NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a Republican. Hell I'm a neo-con, alot of you already know that. I like Bush and I support the war in Iraq. However, when it comes to guns and gun control I am completely opposite my party. I see armed robberies, murders etc., and it's really sickening, so I think that I should stir up some contraversy.

This is the actual text of the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

Lets break that sentence down.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
~We're talking a militia here, like the ones in old Revolutionary and Civil War militias.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
~It is the right of the people (in the militia) to bear arms.

So therefore, the 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right of the populace to form a militia to promote the security of the state, and it guarantees the right of the people in that militia to bear arms. However, it does not specifically address the right of the people not affiliated with a militia to bear arms.

Now I'm not saying to get rid of all guns. Having a rifle and going hunting every now and then is fine, but what people shouldn't have is AK-47's and other assault weapons. I doubt that the founding fathers ever dreamed that those kinds of guns would be used. So I'm not for banning guns, just regulation on which guns are lawful and which should be banned.

Meh, here's what guarantees my right to own guns

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

Either way, gun control is a state issue, and Uncle Sam should keep his filthy paws off of it.

I think that I should stir up some contraversy.
.


Seems to be a pattern.

This is the actual text of the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

Lets break that sentence down.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
~We're talking a militia here, like the ones in old Revolutionary and Civil War militias.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
~It is the right of the people (in the militia) to bear arms.

Yes let us break it down:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state -- this allows for a well regulated militia (which can now probably be described as the national guard)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed -- means that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

sigh... someone should do a search of all threads about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.... just to get an idea of how many there have actually been.

Amadenijad, the constitution defines militia... as every abled body male in a certain age group. It does not say they are specifically state run militias.

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms... not the right of the militia. Every other amendment that speaks of the "people" refers to individuals. It only makes sense that this use of the term "people" refers to individuals.

At the time, every abled body man was expected to answer the call of their nation in times of trouble. It makes perfect sense that the framers wanted every abled body male to possess/own/practice/be proficient in the use of firearms so that they could answer that call.

What were the militatas of the Revoluntinary and Civil War era? Ordinary people who used their own personal guns (some militatry issused) to fight for their cause. So it's not far fetched that this admendment also gives us the right to bare arms because we're ordinary people.

Also, I just gotta make this joke. Of course the admendments gives us the right to bear arms!

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/Bear%20Arms%20a%20Right.jpg

I predict great logical discoveries in this thread.

Especially ones we've never heard of in the other 989345980340594 threads about this.

EDIT: We live under a Constitution, but it means whatever the fuck the Supreme Court says it means.

At one time, I'm sure it meant that everyone could own firearms because at one time, I'd wager a majority of Americans did. But the Supreme Court lately hasn't interpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right . . .

I'm a Republican. Hell I'm a neo-con, alot of you already know that. I like Bush and I support the war in Iraq. However, when it comes to guns and gun control I am completely opposite my party. I see armed robberies, murders etc., and it's really sickening, so I think that I should stir up some contraversy.

This is the actual text of the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

Lets break that sentence down.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
~We're talking a militia here, like the ones in old Revolutionary and Civil War militias.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
~It is the right of the people (in the militia) to bear arms.

So therefore, the 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right of the populace to form a militia to promote the security of the state, and it guarantees the right of the people in that militia to bear arms. However, it does not specifically address the right of the people not affiliated with a militia to bear arms.

Now I'm not saying to get rid of all guns. Having a rifle and going hunting every now and then is fine, but what people shouldn't have is AK-47's and other assault weapons. I doubt that the founding fathers ever dreamed that those kinds of guns would be used. So I'm not for banning guns, just regulation on which guns are lawful and which should be banned.

As has been pointed out many times before in this forum, the first part of the amendment is subordinate to the second part. I know someone has the link to the article (IIRC, it was written by the US DOJ) that breaks down and examines everything about the 2nd.

I'm actually not surprised that you are a neo-con and for gun control. I would have thought the two go hand in hand.

