This 2nd Amendment shit gets all confusing when you start applying facts to what you dimwits like to propose as simple legal propositions, doesn't it?
Not a one of you has even a simplistic response to the direct questions I proposed. All stupid rhetoric.
I'll ask again:
1. Was this kid who shot the 6 year olds a member of the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment explicity refers to?
2. If not, how does the 2nd Amendment apply to protect his possession of the weapons he murdered these 6 year olds with?
3. If so, did the ability of this kid to get these weapons that he shot the 6 year olds with satisfy the "well-regulated" requirements of the 2nd Amendment? Or was his ability to obtain these weapons and to murder these 6 year old kids not "well-regulated'?
Anybody?
- timpage
- 12-18-2012, 08:34 PM
- essence
- 12-18-2012, 08:34 PM
IBH, thanks for the link. I have given it a quick read. Interesting. I suggest everybody does the same. It ain;t what you think it is.
Let me take some quotes from the link provided. I have taken the trouble to go through that rather lengthy document, and I suggest anybody interested in the issue does likewise.
It seems many here do not have a clue what the second ammendment is all about.
The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the discovery of firearms. Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose reign began in 872 A. D., all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty.1 This was in sharp contrast to the feudal system as it evolved in Europe, under which armament and military duties were concentrated in the nobility. The body of armed citizens were known as the "fyrd".
The right to keep and bear arms (a term that connotes a military purpose) stems from the English common law right of self-defense. However, the possession of guns in the mother country of the common law was never an absolute right. Various conditions were imposed. Britain today has one of the strictest gun laws in the world.
There is nothing absolute about the freedoms in our own Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech is not freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is not freedom to have multiple spouses, or sacrifice a lamb in the local park, as religiously sanctioned practices. Similarly, whatever right the Second Amendment protects regarding the private possession of guns, for whatever definition of "militia," is not an absolute right. It must serve the overall public interest, including (from the preamble of the US Constitution) the need to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." Whatever right there is to possess firearms is no less important than the right of every American, gun owners included, to protection against the possession of guns by persons who by any reasonable standard lack the crucial credentials for responsible gun ownership.
"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."
There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue.
Constitutional right to keep and bear arms applies only to the right of the state to maintain militia and not to individuals' rights to bear arms. Congress had authority under commerce clause to prohibit possession of firearms by convicted felons, based upon congressional finding that such possession passes threat to interstate commerce.
As to the alleged right to bear arms, Day's claim is meritless. There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.
In short, kingship in Britain became a far more democratic affair than it would ever become on the Continent, due in major part to the individual armament of the British citizen.
While the American "right to bear arms" developed at the time of the Revolution, it grew out of the duty imposed on the early colonists to keep arms for the defense of their isolated and endangered communities. The definition of "bearing arms" as the phrase was used in legal instruments up to revolutionary times was "serving in an organized armed force."1 It did not imply any personal right to possess weapons.
The possibility, however, of maintaining a military balance within a political structure has become smaller as society has become more complex and warfare more destructive. In the words of Roscoe Pound:
In the urban industrial society of today a general right to bear efficient arms so as to be enabled to resist oppression by the government would mean that gangs could exercise an extra-legal rule which could defeat the whole Bill of Rights.97
Thus, after over three centuries, the right to bear arms is becoming anachronistic. As the policing of society becomes more efficient, the need for arms for personal self-defense
becomes more irrelevant; and as the society itself becomes more complex, the military power in the hands of the government more powerful, and the government itself more responsive, the right to bear arms becomes more futile, meaningless and dangerous.
The free flow of firearms across state lines has undermined the traditional view of crime and gun control as local problems. In New York City, long noted for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides of 1960 involved pistols, by 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation's largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns, mostly imported from southern states with lax laws.2 These statistics give credence to the arguments of proponents of gun control that federal action is needed, if only to make local laws enforceable.
