NationStates Jolt Archive

I say no.

Amendment II
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.

To me that clearly says that unless you are in the militia, you have no guarunteed right to a gun.

Well, nobody ever accused you of being able to read.

Many individual States have since defined what a "well regulated militia" means. I know that in Texas it means anyone who is of sound mental health, not a felon, and is 18 years of age or older.

I don't know if there are federal statutes on this or SCOTUS decisions off the top of my head. Syniks is the forum authority on this sort of thing and I'm sure he can correct any errors I may make.

Muskets for all!

To me that clearly says that unless you are in the militia, you have no guarunteed right to a gun.
Back in Revolutionary times, the militia referred to the army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. Additionally, it was pretty much 'Bring Your Own Gun,' so you were screwed w/o a firearm.

And in addition to to defending our nation from a foregin threat, the 2nd Amendment was composed as a safeguard against the domestic threat of our own government, lest it forget that it serves "we the people."

Keep and bear arms? You mean like an Hindu god?

Not another 42 page gun thread!! :headbang:

Well, nobody ever accused you of being able to read.
I'm so glad we are going to have a civil discussion about this :rolleyes:
But here's a more detailed version of my agruement for those of you who have no idea where I am coming from.

First, let us look at another amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you look at that carefully, you can see that every stand alone right is seperated by a semi-colon, while descriptions into that right have commas. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" are seperated by a comma, because they are part of the same guarunteed right. However, a new right "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" begins directly after a semi colon. This pattern continues throughout the amendment. This would suggest to me that rights are seperated by semi colons and descriptive clauses inside of rights are seperated by a comma. Now take another look at the Second 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.
Seems to me that it protects the right to a militia, and militia's citizenry have the right to keep and bear arms, as a militia would be fairly worthless without said arms.

Not another 42 page gun thread!! :headbang:

The biweekly one.

Not another 42 page gun thread!! :headbang:

It was time.

The biweekly one.
better than the thrice weekly 60 page abortion/religion threads.

better than the thrice weekly 60 page abortion/religion threads.
Point taken.

In other news, why the hell would anyone need a razor with five blades?

Point taken.
In other news, why the hell would anyone need a razor with five blades?
Jesus, I can already see Gillette planning on their six-bladed razor!

Seeing as how the second amendment has yet to be extended to the states, the answer to your question, at least for the moment, is no.

Jesus, I can already see Gillette planning on their six-bladed razor!
It is six if you count that one on the back.

I'm so glad we are going to have a civil discussion about this :rolleyes:
But here's a more detailed version of my agruement for those of you who have no idea where I am coming from.
<snip>
Take it to the U.S. Supreme Court because it is their job, of course, to interpret the constitution, and the BoR being part of said constitution.

It is six if you count that one on the back.
Hey, here's an idea. If you don't like a thread and think it is done too often, try ignoring it instead of just keeping it at the top and filling it with spam.

Hey, here's an idea. If you don't like a thread and think it is done too often, try ignoring it instead of just keeping it at the top and filling it with spam.

No, we prefer to attempt to steer a thread that will become a flamefest to something that people may get something out of.

People have thair opinions. Blabbing about it on the internet won't change them.

It is six if you count that one on the back.

Hell, just give me a laser. That'll take those offending hairs right off!

Hell, just give me a laser. That'll take those offending hairs right off!
lol, yeah. why don't they sell those laser hair removal devices? anyways, do those power razors really work better?

No, we prefer to attempt to steer a thread that will become a flamefest to something that people may get something out of.

People have thair opinions. Blabbing about it on the internet won't change them.
Perhaps we should all just be stagent then, eh? At the beginning of time we should have just accepted what everyone else thought and never questioned anything, never even spoke of things that there might be controversy about right? Yeah that sounds brillant.
This doesn't have to become a flamefest, it probably will and I don't have much confidence in the internet community, but I'll give it a run anyway. So if you would be so kind as to either post relavent thoughts or stop posting in this thread I'd really appreciate it.

People have thair opinions. Blabbing about it on the internet won't change them.
then what the hell are we doing here, i ask? :eek: perhaps this is just an evil conspiracy started by Max (if Max even exists and that's his (or maybe even her) name) to gather information for some use to start a conspiracy of some sort to do whatever evil plan this Max has came up with. And he's funding it by writing books :eek: And we're all his test rats playing his little game.

Perhaps we should all just be stagent then, eh? At the beginning of time we should have just accepted what everyone else thought and never questioned anything, never even spoke of things that there might be controversy about right? Yeah that sounds brillant.
This doesn't have to become a flamefest, it probably will and I don't have much confidence in the internet community, but I'll give it a run anyway. So if you would be so kind as to either post relavent thoughts or stop posting in this thread I'd really appreciate it.

Because you asked nicely, I will remove myself. But don't say I didn't warn you.

If it wasnt for those damn commas this debate never would have happened :P

If it wasnt for those damn commas this debate never would have happened :P
Or perhaps if it wasn't for gun advocates who insist that the Second Amendment does something that it doesn't resulting in over 30,000 deaths per year since 1979 this wouldn't even be a debate.

Or perhaps if it wasn't for gun advocates who insist that the Second Amendment does something that it doesn't resulting in over 30,000 deaths per year since 1979 this wouldn't even be a debate.
Here (http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm) are some gun statistics that will hopefully put things in perspective.
Surgeons are far more dangerous than guns :D

Or perhaps if it wasn't for gun advocates who insist that the Second Amendment does something that it doesn't resulting in over 30,000 deaths per year since 1979 this wouldn't even be a debate.
hey, it curbs population growth!

Or perhaps if it wasn't for gun advocates who insist that the Second Amendment does something that it doesn't resulting in over 30,000 deaths per year since 1979 this wouldn't even be a debate.
No, you are reading someting in to it that isn't there....
It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it says it's the peoples right.

It really is pretty obvious.

Besides, the keeping and bearing of arms is simply an extension of one inherent right to self defense.

Here (http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm) are some gun statistics that will hopefully put things in perspective.
Surgeons are far more dangerous than guns :D
Accidental deaths from guns isn't really the issue. The 12,000ish gun homicides, the 14,000ish gun suicides is an issue. Let's not compare them to other major causes of death, because doing that always leads to the conclusion that cars should be banned. Which is a tidbit ridiculous.

Accidental deaths from guns isn't really the issue. The 12,000ish gun homicides, the 14,000ish gun suicides is an issue. Let's not compare them to other major causes of death, because doing that always leads to the conclusion that cars should be banned. Which is a tidbit ridiculous.
if people really want to kill other people, they will. if people really want to kill themselves, they will. guns just make that a little bit easier.

Accidental deaths from guns isn't really the issue. The 12,000ish gun homicides, the 14,000ish gun suicides is an issue.
Meh, it's not like if you banned guns there would be less suicides - they'd just find different ways to accomplish it. Same goes for homicide. And besides, even if you work those deaths into the ones per gun owner, the rate of death per gun owner is a dismal 0.000375. (.0375%)

And even the deliberate deaths per gun ownder is even lower than for surgeons.

if people really want to kill other people, they will. if people really want to kill themselves, they will. guns just make that a little bit easier.
Quite a few doctors would say otherwise. In studies it is proven that a gun inside the home increases the chance of suicide sevenfold and the chance of homicide fivefold.

Back in Revolutionary times, the militia referred to the army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. Additionally, it was pretty much 'Bring Your Own Gun,' so you were screwed w/o a firearm.



So does that not mean that only National Guardsmen need to have the right to bear arms?

Although there's no doubt the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow citizens to own weapons, it's interpretation has changed since then.

Thus, the answer to the original question is no.

However, your state Constitution probably does guaruntee the right to own a gun. If I recall correctly, almost every state's Constitution has such a provision. I'll have to check up on that.

So your right to own a gun is protected, just not by the national Constitution anymore.

Quite a few doctors would say otherwise. In studies it is proven that a gun inside the home increases the chance of suicide sevenfold and the chance of homicide fivefold.

I'm not willing to trade my rights for personal safety.

The way I see it, the 2nd amendment allowed for people to retain the necessary tools, their guns, to overthrow a goverment that threatened their rights and freedoms. Since muskets were all a good uprising really needed in those days, simply enumerating the right to keep a gun sufficed.

Today, though, if the government turns into a tyranny, we are pretty much S.O.L. As powerful as some commercially available firearms are, you really can't dent a tank wish any of it or take down a bomber. I'm all for responsible people keeping their firearms, so long as we keep guns out of the hands of the kind of people who'll use them for crimes or rampages.

