people came from Iowa.
10. (used in the possessive in Communist or left-wing countries to indicate that an institution operates under the control of or for the benefit of the people, esp. under Communist leadership): people's republic; people's army.
11. animals of a specified kind: the monkey people of the forest.
–verb (used with object) 12. to furnish with people; populate.
13. to supply or stock as if with people: a meadow peopled with flowers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/people

[5stringJeff]

"(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures.

UNITED STATES V. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U. S. 259 (1990)

"Term of art

A word or phrase used by legal professionals that has a precise meaning in a particular subject area.

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/tutorials/definitions/term_art.html

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has traditionally been considered a "term of art," like such other constitutional phrases as "levying war" and "due process." The Supreme Court has held in that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the farmers meant when they adopted them.

Murray v Hoboken Land Co., 52 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1856);
Davidson v New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (1878);
Amith v Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

Try again, dumbass.

Not that I agree with your logic, but by your own logic, we should construe the wording in the 2nd Amendment "not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them."

The construct of the word "people" to mean some collective entity whose interests can only be properly met by a powerful central government (i.e. the way you always use the word) is a 19th century invention. It was never used that way by the Founder's generation.
So what did the Founders believe about the right to bear arms? There are many such quotes out there. Here's a Google Search link (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=right+to+bear+arms+founding+fathers&btnG=Google+Search) so you can read some on your own. And here are a few I got from here (http://www.rense.com/general2/right.htm):

* James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

* Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

* George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

* Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

[Austin.Texas]

just a quick "off topic" comment...
Little-Acorn, your sig line
The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better then the system we're using now.
is outstanding ! So true.

[Austin.Texas]

Also, Little-Acorn's observation on the necessity for "reasonable restrictions" is true about every right discussed in the Constitution. Even the right to Life - just ask Karla Faye "please don't kill me" (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670) Tucker.
Of course, it always comes to a determination of where and how the right should be restricted. I would come down on the libertarian side on guns. "Guns don't kill people..."
Misuse, and criminal use should be severely dealt with, and the pro-gun side may be too permissive on that score, in their defense of the right to bear arms. That is a mistake.

[5stringJeff]

Misuse, and criminal use should be severely dealt with, and the pro-gun side may be too permissive on that score, in their defense of the right to bear arms. That is a mistake.

Actually, the "pro-gun side" wants crimes committed with guns to be punished more stringently than crimes committed without a gun. The NRA supported such a program in Richmond, VA, in the 90's, with amazing results. See for yourself here (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=202&issue=007).

[Yurt]

Also, Little-Acorn's observation on the necessity for "reasonable restrictions" is true about every right discussed in the Constitution. Even the right to Life - just ask Karla Faye "please don't kill me" (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670) Tucker.
Of course, it always comes to a determination of where and how the right should be restricted. I would come down on the libertarian side on guns. "Guns don't kill people..."
Misuse, and criminal use should be severely dealt with, and the pro-gun side may be too permissive on that score, in their defense of the right to bear arms. That is a mistake.

if guns don't kill people, what then is the mistake?

is it the "type" of gun? what is too permissive?

[Joe Steel]

TO ALL:

something to ponder....

-What are the Bill of Rights? Amendments 1-10?

-Who were they writen to protect, and from whom was the protection needed?

The answers to that alone should answer anyone's question on who "the people" are in the 2nd amendment....

Us.

The Bill of rights was our individual protection against government overreach.

The 2nd amendment was writen to protect individuals, AS WITH ALL OTHER amendments in the Bill of Rights, not to protect an imaginary Militia....we are the Militia.... at the time this was writen we had no state national guard or anything like that which could be described as "a militia or the Militia"....Militia was the gathering of citizens, private citizens within the state.

I think the question that the SC has to answer is what does Infringe mean....does it mean that there can never be any limits on the type of arms one can own...machine guns? Bazookas? shoulder missels? Does not to infringe mean that there can be no requirement for registration for anyone? Does not to infringe upon mean that even the mentally can own guns? Does not to infringe mean that everyone can carry a gun anywhere and the gvt can do nothing about it?

