PDA

View Full Version : The Second Amendment



ConHog
06-02-2012, 03:32 PM
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.

Here's one I have a beef with SOME conservatives about. Nowhere in that does it say the government can't outlaw certain types of weapons. It merely says that they can't keep us from owning weapons in general. Do I believe that means the government can outlaw ownership of everything but revolvers and lever rod rifles? No of course not; but where the line should be drawn is a separate issue from "can the government in fact draw a line?"

On a related note, I also don't believe the 2nd means the government can't restrict where we can carry guns. In the time frame the COTUS was written Bear Arms meant own weapons, and in fact in many colonial cities of the era it was illegal to carry a gun in town. That's why duels were legal but always took place outside city limits. It wasn't until the wild west where we seen gunfights happening on main street, and that was actually much less common than the movies would have you believe.

logroller
06-02-2012, 08:28 PM
Well CH, Your argument seems to be revolve around how and, perhaps more importantly, by whom we define the terms 'arms' and 'infringed'.

Infringe carries two definitions. The first is to break or violate a treaty, law or right. As the Constitutional amendments are, in general, not to be broken, it would seem this definition would be inapplicable; as such wording could have been omitted were this to be the meaning. I think it would be dismissive of the legislative intent to assume this meaning.
The second definition for infringe, To break in or encroach upon something, would indicate that any transgression remotely related to the right of the People to keep and bear arms would be an infringement, and duly forbidden by this amendment. However, this invites speculation on, not only the meaning of arms, but also 'a well-regulated militia' and 'to keep and bear'.
As the colloquial use of what consititutes 'arms' have certainly expanded in their capabilities, I think it's necessary to define the latter two phrases in order to define the former.

The purpose of a well- regulated militia was to mount a defence against a standing army, which had elsewhere already been conveyed to Congress as a power to raise and support. The wording of the amendment, were it intended to be regulated by legislatures, rather federal or state, it assuredly would have been, but it was not. Therefore it would indicate the militia should bear the arms of those whom the founders feared would be used against the People: a domestic standing army; the national guard or police. This accounts for those argument of heavy weaponry, tanks, artillery etc.; that so long as the standing army shall neither keep nor bear any of these arms, nor shall the People. Clearly we have in this country a clear violation of the second amendment, with ripening conditions for tyranny that need not heed any other right of the People-- exactly as our founders has proscribed.

As for the meaning of 'to keep and bear', I look to my previous explanations. As the defense from tyranny is the primary intent, it would be a rational regulation of such a militia to bear arms at such a place or time such a tyranny would manifest. A private residence or business doesn't afford tyranny a public manifestation; thus, the right may be restricted by the coextensive right to privacy. Similarly, a government building would not be location which would manifest tyranny. As it is necessary for the government to express its views, no matter how egregious, it must have a place to express it; gov't acting upon those beyond the confines of the building would be a manifestation. Thus the limitation of bearing arms within the confines of the building would be limited; whereas outside in the public arena, that right of the People to keep and bear arms would be intact.

I Understand the meaning of ' to keep' gives each person a right to personal possession, as opposed to some central repository of said arms. That if the machine guns of the national guard, for example, were kept in such a manner as to be in the personal possession of its soldiers (as opposed to the base), than so shall the people have that right. Similarly, that as police officers may possess high-capacity magazines and assault weapons in perpetuity, outside their assigned time and place of their duties, they too keep arms wih the intent of being ever-ready to bear them. Respective of the proscribed intent of the second amendment, such actions by authorization of a legislature qualify as a standing army; and when such authorization coincides with a limitation of the people to keep such arms, there is an infringement upon the people's second amendment right.

ConHog
06-02-2012, 08:46 PM
Well CH, Your argument seems to be revolve around how and, perhaps more importantly, by whom we define the terms 'arms' and 'infringed'.

Infringe carries two definitions. The first is to break or violate a treaty, law or right. As the Constitutional amendments are, in general, not to be broken, it would seem this definition would be inapplicable; as such wording could have been omitted were this to be the meaning. I think it would be dismissive of the legislative intent to assume this meaning.
The second definition for infringe, To break in or encroach upon something, would indicate that any transgression remotely related to the right of the People to keep and bear arms would be an infringement, and duly forbidden by this amendment. However, this invites speculation on, not only the meaning of arms, but also 'a well-regulated militia' and 'to keep and bear'.
As the colloquial use of what consititutes 'arms' have certainly expanded in their capabilities, I think it's necessary to define the latter two phrases in order to define the former.

The purpose of a well- regulated militia was to mount a defence against a standing army, which had elsewhere already been conveyed to Congress as a power to raise and support. The wording of the amendment, were it intended to be regulated by legislatures, rather federal or state, it assuredly would have been, but it was not. Therefore it would indicate the militia should bear the arms of those whom the founders feared would be used against the People: a domestic standing army; the national guard or police. This accounts for those argument of heavy weaponry, tanks, artillery etc.; that so long as the standing army shall neither keep nor bear any of these arms, nor shall the People. Clearly we have in this country a clear violation of the second amendment, with ripening conditions for tyranny that need not heed any other right of the People-- exactly as our founders has proscribed.

As for the meaning of 'to keep and bear', I look to my previous explanations. As the defense from tyranny is the primary intent, it would be a rational regulation of such a militia to bear arms at such a place or time such a tyranny would manifest. A private residence or business doesn't afford tyranny a public manifestation; thus, the right may be restricted by the coextensive right to privacy. Similarly, a government building would not be location which would manifest tyranny. As it is necessary for the government to express its views, no matter how egregious, it must have a place to express it; gov't acting upon those beyond the confines of the building would be a manifestation. Thus the limitation of bearing arms within the confines of the building would be limited; whereas outside in the public arena, that right of the People to keep and bear arms would be intact.

I Understand the meaning of ' to keep' gives each person a right to personal possession, as opposed to some central repository of said arms. That if the machine guns of the national guard, for example, were kept in such a manner as to be in the personal possession of its soldiers (as opposed to the base), than so shall the people have that right. Similarly, that as police officers may possess high-capacity magazines and assault weapons in perpetuity, outside their assigned time and place of their duties, they too keep arms wih the intent of being ever-ready to bear them. Respective of the proscribed intent of the second amendment, such actions by authorization of a legislature qualify as a standing army; and when such authorization coincides with a limitation of the people to keep such arms, there is an infringement upon the people's second amendment right.

You make a GREAT case for why the National Guard should always remain under state authority rather than federal.

But not much of one for why the 2nd says that individuals should be able to buy whatever weapons they want without any sort of registration nor limits.

logroller
06-02-2012, 09:06 PM
You make a GREAT case for why the National Guard should always remain under state authority rather than federal.

But not much of one for why the 2nd says that individuals should be able to buy whatever weapons they want without any sort of registration nor limits.

Im not saying that at all; clearly the state police need a federal check to their authority; the national guard provides that. As to the second point, I didn't say whatever weapons, just those the state could bring to bear against its own people. For example, should the national guard possess heavy machine guns? I dont think so, but if they do, then so can I.

ConHog
06-02-2012, 09:11 PM
Im not saying that at all; clearly the state police need a federal check to their authority; the national guard provides that. As to the second point, I didn't say whatever weapons, just those the state could bring to bear against its own people. For example, should the national guard possess heavy machine guns? I dont think so, but if they do, then so can I.

So you're saying that if the federal government can limit the weapons YOU can buy then they should also be able to limit the weapons that state national guards should be able to buy? That's just crazy talk, and in fact there is actually NOTHING in the COTUS which prevents the government from doing exactly what they are doing now.

If the 2nd specified that whatever limits were put on the people would also be put on states, you would have a valid point, but it doesn't mention limits at all and so the USG has the authority to set one limit for you and one limit for someone else.

logroller
06-02-2012, 09:53 PM
So you're saying that if the federal government can limit the weapons YOU can buy then they should also be able to limit the weapons that state national guards should be able to buy? That's just crazy talk,
And you inverted what I mean. If certain arms are deemed unnecessary for a well-regulated militia; then neither should those arms be necessary for the state militia; i.e. domestic police. I mean, what is a militia, and why is it that the state militia has one rule, and the People's militia is designated differently under the second amendment. That is infringement.


in fact there is actually NOTHING in the COTUS which prevents the government from doing exactly what they are doing now.
Nothing... except the second amendment.

If the 2nd specified that whatever limits were put on the people would also be put on states, you would have a valid point, but it doesn't mention limits at all and so the USG has the authority to set one limit for you and one limit for someone else.
It doesn't mention limits....indeed it expressly forbids them; that's what shall not be infringed means.
I think we can bicker about what a well-regulated militia means, and rather all People who possess firearms do so pursuant to that reasoning; but to say the State can have one set of rules and the People another is clearly a recipe for tyranny CH--you can't honestly deny that?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-02-2012, 11:03 PM
Short and sweet of it is the government saying we the government only are allowed have all the best weapons and we the government get to limit the citizens down to much inferior weapons. The "shall not infringe" part was put in to prevent that in my opinion. Now I dont need a nuke but its nobody's damn business if I want to own high caliber military rifles and damn fine automatic pistols. I may need those weapons to shoot damn pizz ants invading my property. Thats still my damn business not another citizen's, the fraking government or aliens from outer space..
Some people have a mighty strange definition of -freedom--!
Nobody is going to limit me down to having a single shot pistol and a muzzle loader!
They come at me with that shat I say-- "ffkkk 'em feed 'em fishheads"!-:salute:--Tyr

ConHog
06-02-2012, 11:22 PM
And you inverted what I mean. If certain arms are deemed unnecessary for a well-regulated militia; then neither should those arms be necessary for the state militia; i.e. domestic police. I mean, what is a militia, and why is it that the state militia has one rule, and the People's militia is designated differently under the second amendment. That is infringement.

[/B]
Nothing... except the second amendment.

It doesn't mention limits....indeed it expressly forbids them; that's what shall not be infringed means.
I think we can bicker about what a well-regulated militia means, and rather all People who possess firearms do so pursuant to that reasoning; but to say the State can have one set of rules and the People another is clearly a recipe for tyranny CH--you can't honestly deny that?
I disagree. I think that in times of tyranny from the fed then the states are to protect their people. Now i suppose a state govt and the fed could collude to be co tyrantw but that is unlikely.

For example. If the federal gov came to arkansas to collect everyones guns id fully expect the state gobt to intercede including with military force if neccesary. No reqson for me and my neighbors to do so on our own.

And i think that is what the framers had in mind as well

Little-Acorn
06-02-2012, 11:26 PM
If government has the authority to ban some personal weapons, how does it NOT have the authority to (eventually) ban all weapons?

The fact that the above question cannot be answered, is the reason why government has NO authority to ban any personal weapon. As has been demostrated many times, if you give government an inch it will take a mile.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-02-2012, 11:32 PM
If government has the authority to ban some personal weapons, how does it NOT have the authority to (eventually) ban all weapons?

The fact that the above question cannot be answered, is the reason why government has NO authority to ban any personal weapon. As has been deomstrated many times, if you give government an inch it will take a mile.

Was exactly my point as well. --:clap:
As my uncle used to say often, "freaking government, give 'em a single grain of sand and they take the whole damn beach"! He damn sure wasn't wrong..-Tyr

ConHog
06-02-2012, 11:34 PM
If government has the authority to ban some personal weapons, how does it NOT have the authority to (eventually) ban all weapons?

The fact that the above question cannot be answered, is the reason why government has NO authority to ban any personal weapon. As has been deomstrated many times, if you give government an inch it will take a mile.

Which is why we need cwreful guidelines and a watchful eye on anything our government does. Including this

Little-Acorn
06-02-2012, 11:40 PM
Which is why we need cwreful guidelines and a watchful eye on anything our government does. Including this

In this case what is in place is not a guideline. It is a Constitutional amendment that says government shall not mess with people's right to keep and bear arms. And that includes banning ANY personal weapons.

BTW, People seem to forget sometimes that the Federal government has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to do ANYTHING AT ALL... except for the powers explicitly named in the Constitution. If a power is not named in that document, then the Fed has no authority to do it.

And banning weapons is one of the things not listed.

The conclusion is left as an exercise for the class.

Kathianne
06-02-2012, 11:46 PM
Since the Constitution doesn't deny certain rights in the 2nd amendment; the tenth amendment certainly seems to come into play:


Tenth Amendment Text
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Without question then the states could enact laws that curtail 2nd amendment rights. However, the SCOTUS has repeatedly been striking down such laws for years now. In fact, many states are repealing laws that have been passed for years. Indeed, more legislators are acknowledging the data from FBI regarding open carry, concealed carry and lower crime statistics. It's not just robbery and such, rape and murder rates also fall.

logroller
06-03-2012, 12:11 AM
Since the Constitution doesn't deny certain rights in the 2nd amendment; the tenth amendment certainly seems to come into play:



Without question then the states could enact laws that curtail 2nd amendment rights. However, the SCOTUS has repeatedly been striking down such laws for years now. In fact, many states are repealing laws that have been passed for years. Indeed, more legislators are acknowledging the data from FBI regarding open carry, concealed carry and lower crime statistics. It's not just robbery and such, rape and murder rates also fall.


Indeed they have been stricken down. As you mentioned Amendment Ten, I think it prudent to mention the preceding Ninth Amendment too.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That just because one amendment(or any other enumerated power) implies some conveyance of power, the strictest adherence should be sought rather than unfettered discretion based on a loosely interpretative meaning of another constitutional item. That's why I believe gun control may be enacted, but only so far as it is done so in its strictest sense; that if, indeed, certain weapons are outside the scope of second amendment protections, then such an exclusion should apply to the States as well. Whats good the gander...

Little-Acorn
06-03-2012, 12:15 AM
Since the Constitution doesn't deny certain rights in the 2nd amendment; the tenth amendment certainly seems to come into play:



Without question then the states could enact laws that curtail 2nd amendment rights. However, the SCOTUS has repeatedly been striking down such laws for years now. In fact, many states are repealing laws that have been passed for years. Indeed, more legislators are acknowledging the data from FBI regarding open carry, concealed carry and lower crime statistics. It's not just robbery and such, rape and murder rates also fall.

Kathianne, if the states could enact laws that curtail any constitutional rights, we'd still have slavery.

I'm not sure if you were making the statement bolded above, as an example of why states CANNOT curtail second amendment rights, or if you are actually saying you believe states CAN curtail them.

Since the 2nd says the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, this means NO government can do it. When the Framers wanted to ban the Fed govt from doing something but permit the states to do it (as protected by the 10th amendment as you mentioned), they specifically named the Fed govt as being the govt they were banning. The 1st amendment is an example: It forbids CONGRESS, by name, from making laws about religion, but says nothing about banning state or local govts from making such laws. And as you pointed out, the 10th says that "the states or the people" can still make such laws in that case. The Framers phrased the 1st that way, because many states at the time had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to interfere with that.

OTOH, the 2nd amendment does NOT say "Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It simply says "For the following reasons, the RPKBA shall not be infringed." Since it doesn't single out an specific govt for the ban (as the 1st does), that means that NO govt can infringe... including "the states or the people".