Today, though, if the government turns into a tyranny, we are pretty much S.O.L. As powerful as some commercially available firearms are, you really can't dent a tank wish any of it or take down a bomber. I'm all for responsible people keeping their firearms, so long as we keep guns out of the hands of the kind of people who'll use them for crimes or rampages.
Well there, my friend, is the power of strength in numbers.
Number of gun owners: 80 million
Number of servicemen: +/- 1 million

I like those odds

Quite a few doctors would say otherwise. In studies it is proven that a gun inside the home increases the chance of suicide sevenfold and the chance of homicide fivefold.
exactly.

The way I see it, the 2nd amendment allowed for people to retain the necessary tools, their guns, to overthrow a goverment that threatened their rights and freedoms. Since muskets were all a good uprising really needed in those days, simply enumerating the right to keep a gun sufficed.

Today, though, if the government turns into a tyranny, we are pretty much S.O.L. As powerful as some commercially available firearms are, you really can't dent a tank wish any of it or take down a bomber. I'm all for responsible people keeping their firearms, so long as we keep guns out of the hands of the kind of people who'll use them for crimes or rampages.
Who said that the right to bear arms doesn't include the right to a tank, or anti-aircraft missile, or nuclear device? It says ARMS not RIFLES.

Who said that the right to bear arms doesn't include the right to a tank, or anti-aircraft missile, or nuclear device? It says ARMS not RIFLES.

How many people do you know can afford a tank or anti-air launcher?

I'd love to take an M-1A1 for a spin, but unless I suddenly some into a few million dollars and a few contacts from the underground arms market make my acquaintance, I don't I'll ever do it outside of the Army.

I'm so glad we are going to have a civil discussion about this :rolleyes:
But here's a more detailed version of my agruement for those of you who have no idea where I am coming from.

First, let us look at another amendment:

If you look at that carefully, you can see that every stand alone right is seperated by a semi-colon, while descriptions into that right have commas. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" are seperated by a comma, because they are part of the same guarunteed right. However, a new right "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" begins directly after a semi colon. This pattern continues throughout the amendment. This would suggest to me that rights are seperated by semi colons and descriptive clauses inside of rights are seperated by a comma. Now take another look at the Second Amendment.

Seems to me that it protects the right to a militia, and militia's citizenry have the right to keep and bear arms, as a militia would be fairly worthless without said arms.
Your analysis of the First Amendment is excellent. The Constitution is written so that such detailed parsing is necessary to obtain a correct interpretation.

As you note, there are no semicolons in the Second Amendment. There is only one right enumerated in the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The following clause, "shall not be infringed," contains a verb that can only refer to the right in the preceding clause, and not to a militia, as "infringement" is not an action that can be taken against "a well regulated militia," but can be taken against a right. The third clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," then, is the enumeration of the right, "shall not be infringed" is the protection of the right, "A well regulated militia" is the rationale for the protection of the right (where a militia is defined as it was then, any adult male who owned a rifle), and the clause "being necessary to the security of a free state" is the rationale for the clause "A well regulated militia."

Furthermore, "infringement" is any action taken that restricts in any amount the freedom or integrity of the subject of the statement, in this case the right to keep and bear arms. Consider infringement upon a piece of property, such as trespassing. If one enters a corner of a large piece of property, that constitutes trespassing, and is an infringement against the rights of the owner of the propery, even though the trespasser did not cross the property or cause any damage. Total elimination of the subject is not required for "infringement" to be satisfied.

The Second Amendment, then, nullifies every arms control regulation in the United States. This is to insure that every person has the freedom to aquire weapons of the same level of power as those in the posession of the government, or weapos that may be more powerful than those owned by the government, for the purose of defending oneself against any threat. No qualification is made concerning the practicality of said device for such a defense, or the opinion of others on that matter. Indeed, there is no requirement that any threat even exist, or be physically possible, only that it be conceivable, to satisfy the justification. Consider, if you will, an extreme example, that of nuclear weapons (which, I remind you, are a class of weapon). There are few cases in which a nuclear weapon could be considered a defensive device. However, there is one. The case of an imminent asteroid impact. There are various schemes in development for the use of nuclear weapons to defend Earth against incoming asteroids. While you may not consider this valid, or the business of individuals, there are others who may, and that is all that is required for the justification clause.

Note, however, the justification is just that, a justification, and not a restriction on the protection clause. Thus, conceivability is not even required to satisfy the infringement requirement. Consider another extreme example. The case of the radiological weapon, or so-called "dirty bomb." Perhaps the most reviled weapon ever devised, all this bomb does is spread radiation. I can conceive of no defensive use to this weapon. However, that alone is not justification for taking the weapon away from one who has not threatened anyone with it. As such, the Second Amendment protects even the right to own and carry these things.

The way I see it, the 2nd amendment allowed for people to retain the necessary tools, their guns, to overthrow a goverment that threatened their rights and freedoms. Since muskets were all a good uprising really needed in those days, simply enumerating the right to keep a gun sufficed.

Today, though, if the government turns into a tyranny, we are pretty much S.O.L. As powerful as some commercially available firearms are, you really can't dent a tank wish any of it or take down a bomber. I'm all for responsible people keeping their firearms, so long as we keep guns out of the hands of the kind of people who'll use them for crimes or rampages.
Good in theory. After all, nobody wants people running around on killing sprees with anything, be it an AK-47 or a baseball bat. Do you have a proposal for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens? See my post above for the definition of infringement. If you can't do that, your proposal is unconstitutional.

We are going to be able to own guns unless the 2nd amendment is declared unconstitutional...which is impossible, or is interpreted the way the OP interprets it, which will never happen.

I say no.

To me that clearly says that unless you are in the militia, you have no guarunteed right to a gun.What it actually says is "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Doesn't really matter if it's because we want a militia or want to shoot frogs, it's pretty clear about reserving the right for "the people." If you look at them, all of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights either protect a right of the people, or restrict the role of government. Read your way, the 2nd Ammendment would be protecting the gov't right to have a militia. Clearly, the ammendments were not made to protect the right of the gov't, but to protect the right of the citizens. It was pretty well understood at the time:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
(Freeman’s Journal, 20 Feb 1778) (friend of Madison, member of Continental Congress)

And the Federalist Papers (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm) outline the arguments quite well too.

Or perhaps if it wasn't for gun advocates who insist that the Second Amendment does something that it doesn't resulting in over 30,000 deaths per year since 1979 this wouldn't even be a debate.OK, here we go. If you are going to be honest, you need to compare that to the number of lives that guns save (http://www.tsra.com/Lott40.htm). Either way though, the discussion is not about whether guns are good or bad, or whether you like them, it is about whether the 2nd amendment was designed to defend the people's rights or the government's. It's pretty clear to me that we didn't create a document to protect the gov't from the people.

Your analysis of the First Amendment is excellent. The Constitution is written so that such detailed parsing is necessary to obtain a correct interpretation.

As you note, there are no semicolons in the Second Amendment. There is only one right enumerated in the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The following clause, "shall not be infringed," contains a verb that can only refer to the right in the preceding clause, and not to a militia, as "infringement" is not an action that can be taken against "a well regulated militia," but can be taken against a right. The third clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," then, is the enumeration of the right, "shall not be infringed" is the protection of the right, "A well regulated militia" is the rationale for the protection of the right (where a militia is defined as it was then, any adult male who owned a rifle), and the clause "being necessary to the security of a free state" is the rationale for the clause "A well regulated militia."

Furthermore, "infringement" is any action taken that restricts in any amount the freedom or integrity of the subject of the statement, in this case the right to keep and bear arms. Consider infringement upon a piece of property, such as trespassing. If one enters a corner of a large piece of property, that constitutes trespassing, and is an infringement against the rights of the owner of the propery, even though the trespasser did not cross the property or cause any damage. Total elimination of the subject is not required for "infringement" to be satisfied.

The Second Amendment, then, nullifies every arms control regulation in the United States. This is to insure that every person has the freedom to aquire weapons of the same level of power as those in the posession of the government, or weapos that may be more powerful than those owned by the government, for the purose of defending oneself against any threat. No qualification is made concerning the practicality of said device for such a defense, or the opinion of others on that matter. Indeed, there is no requirement that any threat even exist, or be physically possible, only that it be conceivable, to satisfy the justification. Consider, if you will, an extreme example, that of nuclear weapons (which, I remind you, are a class of weapon). There are few cases in which a nuclear weapon could be considered a defensive device. However, there is one. The case of an imminent asteroid impact. There are various schemes in development for the use of nuclear weapons to defend Earth against incoming asteroids. While you may not consider this valid, or the business of individuals, there are others who may, and that is all that is required for the justification clause.

Note, however, the justification is just that, a justification, and not a restriction on the protection clause. Thus, conceivability is not even required to satisfy the infringement requirement. Consider another extreme example. The case of the radiological weapon, or so-called "dirty bomb." Perhaps the most reviled weapon ever devised, all this bomb does is spread radiation. I can conceive of no defensive use to this weapon. However, that alone is not justification for taking the weapon away from one who has not threatened anyone with it. As such, the Second Amendment protects even the right to own and carry these things.Can I have your permission to have this tattooed on my chest? No, seriously, can I?