Once we say that some restrictions of gun ownership is okay and good, where and when does it become infringing?

jd

No.

The Bill of Rights sets limits on the government but, except for the Third and Sixth Amendments, declares no inidividual rights.

[Joe Steel]

Once again, wrong. But welcome back.

peo·ple (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=people)
/ˈpipəl/
noun, plural -ples for 4, verb, -pled, -pling.
–noun
1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general


Once again, wrong. See my posting on "terms of art."

[Joe Steel]

Yes. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=82244#post82244)

Welcome (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=82503#post82503) back (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=82737#post82737).

Your arguments and postings are simplistic, unsophisticated and and uninformed.

Apparently, nothing has changed.

[LOki]

Your arguments and postings are simplistic, unsophisticated and and uninformed.

Apparently, nothing has changed.

Your arguments are specious, sophistic, and ultimately invalid.

Apparently, nothing has changed.

[Little-Acorn]

Funniest part of threads like this one, is where people keep pointing out the truth to joesteel as though he had any capacity to recognize it, much less absorb it. Talk about pearls to swine.

[Hobbit]

No.

The Bill of Rights sets limits on the government but, except for the Third and Sixth Amendments, declares no individual rights.

Then you're still claiming the 2nd amendment bucks the trend, as claiming it does anything other than protect the rights of individuals to own firearms is a claim that it grants power to government, rather than restrict it.

[Joe Steel]

Then you're still claiming the 2nd amendment bucks the trend, as claiming it does anything other than protect the rights of individuals to own firearms is a claim that it grants power to government, rather than restrict it.

The Second Amendment does not declare an individual right to own firearms. It establishes the People's right to control membership in the military. The founding generation feared a professional army. They wanted to ensure the military comprised common citizens who, unlike the aristocrats, adventurers and impressed derelicts of the British army, could be assumed to be sympathetic to the interests of American citizens.

[JohnDoe]

The Second Amendment does not declare an individual right to own firearms. It establishes the People's right to control membership in the military. The founding generation feared a professional army. They wanted to ensure the military comprised common citizens who, unlike the aristocrats, adventurers and impressed derelicts of the British army, could be assumed to be sympathetic to the interests of American citizens.

Joe,

it does declare the individual right to own arms, at least for men between the ages of 17-45 at that time, who were NOT serving in any formal military position....the militia ARE the common citizen NOT serving in a professional army who at ANY TIME could be called upon to help defend their own community from indian attack or other dangers! this is what militia were right before the war...

the minutemen....came from the militia and formed themselves in to a more formal and expert marksmen division....more like a formal army.

the militia were unskilled, everyday joe citizens....the concern with a well armed militia extends to a well armed public, because the militia was drawn from the common citizen as said, they were not very skilled or well equiped when called upon in the revolutionary war.... in fact, it was a MAJOR COMPLAINT of G Washington and many other generals in the war....these were your ''neighborhood watch'' men....militia, not a formal army or the national guard at the time imo!


In September 1755, George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia, upon a frustrating and futile attempt to call up the militia to respond to a frontier Indian attack:[6]

"...he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative.[6]"




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)


Gouverneur Morris:

"...An overweening vanity leads the fond many, each man against the conviction of his own heart, to believe or affect to believe, that militia can beat veteran troops in the open field and even play of battle. This idle notion, fed by vaunting demagogues, alarmed us for our country, when in the course of that time and chance, which happen to all, she should be at war with a great power."[14]


just reading this comment of this governor right after the revolutionary war explains it all....

the militia is made up of the common individual not enlisted in a formal military position....the militia was the common man who could be drafted in to a federal war or a state war of defense but in general, was the common man that joined with a group of other men, to protect their own town imo!

later the states formed a more regulated army from the militia, from the every day joes....

the word has changed meaning over the centuries and maybe this is where the confusion comes to play?

jd

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd amendment in modern language, would read:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

Militia membership or association isn't needed to have the right to own or carry. Nor does there need to be two of you.