It is one of the ironies of contemporary politics that the many of the most vocal supporters of "law and order" are persistent critics of federal firearms regulation. "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" is their philosophy. Firearms in private hands are viewed as a means of protecting an individual's life and property, as well as a factor in helping to preserve the Republic against foreign and domestic enemies. Whereas strict constructionism is often the preferred doctrine in interpreting the constitutional rights of criminals, such a narrow view of the Second Amendment is unacceptable. Far from being narrowly construed, the Second Amendment is held out to be a bulwark of human freedom and dignity as well as a means of safeguarding the rights of the individual against encroachment by the federal government. It thus becomes a weapon in the arsenal of argument
In the last angry decades of the twentieth century, members of rifle clubs, paramilitary groups and other misguided patriots continue to oppose legislative control of handguns and rifles. These ideological heirs of the vigilantes of the bygone western frontier era still maintain that the Second Amendment guarantees them a personal right to "keep and bear arms."97 But the annals of the Second Amendment attest to the fact that its adoption was the result of a political struggle to restrict the power of the national government and to prevent the disarmament of state militias.98 Not unlike their English forbears, the American revolutionaries had a deep fear of centralized executive power, particularly when standing armies were at its disposal. The Second Amendment was adopted to prevent the arbitrary use of force by the national government against the states and the individual.
Let me take some quotes from the link provided. I have taken the trouble to go through that rather lengthy document, and I suggest anybody interested in the issue does likewise.
It seems many here do not have a clue what the second ammendment is all about.
The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the discovery of firearms. Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose reign began in 872 A. D., all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty.1 This was in sharp contrast to the feudal system as it evolved in Europe, under which armament and military duties were concentrated in the nobility. The body of armed citizens were known as the "fyrd".
The right to keep and bear arms (a term that connotes a military purpose) stems from the English common law right of self-defense. However, the possession of guns in the mother country of the common law was never an absolute right. Various conditions were imposed. Britain today has one of the strictest gun laws in the world.
There is nothing absolute about the freedoms in our own Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech is not freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is not freedom to have multiple spouses, or sacrifice a lamb in the local park, as religiously sanctioned practices. Similarly, whatever right the Second Amendment protects regarding the private possession of guns, for whatever definition of "militia," is not an absolute right. It must serve the overall public interest, including (from the preamble of the US Constitution) the need to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." Whatever right there is to possess firearms is no less important than the right of every American, gun owners included, to protection against the possession of guns by persons who by any reasonable standard lack the crucial credentials for responsible gun ownership.
"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."
There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue.
Constitutional right to keep and bear arms applies only to the right of the state to maintain militia and not to individuals' rights to bear arms. Congress had authority under commerce clause to prohibit possession of firearms by convicted felons, based upon congressional finding that such possession passes threat to interstate commerce.
As to the alleged right to bear arms, Day's claim is meritless. There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.
In short, kingship in Britain became a far more democratic affair than it would ever become on the Continent, due in major part to the individual armament of the British citizen.
While the American "right to bear arms" developed at the time of the Revolution, it grew out of the duty imposed on the early colonists to keep arms for the defense of their isolated and endangered communities. The definition of "bearing arms" as the phrase was used in legal instruments up to revolutionary times was "serving in an organized armed force."1 It did not imply any personal right to possess weapons.
The possibility, however, of maintaining a military balance within a political structure has become smaller as society has become more complex and warfare more destructive. In the words of Roscoe Pound:
In the urban industrial society of today a general right to bear efficient arms so as to be enabled to resist oppression by the government would mean that gangs could exercise an extra-legal rule which could defeat the whole Bill of Rights.97
Thus, after over three centuries, the right to bear arms is becoming anachronistic. As the policing of society becomes more efficient, the need for arms for personal self-defense
becomes more irrelevant; and as the society itself becomes more complex, the military power in the hands of the government more powerful, and the government itself more responsive, the right to bear arms becomes more futile, meaningless and dangerous.
The free flow of firearms across state lines has undermined the traditional view of crime and gun control as local problems. In New York City, long noted for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides of 1960 involved pistols, by 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation's largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns, mostly imported from southern states with lax laws.2 These statistics give credence to the arguments of proponents of gun control that federal action is needed, if only to make local laws enforceable.