For ordinary members of the citizenry, yes.

It is the punctuation that makes it confusing, but the phrasing clarifies the meaning:

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.

The first two clauses are not aspects but justifications of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." There is no other way to make this convoluted sentence make sense.

Thus, a more modern rendition would be:

Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, the 2nd amendmentguarantee's gun rights for all americans.

Next question?

Can you have tanks as well?

Can you have tanks as well?
Depends on how they are aquired.

Can you have tanks as well?

If you can get it legally, yes. However, I seriously doubt anyone will sell one to you.

For reference, the National Guard is not the militia in total.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I say no.

To me that clearly says that unless you are in the militia, you have no guarunteed right to a gun.
Obviously there are several different interpretaions of the Second Amendment, but a clear reading of the sentance structure and of the writings of the Drafters and signers of the Constitution definitely supports the conclusion that the intent was to allow gun ownership by private citizens. The "militia" of the time was formed from private citizens on an ad hoc basis. There was no standing army. Most of the firearms used by those who served in the militia were their own personal weapons. No private ownership = no militia. Simply because we now have a standing Army does not mean the right of private citizens to own weapons is automatically abrogated. If you don't like private ownership of weapons, change the Constitution. Simple.

Quite a few doctors would say otherwise. In studies it is proven that a gun inside the home increases the chance of suicide sevenfold and the chance of homicide fivefold.
Cite these studies, please. I would love to determine what method they used to come to those rather startling conclusions.

... your right to own a gun is protected, just not by the national Constitution anymore.
Bullshit.

Your analysis of the First Amendment is excellent. The Constitution is written so that such detailed parsing is necessary to obtain a correct interpretation.

As you note, there are no semicolons in the Second Amendment. There is only one right enumerated in the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The following clause, "shall not be infringed," contains a verb that can only refer to the right in the preceding clause, and not to a militia, as "infringement" is not an action that can be taken against "a well regulated militia," but can be taken against a right. The third clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," then, is the enumeration of the right, "shall not be infringed" is the protection of the right, "A well regulated militia" is the rationale for the protection of the right (where a militia is defined as it was then, any adult male who owned a rifle), and the clause "being necessary to the security of a free state" is the rationale for the clause "A well regulated militia."

Furthermore, "infringement" is any action taken that restricts in any amount the freedom or integrity of the subject of the statement, in this case the right to keep and bear arms. Consider infringement upon a piece of property, such as trespassing. If one enters a corner of a large piece of property, that constitutes trespassing, and is an infringement against the rights of the owner of the propery, even though the trespasser did not cross the property or cause any damage. Total elimination of the subject is not required for "infringement" to be satisfied.

The Second Amendment, then, nullifies every arms control regulation in the United States. This is to insure that every person has the freedom to aquire weapons of the same level of power as those in the posession of the government, or weapos that may be more powerful than those owned by the government, for the purose of defending oneself against any threat. No qualification is made concerning the practicality of said device for such a defense, or the opinion of others on that matter. Indeed, there is no requirement that any threat even exist, or be physically possible, only that it be conceivable, to satisfy the justification. Consider, if you will, an extreme example, that of nuclear weapons (which, I remind you, are a class of weapon). There are few cases in which a nuclear weapon could be considered a defensive device. However, there is one. The case of an imminent asteroid impact. There are various schemes in development for the use of nuclear weapons to defend Earth against incoming asteroids. While you may not consider this valid, or the business of individuals, there are others who may, and that is all that is required for the justification clause.

Note, however, the justification is just that, a justification, and not a restriction on the protection clause. Thus, conceivability is not even required to satisfy the infringement requirement. Consider another extreme example. The case of the radiological weapon, or so-called "dirty bomb." Perhaps the most reviled weapon ever devised, all this bomb does is spread radiation. I can conceive of no defensive use to this weapon. However, that alone is not justification for taking the weapon away from one who has not threatened anyone with it. As such, the Second Amendment protects even the right to own and carry these things.
Nice try, but no cigar. You're forgetting the US Supreme Court's interpretive power, as well as the power of the legislative bodies to "fine tune" the Constitution through new law. As I recall, this is a well-settled issue in jurisprudence: the right to bear arms for the average citizen does not include those weapons which can result in mass casualties.

If you can get it legally, yes. However, I seriously doubt anyone will sell one to you.
So then the govenment has the right to say which arms you can and can't buy. That means if they want to limit arms to BB guns they can.

So then the govenment has the right to say which arms you can and can't buy. That means if they want to limit arms to BB guns they can.
what's wrong with that? now whenever someone wants to kill someone else they'll either have to be a really good shot, or work a lot harder at it:D

Yes, the 2nd amendmentguarantee's gun rights for all americans.

Next question?
Nope ^.^.

No gun control law has been struck down on 2nd amendment grounds coming from the states in the supreme court. Ever.


States can completely ban guns within their states if they wished, for some obscure reason.

no if it was only meant for militia to keep and bear arms than it would say "the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

the first part is the justification clause, however it has no bearing on the part that actually garauntees rights.

How many people do you know can afford a tank or anti-air launcher?

I'd love to take an M-1A1 for a spin, but unless I suddenly some into a few million dollars and a few contacts from the underground arms market make my acquaintance, I don't I'll ever do it outside of the Army.
If I put together all the money from people who are pissed with the government plus a few donations from other countries I bet we could pull it off.

no if it was only meant for militia to keep and bear arms than it would say "the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

the first part is the justification clause, however it has no bearing on the part that actually garauntees rights.
That would be repetitive and unnecessary. I believe that in saying that the justification is having a militia would mean that the writers meant "the people in the militia" by "the people". To say one without the other would be equivalent to saying "Because a person needs food to live, all organisms will be given vegetables to eat." (equal to "Because a militia is needed for a free state, all people can own guns") Wouldn't it make more sense to say "Because a person needs food to live, all persons will be given vegetables to eat." (equal to "Because a militia is needed for a free state, all people in the militia can own guns")?

The Constitution isn't interpreted in whole sentences like that. It's interpreted in clauses. The clause that's important is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If you read it the way precedent has interpreted it it should read:

Because it is important to keep a well regulated militia it is important that we do not restrict a persons right to gun ownership.

I think its outdated and needs review, but to seriously put a dent in gun ownership the Constitution will have to be amended because precedent is clear.

Nope ^.^.

No gun control law has been struck down on 2nd amendment grounds coming from the states in the supreme court. Ever.


States can completely ban guns within their states if they wished, for some obscure reason.

Wrong.

The 2nd amendment does protect those rights. However, america has a history of trying to loophole around its amendments, and succeeding. The law isn't the problem, the enforcement of it is.

That would be repetitive and unnecessary. I believe that in saying that the justification is having a militia would mean that the writers meant "the people in the militia" by "the people". To say one without the other would be equivalent to saying "Because a person needs food to live, all organisms will be given vegetables to eat." (equal to "Because a militia is needed for a free state, all people can own guns") Wouldn't it make more sense to say "Because a person needs food to live, all persons will be given vegetables to eat." (equal to "Because a militia is needed for a free state, all people in the militia can own guns")?

it would make more sense if that's what the framers actually meant or if thats what the framers actually said. the fact that it says "the right of the people" implies that it is the right of the people, not the right of militia groups. militia groups are also non-permanent and comprised of citizens, so that necessitates that citizens bear arms, because without that right the militia would have no arms.

Its pretty useless to argue. For some reason, people believe that even though the right of the people has meant the right of the people through the entire bill of rights, that it doesn't in the second amendment. They believe that even though the founders quite commonly talked about the people having and needing the right to bear arms, that for some reason they decided to reverse their policy, and only allow the militia to do it in the bill of rights, then never talk about why, or even that they did it. They believe that we should take a modern look onto the language, and only allow the militia to have arms, then refuse to accept that the militia is comprised of all able-bodied men age 17 to 45. They believe that even though the original ten amendments all protect the rights of the citizen or the state, that the 2nd amendment protects the rights of the government to arm a militia.

These people will believe anything they can, to hold onto some illusion that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect the rights of the citizenry to own and bear arms. They are so afraid of the evil guns, subconsciously if not on the surface, that they will do anything they can so they don't ever have to see one. Pretty much like that here in california. Only two guns I've ever seen, that fire real bullets, are one in a cops holster, and one old-ass hunting rifle.

A WELL REGULATED-----These are the key words. Not No Regulation. Not a Few Regulations. A WELL REGULATED---Lots of Regulations. No matter WHO is in the militia it is to be WELL REGULATED. Not a mass of whoever has $100 to drop on a popper. If you want an arm you need to deal with WELL REGULATED.