The amendment simply says that your right to own and carry, can't be taken away or restricted. And it offers a reason why. But even if that reason doesn't happen to be true for you, your right is protected nonetheless.

[Joe Steel]

Joe,

it does declare the individual right to own arms, at least for men between the ages of 17-45 at that time, who were NOT serving in any formal military position....the militia ARE the common citizen NOT serving in a professional army who at ANY TIME could be called upon to help defend their own community from indian attack or other dangers! this is what militia were right before the war...

the minutemen....came from the militia and formed themselves in to a more formal and expert marksmen division....more like a formal army.

the militia were unskilled, everyday joe citizens....the concern with a well armed militia extends to a well armed public, because the militia was drawn from the common citizen as said, they were not very skilled or well equiped when called upon in the revolutionary war.... in fact, it was a MAJOR COMPLAINT of G Washington and many other generals in the war....these were your ''neighborhood watch'' men....militia, not a formal army or the national guard at the time imo!




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)



just reading this comment of this governor right after the revolutionary war explains it all....

the militia is made up of the common individual not enlisted in a formal military position....the militia was the common man who could be drafted in to a federal war or a state war of defense but in general, was the common man that joined with a group of other men, to protect their own town imo!

later the states formed a more regulated army from the militia, from the every day joes....

the word has changed meaning over the centuries and maybe this is where the confusion comes to play?

jd

Yes, the word has changed meaning.

The word "militia" in the Second Amendment is a "term of art" which refers to the citizens of the United States considered in their military capacity. Just as businessmen might speak of "the market" when they discuss those who might buy their products, the Founders spoke of "the militia" when they discussed common citizens who could be expected to serve in a military capacity. They did that to distinguish them from the membership of the standing army. See Machiavelli's The Prince for a discussion of militia and their value. That, by the way, will lead to a better understanding of the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state..."

At the time of the Revolution, the British army was a "standing army," comprising in large measure, aristocrats, adventurers and impressed derelicts, none of whom could be expected to have the interests of the People at heart. Because their lives and livlihoods were connected with the army, it had their loyalty and they were a danger to the citizens. Should the "standing army" be sent against the citizens, they could be expected to follow whatever order was given because they had no connection to the community.

To eliminate that problem, the Founders declared the People's right to serve in the army. An army of citizens, a militia, would be loyal to their family, friends and neighbors, the common citizens, and would not allow themselves to be used to oppress them. See Federalist 29 for a discussion.

[Little-Acorn]

Yes, the word has changed meaning.


A fact which is unimportant, since
(a) the word's meaning at the time the amendment was written, is the one the law still carries, and (b) the mention of a militia in the 2nd, is an explanation, not a condition, for the amendment's ban on restrictions on our right to own and carry guns.

Suppose the amendment had been written:

"The Moon being made of green Cheese, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

And for the next several generations everybody went on believing the moon really was made of green cheese, and that government couldn't take away or restrict our right to KBA.

Then in 1969, astronauts finally land on the moon and prove once and for all that it is NOT made of green cheese.

Can our right to KBA now be infringed?

The answer, of course, is No. The second phrase of the amendment commands that govt not take away or restrict our right to KBA, and the first phrase merely explains why it commands that. The first phrase is not a condition on the command - that is, the command doesn't depend on the first phrase for its effectiveness.

joesteel can quibble all he wants about what a militia is, and he will not change the meaning of the 2nd at all. Govenment can't take away or restrict our right to carry guns and other such weapons. Period.

[Monkeybone]

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

there ya go so ya'll don't have to search

[Mr. P]

"The Moon being made of green Cheese, ...



BTW...it's made blue cheese NOT green!

[Little-Acorn]

BTW...it's made blue cheese NOT green!

That's bleu cheese. Get it right, willya? :coffee:

[Mr. P]

That's bleu cheese. Get it right, willya? :coffee:

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: What happens when you don't proof...:laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

A fact which is unimportant, since
(a) the word's meaning at the time the amendment was written, is the one the law still carries,

Exactly...and I've just explained it to you.

The defining attribute of a militia is the nature of its members not the ownership of their arms. A militia is an army of common citizens not a bunch of guys who own their own guns.