Long after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the 14th amendment modified parts of it, possibly including the 1st amendment's statement that only the Fed govt is forbidden to make laws concerning religion. The 14th may mean that now all govts in the US are forbidden to make such laws. But no such modification was needed for the 2nd - it already meant ALL governments, from the day it was ratified.

Kathianne
06-03-2012, 12:28 AM
Kathianne, if the states could enact laws that curtail any constitutional rights, we'd still have slavery.

I'm not sure if you were making the statement bolded above, as an example of why states CANNOT curtail second amendment rights, or if you are actually saying you believe states CAN curtail them.

Since the 2nd says the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, this means NO government can do it. When the Framers wanted to ban the Fed govt from doing something but permit the states to do it (as protected by the 10th amendment as you mentioned), they specifically named the Fed govt as being the govt they were banning. The 1st amendment is an example: It forbids CONGRESS, by name, from making laws about religion, but says nothing about banning state or local govts from making such laws. And as you pointed out, the 10th says that "the states or the people" can still make such laws in that case. The Framers phrased the 1st that way, because many states at the time had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to interfere with that.

OTOH, the 2nd amendment does NOT say "Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It simply says "For the following reasons, the RPKBA shall not be infringed." Since it doesn't single out an specific govt for the ban (as the 1st does), that means that NO govt can infringe... including "the states or the people".

Long after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the 14th amendment modified parts of it, possibly including the 1st amendment's statement that only the Fed govt is forbidden to make laws concerning religion. The 14th may mean that now all govts in the US are forbidden to make such laws. But no such modification was needed for the 2nd - it already meant ALL governments, from the day it was ratified.

States can pass laws that require certain conditions or even forbid owning of arms. However, that doesn't mean that they will be upheld by the courts. Keep in mind though, as I think it was SassyLady who brought up in another thread, those making up the SCOTUS are also the ones that grant or deny Certiorari.

What I believe is meant by both the 9th and 10th are limitations aimed at the Federal Government. As you said though, if unconstitutional the courts will strike them down. Though it may take years.

Little-Acorn
06-03-2012, 12:55 AM
States can pass laws that require certain conditions or even forbid owning of arms. However, that doesn't mean that they will be upheld by the courts. Keep in mind though, as I think it was SassyLady who brought up in another thread, those making up the SCOTUS are also the ones that grant or deny Certiorari.

What I believe is meant by both the 9th and 10th are limitations aimed at the Federal Government. As you said though, if unconstitutional the courts will strike them down. Though it may take years.

Well, I suppose technically the states can PASS laws saying it's OK to kidnap black people off the street, put chains on them, and force them to work on your farm for no pay and mediocre room and board. That violates a BUNCH of Constitutional amendments, of course... but if a state put that law in a bill, voted on it, got a majority, and the governor signed it, I guess a giant lightning bolt would not flash down from the sky and obliterate the capital before it technically became law. So in that sense, you are right. But of course, the law would be found unconstitutional by any court.

A state could do the same with a law saying that people within its borders cannot own any gun. Or it could pass one saying people in its borders could not own a Colt .45 pistol. I hold that both laws would be just as unconstitutional as the one about slavery. And with the Courts' tendency to sometimes find clearly-unconstitutional acts constitutional (see Kelo v. New London, US v. Miller, etc.), it might even happen that a court would somehow find these gun-banning laws constitutional.

If you are simply arguing that a state CAN make an unconstitutional law, with no regard for how long it would stay on the books before a court pointed out that it was unconstitutional, then I must agree with you: Yes, it can. As my Dad used to say, "Anything is POSSIBLE."

(BTW, in California it is illegal to own an SKS Sporter, a rifle in 7.62x39 caliber. The state has banned them - an act I consider completely unconstitutional)

A question I asked earlier still remains, though: If government has the authority to ban some guns, how does it NOT have the authority to (eventually) ban all guns?

Kathianne
06-03-2012, 12:58 AM
Well, I suppose technically the states can PASS laws saying it's OK to kidnap black people off the street, put chains on them, and force them to work on your farm for no pay and mediocre room and board. That violates a BUNCH of Constitutional amendments, of course... but if a state put that law in a bill, voted on it, got a majority, and the governor signed it, I guess a giant lightning bolt would not flash down from the sky and obliterate the capital before it technically became law. So in that sense, you are right. But of course, the law would be found unconstitutional by any court.

A state could do the same with a law saying that people within its borders cannot own any gun. Or it could pass one saying people in its borders could not own a Colt .45 pistol. I hold that both laws would be just as unconstitutional as the one about slavery. And with the Courts' tendency to sometimes find clearly-unconstitutional acts constitutional (see Kelo v. New London, US v. Miller, etc.), it might even happen that a court would somehow find these gun-banning laws constitutional.

If you are simply arguing that a state CAN make an unconstitutional law, with no regard for how long it would stay on the books before a court pointed out that it was unconstitutional, then I must agree with you: Yes, it can. As my Dad used to say, "Anything is POSSIBLE."

A question I asked earlier still remains, though: If government has the authority to ban some guns, how does it NOT have the authority to (eventually) ban all guns?

Thinking about what you posted earlier about the absolute wording of the 2nd, I'm tending towards agreement. I think what has clouded my reasoning is the fact that there are so many laws already passed. That doesn't make them right or constitutional, but does tend towards thinking the state has the right.

Personally, I've always thought the slippery slope has much merit.

logroller
06-03-2012, 01:07 AM
(BTW, in California it is illegal to own an SKS Sporter, a rifle in 7.62x39 caliber. The state has banned them - an act I consider completely unconstitutional)

A question I asked earlier still remains, though: If government has the authority to ban some guns, how does it NOT have the authority to (eventually) ban all guns?

CA sucks. Can't buy a .50 cal either; despite them NEVER being use in an act of violence. Just ridiculous.
But to answer your question, I dont think anything is stopping them; and technically, I don't think it would necessarily be unconstitutional. If arms could be construed to be slingshots and arrows, then banning guns could be perfectly acceptable. But as I've said, only if the government too arms itself with slingshots and arrows.

Kathianne
06-03-2012, 01:30 AM
I had to go looking around to see if I could find some writings on the second amendment, other than NRA or from specific court cases, I found this:

http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

It's pretty interesting, just don't get caught up in first few paragraphs when getting a sense that the writer is liberal, he is. He acknowledges wanting gun control, be ready for that. Also ignore all the linkages, they are to the footnotes, which you can peruse later if interested.

Some highlights, for me, anyways:


<center> The Embarrassing Second Amendment Sanford Levinson University of Texas at Austin School of Law Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659
I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment
To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion — law reviews, 13 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#13) casebooks, 14 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#14) and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." 15 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#15)
...


I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, 28 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#28) is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation. Thus the title of this essay — The Embarrassing Second Amendment — for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights (such as most members of the ACLU). Indeed, one sometimes discovers members of the NRA who are equally committed members of the ACLU, differing with the latter only on the issue of the Second Amendment but otherwise genuinely sharing the libertarian viewpoint of the ACLU.


It is not my style to offer "correct" or "incorrect" interpretations of the Constitution. 29 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#29) My major interest is in delineating the rhetorical structures of American constitutional argument and elaborating what is sometimes called the "politics of interpretation," that is, the factors that explain why one or another approach will appeal to certain analysts at certain times, while other analysts, or times, will favor quite different approaches. Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well. In some contexts, this would lead me to label as tendentious the certainty of NRA advocates that the Amendment means precisely what they assert it does. In this particular context — i.e., the pages of a journal whose audience is much more likely to be drawn from an elite, liberal portion of the public — I will instead be suggesting that the skepticism should run in the other direction, That is, we might consider the possibility that "our" views of the Amendment, perhaps best reflected in Professor Tribe's offhand treatment of it, might themselves be equally deserving of the "tendentious" label.

...

One of the school's most important writers, of course, was James Harrington, who not only was in influential at the time but also has recently been given a certain pride of place by one of the most prominent of contemporary "neo-republicans," Professor Frank Michelman. 50 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#50) One historian describes Harrington as having made "the most significant contribution to English libertarian attitudes toward arms, the individual, and society." 51 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#51) He was a central figure in the development of the ideas of popular sovereignty and republicanism. 52 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#52) For Harrington, preservation of republican liberty requires independence, which rests primarily on possession of adequate property to make men free from coercion by employers or landlords. But widespread ownership of land is not sufficient. These independent yeoman would also bear arms. As Professor Morgan puts it, "[T]hese independent yeoman, armed and embodied in a militia, are also a popular government's best protection against its enemies, whether they be aggressive foreign monarchs or scheming demagogues within the nation itself." 53 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#53)

...

Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of the period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risk of tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty- Six of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." 59 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#59) The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses s arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." 60 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#60) On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent.

In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph Story, certainly no friend of Anti-Federalism, emphasized the "importance" of the Second Amendment. 61 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#61) He went on to describe the militia as the "natural defence of a free country" not only "against sudden foreign invasions" and "domestic insurrections," with which one might well expect a Federalist to be concerned, but also against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers." 62 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#62) "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered," Story wrote, "as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." 63 (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm#63)

...
</center>

It's longish, but really interesting. Gives more 'background' information for the times and at least to me, strengthens LA's argument of why the language ended up so absolute in the 2nd amendment.

ConHog
06-03-2012, 07:38 PM
I had to go looking around to see if I could find some writings on the second amendment, other than NRA or from specific court cases, I found this:

http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

It's pretty interesting, just don't get caught up in first few paragraphs when getting a sense that the writer is liberal, he is. He acknowledges wanting gun control, be ready for that. Also ignore all the linkages, they are to the footnotes, which you can peruse later if interested.

Some highlights, for me, anyways:



It's longish, but really interesting. Gives more 'background' information for the times and at least to me, strengthens LA's argument of why the language ended up so absolute in the 2nd amendment.


Interesting read. Thanks

Kathianne
06-03-2012, 08:05 PM
Interesting read. Thanks

You're welcome. I just found it interesting how much of what was said echoed what LA had posted in response to mine.

ConHog
06-03-2012, 08:16 PM
You're welcome. I just found it interesting how much of what was said echoed what LA had posted in response to mine.

I don't agree with his conclusions , but admit he makes some valid arguments.

Kathianne
06-03-2012, 08:28 PM
I don't agree with his conclusions , but admit he makes some valid arguments.

Actually as you said earlier, in the main we agreed with our starting points. After thinking of what LA said, then looking up some sources of what was intended by those writing the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights, the language of the Second Amendment is very different than the rest. Why? May have been pressure from the anti-federalists, though that seems to be answered negatively by the article.

While it's true that they didn't have nukes and such back in the 1700's, they seemed pretty strict in how 'militarized' they wanted their home troops armed-very limited.

ConHog
06-03-2012, 09:16 PM
Actually as you said earlier, in the main we agreed with our starting points. After thinking of what LA said, then looking up some sources of what was intended by those writing the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights, the language of the Second Amendment is very different than the rest. Why? May have been pressure from the anti-federalists, though that seems to be answered negatively by the article.

While it's true that they didn't have nukes and such back in the 1700's, they seemed pretty strict in how 'militarized' they wanted their home troops armed-very limited.

There is very little to go on when trying to figure out where the founders stood on WMD of the day. Or really even where they stood on allowing citizens to carry the same weapons as the military had.

My OPINION is that they wouldn't like the idea of some of the morons running around today having the right to own machine guns.

logroller
06-03-2012, 10:16 PM
There is very little to go on when trying to figure out where the founders stood on WMD of the day. Or really even where they stood on allowing citizens to carry the same weapons as the military had.

My OPINION is that they wouldn't like the idea of some of the morons running around today having the right to own machine guns.

Re: machine guns. It seems to me machine guns are regulated by the Feds, and I don't have a problem with them regulating what constitutes arms-- but it should be a federal threshold, not a state one. To own a class 1 weapon, often called a destructive device, there's significant hurdles one must meet: background checks, how it's stored and what not. I don't think any moron can or should get one. For one thing theyre crazy expensive to own. Hell ammo alone would rule out most ownership. Which has a lot to do with keep and bear; that even military members can't take one home, can they? I forget his name, but there's a guy in the SF bay area (now deceased) who has one of the best tank collections in the world; all demilitarized by drilling a hole in the breach. I dont 2nd amendment advicates take issue with such things; Clearly there needs to be limits, but as its clearly are right designated by the COTUS, it would only make sense that's it's a federal, not state issue. I mean, does SWAT need a machine gun? I'd say no.

Kathianne
06-04-2012, 12:57 AM
Re: machine guns. It seems to me machine guns are regulated by the Feds, and I don't have a problem with them regulating what constitutes arms-- but it should be a federal threshold, not a state one. To own a class 1 weapon, often called a destructive device, there's significant hurdles one must meet: background checks, how it's stored and what not. I don't think any moron can or should get one. For one thing theyre crazy expensive to own. Hell ammo alone would rule out most ownership. Which has a lot to do with keep and bear; that even military members can't take one home, can they? I forget his name, but there's a guy in the SF bay area (now deceased) who has one of the best tank collections in the world; all demilitarized by drilling a hole in the breach. I dont 2nd amendment advicates take issue with such things; Clearly there needs to be limits, but as its clearly are right designated by the COTUS, it would only make sense that's it's a federal, not state issue. I mean, does SWAT need a machine gun? I'd say no.

I have to agree. Seems they were particulary interested in keeping the standing troops to limits of the people. The didn't want troops that could overtake the populace.

Little-Acorn
06-04-2012, 01:40 AM
If arms could be construed to be slingshots and arrows, then banning guns could be perfectly acceptable. But as I've said, only if the government too arms itself with slingshots and arrows.

Well, you mentioned that something was ridiculous, and here you have now given another example of same.

Does your copy of the 2nd amendment read, "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, unless the government redefines some weapons as not being arms any more." ?

If your copy says that, then I guess I can understand why you made the statement above.

If it doesn't, then I am at a loss to understand your statement, and can only think of the word you used earlier to describe CA Barrett bans.

logroller
06-04-2012, 02:13 AM
Well, you mentioned that something was ridiculous, and here you have now given another example of same.

Does your copy of the 2nd amendment read, "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, unless the government redefines some weapons as not being arms any more." ?

If your copy says that, then I guess I can understand why you made the statement above.

If it doesn't, then I am at a loss to understand your statement, and can only think of the word you used earlier to describe CA Barrett bans.

It was purposefully absurd; no arguments there. I meant it to dispel those notions of people possessing nuclear arms; perhaps that was unclear, or you just felt like meeting sarcasm in kind. What I'm saying is that if the state is armed with any given weapon for purposes of suppressing rebellion, then so too should the People be able to keep and bear such arms; as opposed to those arms which serve no other function than making war (which is a power granted to Congress, along with any such measures necessary to carry that out)-- does that make sense?

logroller
06-04-2012, 02:44 AM
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Why couldn't Congress determine the armament? It seems they recognize the Militia is not wholly under the employ of the government; yet it mentions the organizing, arming and disciplining of the Militia as a whole-- that would include the Militia of the 2nd Amendment.

darin
06-04-2012, 06:05 AM
Has anyone pointed out to CH the constitution is in place to LIMIT government? Thus 'just because the constitution doesn't SAY govt can't do something' is illogical. The gov't was designed to ONLY do those things permitted.