It is one of the ironies of contemporary politics that the many of the most vocal supporters of "law and order" are persistent critics of federal firearms regulation. "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" is their philosophy. Firearms in private hands are viewed as a means of protecting an individual's life and property, as well as a factor in helping to preserve the Republic against foreign and domestic enemies. Whereas strict constructionism is often the preferred doctrine in interpreting the constitutional rights of criminals, such a narrow view of the Second Amendment is unacceptable. Far from being narrowly construed, the Second Amendment is held out to be a bulwark of human freedom and dignity as well as a means of safeguarding the rights of the individual against encroachment by the federal government. It thus becomes a weapon in the arsenal of argument
In the last angry decades of the twentieth century, members of rifle clubs, paramilitary groups and other misguided patriots continue to oppose legislative control of handguns and rifles. These ideological heirs of the vigilantes of the bygone western frontier era still maintain that the Second Amendment guarantees them a personal right to "keep and bear arms."97 But the annals of the Second Amendment attest to the fact that its adoption was the result of a political struggle to restrict the power of the national government and to prevent the disarmament of state militias.98 Not unlike their English forbears, the American revolutionaries had a deep fear of centralized executive power, particularly when standing armies were at its disposal. The Second Amendment was adopted to prevent the arbitrary use of force by the national government against the states and the individual.
- timpage
- 12-18-2012, 08:39 PM
IBH, thanks for the link. I have given it a quick read. Interesting. I suggest everybody does the same. It ain;t what you think it is.You're cluttering up my thread Essence. Let's get some answers to the questions I have proposed.
Let me take some quotes from the link provided. I have taken the trouble to go through that rather lengthy document, and I suggest anybody interested in the issue does likewise.
It seems many here do not have a clue what the second ammendment is all about.
The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the discovery of firearms. Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose reign began in 872 A. D., all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty.1 This was in sharp contrast to the feudal system as it evolved in Europe, under which armament and military duties were concentrated in the nobility. The body of armed citizens were known as the "fyrd".
The right to keep and bear arms (a term that connotes a military purpose) stems from the English common law right of self-defense. However, the possession of guns in the mother country of the common law was never an absolute right. Various conditions were imposed. Britain today has one of the strictest gun laws in the world.
There is nothing absolute about the freedoms in our own Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech is not freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is not freedom to have multiple spouses, or sacrifice a lamb in the local park, as religiously sanctioned practices. Similarly, whatever right the Second Amendment protects regarding the private possession of guns, for whatever definition of "militia," is not an absolute right. It must serve the overall public interest, including (from the preamble of the US Constitution) the need to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." Whatever right there is to possess firearms is no less important than the right of every American, gun owners included, to protection against the possession of guns by persons who by any reasonable standard lack the crucial credentials for responsible gun ownership.
"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."
There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue.
Constitutional right to keep and bear arms applies only to the right of the state to maintain militia and not to individuals' rights to bear arms. Congress had authority under commerce clause to prohibit possession of firearms by convicted felons, based upon congressional finding that such possession passes threat to interstate commerce.
As to the alleged right to bear arms, Day's claim is meritless. There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.
In short, kingship in Britain became a far more democratic affair than it would ever become on the Continent, due in major part to the individual armament of the British citizen.
While the American "right to bear arms" developed at the time of the Revolution, it grew out of the duty imposed on the early colonists to keep arms for the defense of their isolated and endangered communities. The definition of "bearing arms" as the phrase was used in legal instruments up to revolutionary times was "serving in an organized armed force."1 It did not imply any personal right to possess weapons.
The possibility, however, of maintaining a military balance within a political structure has become smaller as society has become more complex and warfare more destructive. In the words of Roscoe Pound:
In the urban industrial society of today a general right to bear efficient arms so as to be enabled to resist oppression by the government would mean that gangs could exercise an extra-legal rule which could defeat the whole Bill of Rights.97
Thus, after over three centuries, the right to bear arms is becoming anachronistic. As the policing of society becomes more efficient, the need for arms for personal self-defense
becomes more irrelevant; and as the society itself becomes more complex, the military power in the hands of the government more powerful, and the government itself more responsive, the right to bear arms becomes more futile, meaningless and dangerous.
The free flow of firearms across state lines has undermined the traditional view of crime and gun control as local problems. In New York City, long noted for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides of 1960 involved pistols, by 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation's largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns, mostly imported from southern states with lax laws.2 These statistics give credence to the arguments of proponents of gun control that federal action is needed, if only to make local laws enforceable.