[Monkeybone]

A militia is an army of common citizens not a bunch of guys who own their own guns.

actually if you look at it, that is exactly what a militia is. it is a citizen that answers that call of need or defence of state and country. be it a helping hand or an armed response/defence.

also militias were expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies.they could be compenstated for any extra cost, but yah...a militia supplies it's own equiment. that is what the Second Amenment is about. incase the need for it comes, these milita's can supply themselves.

[Joe Steel]

actually if you look at it, that is exactly what a militia is. it is a citizen that answers that call of need or defence of state and country. be it a helping hand or an armed response/defence.

also militias were expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies.they could be compenstated for any extra cost, but yah...a militia supplies it's own equiment. that is what the Second Amenment is about. incase the need for it comes, these milita's can supply themselves.

Sorry, no.

The Second Amendment is about creating a reliable military. In the late 18th century that may have required personally-owned guns but personally-owned guns aren't necessary. A milita absolutely has to have citizen soldiers and it can be achieved without requiring them to have their own guns. The Second Amendment declares the People's right to ensure the military comprises common citizens.

[5stringJeff]

To eliminate that problem, the Founders declared the People's right to serve in the army. An army of citizens, a militia, would be loyal to their family, friends and neighbors, the common citizens, and would not allow themselves to be used to oppress them. See Federalist 29 for a discussion.


The Second Amendment declares the People's right to ensure the military comprises common citizens.

The people's "right" to serve in a national army? Are you serious? Who else do you think serves in armies? Mercenaries were always an addition to, not a substitute for, a national army.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clear, and your hemming and hawing about it only makes you look more desperate to deny it.

[Little-Acorn]

The Second Amendment is about creating a reliable military. In the late 18th century that may have required personally-owned guns but personally-owned guns aren't necessary. A milita absolutely has to have citizen soldiers and it can be achieved without requiring them to have their own guns. The Second Amendment declares the People's right to ensure the military comprises common citizens.

Ah, he's got you there, Monkeybone. How could you have thought otherwise? After all, it says so right in the 2nd amendment, which reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to join said militia shall not be infringed."

Doesn't it?

At least, in little joesteel's copy, it does.

:lol:

(Isn't it a hoot, seeing just what bizarre pretzel shapes these desperate leftists bend themselves into as they stack up lie after lie to "prove" their point?) :D :D :D

[LOki]

Sorry, no.

The Second Amendment is about creating a reliable military.

Sorry, no.

The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms.


In the late 18th century that may have required personally-owned guns but personally-owned guns aren't necessary.
Sorry, no.

Personally-owned guns are certainly necessary for a well regulated militia.

[That's right, "well regulated milita." Go on, I dare you. :poke: ]


A milita absolutely has to have citizen soldiers and it can be achieved without requiring them to have their own guns.

But it wouldn't be a well regulated militia then, would it?


The Second Amendment declares the People's right to ensure the military comprises common citizens.

Sorry, no.

The Second Amendment explicitly declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and explicitly prohibits the governmet from infringing upon that right.

[Joe Steel]

Sorry, no.

The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms.


Sorry, no.

Personally-owned guns are certainly necessary for a well regulated militia.

[That's right, "well regulated milita." Go on, I dare you. :poke: ]



But it wouldn't be a well regulated militia then, would it?



Sorry, no.

The Second Amendment explicitly declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and explicitly prohibits the governmet from infringing upon that right.

Sorry, no.

The phrase "keep...(arms)" refers to managing and operating a military. It's similar to "keeping shop" or "keeping house." It doesn't mean having a gun.

The phrase "bear arms" is a metaphor for military service. It doesn't mean "carry a gun."

[Mr. P]

Sorry, no.

The phrase "keep...(arms)" refers to managing and operating a military. It's similar to "keeping shop" or "keeping house." It doesn't mean having a gun.

The phrase "bear arms" is a metaphor for military service. It doesn't mean "carry a gun."