Sorta like CH saying "Because the constitution doesn't say the gov't can't implant GPS devices into newborn babies, there's no harm there..."

etc...

And CH - bro, you're really dismissing a LOT of points that would tend to invalidate your argument. The first reply to you does a great job of summarizing the case against your point of view but you summarily dismiss it because you probably don't agree.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:17 AM
Has anyone pointed out to CH the constitution is in place to LIMIT government? Thus 'just because the constitution doesn't SAY govt can't do something' is illogical. The gov't was designed to ONLY do those things permitted.

Sorta like CH saying "Because the constitution doesn't say the gov't can't implant GPS devices into newborn babies, there's no harm there..."

etc...

And CH - bro, you're really dismissing a LOT of points that would tend to invalidate your argument. The first reply to you does a great job of summarizing the case against your point of view but you summarily dismiss it because you probably don't agree.

Negative good buddy, I have in fact said the opposite, that some good points were made even though I disagree with the conclusions.

And you are right, the COTUS does exist to limit the government, but if something isn't in there, you can't just make it up whole cloth. The 2nd says you're right to own arms can not be taken away. Bear arms =/= carry guns on your hip in downtown NYC , or on airplanes, nor does it equal being able to buy any weapon you can afford.

Now obviously common sense should be applied and we can see that the founding fathers never meant to limit us to flint lock rifles only, but that same common sense should tell us that the average citizen shouldn't be able to buy mini guns either.

darin
06-04-2012, 09:29 AM
Negative good buddy, I have in fact said the opposite, that some good points were made even though I disagree with the conclusions.

And you are right, the COTUS does exist to limit the government, but if something isn't in there, you can't just make it up whole cloth. The 2nd says you're right to own arms can not be taken away. Bear arms =/= carry guns on your hip in downtown NYC , or on airplanes, nor does it equal being able to buy any weapon you can afford.

Now obviously common sense should be applied and we can see that the founding fathers never meant to limit us to flint lock rifles only, but that same common sense should tell us that the average citizen shouldn't be able to buy mini guns either.


Where the US constitution doesn't clarify, its the responsibility of the states to do so. Yes, maybe states allow carrying on planes on stuff. Maybe they don't. Common sense things you mention are not in the constitution, thus become the responsibility of the states. Period.

What's 'average' citizen? How is that defined? What makes your arguments confusing is your injection of opinion and interpretation around debatable facts.

"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"

See the difference? The way you often inject your opinion can seem to try and invalidate others'. Because if others disagreed with you, they'd 'obviously' be acting outside of common sense.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:37 AM
Where the US constitution doesn't clarify, its the responsibility of the states to do so. Yes, maybe states allow carrying on planes on stuff. Maybe they don't. Common sense things you mention are not in the constitution, thus become the responsibility of the states. Period.

What's 'average' citizen? How is that defined? What makes your arguments confusing is your injection of opinion and interpretation around debatable facts.

"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"

See the difference? The way you often inject your opinion can seem to try and invalidate others'. Because if others disagreed with you, they'd 'obviously' be acting outside of common sense.

Some states should be able to allow guns on planes? What possible sense does that make? Let's say Georgia were to allow that, nearly every passenger who chose to fly Delta would then potentially be exposed to some nut with a gun on a plane sitting next to them , and worse because once in you're inside security you're not checked again once you get to the airport in say Branson, MO.

That situation so obviously calls for a solution at the federal level that it boggles the mind that you would even suggest that states should be able to do as they please.

"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"


Yes, I see the difference, in one I just flat stated that common sense backs up my opinion, in the other you inferred it. Unless of course you are affirming that you aren't using common sense when you state an opinion?

And yes, it is common sense that a minigun only has one reason to exist and there is no rational reason for wanting one other than that ONE reason. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

Oh, and I NEVER invalidate the opinions of others. NEVER. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and the right to voice that opinion, likewise I have the right to ridicule that opinion. See the difference?

logroller
06-04-2012, 11:05 AM
Where the US constitution doesn't clarify, its the responsibility of the states to do so. Yes, maybe states allow carrying on planes on stuff. Maybe they don't. Common sense things you mention are not in the constitution, thus become the responsibility of the states. Period.

What's 'average' citizen? How is that defined? What makes your arguments confusing is your injection of opinion and interpretation around debatable facts.

"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"

See the difference? The way you often inject your opinion can seem to try and invalidate others'. Because if others disagreed with you, they'd 'obviously' be acting outside of common sense.

I had a post that got lost at the end of page 2; but in it I brought forth th congressional authorities on the militia and clearly limits th states' respectiv roles in disciplining the militia 'as prescribed by Congress' , not in lieu of Congress not doing so. So the states can, for example, make sure that a mini gun is properly kept and borne only as Congress has so provided for, but a state cannot ban them; common sense or not, it must be prescribed by Congress

darin
06-04-2012, 11:34 AM
Some states should be able to allow guns on planes? What possible sense does that make? Let's say Georgia were to allow that, nearly every passenger who chose to fly Delta would then potentially be exposed to some nut with a gun on a plane sitting next to them , and worse because once in you're inside security you're not checked again once you get to the airport in say Branson, MO.

Your specific example is beyond the scope of my point.



That situation so obviously calls for a solution at the federal level that it boggles the mind that you would even suggest that states should be able to do as they please.

...except the constitution doesn't provide the powers of the Feds to do so. Your opinion/evaluation of the situation nothwitstanding.




"People should be allowed to have miniguns"

"People shouldn't be allowed to have them because common sense says they should not"



Yes, I see the difference, in one I just flat stated that common sense backs up my opinion, in the other you inferred it. Unless of course you are affirming that you aren't using common sense when you state an opinion?

No - your idea of common sense backs up your opinion. Frankly, every opinion you have is irrefutably correct so it makes honest debate difficult.



And yes, it is common sense that a minigun only has one reason to exist and there is no rational reason for wanting one other than that ONE reason. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

Oh, and I NEVER invalidate the opinions of others. NEVER. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and the right to voice that opinion, likewise I have the right to ridicule that opinion. See the difference?

Funny you telling others what they need. What if somebody proclaimed You don't NEED your claimed 100? acres and all that livestock. You don't NEED the truck you drive or the guns you have. What else do you not NEED?

It's not about sharing opinions, its about your percieved demand to dominate others' opinions as a form of Machismo? maybe? I'm saying you may wanna consider your approach.

logroller
06-04-2012, 11:44 AM
...except the constitution doesn't provide the powers of the Feds to do so. Your opinion/evaluation of the situation nothwitstanding.

Doesnt it though?

.To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I'm thinking this confers the Congressional power to provide for a 'well regulated militia'

darin
06-04-2012, 11:57 AM
Doesnt it though?

I'm thinking this confers the Congressional power to provide for a 'well regulated militia'

I read that as the states maintain it. I'll read it closer and reply back after a bit.

logroller
06-04-2012, 12:20 PM
I read that as the states maintain it. I'll read it closer and reply back after a bit.
I think you're right; but the beginning seems to give federal authority over significant aspects of how militias are regulated.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 12:27 PM
I think you're right; but the beginning seems to give federal authority over significant aspects of how militias are regulated.

My feeling as well. I doubt the federal government would likely kindly upon Texas deciding to build and man an aircraft carrier , for instance - and IMO they would have the authority to stop it.

Kathianne
06-04-2012, 12:50 PM
Once again, it seems germane to go to the intent of framers. Lots of things to follow up here:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm


... As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.


Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State." ...

Kathianne
06-04-2012, 12:52 PM
I think you're right; but the beginning seems to give federal authority over significant aspects of how militias are regulated.

I don't see the Federal government having zip to do with this. However, I'll concede the right of federal government to regulate what will and will not be allowed on mass transit across state lines, which includes obviously, air travel.

Even if the Federal government lacked the power, (like possible in 2012), the airlines as private businesses would have the right. I can't see them wanting guns in the cabin.

Little-Acorn
06-04-2012, 12:56 PM
The 2nd says you're right to own arms can not be taken away. Bear arms =/= carry guns on your hip in downtown NYC , or on airplanes, nor does it equal being able to buy any weapon you can afford.


Negative in turn, and in the strongest terms. That is EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment means.

Some trembling ninnies being afraid of guns, or even some police forces being afraid that armed citizens will be too hard to control, does not change its meaning, nor its intent that ALL people be allowed to own ANY weapon they want.

The motivation behind this all-inclusive permission finds its roots in the question I have already asked here more than once: If government has the power to forbid some weapons, how does it not have the power to (eventually) forbid all weapons?

Even back when the Constitution and the 2nd amendment was written, small arms (long guns, pistols, swords, spears etc.) weren't the only weapons around. There were huge cannons that could batter down a castle wall with one shot; cannons firing large explosive shells; gunpowder bombs that could blow up an entire building full of people; Greek-fire type incendiary weapons that could blast flaming substances over a large area (George Washington's version of napalm), etc. And many of them were privately owned. The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment could easily have included exceptions for these horrifying WMDs... but they deliberately did not.

Yes, there may be "good reasons" why regular people should not own miniguns etc.... but have you stopped to consider the possible effects of their being FORBIDDEN BY GOVERNMENT to own a minigun? Or an AR-15 with a flash hider? What will government forbid next?

Trusting government with the power to make and enforce such decisions, is foolish in the extreme... as our forebears found repeatedly throughout history, often to their sorrow, and tried to protect us from by writing the 2nd amendment exactly as they did. I submit those effect will be much worse for society that even the effects of an occasional whacko getting hold of a gun you don't like.

And I believe the Framers agreed with me. And that's why they wrote the Constitution with NO power for the Federal government to take away ANYONE's right to keep and bear arms... and then added the 2nd amendment shortly afterward, to make sure that no other government (state, local) in the U.S. could do it either.

They didn't have to include the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. But they did... and they wrote NO exceptions into it for guns that might scare someone or make the populace "hard to control".

And in case you've forgotten, the 2nd amendment isn't a suggestion or a guideline. It is the LAW. If you try to take away my minigun, or the 1911 I am wearing on my hip (or under my jacket) in the middle of New York City, YOU are the one to be thrown into jail, not me.

Because the Supreme Law of the Land says so. For very good reason.

The fact that a few of those trembling ninnies have made laws saying otherwise, doesn't change that. Kathianne is right in this sense: Clearly some people have been able to make unconstitutional laws that illegally infringe our rights. But that doesn't make them any less unconstitutional... nor does it do away with the day of reckoning when those unconstitutional laws will be reviewed and struck down. It just delays it a little.

logroller
06-04-2012, 01:32 PM
Hey LA. In respond to your question, Congress is to provide for the Militia, and not just the Militia employed by the government; so were they to ban all guns, I believe that would fail to provide for the arming of the militia.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 01:44 PM
Negative in turn, and in the strongest terms. That is EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment means.

Some trembling ninnies being afraid of guns, or even some police forces being afraid that armed citizens will be too hard to control, does not change its meaning, nor its intent that ALL people be allowed to own ANY weapon they want.

The motivation behind this all-inclusive permission finds its roots in the question I have already asked here more than once: If government has the power to forbid some weapons, how does it not have the power to (eventually) forbid all weapons?

Even back when the Constitution and the 2nd amendment was written, small arms (long guns, pistols, swords, spears etc.) weren't the only weapons around. There were huge cannons that could batter down a castle wall with one shot; cannons firing large explosive shells; gunpowder bombs that could blow up an entire building full of people; Greek-fire type incendiary weapons that could blast flaming substances over a large area (George Washington's version of napalm), etc. And many of them were privately owned. The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment could easily have included exceptions for these horrifying WMDs... but they deliberately did not.

Yes, there may be "good reasons" why regular people should not own miniguns etc.... but have you stopped to consider the possible effects of their being FORBIDDEN BY GOVERNMENT to own a minigun? Or an AR-15 with a flash hider? What will government forbid next?

Trusting government with the power to make and enforce such decisions, is foolish in the extreme... as our forebears found repeatedly throughout history, often to their sorrow, and tried to protect us from by writing the 2nd amendment exactly as they did. I submit those effect will be much worse for society that even the effects of an occasional whacko getting hold of a gun you don't like.

And I believe the Framers agreed with me. And that's why they wrote the Constitution with NO power for the Federal government to take away ANYONE's right to keep and bear arms... and then added the 2nd amendment shortly afterward, to make sure that no other government (state, local) in the U.S. could do it either.

They didn't have to include the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. But they did... and they wrote NO exceptions into it for guns that might scare someone or make the populace "hard to control".

And in case you've forgotten, the 2nd amendment isn't a suggestion or a guideline. It is the LAW. If you try to take away my minigun, or the 1911 I am wearing on my hip (or under my jacket) in the middle of New York City, YOU are the one to be thrown into jail, not me.

Because the Supreme Law of the Land says so. For very good reason.

The fact that a few of those trembling ninnies have made laws saying otherwise, doesn't change that. Kathianne is right in this sense: Clearly some people have been able to make unconstitutional laws that illegally infringe our rights. But that doesn't make them any less unconstitutional... nor does it do away with the day of reckoning when those unconstitutional laws will be reviewed and struck down. It just delays it a little.

I have a question for you LA.

Do you have a first Amendment right to yell "bomb" on an airplane? "fire" in a crowded theater? Why not? I mean if the government can ban THAT free speech, what can't they ban?

logroller
06-04-2012, 01:44 PM
Once again, it seems germane to go to the intent of framers. Lots of things to follow up here:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I came upon that source as well; it was the inspiration for much my first post in this thread. However, it failed to provide an alternative meaning for 'well regulated militia'; whereas the enumerated Powers of Congress seemingly includes Congressional authority regarding a militia outside the scope of a militia employed by the government itself. If that's not the case, why discern as much? Why say 'well regulated' at all? It would seem they might also include some expansion or description of what types of regulation are warranted. I believe this where that is done:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Little-Acorn
06-04-2012, 01:49 PM
I have a question for you LA.


Meaning you're not going to answer the questions I asked you?

Get back to me when you change your mind.

logroller
06-04-2012, 01:58 PM
Meaning you're not going to answer the questions I asked you?

Get back to me when you change your mind.

I answered your question with reference to Enumerated powers of Congress.

red state
06-04-2012, 02:01 PM
We could dwell on "what ifs" all we want and I'll get back on that later. With this, I apologize for such a lengthy reply but the topic is so important to our livelihoods and to the heritage of this great Nation.

Firstly, I would like to stress my strong disagreement with ANY and ALL restrictions/regulations to guns (of ANY kind)...if such items would not be a concern for NATIONAL security (such as a nuclear weapon or biological hazard). Capsules/test tubes containing a deadly bacteria or virus was not foreseen by our forefathers and neither the A or H bomb but this is where common sense and safety comes into play. A tank or machine/mini gun is not a danger to our national security and we've even seen tanks being used in crimes (does anyone recall several years ago)? It can be dealt with and although there is dangers locally, none of these weapons are what most of us would identify as a threat to NATIONAL security. If the nut next door has a bigger gun and more guns than I....I may feel a bit uncomfortable BUT as long as I have the right to buy, own, carry and use mine, he feels as bit uncomfortable as well. What I would not like is being disarmed (knowing full well the possibility in this crazy world, that some nut DOES have a weapon and I do not). We walk a fine line when we allow restrictions/regulations/bans. I live in the South and the thoughts of what happened in New Orleans during Katrina still bothers me. It was WRONG and thank Christ for those in our military who refused to follow the lead of local law enforcement by disarming LEGAL/LAW ABIDING citizens while the filth of New Orleans fired upon the unarmed, rescue vehicles and were even left to rob, rape and murder those who had been disarmed. As for the clever comment by our left leaning friend above regarding guns on planes....I sure wish those heroes who went down in 9/11 had been carrying! In fact, I would dare say that it would have been better for everyone to be armed rather than what happened with an unarmed group. On the other hand, I could possibly see a large, potentially international means of travel such as this as being a threat to NATIONAL security. Still, my thoughts go back to "what if".