Personally I have around 25 guns. I'm NOT anti-gun. I have more guns than the average NRA member. But I also know the first three words of the second amendment. The average NRA member doesn't.

A WELL REGULATED-----These are the key words. Not No Regulation. Not a Few Regulations. A WELL REGULATED---Lots of Regulations. No matter WHO is in the militia it is to be WELL REGULATED. Not a mass of whoever has $100 to drop on a popper. If you want an arm you need to deal with WELL REGULATED.

Personally I have around 25 guns. I'm NOT anti-gun. I have more guns than the average NRA member. But I also know the first three words of the second amendment. The average NRA member doesn't.
good point

The 2nd amendment does protect those rights.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

"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."


It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A WELL REGULATED-----These are the key words. Not No Regulation. Not a Few Regulations. A WELL REGULATED---Lots of Regulations. No matter WHO is in the militia it is to be WELL REGULATED. Not a mass of whoever has $100 to drop on a popper. If you want an arm you need to deal with WELL REGULATED.

Personally I have around 25 guns. I'm NOT anti-gun. I have more guns than the average NRA member. But I also know the first three words of the second amendment. The average NRA member doesn't.

Mostly an Ad-hominen attack on the NRA but I'll reply anyway:

Try reading up on the FF's. Here's a good source:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

And the DOJ study:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2c

And since, by definition and law, the Militia ARE 'the people', they need to have arms.

Wrong.

The 2nd amendment does protect those rights. However, america has a history of trying to loophole around its amendments, and succeeding. The law isn't the problem, the enforcement of it is.
I really do enjoy when you go around pulling things out of your ass. Start citing SCOTUS caselaw that supports your point dearest.

A well regulated militia you say. who is incharge of it? I mean between the level of the president and the regular folks with guns. is there some kind of command heirarchy? Do they have training exercises? or is it just some dumb excuse for everyone to have a gun for the sake of it?

Too many people seem to think that everything in the constitution is automatically right and true regardless of context, and regardless of the fact that it was written in a completely different time.

Its just a document written by people, and is as flawed as any person. Thats why they keep amending it.

A well regulated militia you say. who is incharge of it? I mean between the level of the president and the regular folks with guns. is there some kind of command heirarchy? Do they have training exercises? or is it just some dumb excuse for everyone to have a gun for the sake of it?

Too many people seem to think that everything in the constitution is automatically right and true regardless of context, and regardless of the fact that it was written in a completely different time.

Its just a document written by people, and is as flawed as any person. Thats why they keep amending it.

Even though this is just a traditional attack on the consititution , I'll respond anyway.

When the Militia is called up, it's the job of the states to appoint officers and conduct training. It is also there as a deterrent from a tyrannical Gov't. You know, kind of like if a Gov't decided it was going to monitor all travel.


The Magna Carta was just a piece of paper as well. It brought the world closer to democracy. It was also brought into being at the point of a sword.

Can I have your permission to have this tattooed on my chest? No, seriously, can I?You may, as far as I'm concerned.

Nice try, but no cigar. You're forgetting the US Supreme Court's interpretive power, as well as the power of the legislative bodies to "fine tune" the Constitution through new law. As I recall, this is a well-settled issue in jurisprudence: the right to bear arms for the average citizen does not include those weapons which can result in mass casualties.
The flaw in your logic derives from the order or supremacy. The Supreme Court is created by, and exists through, the continued authorization of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is supreme over the Court, not the other way around. The legislatures are created by, and maintained through, the continued authorizations of their respective constitutions. In the case of Congress, the Congress is created by the United States Constitution, and is subject to it. In the case of the states, the state legislatures are subordinate to their respective constitutions, which are subordinate to the United States Constitution. No subordinate entity may modify the superior entity without explicit permission. In the case of the United States Constitution, that permission exists in the form of Article 5, the power of amendment, and nowhere else. Thus, the courts may not interpret the Constitution in the way you suggest, and the opinion of the legislatures is legally irrelevant. All that matters is the proper English parsing of the document for its correct meaning. If the government attempts to interfere in your peaceful acquisition of a weapon of any kind, it is the government that is wrong, not you.

Nope ^.^.

No gun control law has been struck down on 2nd amendment grounds coming from the states in the supreme court. Ever.


States can completely ban guns within their states if they wished, for some obscure reason.Not true. See my previous posts.

Mostly an Ad-hominen attack on the NRA but I'll reply anyway:

Try reading up on the FF's. Here's a good source:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

And the DOJ study:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2c

And since, by definition and law, the Militia ARE 'the people', they need to have arms.

And once they pick up arms, they agree to being well regulated. If you don't want to be well regulated, don't touch the arms.

A WELL REGULATED-----These are the key words. Not No Regulation. Not a Few Regulations. A WELL REGULATED---Lots of Regulations. No matter WHO is in the militia it is to be WELL REGULATED. Not a mass of whoever has $100 to drop on a popper. If you want an arm you need to deal with WELL REGULATED.

Personally I have around 25 guns. I'm NOT anti-gun. I have more guns than the average NRA member. But I also know the first three words of the second amendment. The average NRA member doesn't.The words "A well-regulated" mean "composed of anyone who knows how to handle a weapon." It does not imply that the government shall have the power to set rules.

Furthermore, it is part of the justification clause, as I discussed in one of my previous posts, and has no bearing on the protection clause.

Does the 2nd Amendment guaruntee gun rights for all Americans?
Um... no.

This just in: the 2nd Amendment shouldn't apply to Vice-Presidents...

The words "A well-regulated" mean "composed of anyone who knows how to handle a weapon."
Um.. no.
Even in those days it meant, "Regulated by government."

Can you have tanks as well?

Technically yes, if you can afford it. But I don't think many can afford even old Soviet Tanks.

For reference, the National Guard is not the militia in total.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Okay, even assuming this argument has legs ....

Since when does the unorganized militia equal a well-regulated militia?

Wrong.

The 2nd amendment does protect those rights. However, america has a history of trying to loophole around its amendments, and succeeding. The law isn't the problem, the enforcement of it is.

So the Second Amendment means what you says it says, even if SCOTUS and every other federal court to address the issue have said otherwise?

Obviously there are several different interpretaions of the Second Amendment, but a clear reading of the sentance structure and of the writings of the Drafters and signers of the Constitution definitely supports the conclusion that the intent was to allow gun ownership by private citizens. The "militia" of the time was formed from private citizens on an ad hoc basis. There was no standing army. Most of the firearms used by those who served in the militia were their own personal weapons. No private ownership = no militia. Simply because we now have a standing Army does not mean the right of private citizens to own weapons is automatically abrogated. If you don't like private ownership of weapons, change the Constitution. Simple.

Nice lecture. Wrong, but nice lecture.


1. The legal precedent is overwhelming that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms.

Here is the official statement of the American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html) on the issue (emphasis added):

As part of a comprehensive policy position adopted in 1994, the ABA committed itself to work to better inform the public and lawmakers through a sustained educational campaign regarding the true import of the Second Amendment. Opponents of firearms control legislation have relied upon the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right to bear arms." The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states:

"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."

The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

The controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment exists only in the public debate over gun control. Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one. There is no confusion in the law itself. The strictest gun control laws in the nation have been upheld against Second Amendment challenge, including local bans on handguns. The Supreme Court enunciated in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) what, over fifty years later, remains clearly the law of this country -- that the scope of the people's right to bear arms is limited by the introductory phrase of the Second Amendment regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia" for the "security of a free State." In Miller, the Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of..." the state militias and cautioned that the Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Since today's "well regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed its view of the Second Amendment as expressed in Miller. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1968), the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal, for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Most recently, in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court held that legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not - for purposes of equal protection analysis - "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

The lower federal courts have uniformly followed the interpretation of the Supreme Court. No legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has been struck down in our nation's history on Second Amendment grounds.

Yet the perception that the Second Amendment is somehow an obstacle to Congress and state and local legislative bodies fashioning laws to regulate firearms remains a pervasive myth. The gun lobby has conducted extensive and expensive campaigns to foster this misperception and the result has been that the myth of the "absolute bar of the Second Amendment" has real effects on regulatory efforts.

As lawyers, as representatives of the legal profession, and as recognized experts on the meaning of the Constitution and our system of justice, we share a responsibility to the public and lawmakers to "say what the law is." The ABA is committed to bringing about a more reasoned and lawyerly discussion of the meaning and import of the Second Amendment.

I can, if necessary, repeat my summary of 67 cases holding that there is no individual right to bear arms. Here is a direct quote (with emphasis added) of almost the entire text of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length

...

The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-- '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.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

[I]The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. ...

[Discussion of history of militias in the US and discussion specific state provisions for militias.]

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

...