It is one of the ironies of contemporary politics that the many of the most vocal supporters of "law and order" are persistent critics of federal firearms regulation. "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" is their philosophy. Firearms in private hands are viewed as a means of protecting an individual's life and property, as well as a factor in helping to preserve the Republic against foreign and domestic enemies. Whereas strict constructionism is often the preferred doctrine in interpreting the constitutional rights of criminals, such a narrow view of the Second Amendment is unacceptable. Far from being narrowly construed, the Second Amendment is held out to be a bulwark of human freedom and dignity as well as a means of safeguarding the rights of the individual against encroachment by the federal government. It thus becomes a weapon in the arsenal of argument
In the last angry decades of the twentieth century, members of rifle clubs, paramilitary groups and other misguided patriots continue to oppose legislative control of handguns and rifles. These ideological heirs of the vigilantes of the bygone western frontier era still maintain that the Second Amendment guarantees them a personal right to "keep and bear arms."97 But the annals of the Second Amendment attest to the fact that its adoption was the result of a political struggle to restrict the power of the national government and to prevent the disarmament of state militias.98 Not unlike their English forbears, the American revolutionaries had a deep fear of centralized executive power, particularly when standing armies were at its disposal. The Second Amendment was adopted to prevent the arbitrary use of force by the national government against the states and the individual.
Originally Posted by essence
- essence
- 12-18-2012, 08:45 PM
You're cluttering up my thread Essence. Let's get some answers to the questions I have proposed. Originally Posted by timpageNo I'm not, I'm trying to help y'all understand what the 2nd amendment actually says, which is surely the whole point of your questions.
If you read and understand, the answers will be:
1. No.
2. It doesn;t
3. N/A, because of the answer to Q2.
But nobody will buy those answers without going through all the arguments from which I extracted pertinent links.
If you just want ill-formed and ignorant opinions, carry on without the clutter.
- timpage
- 12-18-2012, 08:48 PM
No I'm not, I'm trying to help y'all understand what the 2nd amendment actually says, which is surely the whole point of your questions.Is it your expectation that I am going to get anything but ill-informed and ignorant opinions in opposition to what I've posted? What have we seen so far? I appreciate your response and understand it but it just opens up the field.
If you read and understand, the answers will be:
1. No.
2. It doesn;t
3. N/A, because of the answer to Q2.
But nobody will buy those answers without going through all the arguments from which I extracted pertinent links.
If you just want ill-formed and ignorant opinions, carry on without the clutter. Originally Posted by essence
I want answers to the questions I've posted. Anybody got anything? I've thought about what I posted a lot. I welcome intelligent responses that point out where I am wrong. Anybody?
- essence
- 12-18-2012, 08:58 PM
Is it your expectation that I am going to get anything but ill-informed and ignorant opinions in opposition to what I've posted? Originally Posted by timpageI am always an optimist.
It is very funny how IBH used the link to try to refute you, when in fact the link, had he read it, directly contradicts his view.
The dangers of cut and paste without reading.
- joe bloe
- 12-18-2012, 09:03 PM
This 2nd Amendment shit gets all confusing when you start applying facts to what you dimwits like to propose as simple legal propositions, doesn't it?You seem to think that the "well regulated militia" phrase means that gun rights are specific only to Americans who are militia members. That's not the case; I know that because the Supreme Court has ruled that way for two hundred years. This is real simple stuff. You should concentrate on trying to repeal the second ammendment. Of course if Obama can get a couple more Marxists on the court, the second ammendment will be rendered moot anyway.
Not a one of you has even a simplistic response to the direct questions I proposed. All stupid rhetoric.
I'll ask again:
1. Was this kid who shot the 6 year olds a member of the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment explicity refers to?
No he doesn't need to be in a militia to have gun rights according to the Supreme Court.
2. If not, how does the 2nd Amendment apply to protect his possession of the weapons he murdered these 6 year olds with?
The second ammendment applies to him because the Supreme Court has ruled you don't have to be in a militia to be protected by the second ammendment.
3. If so, did the ability of this kid to get these weapons that he shot the 6 year olds with satisfy the "well-regulated" requirements of the 2nd Amendment? Or was his ability to obtain these weapons and to murder these 6 year old kids not "well-regulated'?