A "WHAT IF" that is very easy to identify with is an unarmed group of people on a plane and a madman or mu-SLUM group gets up, shows their weapon and makes their demands. We've seen this...it doesn't go well and I'm sure those with any intellect will agree. Next is the "What IF" finds the same group settling down for a nice flight when a threat presents itself. We've seen this before as well. Does anyone recall the lady politician in the GREAT State of Texas? I believe she was dining at a restaurant (legally armed) when a guy with ill intent (also armed) came to call. He was dispatched or silenced fairly quickly and if memory serves me correctly, she's the same politician who proposed that ALL legal citizens arm themselves (by mandate). I believe the crime rate has been proven to go down in such areas BUT even if it is proven otherwise, I would rather be armed than not and I'd feel much better knowing that the guy next to me was armed (visibly armed). I can not only keep an eye out on him but those with ill intent can see that this robbery would be anything but taking candy from a baby. Of course, I'm biased because I'm a RED STATER who has lived in true freedom my entire life. I have no problem with those who rather not arm themselves, hunt, worship Christ in this Christian Nation or rather not speak their mind with boldness and without fear of offending others....just don't try and prevent me from doing so!

In closing, The Second Amendment should actually be the FIRST because after the freedom that it provides, all other freedoms follow.

God bless America and those who fight tooth and nail to preserve Her...I just hope it doesn't come to fighting with only tooth and nail.

Little-Acorn
06-04-2012, 02:02 PM
I don't see the Federal government having zip to do with this. However, I'll concede the right of federal government to regulate what will and will not be allowed on mass transit across state lines, which includes obviously, air travel.
That "right" (I assume you meant "power", since governments don't have rights, only people do) was subsequently modified by the 2nd amendment. Once the 2nd was ratified, the Commerce Clause basically said "Congress shall have to power to regulate commerce between the states except where the right to keep and bear arms is concerned".

Certain government officials I can think of, would do well to take note of this... something they haven't been doing much of recently.


Even if the Federal government lacked the power, (like possible in 2012),

It's more than possible. It's required.


the airlines as private businesses would have the right. I can't see them wanting guns in the cabin.
Absolutely true. The airlines don't have the power to take away your gun. But they do have the right to refuse entrance to their planes to anyone they want to, for any reason. And if the want to refuse you on grounds that you're carrrying a gun, they can. That would be foolish, but not illegal.

And BTW, they have the right to refuse to let you aboard because you're carrying, even if they just let someone else who is also carrying, aboard. Contrary to popular belief, they do NOT have to treat everyone equally when it comes to the airlines' own property (the planes).

And if you see an airline that refuses to let anyone on board who is carrying, you can find an airline that does let you board with your gun. Preferably one that simultaneously refuses entry to a sweating, nervous-looking, shifty-eyed person, even one who is not obviously carrying. And if they wind up refusing an inordinate number of suspicious-appearing Middle-eastern looking persons, that's too damned bad. They should publicize that fact, and see if a whole lot of other people DO want to fly with them as a result.

red state
06-04-2012, 02:12 PM
Bottom line, and with NO "what ifs", had King George banned firearms, it is likely that we could not have won our Independence (much less defend ourselves from other threats). I'm glad that folks around the countrysides (rich as well as poor) had the means to not only protect one another but the means by which they became a threat to tyranny such as the leadership of King George 9or the threat we currently face in limitations of free speech, openly expressed faith and our right to protect our own.

Little-Acorn
06-04-2012, 02:29 PM
Bottom line, and with NO "what ifs", had King George banned firearms, it is likely that we could not have won our Independence (much less defend ourselves from other threats).

He basically did exactly that, giving his troops permission to confiscate any colonists' weapons they thought might cause them trouble.

And that's exactly what his troops were trying to do when a bunch of silly-looking chicken farmers lined up in a field in rural Massachusetts and refused to comply. Shots were fired (nobody knows who shot first), and the war was "officially" on. Though the British troops prevailed, they changed their mind about confiscating those particular guns and powder, and headed to another town where pretty much the same thing happened. They then marched back to Boston, with the farmers sniping at them all the way.

The main motivation behind the Revolutionary War was "Taxation without representation is tyranny"... but the first actual shots were fired as a direct result of GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS AT GUN CONTROL. And they were fired in a confrontation between a bunch of ill-armed "extremist" civilian rabble (which is what those early militias mostly were), taking on the largest, finest, best-trained-and-equipped army the world had ever seen.

And look at the result.

That's something else that today's governments should keep in mind.

logroller
06-04-2012, 02:30 PM
Bottom line, and with NO "what ifs", had King George banned firearms, it is likely that we could not have won our Independence (much less defend ourselves from other threats). I'm glad that folks around the countrysides (rich as well as poor) had the means to not only protect one another but the means by which they became a threat to tyranny such as the leadership of King George 9or the threat we currently face in limitations of free speech, openly expressed faith and our right to protect our own.

Bottom line, a hypothetical proposition is a 'what if'.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 02:46 PM
Meaning you're not going to answer the questions I asked you?

Get back to me when you change your mind.

I answered your question friend.

No right is "absolute" regardless of what the COTUS says. You don't have the absolute right to yell "bomb" in an airplane regardless of what the first says, likewise you don't have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon regardless of what the second says.

DragonStryk72
06-04-2012, 02:56 PM
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.

Here's one I have a beef with SOME conservatives about. Nowhere in that does it say the government can't outlaw certain types of weapons. It merely says that they can't keep us from owning weapons in general. Do I believe that means the government can outlaw ownership of everything but revolvers and lever rod rifles? No of course not; but where the line should be drawn is a separate issue from "can the government in fact draw a line?"

On a related note, I also don't believe the 2nd means the government can't restrict where we can carry guns. In the time frame the COTUS was written Bear Arms meant own weapons, and in fact in many colonial cities of the era it was illegal to carry a gun in town. That's why duels were legal but always took place outside city limits. It wasn't until the wild west where we seen gunfights happening on main street, and that was actually much less common than the movies would have you believe.

As opposed to the mass murders occurring in "gun-free" areas? The only thing that declaring an area off limits to guns does is provide a simple way for criminals to determine the best places to hit. The matter of where guns aren't allowed isn't really a government issue, in so much as a common sense issue.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 03:01 PM
As opposed to the mass murders occurring in "gun-free" areas? The only thing that declaring an area off limits to guns does is provide a simple way for criminals to determine the best places to hit. The matter of where guns aren't allowed isn't really a government issue, in so much as a common sense issue.

I would tend to agree with you. My only argument is that the government CAN limit where and what you may own. I do NOT argue that they SHOULD do so.

DragonStryk72
06-04-2012, 03:06 PM
I would tend to agree with you. My only argument is that the government CAN limit where and what you may own. I do NOT argue that they SHOULD do so.

State government can, the Fed cannot, as it is not amongst the enumerated powers.

Little-Acorn
06-04-2012, 03:13 PM
State government can, the Fed cannot, as it is not amongst the enumerated powers.

State and local governments are also forbidden by the 2nd, from restricting or banning people's guns. Its language is very clear, and does not restrict itself to only the Fed, as I explained here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35388-The-Second-Amendment&p=553158#post553158

Some state and local governments obviously don't know that. But since when is ignorance of the law, an acceptable excuse to violate the law?

logroller
06-04-2012, 03:13 PM
State government can, the Fed cannot, as it is not amongst the enumerated powers.
Nobody seems to refute this being an enumerated power.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

ConHog
06-04-2012, 03:18 PM
State government can, the Fed cannot, as it is not amongst the enumerated powers.

You're wrong IMO.

Kathianne
06-04-2012, 03:20 PM
I would tend to agree with you. My only argument is that the government CAN limit where and what you may own. I do NOT argue that they SHOULD do so.

So you believe that the SCOTUS will rule for Obama health reform, forcing purchase?

Little-Acorn
06-04-2012, 03:25 PM
Nobody seems to refute this being an enumerated power.

See my comments on how the 2nd modifies the Commerce Clause, in Post #50. The same reasoning applies to the Militia language you cited.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 03:28 PM
So you believe that the SCOTUS will rule for Obama health reform, forcing purchase?

I don't see how the two are comparable. One is saying you can't own X , the other is saying you MUST own Y.

logroller
06-04-2012, 03:56 PM
See my comments on how the 2nd modifies the Commerce Clause, in Post #50. The same reasoning applies to the Militia language you cited.

The 2nd amendment specifies 'a well regulated militia', whereas the enumerated power doesn't. This is because the enumerated power pertains to said regulation. The second amendment doesn't overwrite the enumerated power, it subscribes to it.

I'd like to examine this idea though, as the concept of an amendment certainly does modify the original text. Let's take the enumerated power to protect writings and discoveries. Say there's a patent on some new receiver for a handgun. Now I can copy that design, keep and bear that handgun. However, I try and sell that gun, I have broken the law because Congress has the authority to restrict commerce, irrespective of what one may loosely construe as a 2nd Amendment violation. Yes I have a right to bear arms; but my right cannot violate another's right; rights are coexistant. Laws which are in place to protect those rights must survive strict scrutiny; but they aren't automatically nullified by an amendment. As CH said, rights aren't absolute-- laws still apply.

Kathianne
06-04-2012, 04:07 PM
I would tend to agree with you. My only argument is that the government CAN limit where and what you may own. I do NOT argue that they SHOULD do so.


I don't see how the two are comparable. One is saying you can't own X , the other is saying you MUST own Y.

First quote. No qualifiers there.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 04:27 PM
First quote. No qualifiers there.

Okay I see what you're saying. No that is not what I mean, I was speaking ONLY in reference to firearms RE: 2nd amendment. I don't think that saying the 2nd doesn't prevent the government from saying "you can't own a minigun" translates into the government can say "you must own health insurance."

Hope that clears up my opinion.

Kathianne
06-04-2012, 04:32 PM
Okay I see what you're saying. No that is not what I mean, I was speaking ONLY in reference to firearms RE: 2nd amendment. I don't think that saying the 2nd doesn't prevent the government from saying "you can't own a minigun" translates into the government can say "you must own health insurance."

Hope that clears up my opinion.

Not really, but logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

logroller
06-04-2012, 04:37 PM
Hey ch, what about the draft; which can require someone to take up arms?

ConHog
06-04-2012, 05:49 PM
Hey ch, what about the draft; which can require someone to take up arms?

would make an interesting thread in and of itself, but in short I believe it's unconstitutional.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 05:50 PM
Not really, but logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

Hey Kath I got an idea. Why don't you stop engaging in the very behavior which you used to thread ban people for.

Kathianne
06-04-2012, 06:24 PM
Hey Kath I got an idea. Why don't you stop engaging in the very behavior which you used to thread ban people for.

Now you are going delusional. Indeed, my guess is Jim would say you still shouldn't be questioning moderation.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 06:26 PM
Now you are going delusional. Indeed, my guess is Jim would say you still shouldn't be questioning moderation.

I didn't question moderation, I questioned YOUR behavior.

Kathianne
06-04-2012, 06:27 PM
I didn't question moderation, I questioned YOUR behavior.

Yeah, you did. In any case, I'm posting as regular member and have the ability to make observations.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 06:39 PM
Yeah, you did. In any case, I'm posting as regular member and have the ability to make observations.

No, you are derailing and flaming.

Little-Acorn
06-04-2012, 06:46 PM
I'd like to examine this idea though, as the concept of an amendment certainly does modify the original text. Let's take the enumerated power to protect writings and discoveries. Say there's a patent on some new receiver for a handgun. Now I can copy that design,
You can? I thought patent law forbade that, without the original inventor's permission of course. But I may be wrong, I don't know much about patent law.

Say sombody invented a new tractor engine, that let him run his tractor using 1/3 the fuel of other tractors for the same performance. Can I copy that engine, put the copy in my tractor, and start selling my grain for a lot less because I used less fuel to till and harvest it? And the inventor of the engine can't do a thing to stop me, even though he has a U.S. patent on the engine and its new concepts?

But, suppose that's true. Then you have asked an interesting question, about selling the gun you copied. The Constitution protects the original inventor's ideas for manufacturing the gun (via patents), but it also protects my potential buyer's right to keep and bear arms. Who wins? Might depend on the definition of "property". Do you own the copy of the gun? If you do, then why can't you sell it? Either you own it or you don't. This is why I am surprised at your comment that you can copy the inventor's gun despite his patent.

If you can legally copy it, then we have a contradiction. But you can always create a contradiction if you take a falsehood and pretend it's true. Is that what's happening in this case?

ConHog
06-04-2012, 06:52 PM
nm

jimnyc
06-04-2012, 07:11 PM
Please don't bring up moderation, even in general, or past decisions. Please stick to the subject, which in this case is the 2nd. :)

red state
06-04-2012, 07:13 PM
Your below refreshment in History is correct (although my point was that King George should have done so long, long before things had gotten out of hand (but he didn't). The scene you painted so perfectly was a quick, hot frying pan of action that followed after King George saw that we were fed up (too little, too late by that time for him to do anything about it). Today, we don't have a quick, HOT frying pan...we have a slow cooking crock pot and the frog (WE THE PEOPLE) are slowly cooking...if we were suddenly introduced to something VERY bad (as in the case of the colonists) we would leap out of the skillet or cooking device! As is, we are dumbed down with "good for the public's safety" propaganda of the anti-american crowd. Those who would limit their freedom for the sake of security DESERVE NEITHER.


He basically did exactly that, giving his troops permission to confiscate any colonists' weapons they thought might cause them trouble.

And that's exactly what his troops were trying to do when a bunch of silly-looking chicken farmers lined up in a field in rural Massachusetts and refused to comply. Shots were fired (nobody knows who shot first), and the war was "officially" on. Though the British troops prevailed, they changed their mind about confiscating those particular guns and powder, and headed to another town where pretty much the same thing happened. They then marched back to Boston, with the farmers sniping at them all the way.

The main motivation behind the Revolutionary War was "Taxation without representation is tyranny"... but the first actual shots were fired as a direct result of GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS AT GUN CONTROL. And they were fired in a confrontation between a bunch of ill-armed "extremist" civilian rabble (which is what those early militias mostly were), taking on the largest, finest, best-trained-and-equipped army the world had ever seen.

And look at the result.