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a life-long hunter and conservative Republican, terms the NRA's Second Amendment rhetoric a "fraud" paid for by the firearms industry:
[O]ne of the frauds -- and I use that term advisedly -- on the American people, has been the campaign to mislead the public about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all . . . . It's shocking to me that the American people have let themselves be conned . . . by the campaigns that are sponsored and financed by the arms industry and the ammunition industry.
Warren Burger, Press Conference Concerning Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1992, Federal News Service, June 26, 1992, available in LEXIS, News Library, Wires File; see also Tony Mauro, Bill of Rights Has Not Been Scuttled, USA TODAY , Dec. 16, 1991, at 13A. ("[T]he National Rifle Association has done one of the most amazing jobs of misrepresenting and misleading the public.").

Arch-conservative and leading proponent of the use of original intent in interpreting the constitution, Judge Robert Bork has stated that the Second Amendment operates "to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms." He believes California's assault-weapons ban is, and indeed "probably" all state gun control measures are, constitutional. Claudia Luther, Bork Says State Gun Laws Constitutional, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 15, 1989, at B5; see also Miriam Bensimhorn, The Advocates: Point and Counterpoint, Laurence Tribe and Robert Bork Debate the Framers' Spacious Terms, LIFE, Fall 1991 (Special Issue), at 96, 98 ("[T]he National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding.").

2. The right "to bear arms" is not an individual right to possess and use firearms.

It is widely assumed that "to keep and bare arms" means "to possess and use firearms," but that is not what the Second Amendment says. The definitive dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, makes clear that -- particularly at the time the Second Amendment was written and adopted -- "to bear arms" meant "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter, "OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from 1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id.

In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was still understood:

"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)


3. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was passed and not all provisions of the BoR have been incorporated through the 14th to apply to the states.

Here is an article from the NRA-ILA explaining that I am right:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23

In case you don't trust even the NRA on this, here are a couple of other sources:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
http://www.therant.us/staff/nsalvato/judicial_activism_undermines_the_integrity_of_the_constitution_-_1.htm
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0047310-00&templatename=/article/article.html
(You may note that the second article is a conservative screed against incorporation).

In the first Congress in 1789, Congressman James Madison had submitted proposed amendments for the Bill of Rights. One of Madison's proposed amendments would have prohibited states from violating the rights of conscience, freedom of the press, and trial by jury in criminal cases. The House passed Madison's proposed amendment. But the Senate rejected it because all the states already had their own bills of rights.

In 1833, the Supreme Court addressed the issue and determined the amendments of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the national government and not to the states. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (1833). You can read the case for yourself at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html. It is pretty short and easy to read.

Before you go on a rant about Barron. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marsall. He was a hero of the Revolutionary War and a close friend of George Washington. At college, he was taught philosophy by James Madison. He participated in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution as a member of the Virigina legislature. Prior to becoming Chief Justice, he served as Secretary of State.

Let's go over Miller and the few other relevant Supreme Court cases.

United States v. Miller (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html), 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

Defendants were charged with the crime of transporting and possessing an unregistered sawed off shotgun, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1132, et seq. They challenged the indictment and the trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing the charges. Id. at 177. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding the Second Amendment provided defendants no protection against the indictment. After reviewing the language and history of the Second Amendment, the Court concluded that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia. Id. at 178. Because defendants had offered no evidence that their possession or use of the shotgun had “some reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,” their conduct was not protected by the Second Amendment. Id.

BTW, you can "interpret" this case however you like but it flat out says the purpose of the Second Amendment was for the state militia and it should be interpreted accordingly.

Because you ignore what Miller actually says, let’s look at it:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

This clearly states that, unless "possession or use" of a weapon has "some reasonable relationship to to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," then the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear such a weapon. It does not hinge on whether the firearm was of a type used by the military, but on whether the possession or use of such of a weapon is reasonably related to preservation of a well-regulated militia. In other words, if preservation of a well-regulated militia required that the defendant possess the shotgun, then the Second Amendment comes into play.

Similarly, Miller says:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- '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.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

This clearly states the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of state militias and that it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The Court then turns to a discussion of the history of state militias. The Court states that, in the Constitution (emphasis added):

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress.

The Court in Miller is crystal clear that the “well-regulated militia” which the Second Amendment protects are the militias which the “States are expect to maintain and train.”

But you do not have to take my word for it, you can take the US Supreme Court’s own description of Miller in Lewis v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/445/55.html), 445 U.S. 55 (1980):

Defendant Lewis was convicted in state court of a felony violation which was never overturned and for which he did not receive a pardon. Subsequently, he was charged under a section of the federal Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act (then codified at 26 U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1)), which makes it a crime for a convicted felon to knowingly receive, possess or transport a firearm. Lewis challenged the federal conviction, alleging his prior state conviction was constitutionally invalid. The District Court convicted Lewis and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and held Lewis could not raise the constitutionality of the prior conviction as a defense to the new crime and the absence of such a defense from the federal law did not render that law violative of any constitutional protections. Id. at 65.

The Court ruled that restrictions contained in the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting felons from owning firearms were constitutional under a rational basis standard. The Court noted:

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).

445 U.S. at 65-66 (emphasis added).

Other relevant Supreme Court decisions:

Burton v. Sills (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/812.html), 394 U.S. 812 (1968):

In Burton, the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal (supported by the gun-lobby), for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court's 1968 holding that the state's gun control laws did not violate the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Adopting the narrow view of the Second Amendment, the New Jersey court found that the state's licensing requirements for manufacturers, wholesalers, and retail dealers, as well as permit and identification card requirements for purchasers, did "not impair the maintenance of the State's active organized militia" and thus were "not at all in violation of either the terms or purposes of the second amendment."

Miller v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/153/535.html), 153 U.S. 535 (1894):

Dismissed defendant’s post-conviction challenge to a Texas law prohibiting the carrying of a dangerous weapon on a public street. Defendant sought review by the Supreme Court on several grounds, including that the Texas law denied him the “privileges and immunities of citizenship” because it violated his alleged Second Amendment “right to bear arms.” Id at 538. The Court held the Second Amendment had no application to the challenged state proceedings because the amendment constrains only the federal government and has no “reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.” Id.

Presser v. Illinois (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/116/252.html), 116 U.S. 252 (1886):

Presser was indicted in Illinois state court for violating those sections of the state law making it a misdemeanor for any body of men to associate as a military company of organization, except as part of the organized state militia, unless they obtain a license from the Governor. Presser moved to quash the indictment, alleging that the laws at issue violated numerous constitutional provisions, including the Second Amendment. After the state courts denied his challenge, he sought review in the Supreme Court.

Relying on U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Court rejected Presser’s Second Amendment challenge on the grounds that the Second Amendment constrains only federal action and had no applicability to the state law at issue. The Court also rejected Presser’s claim that the state law denied him the “privilege and immunities” of citizenship because it prevented him from associating with others as an unorganized militia. Presser, 116 U.S. at 267. In addressing this issue, the Court specifically held that “military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers.” Id. at 267.

That would be repetitive and unnecessary. I believe that in saying that the justification is having a militia would mean that the writers meant "the people in the militia" by "the people". To say one without the other would be equivalent to saying "Because a person needs food to live, all organisms will be given vegetables to eat." (equal to "Because a militia is needed for a free state, all people can own guns") Wouldn't it make more sense to say "Because a person needs food to live, all persons will be given vegetables to eat." (equal to "Because a militia is needed for a free state, all people in the militia can own guns")?
Not entirely equivalent. The "militia" refers to every able-bodied gun owner. The Second Amendment, then, is best translated as saying, "Because everyone needs to defend their own freedoms, the government may not restrict their right to own a weapon." Furthermore, the amendment says nothing about "giving" weapons to people, as your vegetable example does. Obviously, feeding vegetables to every organism on Earth is impractical. So is giving guns to everyone who wants one. The best food analogy would be, then, "Because everyone needs to eat, the government may not restrict a person's right to peacefully grow or aqcuire vegetables." As you can see, these statements are more consistent with the written text of the Constitution, and are entirely equivalent.

One of the problems with your logic, and many of the opposition arguments in general, is the lack of a base case and proper hierarchy of authority. You cannot have a militia without at least one armed person. The militia must be created by individuals, as individuals predate and all human institutions and the militia is a human institution. These people must have had the right to keep and bear arms, and must have conveyed the priviledge upon the militia they created. Individuals bring weapons to the militia, not the other way around. Individuals bring soldiers to the militia, not the other way around. Militias, as with all social organizations, are abstractions, and do not exist without at least one individual. How shall a militia with no members own weapons? If you meant that once a person joins the government-approved militia, he or she then gains the priviledge of owning a weapon, and that the militia does not actually own the weapon, you have contradicted the concept of individual rights, the language explicitly used in the Constitution.