Refer to answers two and three.
Anybody? Originally Posted by timpage
- timpage
- 12-18-2012, 09:04 PM
I am always an optimist.Forgive me, your posts are always well-reasoned and thoughtful. I'd just like to stay focused on this one, if possible.
It is very funny how yoru first respondee used the link to try to refute you, when in fact the link, had he read it, supports the opposite viewpoint to the poster. Originally Posted by essence
COG? Whirly? JD? You're the usual idiots. Try to focus and respond intelligently to the questions. I get your slogans and propaganda....not what this is about. All of you are always readily willing to comment on the Constitution and what you think it means. Explain it to me within the context of the questions posed. Thanks.
- timpage
- 12-18-2012, 09:06 PM
You seem to think that the "well regulated militia" phrase means that gun rights are specific only to Americans who are militia members. That's not the case; I know that because the Supreme Court has ruled that way for two hundred years. This is real simple stuff. You should concentrate on trying to repeal the second ammendment. Of course if Obama can get a couple more Marxists on the court, the second ammendment will be rendered moot anyway. Originally Posted by joe bloeSetting aside the fact that you don't know how to spell "amendment", I'll just ask you if you are able to respond directly to the questions I asked. You say it's simple but you haven't answered any of my questions. If it's simple, answer please. Do you need me to repeat the questions?
- Jackie S
- 12-18-2012, 09:31 PM
Well, I still go with what The Supreme Court says.
At this point in time, that is the only thing that counts.
That could change under two circumstances. The first is going through the proccess of amending the Constitution, nullifying the 2d Amendment. That is not very likely.
The second senario is the Court changes it's character by appointments, and could make rulings that say the 2d Amendment does not refer to individule rights.
If this happens, then it will be the only one of the Bill of Rights that does not refer to individule rights. That is why I doubt any Court will rule this way.
What will happen is the Court will come down on the side of reasonable regulation of an individules right to own weapons.
At this point in time, that is the only thing that counts.
That could change under two circumstances. The first is going through the proccess of amending the Constitution, nullifying the 2d Amendment. That is not very likely.
The second senario is the Court changes it's character by appointments, and could make rulings that say the 2d Amendment does not refer to individule rights.
If this happens, then it will be the only one of the Bill of Rights that does not refer to individule rights. That is why I doubt any Court will rule this way.
What will happen is the Court will come down on the side of reasonable regulation of an individules right to own weapons.
- joe bloe
- 12-18-2012, 09:36 PM
Setting aside the fact that you don't know how to spell "amendment", I'll just ask you if you are able to respond directly to the questions I asked. You say it's simple but you haven't answered any of my questions. If it's simple, answer please. Do you need me to repeat the questions? Originally Posted by timpage
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United _States_Constitution
- Guest032516
- 12-18-2012, 10:18 PM
This 2nd Amendment shit gets all confusing when you start applying facts to what you dimwits like to propose as simple legal propositions, doesn't it?It is apparent you think you have come up with an ingenious line of questioning that will "prove" once and for all that there is no right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia wasn't involved.
Not a one of you has even a simplistic response to the direct questions I proposed. All stupid rhetoric.
I'll ask again:
1. Was this kid who shot the 6 year olds a member of the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment explicity refers to?
2. If not, how does the 2nd Amendment apply to protect his possession of the weapons he murdered these 6 year olds with?
3. If so, did the ability of this kid to get these weapons that he shot the 6 year olds with satisfy the "well-regulated" requirements of the 2nd Amendment? Or was his ability to obtain these weapons and to murder these 6 year old kids not "well-regulated'? Originally Posted by timpage
Do you really think this approach hasn't been tried before? By minds much smarter than yours? It has been. And it didn't work for them either.
As the old saying goes, your arguments are so old, I've forgotten why they are wrong.
But, to humor you, I will answer your silly questions:
1. Was this kid who shot the 6 year olds a member of the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment explicitly refers to?
No, he wasn't.
2. If not, how does the 2nd Amendment apply to protect his possession of the weapons he murdered these 6 year olds with?
It doesn't. They weren't his weapons. He stole them from his mother. The 2nd Amendment does protect her right to own them, however. See below.