That's something else that today's governments should keep in mind.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-04-2012, 07:21 PM
Your below refreshment in History is correct (although my point was that King George should have done so long, long before things had gotten out of hand (but he didn't). The scene you painted so perfectly was a quick, hot frying pan of action that followed after King George saw that we were fed up (too little, too late by that time for him to do anything about it). Today, we don't have a quick, HOT frying pan...we have a slow cooking crock pot and the frog (WE THE PEOPLE) are slowly cooking...if we were suddenly introduced to something VERY bad (as in the case of the colonists) we would leap out of the skillet or cooking device! As is, we are dumbed down with "good for the public's safety" propaganda of the anti-american crowd. Those who would limit their freedom for the sake of security DESERVE NEITHER.

Let the lying scoundrel win a second term and we are likely to see before that term is over such dire actions taken against our Liberties as to force an open confrontation! I am firmly convinced the plan is to destroy our current form of government and our Constitution. Obama plays a large role in that plan..-Tyr

ConHog
06-04-2012, 07:24 PM
Let the lying scoundrel win a second term and we are likely to see before that term is over such dire actions taken against our Liberties as to force an open confrontation! I am firmly convinced the plan is to destroy our current form of government and our Constitution. Obama plays a large role in that plan..-Tyr

Can we just discuss the 2nd Amendment here? Plenty of threads to grip about Obama.


Thanks.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-04-2012, 07:42 PM
Can we just discuss the 2nd Amendment here? Plenty of threads to grip about Obama.


Thanks.

Well, they were talking about tractor engines and patent law just a few posts back, just thought our anti-gun president might be closer to the subject matter amigo.
Here just for you.
Obama will gladly do way with our 2nd Amendment rights if he gets voted in again.
As a lying marxist loving anti-gun president we can only expect his anti-gun stance to grow stronger if he gets a second term.
Is that better friend?--:cool:--Tyr

red state
06-04-2012, 07:48 PM
Easy there...feller!

B.O. (bad odor Berry) is a big part of the 2nd Amendment discussion (just as King George was). I don't recall anyone piping up about that. Of course, you don't say anything about the current "occupier" of the White House...I understand that by now. At any rate, B.O. is a firm supporter of the likes of those who would rid us of the 2nd Amendment so what's wrong in covering all avenues of discussion? I know it's hard for some to keep up but if you take your time, you'll be able to put it all together...eventually. Continue, PLEASE, Mr. Tyr.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 07:55 PM
Easy there...feller!

B.O. (bad odor Berry) is a big part of the 2nd Amendment discussion (just as King George was). I don't recall anyone piping up about that. Of course, you don't say anything about the current "occupier" of the White House...I understand that by now. At any rate, B.O. is a firm supporter of the likes of those who would rid us of the 2nd Amendment so what's wrong in covering all avenues of discussion? I know it's hard for some to keep up but if you take your time, you'll be able to put it all together...eventually. Continue, PLEASE, Mr. Tyr.

No, that has NOTHING to do with the topic of this discussion, except as a historical note as to why the founders made sure we were always armed. And Obama specifically is not the reason for such.

All I'm asking is that we keep this to a strictly academic discussion of the 2nd. There is a complete separate political forum for discussing current politics.l

red state
06-04-2012, 07:55 PM
And for the record, and as a TRUE conservative, I don't just harp on B.O. (bad odor Berry)....Bush allowed WAY too much during Katrina and I addressed that (without any rude interuptions or behind the back seat moderation. I'm not blaming BUSH for what the liberal mayor of New Orleans did BUT Mr. Bush certainly didn't take drastic action and speak out against it (that I'm aware of anyway). A true leader should have (would have) gotten really tough on the way Katrina and the 2nd Amendment was handled. We have no true leadership...that's the sorry facts of the entire thing! As long as I have the 2nd Amendment, I can spout off about anything the 1st Amendment states (without a liberal trying to play boss or moderator).

jimnyc
06-04-2012, 08:41 PM
No moderation here, just a friendly reminder to everyone that the threads are much better then they remain on topic, especially if we're going to discuss the constitution. I know someone says one thing, another expands on it, and there goes the thread in a different direction. But sometimes a little friendly reminder helps! :)

ConHog
06-04-2012, 08:43 PM
No moderation here, just a friendly reminder to everyone that the threads are much better then they remain on topic, especially if we're going to discuss the constitution. I know someone says one thing, another expands on it, and there goes the thread in a different direction. But sometimes a little friendly reminder helps! :)

That's all I was getting at, I wasn't trying to mini mod; but as you know when I asked for this forum I stated up front that I wanted politics left out of it so we could just discuss the academics of the COTUS.


Thanks.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-04-2012, 08:46 PM
No, that has NOTHING to do with the topic of this discussion, except as a historical note as to why the founders made sure we were always armed. And Obama specifically is not the reason for such.

All I'm asking is that we keep this to a strictly academic discussion of the 2nd. There is a complete separate political forum for discussing current politics.l

Sorry but obama and his deliberate nation destroying policies are a large reason why we should be discussing
the 2nd amendment and its creation/ importance today! For the two should not be seperated in my opinion. Purely Academic discussion on this subject is not any more important than its relevance today which should be discussed as well. Our 2nd Amendment is of greater importance now than it has been in decades.. Carry on your academic points my friend and I'll read them and thank you for the info. However its a big subject that will branch out because it represents our right to defend our families and our nation ourselves! No such thing as too much true info.. Your kind indulgence would be nice.. TY...-Tyr

jimnyc
06-04-2012, 08:47 PM
That's all I was getting at, I wasn't trying to mini mod; but as you know when I asked for this forum I stated up front that I wanted politics left out of it so we could just discuss the academics of the COTUS.


Thanks.

Unfortunately, this is a message board, and some have different messages than others. While we should in fact strive for just what you stated, I don't believe we should get into moderation of others "off topic" posts, unless they are of course purposely trying to derail threads.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 08:49 PM
Unfortunately, this is a message board, and some have different messages than others. While we should in fact strive for just what you stated, I don't believe we should get into moderation of others "off topic" posts, unless they are of course purposely trying to derail threads.

Personally, I think they ARE purposely derailing a thread when the person who started the thread has stated the purpose for such thread and they pretty much just say "I'll post what I want" they could go post what they are posting in their own thread in the appropriate forum.

That is of course just my opinion.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-04-2012, 08:53 PM
No moderation here, just a friendly reminder to everyone that the threads are much better then they remain on topic, especially if we're going to discuss the constitution. I know someone says one thing, another expands on it, and there goes the thread in a different direction. But sometimes a little friendly reminder helps! :)

I have no problem with that . Of course it will be very hard not to discuss the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in today's political climate. In my opinion what we see developing today in big government extreme power grabbing should force us to understand and discuss the 2nd..
If its to be purely academic discussion than I will bow out. I tend to relate to the dire actions of todays controlling big government and the 2nd amendment as being inseparable.
Carry on then..-Tyr

jimnyc
06-04-2012, 08:55 PM
Personally, I think they ARE purposely derailing a thread when the person who started the thread has stated the purpose for such thread and they pretty much just say "I'll post what I want" they could go post what they are posting in their own thread in the appropriate forum.

That is of course just my opinion.

Maybe so, but we all have opinions on that just like we all will have different opinions on the 2nd amendment and others. I'm NOT encouraging people to go off topic in threads. But if someone is still discussing the 2nd amendment, in a 2nd amendment thread - it wouldn't be honest to tell them to stop. This is a forum that is only a couple of days old. Give it some time. Based on other forums, nothing is different thus far. I understand that you would rather leave politics out and leave these threads 'strictly' for the COTUS and legal analysis, let's give things a chance to fall into a groove and give everyone an opportunity to find their way around and learn.

ConHog
06-04-2012, 08:57 PM
Maybe so, but we all have opinions on that just like we all will have different opinions on the 2nd amendment and others. I'm NOT encouraging people to go off topic in threads. But if someone is still discussing the 2nd amendment, in a 2nd amendment thread - it wouldn't be honest to tell them to stop. This is a forum that is only a couple of days old. Give it some time. Based on other forums, nothing is different thus far. I understand that you would rather leave politics out and leave these threads 'strictly' for the COTUS and legal analysis, let's give things a chance to fall into a groove and give everyone an opportunity to find their way around and learn.

I'm good. I simply made a comment. I didn't "report" anyone or anything of that nature.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-04-2012, 08:58 PM
Personally, I think they ARE purposely derailing a thread when the person who started the thread has stated the purpose for such thread and they pretty much just say "I'll post what I want" they could go post what they are posting in their own thread in the appropriate forum.

That is of course just my opinion.

Sorry, your opnion is wrong. There is no -they--. amigo.
I do not post in conjunction with another member as my thoughts are all my own.
I wasnt derailing anything.
Strange how you havent stated that the tractor patent law comments previously posted were derailing, huh?
Slow down a bit and you will see that I had no ulterior motives..
Just strong opinions on the 2nd and its relevance today..-Tyr

jimnyc
06-04-2012, 08:58 PM
I have no problem with that . Of course it will be very hard not to discuss the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in today's political climate. In my opinion what we see developing today in big government extreme power grabbing should force us to understand and discuss the 2nd..
If its to be purely academic discussion than I will bow out. I tend to relate to the dire actions of todays controlling big government and the 2nd amendment as being inseparable.
Carry on then..-Tyr

I agree with you, no debate from my side! I think Conhog would prefer a discussion solely on the legalese, without today's politics coming into the discussion, but we're generally not a place to tell others not to speak their thoughts, unless they are ruining threads, which I certainly don't see happening.

In the long run of things, I think there will be PLENTY of topics and PLENTY of room, where everyone will have the threads of their liking and discussions of their liking.

As owner, I just think it's best at this point to allow all POV's unless detrimental to the board, which is very rare, and even then we can just move problematic threads to the 'steel cage'.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-04-2012, 09:01 PM
Maybe so, but we all have opinions on that just like we all will have different opinions on the 2nd amendment and others. I'm NOT encouraging people to go off topic in threads. But if someone is still discussing the 2nd amendment, in a 2nd amendment thread - it wouldn't be honest to tell them to stop. This is a forum that is only a couple of days old. Give it some time. Based on other forums, nothing is different thus far. I understand that you would rather leave politics out and leave these threads 'strictly' for the COTUS and legal analysis, let's give things a chance to fall into a groove and give everyone an opportunity to find their way around and learn.

Bravo and a triple thanks for that..
I had no negative intentions toward ANY MEMBER HERE or any intention of messing up this thread..
I'll just bow out ... later guys ..

ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:04 PM
Bravo and a triple thanks for that..
I had no negative intentions toward ANY MEMBER HERE or any intention of messing up this thread..
I'll just bow out ... later guys ..

There is no need for that. And there is no hard feelings either friend.

If you want to see hard feelings go to the steel cage and see OCA cry his vagina out about how mean I am to him. :lol:

SassyLady
06-04-2012, 09:52 PM
Since the Constitution doesn't deny certain rights in the 2nd amendment; the tenth amendment certainly seems to come into play:



Without question then the states could enact laws that curtail 2nd amendment rights. However, the SCOTUS has repeatedly been striking down such laws for years now. In fact, many states are repealing laws that have been passed for years. Indeed, more legislators are acknowledging the data from FBI regarding open carry, concealed carry and lower crime statistics. It's not just robbery and such, rape and murder rates also fall.

CA has crazy gun laws. I can keep my gun, unloaded in the trunk of my car. What good does that do me if I'm mugged walking out of the store?

fj1200
06-05-2012, 09:14 AM
CA has crazy gun laws. I can keep my gun, unloaded in the trunk of my car. What good does that do me if I'm mugged walking out of the store?

I don't know all the CA gun laws but the latter seems to honor property rights which I would argue supersede the second.

fj1200
06-05-2012, 09:22 AM
I'd like to examine this idea though, as the concept of an amendment certainly does modify the original text. Let's take the enumerated power to protect writings and discoveries. Say there's a patent on some new receiver for a handgun. Now I can copy that design, keep and bear that handgun. However, I try and sell that gun, I have broken the law because Congress has the authority to restrict commerce, irrespective of what one may loosely construe as a 2nd Amendment violation. Yes I have a right to bear arms; but my right cannot violate another's right; rights are coexistant. Laws which are in place to protect those rights must survive strict scrutiny; but they aren't automatically nullified by an amendment. As CH said, rights aren't absolute-- laws still apply.

You've broken the law because you violated intellectual property of the inventor. This is not a commerce clause issue.


Say sombody invented a new tractor engine, that let him run his tractor using 1/3 the fuel of other tractors for the same performance. Can I copy that engine, put the copy in my tractor, and start selling my grain for a lot less because I used less fuel to till and harvest it? And the inventor of the engine can't do a thing to stop me, even though he has a U.S. patent on the engine and its new concepts?

But, suppose that's true. Then you have asked an interesting question, about selling the gun you copied. The Constitution protects the original inventor's ideas for manufacturing the gun (via patents), but it also protects my potential buyer's right to keep and bear arms. Who wins?

You can copy a patent as long as you don't profit from it IIRC. However, this is way off topic because you have the right to a gun, you just don't have a right to THAT gun.

ConHog
06-05-2012, 10:15 AM
You've broken the law because you violated intellectual property of the inventor. This is not a commerce clause issue.



You can copy a patent as long as you don't profit from it IIRC. However, this is way off topic because you have the right to a gun, you just don't have a right to THAT gun.

Correct, off topic, BUT on the topic of patents, it is actually a patent violation to even USE something that is patented without permission, profit is irrelevant.

And yes that's the point I was trying to make . The Second affirms you're right to bear arms, it does NOT affirm your right to bear any arm of your choice, nor does it affirm you're right to carry those arms around with you at all times.

DragonStryk72
06-05-2012, 02:09 PM
I don't know all the CA gun laws but the latter seems to honor property rights which I would argue supersede the second.

Yes, so CA has ruled that property rights are more important than Sassy's life.

fj1200
06-05-2012, 02:16 PM
Yes, so CA has ruled that property rights are more important than Sassy's life.

No, they passed legislation that property rights are greater than Sassy's right to carry on someone else's private property. I happen to agree with that.

ConHog
06-05-2012, 02:22 PM
No, they passed legislation that property rights are greater than Sassy's right to carry on someone else's private property. I happen to agree with that.

Another person confused about the 2nd. I don't know why they think bear arms means "carry guns wherever you want" Even in colonial times it was illegal to carry a firearm in most towns.

logroller
06-05-2012, 02:23 PM
You can? I thought patent law forbade that, without the original inventor's permission of course. But I may be wrong, I don't know much about patent law.

Say sombody invented a new tractor engine, that let him run his tractor using 1/3 the fuel of other tractors for the same performance. Can I copy that engine, put the copy in my tractor, and start selling my grain for a lot less because I used less fuel to till and harvest it? And the inventor of the engine can't do a thing to stop me, even though he has a U.S. patent on the engine and its new concepts?

But, suppose that's true. Then you have asked an interesting question, about selling the gun you copied. The Constitution protects the original inventor's ideas for manufacturing the gun (via patents), but it also protects my potential buyer's right to keep and bear arms. Who wins? Might depend on the definition of "property". Do you own the copy of the gun? If you do, then why can't you sell it? Either you own it or you don't. This is why I am surprised at your comment that you can copy the inventor's gun despite his patent.