Um.. no.
Even in those days it meant, "Regulated by government."Did the government regulate the militia? If so, how? The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide for a system that counters the power of government, and does not rely on a peaceful system, such as voting, to do so. If the system of countering the power of government is dependent upon the permission of government to operate, then it does not counter government.

Does the 2nd Amendment guaruntee gun rights for all Americans?
There's a good Valentine's Day topic.

Mostly an Ad-hominen attack on the NRA but I'll reply anyway:

Try reading up on the FF's. Here's a good source:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

And the DOJ study:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2c

And since, by definition and law, the Militia ARE 'the people', they need to have arms.

Tut, tut. You know full well that DOJ "study" is no such thing and that the constitutional law on this issue is against you.

Nice lecture. Wrong, but nice lecture.


1. The legal precedent is overwhelming that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms.

Here is the official statement of the American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html) on the issue (emphasis added):



I can, if necessary, repeat my summary of 67 cases holding that there is no individual right to bear arms. Here is a direct quote (with emphasis added) of almost the entire text of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length

...

The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-- '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.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

[I]The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. ...

[Discussion of history of militias in the US and discussion specific state provisions for militias.]

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

...

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a life-long hunter and conservative Republican, terms the NRA's Second Amendment rhetoric a "fraud" paid for by the firearms industry:
[O]ne of the frauds -- and I use that term advisedly -- on the American people, has been the campaign to mislead the public about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all . . . . It's shocking to me that the American people have let themselves be conned . . . by the campaigns that are sponsored and financed by the arms industry and the ammunition industry.
Warren Burger, Press Conference Concerning Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1992, Federal News Service, June 26, 1992, available in LEXIS, News Library, Wires File; see also Tony Mauro, Bill of Rights Has Not Been Scuttled, USA TODAY , Dec. 16, 1991, at 13A. ("[T]he National Rifle Association has done one of the most amazing jobs of misrepresenting and misleading the public.").

Arch-conservative and leading proponent of the use of original intent in interpreting the constitution, Judge Robert Bork has stated that the Second Amendment operates "to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms." He believes California's assault-weapons ban is, and indeed "probably" all state gun control measures are, constitutional. Claudia Luther, Bork Says State Gun Laws Constitutional, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 15, 1989, at B5; see also Miriam Bensimhorn, The Advocates: Point and Counterpoint, Laurence Tribe and Robert Bork Debate the Framers' Spacious Terms, LIFE, Fall 1991 (Special Issue), at 96, 98 ("[T]he National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding.").

2. The right "to bear arms" is not an individual right to possess and use firearms.

It is widely assumed that "to keep and bare arms" means "to possess and use firearms," but that is not what the Second Amendment says. The definitive dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, makes clear that -- particularly at the time the Second Amendment was written and adopted -- "to bear arms" meant "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter, "OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from 1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id.

In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was still understood:

"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)


3. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was passed and not all provisions of the BoR have been incorporated through the 14th to apply to the states.

Here is an article from the NRA-ILA explaining that I am right:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23

In case you don't trust even the NRA on this, here are a couple of other sources:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
http://www.therant.us/staff/nsalvato/judicial_activism_undermines_the_integrity_of_the_constitution_-_1.htm
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0047310-00&templatename=/article/article.html
(You may note that the second article is a conservative screed against incorporation).

In the first Congress in 1789, Congressman James Madison had submitted proposed amendments for the Bill of Rights. One of Madison's proposed amendments would have prohibited states from violating the rights of conscience, freedom of the press, and trial by jury in criminal cases. The House passed Madison's proposed amendment. But the Senate rejected it because all the states already had their own bills of rights.

In 1833, the Supreme Court addressed the issue and determined the amendments of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the national government and not to the states. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (1833). You can read the case for yourself at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html. It is pretty short and easy to read.

Before you go on a rant about Barron. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marsall. He was a hero of the Revolutionary War and a close friend of George Washington. At college, he was taught philosophy by James Madison. He participated in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution as a member of the Virigina legislature. Prior to becoming Chief Justice, he served as Secretary of State.
Your research efforts are commendable, but you may have missed my post. This is irrelevant.
Also, the amendment must apply to the states, as it is a restriction on infringement in general, and the Constitution is supreme over the states. As much as I despise giving power to the federal government over the states, the 10th Amendment states, "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." The Second Amendment is a prohibition, even without mentioning the states specifically.

Did the government regulate the militia? If so, how? The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide for a system that counters the power of government, and does not rely on a peaceful system, such as voting, to do so. If the system of countering the power of government is dependent upon the permission of government to operate, then it does not counter government.

Every state had substantial gun regulation when the Second Amendment was adopted.

Key framers like Madison, Hamilton, and Washington were horrified by insurrections and intended the Constitution to provide the means for suppressing them.

Did the government regulate the militia? If so, how? The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide for a system that counters the power of government, and does not rely on a peaceful system, such as voting, to do so. If the system of countering the power of government is dependent upon the permission of government to operate, then it does not counter government.
The government regulated what a 'millitia' was. I suggest you read the works of Andrew Jackson.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to "provide for the common defense". If that counters the "power of government", that is incidental. Government in those days was *people*.

Here's a question: Why can't the US repeal all the old Amendments that are obviously outdated? Do you think it would hurt the Founders' feelings? Not to say that I don't approve of gun rights, but the second amendment's justification for them is outmoded.

Your research efforts are commendable, but you may have missed my post. This is irrelevant.

I've read your post and thoroughly refuted it.

The flaw in your logic derives from the order or supremacy. The Supreme Court is created by, and exists through, the continued authorization of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is supreme over the Court, not the other way around. The legislatures are created by, and maintained through, the continued authorizations of their respective constitutions. In the case of Congress, the Congress is created by the United States Constitution, and is subject to it. In the case of the states, the state legislatures are subordinate to their respective constitutions, which are subordinate to the United States Constitution. No subordinate entity may modify the superior entity without explicit permission. In the case of the United States Constitution, that permission exists in the form of Article 5, the power of amendment, and nowhere else. Thus, the courts may not interpret the Constitution in the way you suggest, and the opinion of the legislatures is legally irrelevant. All that matters is the proper English parsing of the document for its correct meaning. If the government attempts to interfere in your peaceful acquisition of a weapon of any kind, it is the government that is wrong, not you.

Meh.

This is balderdash. The Founders themselves explained why you are wrong in your little theory in Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html), 5 US 137 (1803).

Here's a question: Why can't the US repeal all the old Amendments that are obviously outdated? Do you think it would hurt the Founders' feelings? Not to say that I don't approve of gun rights, but the second amendment's justification for them is outmoded.

Well, they can, but it would be dangerous to do so. By convening a constitutional convention, it would put the entire constitution on the table. It may be the 2nd amendment that is the reason for convening the convention in the first place, but while everyone's together, they could also ratify anything else in the amendments: freedom of speech/religion, unreasonable search and seizure, all these things that people hold dear would be exposed to being legislated away. Why bother to have Roe V Wade overturned when it would be simple enough to just make an amendment to make abortion illegal?

This is one genie that most people would just assume stay in the bottle.

Well, they can, but it would be dangerous to do so. By convening a constitutional convention, it would put the entire constitution on the table. It may be the 2nd amendment that is the reason for convening the convention in the first place, but while everyone's together, they could also ratify anything else in the amendments: freedom of speech/religion, unreasonable search and seizure, all these things that people hold dear would be exposed to being legislated away. Why bother to have Roe V Wade overturned when it would be simple enough to just make an amendment to make abortion illegal?

This is one genie that most people would just assume stay in the bottle.
Other amendments have been repealed without the sky falling.

Also, the amendment must apply to the states, as it is a restriction on infringement in general, and the Constitution is supreme over the states. As much as I despise giving power to the federal government over the states, the 10th Amendment states, "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." The Second Amendment is a prohibition, even without mentioning the states specifically.

Again, read some of the links --including from the NRA -- that explain why you are wrong.

The BoR does not apply to the states except as incorporated through the 14th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated.

The BoR was purely a limitation on the federal government.

Other amendments have been repealed without the sky falling.

True, however, in the current political climate, it seems that fundamental rights are being subjected to more stress and strain than they have in the past. Freedom of speech? It never really was a big issue because the only people that could have a wide impact were large media outlets. Now, anybody with a computer can set up a blog and have it read by anyone.

Search and seizure? Well, there have always been political boogeymen out there, i.e. communists, Japanese, Germans, but now with the hunt for "terrorists", people are being frightened into surrendering their privacy. It's not a matter of having nothing to hide as much as it is a matter of not being subjected to scrutiny.

Meh.

This is balderdash. The Founders themselves explained why you are wrong in your little theory in Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html), 5 US 137 (1803).
It is not entirely my theory.