3. If so, did the ability of this kid to get these weapons that he shot the 6 year olds with satisfy the "well-regulated" requirements of the 2nd Amendment? Or was his ability to obtain these weapons and to murder these 6 year old kids not "well-regulated'?
No need to answer. I said it didn't protect his right to possess weapons he stole.
There now. Feel better? And what exactly do you think you accomplished?
There is another old saying that applies to what you are trying to do: "I can win any argument if you let me ask the questions."
You are trying to confine us to "yes" and "no" answers to questions that you have designed in such a way that we will have no choice but to conclude there is no right to bear arms.
It's like the classic example of a lawyer who demands a witness give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There is no good answer to that question. A "no" means you are still beating her and a "yes" means that you used to beat her, but not any more.
Well, this isn't a courtroom and we aren't witnesses that can be browbeaten by slanted questions.
So, the answer to your question is that membership in a militia is NOT and NEVER has been a requirement to bear arms. You have assumed something in your question that is NOT true and you trying to force us to accept it. But we don't have to.
I don't have time to review the entire constitutional history of the 2nd amendment, but the case of Heller vs. Washington DC pretty much put your arguments to rest. Here is a good summary from one of the links posted above:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3
"However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.
"In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.
"The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
"Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.
"In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
"The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said above, your arguments are so old, I've forgotten why they are wrong.
Your attempts to define what "well regulated" means and what "militia" means are wrong. Therefore, your argument, such as it is, is also wrong.
- CuteOldGuy
- 12-18-2012, 10:20 PM
Thanks for the invite, Timmy. I'll look to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28, who wrote in part:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
It appears that the right to bear arms was directed, in part, to the people being able to protect themselves from their government.
The other posters are correct, the SCOTUS has determined that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to firearms, not just the militia. This is the same SCOTUS that declared Obamacare to be Constitutional, of which you approved, Timmy. Why are you disagreeing with them now?
Excellent discussion on the right to bear arms as it relates to America, not Europe, here:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
It appears that the right to bear arms was directed, in part, to the people being able to protect themselves from their government.
The other posters are correct, the SCOTUS has determined that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to firearms, not just the militia. This is the same SCOTUS that declared Obamacare to be Constitutional, of which you approved, Timmy. Why are you disagreeing with them now?
Excellent discussion on the right to bear arms as it relates to America, not Europe, here:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
- Randy4Candy
- 12-18-2012, 10:31 PM
Bear with me, timpage and others.
It seems that a couple of hundred years of case law and SC opinions have pretty much negated the impact of the term "well regulated militia." What I find humorous is that most of our usual list of Teawipe Suspects have argued in other threads on different topics how much better off we all would be if all interpretations of the Constitution after 1800 be stricken and rolled back. But, since it would suit their purpose and predisposition, subsequent SC rulings and other case law regarding the 2nd Ammendment are OK.
The quoted article goes to length about mentioning how a "well regulated militia" has become, essentially, irrevalent and goes further by posing the argument that personal ownership of firearms is unnecessary and even dangerous to the common good. It also makes an interesting point about cannons. I would liken the old school application of restricting cannons to apply to modern day weapons like *gasp* assault weapons as we would define them going forward from this point. IBSyndrome must not have read the link carefully, hmmmmm - surprising.
I am a gun owner but not a gun collector. I am not a hunter because my family are not hunters so I was never around it much when young. I do have a couple for personal and home protection. I do NOT have a concelaed carry permit though I have gone through four courses in gun safety and even did the CC class for my general information. I may be too optimistic but I do not feel the need to pack a firearm on a daily basis. I do when traveling or when I know that I will be in an unfamiliar or known "sketchy" area. It pisses me off as well as makes me sad that the current condition of our society makes me think it is somewhat necessary to have a firearm.
I am strongly in favor of closing the gun show loophole and punishing gun merchants who do not do required background checks and who do not report irregularities that may come up during them. I am also for some waiting period longer than a couple of days between purchasing and receiving any firearm. I would prefer to see all buyers of any firearm go through training and at least a day of instruction regarding laws and possible consequences of the use of firearms prior to taking possession. The pisser for all of the rugged individualists is that I would require this process to be undertaken with the purchase of each and every firearm regardless of how many times any particular individual has purchased firearms. There also needs to be reasonable and common sense regulation regarding the configuration of weapons used for protection. A hunting rifle mostly is a hunting rifle but an assault weapon can be many things at present and this needs to be rationally clarified. Aftermarket modification packages should be banned.