If you can legally copy it, then we have a contradiction. But you can always create a contradiction if you take a falsehood and pretend it's true. Is that what's happening in this case?


Correct, off topic, BUT on the topic of patents, it is actually a patent violation to even USE something that is patented without permission, profit is irrelevant.

And yes that's the point I was trying to make . The Second affirms you're right to bear arms, it does NOT affirm your right to bear any arm of your choice, nor does it affirm you're right to carry those arms around with you at all times.
I stand corrected. The only exception is for experimental purposes: as the intent of patents is to encourage innovation. Goes to show that legally, rights are strictly scrutinized pursuant to the intent, and not absolute. That was my point.

Little-Acorn
06-05-2012, 02:57 PM
CA has crazy gun laws. I can keep my gun, unloaded in the trunk of my car. What good does that do me if I'm mugged walking out of the store?

Most of California's gun laws are unconstitutinal, violating the 2nd amendment, IMHO. That's true of most gun laws in most states, actually, plus most Federal gun laws starting with the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and others like them.

The 2nd amendment is simple and clear: For such-and-such reasons, ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons can't be taken away or restricted.

The extent to which anti-gun people bend over backward and twist themselves into strange pretzel shapes to "find" bizarrre "meanings" in it, defies all credibility sometimes.

The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, could have put in exceptions for "more than ten guns per household", or "Feds can't restrict guns but states still can", or "except around schools or post offices", etc. But they didn't. And that omission was careful and deliberate.

The reasons why you should be able to own and carry a gun are many. Knowing a victim may be carrying, can make a thief or mugger think twice. It can also make a corrupt sheriff who wants your property or your daughter, think twice. Or make a poisonous legislature who wants to put, say, all blacks into chains or all Jews into an oven, think twice if those blacks or Jews (and/or their friends) own guns and regularly have them with them.

But the main reason you should always have the right to own and carry guns, is because the Great American Experiment assumed that individual people will do a better job running their own lives, making their own decisions, making mistakes, taking the consequences themselves, and learning from them; than an all-powerful government will do making those decisions for those people. And that includes making decisions on how and when to protect yourself and your loved ones... which necessarily includes YOU deciding what instrument(s) you will use to do it.

The freedom to own and carry any gun you want, is the ultimate expression of the sovereignity of the private citizen. Nobody (and that means NOBODY) can try to mess with him without facing the severest consequences. The sovereign citizen's own decisions, good or bad, are the ultimate determinant of his fate and his life. And his ability to own and carry deadly weapons, capable of harming or even killing those around him and subject ONLY to his own personal decision, is what makes sure it stays that way.

Even the possiblity that a man with bad judgment might use his weapon to unjustly threaten, injure or kill an innocent person, is not sufficient reason to take away EVERYONE'S right to own and carry such weapons. The Framers made the hard decision that even with the occasional (and inevitable) injury or death of an innocent person at the hands of a careless or criminal gun owner, the right of all people to be gun owners must be held sacrosanct... that society would be better off under those circumstances, than under a system where government could restrict citizens' rights to own and carry weapons. Partly because the Framers knew that the power to restrict that right, was ultimately the power to take it away completely - and the Framers knew that society would be worse off under those conditions, than under the conditions where an occasional mistake or criminal's act could result in an injury, possibly a fatal one.

Under the Great American Experiment, people were to be free to make their own decisions and take the consequences of them... including the bad or wrong decisions. Assigning third parties to make those decisions for them, would make them worse off, not better. And so government's only function, was restricted to only protecting those rights of the people. NOT making decisions to "help" them... even if some people thought govt "helping" people was a GOOD idea.

In a very real sense, the right to own and carry a gun is the ultimate manifestation of the Great American Experiment - the ultimate manifestation of freedom. Because it is the best way to ensure that you are left alone to make your own decisions, even if some else doesn't want you to. And only if you violate someone else's rights - say, by injuring or killing an innocent person, for whatever reason - can your own ultimate rights be taken away. Not because you MIGHT - that's not a good enough reason, because anybody might. Only because you DID.

And the Framers were careful to make the 2nd amendment part of the Supreme Law of the Land, to make sure it stayed that way.

OCA
06-05-2012, 03:18 PM
We could dwell on "what ifs" all we want and I'll get back on that later. With this, I apologize for such a lengthy reply but the topic is so important to our livelihoods and to the heritage of this great Nation.

Firstly, I would like to stress my strong disagreement with ANY and ALL restrictions/regulations to guns (of ANY kind)...if such items would not be a concern for NATIONAL security (such as a nuclear weapon or biological hazard). Capsules/test tubes containing a deadly bacteria or virus was not foreseen by our forefathers and neither the A or H bomb but this is where common sense and safety comes into play. A tank or machine/mini gun is not a danger to our national security and we've even seen tanks being used in crimes (does anyone recall several years ago)? It can be dealt with and although there is dangers locally, none of these weapons are what most of us would identify as a threat to NATIONAL security. If the nut next door has a bigger gun and more guns than I....I may feel a bit uncomfortable BUT as long as I have the right to buy, own, carry and use mine, he feels as bit uncomfortable as well. What I would not like is being disarmed (knowing full well the possibility in this crazy world, that some nut DOES have a weapon and I do not). We walk a fine line when we allow restrictions/regulations/bans. I live in the South and the thoughts of what happened in New Orleans during Katrina still bothers me. It was WRONG and thank Christ for those in our military who refused to follow the lead of local law enforcement by disarming LEGAL/LAW ABIDING citizens while the filth of New Orleans fired upon the unarmed, rescue vehicles and were even left to rob, rape and murder those who had been disarmed. As for the clever comment by our left leaning friend above regarding guns on planes....I sure wish those heroes who went down in 9/11 had been carrying! In fact, I would dare say that it would have been better for everyone to be armed rather than what happened with an unarmed group. On the other hand, I could possibly see a large, potentially international means of travel such as this as being a threat to NATIONAL security. Still, my thoughts go back to "what if".

A "WHAT IF" that is very easy to identify with is an unarmed group of people on a plane and a madman or mu-SLUM group gets up, shows their weapon and makes their demands. We've seen this...it doesn't go well and I'm sure those with any intellect will agree. Next is the "What IF" finds the same group settling down for a nice flight when a threat presents itself. We've seen this before as well. Does anyone recall the lady politician in the GREAT State of Texas? I believe she was dining at a restaurant (legally armed) when a guy with ill intent (also armed) came to call. He was dispatched or silenced fairly quickly and if memory serves me correctly, she's the same politician who proposed that ALL legal citizens arm themselves (by mandate). I believe the crime rate has been proven to go down in such areas BUT even if it is proven otherwise, I would rather be armed than not and I'd feel much better knowing that the guy next to me was armed (visibly armed). I can not only keep an eye out on him but those with ill intent can see that this robbery would be anything but taking candy from a baby. Of course, I'm biased because I'm a RED STATER who has lived in true freedom my entire life. I have no problem with those who rather not arm themselves, hunt, worship Christ in this Christian Nation or rather not speak their mind with boldness and without fear of offending others....just don't try and prevent me from doing so!

In closing, The Second Amendment should actually be the FIRST because after the freedom that it provides, all other freedoms follow.

God bless America and those who fight tooth and nail to preserve Her...I just hope it doesn't come to fighting with only tooth and nail.

How about just a simple background check to make sure some douchebag has all his marbles? i.e. the idiot at VT who had been diagnosed as a nutso over and over again but just a rudimentary check was not done at the gun shop that might've prevented him from gaining access to a weapon.

Other than that I agree with ya.

ConHog
06-05-2012, 03:43 PM
Most of California's gun laws are unconstitutinal, violating the 2nd amendment, IMHO. That's true of most gun laws in most states, actually, plus most Federal gun laws starting with the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and others like them.

The 2nd amendment is simple and clear: For such-and-such reasons, ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons can't be taken away or restricted.

The extent to which anti-gun people bend over backward and twist themselves into strange pretzel shapes to "find" bizarrre "meanings" in it, defies all credibility sometimes.

The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, could have put in exceptions for "more than ten guns per household", or "Feds can't restrict guns but states still can", or "except around schools or post offices", etc. But they didn't. And that omission was careful and deliberate.

The reasons why you should be able to own and carry a gun are many. Knowing a victim may be carrying, can make a thief or mugger think twice. It can also make a corrupt sheriff who wants your property or your daughter, think twice. Or make a poisonous legislature who wants to put, say, all blacks into chains or all Jews into an oven, think twice if those blacks or Jews (and/or their friends) own guns and regularly have them with them.

But the main reason you should always have the right to own and carry guns, is because the Great American Experiment assumed that individual people will do a better job running their own lives, making their own decisions, making mistakes, taking the consequences themselves, and learning from them; than an all-powerful government will do making those decisions for those people. And that includes making decisions on how and when to protect yourself and your loved ones... which necessarily includes YOU deciding what instrument(s) you will use to do it.

The freedom to own and carry any gun you want, is the ultimate expression of the sovereignity of the private citizen. Nobody (and that means NOBODY) can try to mess with him without facing the severest consequences. The sovereign citizen's own decisions, good or bad, are the ultimate determinant of his fate and his life. And his ability to own and carry deadly weapons, capable of harming or even killing those around him and subject ONLY to his own personal decision, is what makes sure it stays that way.

Even the possiblity that a man with bad judgment might use his weapon to unjustly threaten, injure or kill an innocent person, is not sufficient reason to take away EVERYONE'S right to own and carry such weapons. The Framers made the hard decision that even with the occasional (and inevitable) injury or death of an innocent person at the hands of a careless or criminal gun owner, the right of all people to be gun owners must be held sacrosanct... that society would be better off under those circumstances, than under a system where government could restrict citizens' rights to own and carry weapons. Partly because the Framers knew that the power to restrict that right, was ultimately the power to take it away completely - and the Framers knew that society would be worse off under those conditions, than under the conditions where an occasional mistake or criminal's act could result in an injury, possibly a fatal one.

Under the Great American Experiment, people were to be free to make their own decisions and take the consequences of them... including the bad or wrong decisions. Assigning third parties to make those decisions for them, would make them worse off, not better. And so government's only function, was restricted to only protecting those rights of the people. NOT making decisions to "help" them... even if some people thought govt "helping" people was a GOOD idea.

In a very real sense, the right to own and carry a gun is the ultimate manifestation of the Great American Experiment - the ultimate manifestation of freedom. Because it is the best way to ensure that you are left alone to make your own decisions, even if some else doesn't want you to. And only if you violate someone else's rights - say, by injuring or killing an innocent person, for whatever reason - can your own ultimate rights be taken away. Not because you MIGHT - that's not a good enough reason, because anybody might. Only because you DID.

And the Framers were careful to make the 2nd amendment part of the Supreme Law of the Land, to make sure it stayed that way.

Not quite correct.

In 1776 "bear arms" meant "own arms." It didn't mean "carry guns around" Why in Philiadelphia at the time carrying a gun in town was prohibited.

Little-Acorn
06-05-2012, 03:46 PM
In closing, The Second Amendment should actually be the FIRST because after the freedom that it provides, all other freedoms follow.


Q: Why does the Constitution have a Second Amendment?
A: In case the government doesn't obey the first one.

- from a famous conservative pundit

Little-Acorn
06-05-2012, 03:52 PM
Not quite correct.

In 1776 "bear arms" meant "own arms." It didn't mean "carry guns around"

That's laughably false. Where do you get this stuff?

In the phrase "keep and bear arms", "keep" means to own them, "bear" means to carry them (or at least have them with you), ready to use. And the meanings were the same in 1776 (or in 1791, when that phrase became law) as they are today.

You might want to look through this essay for backup:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

.

Surf Fishing Guru
06-05-2012, 06:34 PM
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.

Here's one I have a beef with SOME conservatives about. Nowhere in that does it say the government can't outlaw certain types of weapons. It merely says that they can't keep us from owning weapons in general.

Do I believe that means the government can outlaw ownership of everything but revolvers and lever rod rifles? No of course not; but where the line should be drawn is a separate issue from "can the government in fact draw a line?"

Correct. Because the "object' of the Amendment was to perpetuate the general militia concept, the protection sphere of the Amendment covers the types of arms that are useful to that end. The courts have done a decent job (IMNSHO) establishing the criteria to decide if a type of arm (not the person) has 2nd Amendment protection and that is, following Miller (using Aymette) with Heller; . . . if they are of the type of arms in common use at the time, are the types usually employed in civilized warfare and that constitute the ordinary military equipment and can contribute to the common defense.

Dangerous and unusual weapons deemed unsuitable for those purposes can be restricted. Aymette (http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html) said, after offering the above criteria for protection:

-
"If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution."

-

And Aymette offers what I consider good reasoning for that criteria (this flows into page 159, admittedly outside Miller's citation of page 158:

-
"A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative <small class="pg" id="pg159">(p.159) </small>use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?

The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed."

-

Given the Miller Court's near exclusive reliance on Aymette's reasoning to decide the protection of Miller's sawed-off shotgun I see nothing to stop us from thinking this continuation of the reasoning can't be used to instruct us now (or at least provide a well grounded debate point).



On a related note, I also don't believe the 2nd means the government can't restrict where we can carry guns.

Well, I would re-phrase that; the 2nd Amendment doesn't afford a citizen an absolute immunity against laws that regulate time and place. Even under strict scrutiny I think the government could sustain [some] laws prohibiting guns in "sensitive places" (Heller).


In the time frame the COTUS was written Bear Arms meant own weapons,

"Bear" has always had a military/combat connotation; as Aymette explains; "The words "bear arms" too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress."

My personal belief is that the "right to bear arms" is referring to the ultimate reality of conferred powers and retained rights and the government exercising those powers only with the consent of the governed. The concept of "consent of the governed" includes the reciprocal right to rescind that consent to be governed . . . The citizens, being the final arbiter of the legitimacy of government, retain the right to throw off a government that is no longer operating according to the principles of its establishment.


and in fact in many colonial cities of the era it was illegal to carry a gun in town.

That does not have any implications for the 2nd Amendment because the federal amendment was not being enforced against state/local laws.

Little-Acorn
06-05-2012, 08:21 PM
Because the "object' of the Amendment was to perpetuate the general militia concept,
No, the "object" of the amendment was to explicitly forbid any government in the U.S. from taking away or restricting ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. Militias were mentioned only as an explanatory reason, not as a restricting condition.


the protection sphere of the Amendment covers the types of arms that are useful to that end.
And all other arms a person might own and use, whether for military purposes or not.


The courts have done a decent job (IMNSHO) establishing the criteria to decide if a type of arm (not the person) has 2nd Amendment protection and that is, following Miller
You're joking, right?

The Miller decision was so confused and self-contradictory, that it will likely be thrown out the next time it is re-examined by the Supreme Court. This is the reason why lawyers have been VERY careful to never bring any challenge that directly invokes it, before the Supremes. The anti-gun people know they would be cutting their own throats if they did, and would undo all their careful work for generations to disarm the American people.

US v. Miller specified in one part of the decision that weapons that were similar to weapons used in the military at the time, were protected by the 2nd amendment. But then it said that Jack Miller's short-barrelled shotgun wasn't such a weapon - which was false since short-barrelled shotguns had been used extensively by both sides in the most recent major war, World War I, where they were referred to as "trench guns".