I read the relevant sections of the decision, and I see two possibilities. First, the Court was discharging its proper responsibilities to uphold the Constitution. This does not require the Court to interpret the Constitution as we use the phrase, but only to read the document and determine whether an action has contradicted the language of the Constitution (such as, if I may use the court's example, pass a tariff on trade between the states when one is strictly forbidden) or not. This does not imply that the pronouncement of the Court becomes law, only that this is the way the court will likely rule in the future, rightly or wrongly. This is the view the Court of 1803 would like you to believe, and there is nothing wrong with it. If the court did this, then the power of the court to "interpret" the Constitution has been popularly misunderstood and greatly exaggerated.

The other possibility is that the Court's logic is flawed. The Court may be trying to falsely associate the above behavior with the contemporary understanding of "interpretation," trying to claim that they are equivalent. If that was the goal, then the Court succeeded. Either way, if the court is wrong, then it is wrong. It does not become right by virtue of being the Supreme Court of the United States. The integrity of the Court of 1803 has come under question, so the second possibility is viable.

It is not entirely my theory.

I read the relevant sections of the decision, and I see two possibilities. First, the Court was discharging its proper responsibilities to uphold the Constitution. This does not require the Court to interpret the Constitution as we use the phrase, but only to read the document and determine whether an action has contradicted the language of the Constitution (such as, if I may use the court's example, pass a tariff on trade between the states when one is strictly forbidden) or not. This does not imply that the pronouncement of the Court becomes law, only that this is the way the court will likely rule in the future, rightly or wrongly. This is the view the Court of 1803 would like you to believe, and there is nothing wrong with it. If the court did this, then the power of the court to "interpret" the Constitution has been popularly misunderstood and greatly exaggerated.

The other possibility is that the Court's logic is flawed. The Court may be trying to falsely associate the above behavior with the contemporary understanding of "interpretation," trying to claim that they are equivalent. If that was the goal, then the Court succeeded. Either way, if the court is wrong, then it is wrong. It does not become right by virtue of being the Supreme Court of the United States. The integrity of the Court of 1803 has come under question, so the second possibility is viable.

LOL.

Chief Justice Marshall was wrong? Over 200 years of constitutional precedent is wrong?

I can't tell if you are more arrogant or desperate.

Every state had substantial gun regulation when the Second Amendment was adopted.

Key framers like Madison, Hamilton, and Washington were horrified by insurrections and intended the Constitution to provide the means for suppressing them.
Horrified at insurrections? They started one! They did not like the idea of rebellions against their power, of course, as Washington's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion shows, but they were then in charge of the government, and subject to the same forces of corruption as the rest of us. We tend to idolize the Founding Fathers, but for all the good they did, they were self-interested individuals with agendas of their own. They did want to protect liberty, as did everyone else, since they had all fought to obtain it, but for how long? The Constitution had many purposes, among them to prevent any two-bit thug with a gun from taking over, but not to prevent liberty from being restored if the government became tyrannical. Obviously, these goals are contradictory, and make a balance difficult to strike. Fortunately, the Second Amendment is there to tell us which way to go.
If the states had gun control laws, they did not have the ones we have.

The government regulated what a 'millitia' was. I suggest you read the works of Andrew Jackson.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to "provide for the common defense". If that counters the "power of government", that is incidental. Government in those days was *people*.
When does the government stop being "people"? Why do you put "power of government" in quotes? Do you not believe it exists?

Horrified at insurrections? They started one! They did not like the idea of rebellions against their power, of course, as Washington's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion shows, but they were then in charge of the government, and subject to the same forces of corruption as the rest of us. We tend to idolize the Founding Fathers, but for all the good they did, they were self-interested individuals with agendas of their own. They did want to protect liberty, as did everyone else, since they had all fought to obtain it, but for how long? The Constitution had many purposes, among them to prevent any two-bit thug with a gun from taking over, but not to prevent liberty from being restored if the government became tyrannical. Obviously, these goals are contradictory, and make a balance difficult to strike. Fortunately, the Second Amendment is there to tell us which way to go.
If the states had gun control laws, they did not have the ones we have.

Nice circular argument about what the Second Amendment must mean because of what the Second Amendment must mean. Screw the facts. Screw what the Founders thought. Screw what the courts say. Whatever-This-Is says so!

Let's go over Miller and the few other relevant Supreme Court cases.
Excellent elucidation of the case law. You are to be commended. But if such is the case, and there is no right to "keep and bear arms," then why have they not all been confiscated?

When does the government stop being "people"? Why do you put "power of government" in quotes? Do you not believe it exists?

You are the one saying "the people" need guns to counteract the "power of government." If they are one and the same, why does one need to counteract the other?

LOL.

Chief Justice Marshall was wrong? Over 200 years of constitutional precedent is wrong?

I can't tell if you are more arrogant or desperate.
Why can't you believe it, because it has stood for 200 years? Longevity tends to lend credence, but does not guarantee correctness. You do not ask such questions of those who talk about repealing amendments. Why do you ask of me? Furthermore, I offered two possibilities, and neither of them requiered Marshall to simply be wrong. The first was misinterpretation by the public, and the second was corruption.

You are the one saying "the people" need guns to counteract the "power of government." If they are one and the same, why does one need to counteract the other?
I did not say the people are the government. I do not subscribe to the idea that they are, not even in a democracy.

Excellent elucidation of the case law. You are to be commended. But if such is the case, and there is no right to "keep and bear arms," then why have they not all been confiscated?

Your NRA buddies will complain they have been in some places.

But the truth of the matter is that confiscation of all weapons would be bad policy and hasn't been tried.

You won't find a single case of a gun control law being overturned on 2nd Amendment grounds.

Why can't you believe it, because it has stood for 200 years? Longevity tends to lend credence, but does not guarantee correctness. You do not ask such questions of those who talk about repealing amendments. Why do you ask of me? Furthermore, I offered two possibilities, and neither of them requiered Marshall to simply be wrong. The first was misinterpretation by the public, and the second was corruption.

Marbury v. Madison hasn't simply just stood for 200 years. It has been the basis of Constitutional Law for 200 years. It was a seminal case.

And your corruption theory is just silly.

LOL.

Chief Justice Marshall was wrong? Over 200 years of constitutional precedent is wrong?

I can't tell if you are more arrogant or desperate.

<expected rsponse> I shall continue to ignore your points in order to make my case.</expected response>

The BoR doesn't really say it, but it does allow for the right in the enumeration clause thingy.

<expected rsponse> I shall continue to ignore your points in order to make my case.</expected response>

:D

He still hasn't answered my second main point re "bear arms."

The funny thing is that I support gun rights. I just don't support all this lying about the 2nd Amendment.

:D

He still hasn't answered my second main point re "bear arms."

The funny thing is that I support gun rights. I just don't support all this lying about the 2nd Amendment.

You have completely pwned your opponents.

And yes, I completely support gun rights too.

Marbury v. Madison hasn't simply just stood for 200 years. It has been the basis of Constitutional Law for 200 years. It was a seminal case.

And your corruption theory is just silly.
It isn't my theory, it is a possibility being considered by others.

The seminality of the case is not relevant if it isn't valid.

<expected rsponse> I shall continue to ignore your points in order to make my case.</expected response>
If this is directed at me, then for the record, it is not my intention to ignore anyone's points. If I have missed some, then perhaps you will be so kind as to point out the ones I've missed.

If not, then perhaps you would care to tell me how the post you quoted is any more substantial than the ones you are concerned about?

:D

He still hasn't answered my second main point re "bear arms."

The funny thing is that I support gun rights. I just don't support all this lying about the 2nd Amendment.
Perhaps you would care to restate your second point? I may have overlooked it.

Lying? That's an interesting way of putting it. Perhaps you would care to elaborate.

You have completely pwned your opponents.

And yes, I completely support gun rights too.
In your opinion. I happen to disagree.

It's interesting that we are arguing against each other while remaining on the same side of the debate.

I think it means you're allowed to dismember your neighbors, and beat their children with their arms.

Did the government regulate the militia? If so, how? The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide for a system that counters the power of government, and does not rely on a peaceful system, such as voting, to do so. If the system of countering the power of government is dependent upon the permission of government to operate, then it does not counter government.
This is such a silly statement that I've been trying to avoid it, but it keeps getting repeated.

At the time of the Constitution most of the population was within 100 miles of the frontier. This area was subject to Indians as well as criminals and possibly invasion from Canada or Mexico. The government didn't have the money to hire enough police much less soldiers to control the area. So, what few officers were available could recruit anyone to help them run down a criminal. Now, a bunch of untrained people running around not knowing enough to follow orders would just cause more chaos not bring civilization to the area. So they instituted a universal draft. Everyone who was able was REQUIRED to train in military and law enforcement tactics. This is the beginning of all the military colleges throughout the south. The catch was that the government couldn't even afford to buy guns. In fact, most of the Revolutionary War soldiers provided their own guns. There was a realization at the time of the Constitution how valuable these trained soldiers would be should the weak government be attacked by Britian, Spain, or Natives. Along with the ability to have a trained posse for law enforcement.