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: PLEEEEEEEZZZEEEEEEEE the founders being so diligent to clearly spell out the framework of this Country in this document, used metaphors? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Come on Joe yer stretchin...BIG TIME.

[JohnDoe]

Yes, the word has changed meaning.

The word "militia" in the Second Amendment is a "term of art" which refers to the citizens of the United States considered in their military capacity. Just as businessmen might speak of "the market" when they discuss those who might buy their products, the Founders spoke of "the militia" when they discussed common citizens who could be expected to serve in a military capacity. They did that to distinguish them from the membership of the standing army. See Machiavelli's The Prince for a discussion of militia and their value. That, by the way, will lead to a better understanding of the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state..."

At the time of the Revolution, the British army was a "standing army," comprising in large measure, aristocrats, adventurers and impressed derelicts, none of whom could be expected to have the interests of the People at heart. Because their lives and livlihoods were connected with the army, it had their loyalty and they were a danger to the citizens. Should the "standing army" be sent against the citizens, they could be expected to follow whatever order was given because they had no connection to the community.

To eliminate that problem, the Founders declared the People's right to serve in the army. An army of citizens, a militia, would be loyal to their family, friends and neighbors, the common citizens, and would not allow themselves to be used to oppress them. See Federalist 29 for a discussion.



2nd amendment
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.

Joe, there would be NO REASON to put in the 2nd clause of the second amendment regarding: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, if Militia meant only as you say, at the time.

Just as with the first amendment, the comma gives way to another right or protection from government over reach...

as example, in the first we have alot of comma's and semi colons...



1st amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech,

or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Each comma and semi colon in the First amendment gives protection to another area...

The SAME goes with the Second Amendment.

jd

[LOki]

Sorry, no.

The phrase "keep...(arms)" refers to managing and operating a military. It's similar to "keeping shop" or "keeping house." It doesn't mean having a gun.

The phrase "bear arms" is a metaphor for military service. It doesn't mean "carry a gun."

:lol: You are lolz. :clap:

[Monkeybone]

wow Joe...just...wow. reading all of the responses makes me thankful that i don't have to actually respond to that statement. are like high or something? or wear special glasses when you read?


:lol: You are lolz. :clap:
exactly what i was thinking Loki.

[JohnDoe]

...with commentary written by Judge Sam Cummings in the Emerson case, the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals concluded in 2001 that[7]:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service." [8]

Joe, the right to bear arms had real meaning...the Courts decided so....based on PAST history of what the term has meant.

[5stringJeff]

Sorry, no.

The phrase "keep...(arms)" refers to managing and operating a military. It's similar to "keeping shop" or "keeping house." It doesn't mean having a gun.

The phrase "bear arms" is a metaphor for military service. It doesn't mean "carry a gun."

You've got to be doing a lot of this to be able to come up with that ludicrous line of thinking:

http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/thumbnail2/1994_snorting_cocaine.gif

[Joe Steel]

Joe, the right to bear arms had real meaning...the Courts decided so....based on PAST history of what the term has meant.

The Court can declare the moon to be made of some kind of cheese if it wishes. That doesn't make it so. The only thing which matters is the meaning of the phrase as it's used in the Second Amendment and the overwhelming weight of evidence points to the use of the phrase as I've described.

[Joe Steel]

Joe, there would be NO REASON to put in the 2nd clause of the second amendment regarding: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, if Militia meant only as you say, at the time.

Of course there was.

The British army was a "standing army" of the kind the Founders feared. It comprised aristocrats, adventurers and impressed derelicts. That kind of army was a danger to the People. Few of the officers and men could be expected to have more concern for the interests of common citizens than for themselves. Their welfare was no more secure than their devotion to duty and loyalty to the army because the army was the center of their lives.

In the hands of a tyrant, such an army was a tool of oppression. The Founders sought to avoid this threat to their liberty by declaring a right to control membership in the army. They believed an army of common citizens, called to service for a short period of time, would be more loyal to their the families, friends and neighbors than to an army sent by a tyrant to oppress their communities. They did it with the clause saying the People had a right to "keep and bear arms" or control and serve in the army,