And ever since then, the courts have gotten even more topsy-turvy, frequently prosecuting people because they had military style weapons, in direct conflict of the Miller decision that said military-style weapons ("assault rifles" etc.) were protected by the 2nd amendment!

This is what you call "a decent job" by the courts?


Dangerous and unusual weapons deemed unsuitable for those purposes can be restricted. Aymette (http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html) said, after offering the above criteria for protection:

-
"If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution."


You are doing a good job of demonstrating what I mentioned earlier in this thread: Trying to unconstitutionally restrict people's rights by bending over backward and twisting youself into strange pretzel shapes to find "meanings" where there aren't any in the 2nd amendment.

Or were you about to point out the language in the 2nd that states that military-style weapons are protected but others aren't?


And Aymette offers what I consider good reasoning for that criteria

Aymette was a clever diversion by government lawyers in the Miller case. It was invalid since Aymette referred only state law (and not even the state Miller came from) - the second Tennessee state Constitution of 1835, which was no longer in force by the time Miller was charged. It stated that only white people in Tennessee had the right to keep and bear arms, and then only "for the common defence" - restrictions which are nowhere to be found in the U.S Constitution and its 2nd amendment.

But since neither Miller, nor any of his lawyers, nor anyone at all, showed up for the defense on the day of Miller's Supreme Court trial, such diversions (and several other falsehoods) presented by the government's high-powered prosecution lawyers went unchallenged, and were rubber-stamped into the Opinon of the Court.

It was one of the more spectacular miscarriages of justice the legal world has seen - one which anti-gun lawyers have been careful to keep out of any subsequent court, ever since.... for good reason.


My personal belief is that the "right to bear arms" is referring to the ultimate reality of conferred powers and retained rights and the government exercising those powers only with the consent of the governed. The concept of "consent of the governed" includes the reciprocal right to rescind that consent to be governed . . . The citizens, being the final arbiter of the legitimacy of government, retain the right to throw off a government that is no longer operating according to the principles of its establishment.
Absolutely true. And they can rescind it any time, using the same method they used to enact it in 1791: Another Constitutional amendment.

But they have chosen (for more than 200 years) not to do so. So the 2nd amendment remains fully in force, as originally written: A flat ban on any government taking away or restricting the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, regardless of skin color, purpose, or military affiliation.


That does not have any implications for the 2nd Amendment because the federal amendment was not being enforced against state/local laws.
While you are searching for the language in the 2nd that restricts it to only military weapons, you might also want to point out the part that restricts its ban to only the Fed govt, but permits states and localities to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

Good luck with that.

As I mentioned to ConHog, you might want to look through this essay, to help find those mysterious sections in the 2nd amendment:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

For some reason, ConHog hasn't gotten back to me with his comments on it. But I have faith. :D

Surf Fishing Guru
06-06-2012, 03:02 AM
No, the "object" of the amendment was to explicitly forbid any government in the U.S. from taking away or restricting ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

No, that is the protected means to achieve the object.

<!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]-->To me, the primary object (intent) of the "declaration and guarantee" of the Amendment was to ensure that both the states and federal government will forever have at their disposal a force of citizens, available at a moment’s notice, mustering with an appropriate weapon supplied by themselves and an appropriate amount of ammunition along with a couple days provisions in a knapsack.

The duty of this force of citizens, when so assembled by the lawful authority, is to defend the state and to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. That object, to ensure that such conditions continue that allow the actual formation of an effective military force in a matter of minutes, drawn from the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers of the community, is impossible to achieve without the privately armed citizens coming together.

The secondary (not necessarily subordinate) object is the people reserving the power to enforce the Constitution, protect their unalienable rights and if it comes to it, enable the people to exert their original right to rescind their consent to be governed. Once the government violates the principles of its establishment it is no longer "[I]the government established by the Constitution" it is then something else, acting illegitimately, unable to claim the supreme, preemptive powers and protections granted to it by the Constitution.

That primary object does create a scope of protection as no right is absolute in an ordered society. The secondary object, if ever acted upon, assumes whatever legitimate restraints that can be said to be permitted on the citizens right to arms are vacated because there is no longer a lawful authority over the people.


Militias were mentioned only as an explanatory reason, not as a restricting condition.

Which is exactly what I said . . . Why the right was secured does inform as to its scope of protection, which if "interpreted" correctly and legitimately, will not create a "restricting condition" but a standard to use to decide the legitimacy of challenged law.




The courts have done a decent job (IMNSHO) establishing the criteria to decide if a [I]type of arm (not the person) has 2nd Amendment protection and that is, following Miller (using Aymette) with Heller; . . .

You're joking, right?

The Miller decision was so confused and self-contradictory, that it will likely be thrown out the next time it is re-examined by the Supreme Court. . . .

Miller isn't going anywhere. I'm not saying it is judicial brilliance but it did advance the individual right in a way that later Courts could affirm the individual right without any militia attachment without disturbing Miller. It isn't perfect, it is very poorly written and clumsy and IMO, would be troublesome except for its cite of Aymette which is the primer to "unlock" Miller's total meaning.


And ever since then, the courts have gotten even more topsy-turvy, frequently prosecuting people because they had military style weapons, in direct conflict of the Miller decision that said military-style weapons ("assault rifles" etc.) [I]were protected by the 2nd amendment!

Those lower federal court opinions beginning with Cases and Tot in 1942 invented the 'militia right" and 'state's right" and the general "collective right" interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. In Cases, the 1st circuit offered a true and honest reading of Miller (including military weapons) and then proceeded to dismiss and ignore the clear determinations demanded by Miller. These perversions and their progeny infected the courts for 66 years until Heller invalidated them and returned some constitutional sanity to the issue of the 2nd Amendment in US courts.

SCOTUS has NEVER wavered from the opinion that the 2nd Amendment merely recognizes and secures a pre-existing individual right, exercisable without regard to one's militia attachment status. They have re-re-re-affirmed that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment and thus is not dependent on the Constitution in any manner to exist.

You need to partition the lower federal courts and SCOTUS in your thinking now. The lower federal courts were on a tangent disconnected from the Constitution and the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights.


This is what you call "a decent job" by the courts?

Given that Art I, § 9, cl 15 & 16 powers have been extinguished since 1916? Yes.


You are doing a good job of demonstrating what I mentioned earlier in this thread: Trying to unconstitutionally restrict people's rights by bending over backward and twisting youself into strange pretzel shapes to find "meanings" where there aren't any in the 2nd amendment.

The unyielding principle is that of conferred powers and retained rights. I endeavor to have my positions / arguments conform to that above all else. I don't claim a right to the "arms" that are encompassed within the grant of power to raise and support armies (missiles, artillery, warcraft and armor, bombs and certainly WMD's). I only claim as a right that which has NOT been conferred to government. No power was ever conferred to the federal government to even form a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen. I don't claim a 1st Amendment right to print my own US Currency or enter into treaties with foreign nations but I do claim the right to speak and write upon all subjects that my mind cares to contemplate.

We the People have no "right" to those things that We the People have surrendered . . . until we rescind our consent to be governed and reclaim the powers we had conferred . . .


Or were you about to point out the language in the 2nd that states that military-style weapons are protected but others aren't?

Don't need to.


Aymette was a clever diversion by government lawyers in the Miller case. It was invalid since Aymette referred only state law . . .

SCOTUS looks to state cases all the time for reasoning . . . Aymette serves that purpose well.


But since neither Miller, nor any of his lawyers, nor anyone at all, showed up for the defense on the day of Miller's Supreme Court trial, such diversions (and several other falsehoods) presented by the government's high-powered prosecution lawyers went unchallenged, and were rubber-stamped into the Opinon of the Court.

I think given the fact that there was no appearance for the appellees that Miller came out pretty good. Having read the government brief it is clear the Court didn't rubber stamp anything. You are welcome to quote what you think is so damaging in Miller to the "individual right possessed without any militia attachment" interpretation that was affirmed by Heller.


It was one of the more spectacular miscarriages of justice the legal world has seen - one which anti-gun lawyers have been careful to keep out of any subsequent court, ever since.... for good reason.

In my opinion it wasn't revisited because at its core, it proves our side of the argument. The miscarriages were done in the lower federal courts and they and their disingenuous rewriting of Miller was serving their purpose of extinguishing the claim of 2nd Amendment violations by individual citizens in the courts of the USA.


Absolutely true. And they can rescind it any time, using the same method they used to enact it in 1791: Another Constitutional amendment.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying overthrow the entire government to restore the Constitution (or enact a new constitution, founded on new principles).


While you are searching for the language in the 2nd that restricts it to only military weapons, you might also want to point out the part that restricts its ban to only the Fed govt, but permits states and localities to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

It is settled that the first 8 Amendments were not enforceable upon the states until the 14th Amendment. Certainly there is no legal evidence that such an extension was ever recognized by any court prior to the 14th Amendment.

It is my opinion that the question is moot specifically for the right to arms because of the Constitution's promise to forever provide a republican form of government.

The republic that the framers established had, as a fundamental component, an armed citizenry possessing their arms without permission or regulation from government. These armed citizens were the reserve military force that BOTH the federal and state governments relied on for security. Because of this interdependence, neither entity could move against the armed citizens because that would deprive the other entity the defensive services of the people. This then created a federal power residing in the prerogative of the federal government to restrain a state from disarming its citizens (acting in an un-republican fashion). This concept is explained in Presser but not in a manner readily understood by modern people though.

Problem with that becoming the actual protection envelope of the right to arms in the courts was the SCOTUS decision called the Slaughterhouse Cases which gutted the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. This was why real gun rights supporters were so excited when SCOTUS granted cert to the McDonald case instead of the NRA case. McDonald's primary argument was for SCOTUS to revisit Slaughterhouse, overturn it and hold that the Chicago laws violated the 2nd under the 14th's PoI clause instead of just falling back on due process. Read Thomas' brilliant concurrence (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZC1.html) for a view of what that would look like.


As I mentioned to ConHog, you might want to look through this essay, to help find those mysterious sections in the 2nd amendment:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Wow, haven't seen that in quite a while; thanks for the flashback! That is a true copy of the original; it has the request to keep modem bbs transmissions to 9600 baud!!!! LOL!

I was just getting started with on-line gun rights debate when that came out.

Good old USENET . . . talk.politics.guns, a couple thousand messages a day sometimes. It was fun back then, more fun than now actually . . . cutting my teeth back then when the gun rights side was the losing argument.

We really had nothing on our side, Sanford Levinson (liberal law professor) had come out with the Embarrassing Second Amendment (http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm) which recast 2nd Amendment scholarship and emboldened pro-gun rights legal scholars to come out of the closet and we saw a growing body of gun-rights positive law review articles through the 90's. And then Emerson happened and the anti's apple cart got flipped over.

To return to the link you offered, actually I would rather see that just put away in the achieves and not put out for public consumption. It is really a razor's edge to engage in any textual analysis of the 2nd Amendment to try to show that a right exists . . . I would even call it dangerous. That Scailia engaged in it in Heller disgusted me. Heller should have been two pages including footnotes. All Scalia had to do to invalidate all the "militia right" / "state's right" / 'collective right" hogwash of Cases and Tot was just re-re-re-affirm that the right is not granted by the 2nd Amendment and is in no manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

OCA
06-06-2012, 07:59 AM
That's laughably false. Where do you get this stuff?

In the phrase "keep and bear arms", "keep" means to own them, "bear" means to carry them (or at least have them with you), ready to use. And the meanings were the same in 1776 (or in 1791, when that phrase became law) as they are today.

You might want to look through this essay for backup:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

.

Didn't you know? Connie is GW reincarnate...........or does that GW stand for George Wallace? Not sure.

ConHog
06-06-2012, 12:40 PM
No, the "object" of the amendment was to explicitly forbid any government in the U.S. from taking away or restricting ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. Militias were mentioned only as an explanatory reason, not as a restricting condition.


And all other arms a person might own and use, whether for military purposes or not.


You're joking, right?

The Miller decision was so confused and self-contradictory, that it will likely be thrown out the next time it is re-examined by the Supreme Court. This is the reason why lawyers have been VERY careful to never bring any challenge that directly invokes it, before the Supremes. The anti-gun people know they would be cutting their own throats if they did, and would undo all their careful work for generations to disarm the American people.

US v. Miller specified in one part of the decision that weapons that were similar to weapons used in the military at the time, were protected by the 2nd amendment. But then it said that Jack Miller's short-barrelled shotgun wasn't such a weapon - which was false since short-barrelled shotguns had been used extensively by both sides in the most recent major war, World War I, where they were referred to as "trench guns".

And ever since then, the courts have gotten even more topsy-turvy, frequently prosecuting people because they had military style weapons, in direct conflict of the Miller decision that said military-style weapons ("assault rifles" etc.) were protected by the 2nd amendment!

This is what you call "a decent job" by the courts?


You are doing a good job of demonstrating what I mentioned earlier in this thread: Trying to unconstitutionally restrict people's rights by bending over backward and twisting youself into strange pretzel shapes to find "meanings" where there aren't any in the 2nd amendment.

Or were you about to point out the language in the 2nd that states that military-style weapons are protected but others aren't?



Aymette was a clever diversion by government lawyers in the Miller case. It was invalid since Aymette referred only state law (and not even the state Miller came from) - the second Tennessee state Constitution of 1835, which was no longer in force by the time Miller was charged. It stated that only white people in Tennessee had the right to keep and bear arms, and then only "for the common defence" - restrictions which are nowhere to be found in the U.S Constitution and its 2nd amendment.

But since neither Miller, nor any of his lawyers, nor anyone at all, showed up for the defense on the day of Miller's Supreme Court trial, such diversions (and several other falsehoods) presented by the government's high-powered prosecution lawyers went unchallenged, and were rubber-stamped into the Opinon of the Court.

It was one of the more spectacular miscarriages of justice the legal world has seen - one which anti-gun lawyers have been careful to keep out of any subsequent court, ever since.... for good reason.


Absolutely true. And they can rescind it any time, using the same method they used to enact it in 1791: Another Constitutional amendment.

But they have chosen (for more than 200 years) not to do so. So the 2nd amendment remains fully in force, as originally written: A flat ban on any government taking away or restricting the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, regardless of skin color, purpose, or military affiliation.


While you are searching for the language in the 2nd that restricts it to only military weapons, you might also want to point out the part that restricts its ban to only the Fed govt, but permits states and localities to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

Good luck with that.

As I mentioned to ConHog, you might want to look through this essay, to help find those mysterious sections in the 2nd amendment:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

For some reason, ConHog hasn't gotten back to me with his comments on it. But I have faith. :D

Said reason being that I haven't' had a chance to read it yet, I will though and post my thoughts after, would be irresponsible to give an opinion on an essay I haven't even read though.

red state
06-15-2012, 01:49 AM
Little Acorn is 110% correct in their interpretation and explanation to the simple minded among us....however, I will say that a shop owner does have the right to deny me the right of bringing a firearm into his/her business. I simply WILL NOT support that business and I suggest others find another store as well.