It would make no logic at all to say that a weak government with very little army would want another uncontroled force that could destroy the government on a whim.

If this is directed at me, then for the record, it is not my intention to ignore anyone's points. If I have missed some, then perhaps you will be so kind as to point out the ones I've missed.

If not, then perhaps you would care to tell me how the post you quoted is any more substantial than the ones you are concerned about?

A.) It is not for me to point out what points you've missed or ignored from Cat-Tribes' excellent posts. Cat-Tribes is already doing that, if you've noticed.

B.) My post was not directed at any one individual. Think of it more as commentary; an amalgam derived from some of the more common debate techniques used by numerous posters of all ideologies. Especially from politically themed forums such as NS.

C.) My post was brief and to the point, thus easily ignored if inapplicable to the beholder.

Here's a question: Why can't the US repeal all the old Amendments that are obviously outdated? Do you think it would hurt the Founders' feelings? Not to say that I don't approve of gun rights, but the second amendment's justification for them is outmoded.
In order to change the Constitution it takes a vote of 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress---Then aproval of 3/4 of the states. It's only been done 27 times. The only amendment that was overturned by another amendment was prohibition. 6 times Congress has passed an amendment and the states have failed to aprove. There have been thousands that have peen proposed.

SCOTUS decisions don't heavily sway me.

SCOTUS is made of humans, fallible humans. They interpret the constitution, as the defense(or prosecution) presents them. They deal with single cases.

Have they overturned any gun control laws? No? Then I believe that either they have misinterpreted it, or they were not given a sufficient case against it.

SCOTUS basically ruled slavery was legal in the states. Was this the intent behind the constitution? I don't believe so, even if a few of the founding fathers owned them. Even though the preamble talked about all humans being created equal, and about liberty, they still voted that slavery was legal.

The desicions of others do not make me believe in something. I have looked at the 2nd amendment, I have looked at what the founding fathers have said, and I see nothing that showed they wished for the citizenry not to be allowed to own guns. I have seen plenty that talked about how the citizenry should be allowed to carry guns, for their own defense, to stop overbearing government, to protect their country, etc.

The amendment was put there, the 2nd no less, because the founders saw it was extremely important for their people to be able to own arms. They did not want the government to be able to take away people's arms.

And yet? It happens. Gun control has been passed and re-passed, and the courts have not done anything about this. This is not a failing of the constitution; its a failing of the courts, and furthermore, ourselves as americans and people.

Those who push for gun control look for the tiny loopholes to erode our freedoms with. They may not do it for this purpose, but yet they persist in doing it still. Gun control is unconstitutional.

SCOTUS decisions don't heavily sway me.

SCOTUS is made of humans, fallible humans. They interpret the constitution, as the defense(or prosecution) presents them. They deal with single cases.

Have they overturned any gun control laws? No? Then I believe that either they have misinterpreted it, or they were not given a sufficient case against it.

SCOTUS basically ruled slavery was legal in the states. Was this the intent behind the constitution? I don't believe so, even if a few of the founding fathers owned them. Even though the preamble talked about all humans being created equal, and about liberty, they still voted that slavery was legal.

The desicions of others do not make me believe in something. I have looked at the 2nd amendment, I have looked at what the founding fathers have said, and I see nothing that showed they wished for the citizenry not to be allowed to own guns. I have seen plenty that talked about how the citizenry should be allowed to carry guns, for their own defense, to stop overbearing government, to protect their country, etc.

The amendment was put there, the 2nd no less, because the founders saw it was extremely important for their people to be able to own arms. They did not want the government to be able to take away people's arms.

And yet? It happens. Gun control has been passed and re-passed, and the courts have not done anything about this. This is not a failing of the constitution; its a failing of the courts, and furthermore, ourselves as americans and people.

Those who push for gun control look for the tiny loopholes to erode our freedoms with. They may not do it for this purpose, but yet they persist in doing it still. Gun control is unconstitutional.


You should present this argument to the Supreme Court. I'm almost sure they'll pat you on the head and smile a lot around you.

You should present this argument to the Supreme Court. I'm almost sure they'll pat you on the head and smile a lot around you.

Kinda like sending someone who hates the UN to be our ambassador to it.

Oh, wait... shit.

I'm sure that it's already been stated that not ALL Americans have gun rights. Certain people such as felons don't have gun rights.

Anyway, even if the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee gun rights my own state constitution does.

Every man shall have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

But even something so unambiguous as this doesn't guarantee unqualified gun rights, it seems.

W00t for Michigan!

I say no.

To me that clearly says that unless you are in the militia, you have no guarunteed right to a gun.

Then I suggest you do some more research on the United States Code which very clearly defines the Militia of the United States.

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002]
[CITE: 10USC311]


TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7), Sept.
2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V, Sec. 524(a),
Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Historical and Revision Notes
1956 Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
311(a)................................ 32:1 (less last 19 words). June 3, 1916, ch. 134, Sec. 57, 39
311(b)................................ 32:1 (last 19 words). Stat. 197; June 28, 1947, ch. 162,
Sec. 7 (as applicable to Sec. 57
of the Act of June 3, 1916, ch.
134), 61 Stat. 192.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In subsection (a), the words ``who have made a declaration of
intention'' are substituted for the words ``who have or shall have
declared their intention''. The words ``at least 17 years of age and * *
* under 45 years of age'' are substituted for the words ``who shall be
more than seventeen years of age and * * * not more than forty-five
years of age''. The words ``except as provided in section 313 of title
32'' are substituted for the words ``except as hereinafter provided'',
to make explicit the exception as to maximum age.
In subsection (b), the words ``The organized militia, which consists
of the National Guard and the Naval Militia'' are substituted for the
words ``the National Guard, the Naval Militia'', since the National
Guard and the Naval Militia constitute the organized militia.

1958 Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
311(a)................................ 32 App.:1. July 30, 1956, ch. 789, Sec. 1, 70
Stat. 729.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The words ``appointed as . . . under section 4 of this title'' are
omitted as surplusage.


Amendments

1993--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-160 substituted ``members'' for
``commissioned officers''.
1958--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85-861 included female citizens of the
United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

Yes, the 2nd amendment guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms. Remember the context in which these amendments were written. One could make a strong argument that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to permit all citizens sufficient weaponry to be able to rise up and overthrow their government, if they felt that it had gotten away from them.

Tut, tut. You know full well that DOJ "study" is no such thing and that the constitutional law on this issue is against you.

Miller has more holes in it than Cheney's hunting companion Cat and you know it. No defendant, cultural bias, and a lack of knowledge on military weaponry after both the local and appelate courts upheld the "not guilty" verdict. I could even bring up some interesting facts on the judge and his personal views. Almost all legal precedent of the 20th that you keep mentioning is based off of slippery slope arguements in it.

Here's a good counter arguement of yours:

http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html

from the 1996 cumberland law review

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

Emory Law Journal:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/bk-ufire.html

And from the Georgia Law Review:

This phrase does not conflict with the preceding sentence in the passage from Miller, for "enrollment" in the militia does not imply or depend on actual military service or training. Under the first Militia Act, for example, those subject to militia duty were enrolled by the local commanding officer, and then notified of that enrollment by a non-commissioned officer. § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792). Whether the members carried out their duties or not, they were still "enrolled." Under the statute in effect at the time Miller was decided (as in the statute in force today), enrollment was accomplished by the operation of law alone, and most members of the militia were probably not even aware that they belonged to such a body. National Defense Act, ch. 134, § 57, 39 Stat. 166, 197 (1916); 10 U.S.C. § 311(a) (1994). Thus, neither the Miller opinion nor any of the various militia statutes can be used to shore up the insupportable notion that the Second Amendment protects only a right to serve in the National Guard. (Lund, Nelson, The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms, [Footnote 54], Georgia Law Review [1996].)


I recognize that "precedent" supports the gun banners but you've admitted that history and the original intent was for individual rights and the protection thereof.

As for reliance on "precedent", I recall you having a fit over the judges ruling in Castle Rock, Colorado, v. Gonzales even though all legal precedent supported it.

OT, BTW, in your opinion, w/ the new court, when the next 2nd case comes before it (not a felon case but, say, something similar to Miller or overturning a state level AWB) what do you think the ruling will be?

Your NRA buddies will complain they have been in some places.

But the truth of the matter is that confiscation of all weapons would be bad policy and hasn't been tried.

You won't find a single case of a gun control law being overturned on 2nd Amendment grounds.

Straight out confiscation of all, no. Defacto of many/most, yes.

What would you call requiring registration then ending the ability to register?

yes... assuming the person is not a felon (there may be exceptions to this... maybe non-violent felons may legally own a firearm... not sure) nor a minor.