The bad news in this is as follows:
If you are the unlucky object of a multi-felon home invasion, you're fu*ked. But, in reality, you are probably fu*ked anyway, even with an AK-47, if the invaders have any tactical sense. If the pussy you've been chasing leads you into contact with some unsavory characters, you may be fu*ked - just not in the way you planned. You might want to look into chosing well whom you associate with.
You may want to take the "x"-thousands of dollars you might have spent on guns, ammunition and certain "accessories" and plow it into a more sophisticated security system and other impediments to "home invasion."
Of course then you'd actually have to "prove" your manhood by actually being a man instead of buying it. And manhood begins with reason, restraint and making smart decisions.
It seems that a couple of hundred years of case law and SC opinions have pretty much negated the impact of the term "well regulated militia." What I find humorous is that most of our usual list of Teawipe Suspects have argued in other threads on different topics how much better off we all would be if all interpretations of the Constitution after 1800 be stricken and rolled back. But, since it would suit their purpose and predisposition, subsequent SC rulings and other case law regarding the 2nd Ammendment are OK.
The quoted article goes to length about mentioning how a "well regulated militia" has become, essentially, irrevalent and goes further by posing the argument that personal ownership of firearms is unnecessary and even dangerous to the common good. It also makes an interesting point about cannons. I would liken the old school application of restricting cannons to apply to modern day weapons like *gasp* assault weapons as we would define them going forward from this point. IBSyndrome must not have read the link carefully, hmmmmm - surprising.
I am a gun owner but not a gun collector. I am not a hunter because my family are not hunters so I was never around it much when young. I do have a couple for personal and home protection. I do NOT have a concelaed carry permit though I have gone through four courses in gun safety and even did the CC class for my general information. I may be too optimistic but I do not feel the need to pack a firearm on a daily basis. I do when traveling or when I know that I will be in an unfamiliar or known "sketchy" area. It pisses me off as well as makes me sad that the current condition of our society makes me think it is somewhat necessary to have a firearm.
I am strongly in favor of closing the gun show loophole and punishing gun merchants who do not do required background checks and who do not report irregularities that may come up during them. I am also for some waiting period longer than a couple of days between purchasing and receiving any firearm. I would prefer to see all buyers of any firearm go through training and at least a day of instruction regarding laws and possible consequences of the use of firearms prior to taking possession. The pisser for all of the rugged individualists is that I would require this process to be undertaken with the purchase of each and every firearm regardless of how many times any particular individual has purchased firearms. There also needs to be reasonable and common sense regulation regarding the configuration of weapons used for protection. A hunting rifle mostly is a hunting rifle but an assault weapon can be many things at present and this needs to be rationally clarified. Aftermarket modification packages should be banned.
The bad news in this is as follows:
If you are the unlucky object of a multi-felon home invasion, you're fu*ked. But, in reality, you are probably fu*ked anyway, even with an AK-47, if the invaders have any tactical sense. If the pussy you've been chasing leads you into contact with some unsavory characters, you may be fu*ked - just not in the way you planned. You might want to look into chosing well whom you associate with.
You may want to take the "x"-thousands of dollars you might have spent on guns, ammunition and certain "accessories" and plow it into a more sophisticated security system and other impediments to "home invasion."
Of course then you'd actually have to "prove" your manhood by actually being a man instead of buying it. And manhood begins with reason, restraint and making smart decisions.
- CuteOldGuy
- 12-18-2012, 10:45 PM
RaggedyAndy, please forgive me for this, because I know it will ruin your day and damage your reputation. But I can't find anything to disagree with in your post. It seems like a workable and rational approach. I balances the rights of law-abiding people to own guns, with the right of the people to be secure in knowing that legitimate gun owners fully understand their responsibilities, and maybe keep their guns locked away where their lunatic children can't get them.
I like it. Thanks, RaggedyAndy, and I apologize for any flack you get from me agreeing with you.
I like it. Thanks, RaggedyAndy, and I apologize for any flack you get from me agreeing with you.