To OCA's comment about "TESTS". That is exactly how they get their foot in the door to deny us our rights (bit by bit). If we were required to pass an IQ test, mental test or "bigot" text...the standards would simply be altered to the point that NO ONE would or could qualify. Liberals are always good at changing standards (or should I say lowering them) until there are NONE. I do agree that there are some GOOD laws on this premise. Records prohibiting one's history (such as violent crimes or armed robbery) are very good laws to have that may prevent the misuse of firearms....or other weapons.

Take my state for instance. During the deer season (or especially during the deer season) it is illegal to have a loaded rifle and/or shotgun inside of your vehicle and on a County, State or Fed HWY. This was a law introduced a few years ago to keep the poachers and spot-lighters down. It didn't work...the outlaws STILL break the law while many Constitutionally legal citizens have been issued tickets. Now some would say: "What's the big deal...you still have your side are (carry/conceal permit)" and my answer would be that not every American has or can afford a secondary firearm such as pistol. Some good ole boys have one gun/rifle to defend themselves. As another poster commented on: "What good is my ammo when it is locked up in my glove box?!" EXACTLY...just like some cities ordinances require home owners to have their firearms and ammo LOCKED away (separately). That's almost as bad as waiting on the cops!!!

Now, getting back on B.O. and all his little minions/lemmings, THEY would like nothing better than to abolish ALL guns of ALL shapes, styles and sizes because that has just about been the order of things throughout history for a dictatorship to overthrow the people. Thanks be to Christ that our Nation is for WE The People...not we the sheeple. This very reason is why our founding fathers were so VERY clear on the 2nd!!!! I hope that wasn't too "OFF TOPIC" for some of the cry babies because it is VERY MUCH on topic in my opinion in demonstrating EXACTLY why the 2nd was put in and why it is so very important for the preservation of freedom in these USA.

THEY are dead set in destroying this Nation and THEY know exactly what pieces to dismantle in order to overthrow WE THE PEOPLE.

revelarts
10-19-2012, 05:15 PM
http://www.newson6.com/category/121535/video-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7857418

<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" async="" type="text/javascript"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://KOTV.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/WNVideo.js?rnd=930835;hostDomain=www.newson6.com;p layerWidth=620;playerHeight=355;isShowIcon=true;cl ipId=7857418;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;adv ertisingZone=;enableAds=true;landingPage=;islandin gPageoverride=false;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDsc ript_EMBEDDEDscript;controlsType=overlay"></script><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://content.worldnow.com/global/css/_pub/off-platform.min.css?ver=2012-09-22-0500"><script id="wnAffiliateConfig" type="text/javascript" src="http://KOTV.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/wnaffiliateconfig.js?ver=2012-09-22-0500"></script><script id="wnOffPlatform" type="text/javascript" src="http://content.worldnow.com/global/js/_pub/off-platform.min.js?ver=2012-09-22-0500"></script>
<object data="http://www.newson6.com/global/video/flash/widgets/WNHeadline.swf?ver=2012-09-22-0500" name="WNHeadline930835divWNHeadline930835" id="WNHeadline930835divWNHeadline930835" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="25" width="620">





</object>

<object data="http://www.newson6.com/global/video/flash/widgets/WNVideoCanvas2.swf?ver=2012-09-22-0500" name="WNVideoCanvas930835divWNVideoCanvas930835" id="WNVideoCanvas930835divWNVideoCanvas930835" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="355" width="620">





</object>
(http://www.newson6.com/category/121535/video-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7857418)NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com | (http://www.newson6.com)


NEWSON6 (http://www.newson6.com/story/19858704/12-year-old-girl-shoots-intruder-during-home-invasion) – A 12-year-old girl took matters into her own hands during a home invasion in southeast Oklahoma.
It happened on Wednesday when the girl was home alone. She told police a stranger rang the doorbell, then went around to the back door and kicked it in. She called her mom, Debra St. Clair, who told her to get the family gun, hide in a closet and call 911.
That was when St. Clair dropped what she doing and raced home.
“I drove home at a really fast pace to try to get to her, and when I got here the police were already here. And they had the suspect,” she said.
The during that time, the intruder made his way through the house. St. Clair’s daughter told deputies the man came into the room where she was hiding and began to open up the closet door. That was when the 12-year-old had to make a life-saving decision.
“And what we understand right now, he was turning the doorknob when she fired through the door,” said the Bryan County Undersheriff Ken Golden.
The bullet hit the intruder, who deputies identified as 32-year-old Stacey Jones. He took off but did not get far before officers took him down.
“He was sitting down, the policemen had him apprehended at the end of the block. All I saw was some blood coming down his back. I’m not exactly sure where his injury was, but I saw some blood there,” explained St. Clair.
Jones was taken to a Texas hospital by helicopter after the incident. An investigator on the case said Jones was released from the hospital Thursday and extradited to the Bryan County Jail.
The 12-year-old girl was not injured during the ordeal.
She told another local news station (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/around-oklahoma/12-year-old-Oklahoma-girl-shoots-intruder/-/12530084/17053634/-/142tpxt/-/index.html)this:
“I see a lot of girls on TV that get their house broken into and they turn up missing and just knowing that that could have happened to me. I was scared.”



http://www.therightscoop.com/awesome-12-year-old-girl-shoots-intruder-in-self-defense/

Robert A Whit
10-19-2012, 05:36 PM
Little Acorn is 110% correct in their interpretation and explanation to the simple minded among us....however, I will say that a shop owner does have the right to deny me the right of bringing a firearm into his/her business. I simply WILL NOT support that business and I suggest others find another store as well.



The above would be the "clash of rights" so often offered as a reason.
When A has the right to carry his gun, does this mean that he may enter B's private property with said gun? That is question one.
What must the homeowner do to prevent A from walking in with his gun on him or her?

A business is not the same as a home. A business opens it's doors to commerce. Just as a cop may enter said store with his gun on, since guns are legally the right to have and carry per the constitution, I say the store owner may not ban said guns. However, let's state that on the front door of the premises, said shop owner posts a easy to see and read sign that bans guns being brought into the store. I have not yet seen such a store, but suppose it has this sign posted.
Can the shop keeper seek to prevent guns from the premises?
Any house lawyers?
I believe i know but let's see who wants to take a crack at this premise.

fj1200
10-20-2012, 02:33 PM
^Property rights trump the second... and should.

Robert A Whit
10-20-2012, 02:56 PM
Not quite correct.

In 1776 "bear arms" meant "own arms." It didn't mean "carry guns around" Why in Philiadelphia at the time carrying a gun in town was prohibited.



The Constitution of Pennsylvania (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Constitution_of_Pennsylvania) protects the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state. The state preempts local regulation of the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or ammunition components.[2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-LCAV-PA-1)[3] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-NRA-ILA-PA-2)
Pennsylvania law requires that information received by the Pennsylvania State Police (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_Police) pursuant to a sale is destroyed within 72 hours of the completion of the background check.[2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-LCAV-PA-1)[3] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-NRA-ILA-PA-2) The Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association (http://www.pafoa.org/) states that the Pennsylvania State Police (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_Police) keep a "sales database" of all handguns purchased within the state.[4] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-pafoa-pa-sales-database-3) The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League v. Rendell, 860 A.2d 10 (Pa. 2004), that Pennsylvania’s database of handgun sales is not prohibited by state law.[5] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-LCAV-REGISTRATION-4)
No firearms are known to be prohibited by state law. Private sales of handguns must go through a licensed dealer, though long guns may be sold privately without the use of a licensed dealer. Licensed dealers must provide locking devices with handguns unless the handgun has a locking device incorporated in its design. Firearms are prohibited from certain places, including court facilities. Concealed carry on school property is currently an unsettled area of the law with many in law enforcement arguing that the practice is absolutely prohibited and firearms right supporters arguing that 18 Pa.C.S. 912(c) permits those who have a concealed carry license to carry on school grounds as an "other lawful purpose." Carrying a handgun on public streets and public property of Philadelphia, or in a vehicle anywhere in the state, or concealed on or about one's person anywhere in the state is prohibited without a "License To Carry Firearms" (LTCF) or a license or permit issued by another state which is honored by Pennsylvania for that purpose.[2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-LCAV-PA-1)[3] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-NRA-ILA-PA-2) A LTCF is generally not required to openly carry a firearm on or about one's person, except in a vehicle or in Philadelphia, or during a declared State of Emergency.[6] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-pafoa-open-carry-5)
Pennsylvania shall issue (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Shall_issue) a LTCF to resident and non-resident applicants if no good cause exists to deny the license. Non-resident applicants must first obtain a license from their home state, unless their home state does not issue licenses.[2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-LCAV-PA-1)[3] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-NRA-ILA-PA-2)

Little-Acorn
10-26-2012, 05:02 PM
The above would be the "clash of rights" so often offered as a reason.
When A has the right to carry his gun, does this mean that he may enter B's private property with said gun? That is question one.
What must the homeowner do to prevent A from walking in with his gun on him or her?

A business is not the same as a home. A business opens it's doors to commerce. Just as a cop may enter said store with his gun on, since guns are legally the right to have and carry per the constitution, I say the store owner may not ban said guns. However, let's state that on the front door of the premises, said shop owner posts a easy to see and read sign that bans guns being brought into the store. I have not yet seen such a store, but suppose it has this sign posted.
Can the shop keeper seek to prevent guns from the premises?
Any house lawyers?
I believe i know but let's see who wants to take a crack at this premise.

If a shopowner doesn't want a guy coming into his shop, he can always forbid him permission to enter, and the guy must obey that. If the shopowner does it because the guy has a gun in a holster or wherever, that makes no difference. The shopower can still deny him permission to enter for that reason.

The shopowner CANNOT take the guy's gun away, by the 2nd amendment. But he can deny the guy permission to enter.

BTW, riddle me this: If the shopowner puts up a sign saying "Persons carrying guns are not allowed here", I say he can do that. But if a person obey, leaves his gun in the car, and comes into the shop... and then a criminal assaults him and injures or kills him... does the shopowner become responsible for the person's injuries or death, since the shopowner denied him the means to defend himself?

Or can the shopowner say, "The guy had the choice to keep his gun and not enter. He chose to leave his gun outside and come in. Since it was his choice, it was his responsibility." ?

jafar00
10-26-2012, 11:16 PM
That's laughably false. Where do you get this stuff?

In the phrase "keep and bear arms", "keep" means to own them, "bear" means to carry them (or at least have them with you), ready to use. And the meanings were the same in 1776 (or in 1791, when that phrase became law) as they are today.

You might want to look through this essay for backup:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

.

How does a bunch of citizens walking around packing heat constitute "a well regulated militia"? As far as I know, you don't need to join the state militia in order to get a gun in the US?

Doesn't the current interpretation that everyone can have a gun ignore this important part of the 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.

aboutime
10-26-2012, 11:18 PM
How does a bunch of citizens walking around packing heat constitute "a well regulated militia"? As far as I know, you don't need to join the state militia in order to get a gun in the US?

Doesn't the current interpretation that everyone can have a gun ignore this important part of the 2nd amendment?



jafar. Go find one, and taste the barrel. That's one freedom Our 2nd amendment would happily provide for you.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-26-2012, 11:48 PM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/14/national-rifle-association/barack-obama-coming-after-guns-under-radar-nra-say/

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2F10reasons.jpg The NRA's "Ten Reasons Why Obama is Bad News for the Second Amendment."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^^^^^ This is another reason to vote the bastard out..-Tyr

fj1200
10-27-2012, 09:07 AM
But if a person obey, leaves his gun in the car, and comes into the shop... and then a criminal assaults him and injures or kills him... does the shopowner become responsible for the person's injuries or death, since the shopowner denied him the means to defend himself?

No. How many times have I heard that the criminals are at fault?

Missileman
10-27-2012, 10:23 AM
How does a bunch of citizens walking around packing heat constitute "a well regulated militia"? As far as I know, you don't need to join the state militia in order to get a gun in the US?

Doesn't the current interpretation that everyone can have a gun ignore this important part of the 2nd amendment?

The second amendment does not say that militia membership is required to own a gun. It says militia membership is a reason why gun ownership shall not be infringed. If the shit hits the fan, militias will spring up formed of private gun owners. The 2nd protects the existence of future militias, not current.

jimnyc
10-27-2012, 11:01 AM
How does a bunch of citizens walking around packing heat constitute "a well regulated militia"? As far as I know, you don't need to join the state militia in order to get a gun in the US?

Doesn't the current interpretation that everyone can have a gun ignore this important part of the 2nd amendment?

The most current "interpretation" was by the SCOTUS.

aboutime
10-27-2012, 01:50 PM
No. How many times have I heard that the criminals are at fault?


fj. You can easily answer your own question above by placing yourself in a position, or place where you know. It has been frequented by criminal elements. Such as in Low-Income, Ghetto kinds of large city zones.
In fact. You could probably consult, or ask a local Police officer where the most dangerous places to go might be. Then go there, wave your identity around, hold cash in your hand, your cell-phone in hand, while walking blindly along.

Then. After your adventure there. If you survive.

Please come back to report that CRIMINALS are NOT AT FAULT.

fj1200
10-27-2012, 02:24 PM
fj. You can easily answer your own question above by placing yourself in a position, or place where you know. It has been frequented by criminal elements. Such as in Low-Income, Ghetto kinds of large city zones.
In fact. You could probably consult, or ask a local Police officer where the most dangerous places to go might be. Then go there, wave your identity around, hold cash in your hand, your cell-phone in hand, while walking blindly along.

Then. After your adventure there. If you survive.

Please come back to report that CRIMINALS are NOT AT FAULT.

That makes no sense at all. Why would I say that the criminals are NOT AT FAULT? That doesn't mean you should jump into a tiger's den and poke the tiger with a stick.

The actions of a criminal are not the fault of the property owner.

aboutime
10-27-2012, 06:40 PM
That makes no sense at all. Why would I say that the criminals are NOT AT FAULT? That doesn't mean you should jump into a tiger's den and poke the tiger with a stick.

The actions of a criminal are not the fault of the property owner.

Well, how about explaining WHY you asked this question then?

Originally Posted by fj1200
No. How many times have I heard that the criminals are at fault?

Missileman
10-27-2012, 07:43 PM
Well, how about explaining WHY you asked this question then?

Originally Posted by fj1200
No. How many times have I heard that the criminals are at fault?

Is there something wrong with your eyesight? He answered NO, then asked "How many times have I heard that the criminals are at fault?" in response to someone asking if a property owner assumed liability for criminals if they banned legal carry on their premises.

fj1200
10-27-2012, 08:41 PM
Well, how about explaining WHY you asked this question then?

Originally Posted by fj1200
No. How many times have I heard that the criminals are at fault?

The art of the dialectic has fallen so far. :shrug: I asked the question because every time there is an example of gun violence and the inevitable cries of gun regulation rise from the left the right cries out that the problem isn't the guns rather the problem is the criminals. Do you not accept that?

Kathianne
10-28-2012, 01:39 AM
The second amendment does not say that militia membership is required to own a gun. It says militia membership is a reason why gun ownership shall not be infringed. If the shit hits the fan, militias will spring up formed of private gun owners. The 2nd protects the existence of future militias, not current.

Exactly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


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.[8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-7)

The bolded part is the subjunctive clause.