At least you are being honest about it.

Having a rifle and going hunting every now and then is fine, but what people shouldn't have is AK-47's and other assault weapons.

I love my AK, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside when I shoot it. :p

In all honesty though, I do believe America needs stricter gun control. It's much too easy for people to get their hands on all kinds of barely legal weapons.

I'm a Republican. Hell I'm a neo-con, alot of you already know that. I like Bush and I support the war in Iraq. However, when it comes to guns and gun control I am completely opposite my party. I see armed robberies, murders etc., and it's really sickening, so I think that I should stir up some contraversy.

This is the actual text of the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution:

"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."
Lets break that sentence down.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
~We're talking a militia here, like the ones in old Revolutionary and Civil War militias.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
~It is the right of the people (in the militia) to bear arms.

So therefore, the 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right of the populace to form a militia to promote the security of the state, and it guarantees the right of the people in that militia to bear arms. However, it does not specifically address the right of the people not affiliated with a militia to bear arms.
Exactly opposite you on the political spectrum, and so:
It does not say: "A well regulated militia... the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It says right of the people.
And don't you think it would be kind of stupid to grant the army weapons in the bill of rights? Wouldn't this be something that even a corrupt government would already DO?

I love my AK, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside when I shoot it. :p

In all honesty though, I do believe America needs stricter gun control. It's much too easy for people to get their hands on all kinds of barely legal weapons.

It has been proven that gun control does not cut crime.

The first amendment is primarily about how citizens can deal with a gov't that is infringing on the rest of their rights (by being aware of it via the press, by discussing the problems in public or private, and by pettitioning the gov't about it). The second amendment, in my opinion, is what the citizens can do when the gov't doesn't respond to the citizens using the rights in the 1st. That is, it ensures that a rebellion can occur if the gov't becomes abusive.

It has been proven that gun control does not cut crime.
Looking at the countrys that have banned guns outright, yes it has.
However, the 2nd amendment prevents a total ban, and so it can't go farther then control.
Unfortunatly for most people, there are ways to get guns that do not involve going into a store.

Looking at the countrys that have banned guns outright, yes it has.

Actually..no it does not as gun crime is on the rise in those nations whereas gun crime is actually going down in my country.

However, the 2nd amendment prevents a total ban, and so it can't go farther then control.

Thank God for that.

Unfortunatly for most people, there are ways to get guns that do not involve going into a store.

Hence why a total ban on guns is impossible.

...no

Even if you thought the amendment applies to the militia, even though it specifically says the people...

US law says that the militia is made of all able bodied men 17 to...44, was it? Hence, by either definition, the vast majority of us can call upon this to own them.

US law says that the militia is made of all able bodied men 17 to...44, was it?

And different states have even broader definitions.

Looking at the countrys that have banned guns outright, yes it has.
However, the 2nd amendment prevents a total ban, and so it can't go farther then control.
Unfortunatly for most people, there are ways to get guns that do not involve going into a store.

Are you suggesting those guys who tried robbing that bank in LA a few years ago using fully automatic AK-47s and body armor didn't get them at the local gun store!?

Proposterous!

This topic has been beat to death more times than a druggie in detox.

These describe my view on this (And a few others) better than words.

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=3215415

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=3215426

If my rubby ducky likes guns, why can't liberals tolerate them? INTOLERANT BIGOTS! :p

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=2956053

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=2705357

Any small arms should be legal for a Citizen to own. Law abiding citizen, that is. AK47s, M16s, Belt fed machineguns, .50 BMG rifles, you name it. IF you can carry it and it doesn't shoot explosive charges, it should be OK. People can't resist tyranny with hunting rifles. They need weapons of military quality.

It has been proven that gun control does not cut crime.


How? We've never tried it so we really cant tell.

Are you suggesting those guys who tried robbing that bank in LA a few years ago using fully automatic AK-47s and body armor didn't get them at the local gun store!?

Proposterous!

You can build your own guns. The mujahideen built their own in Bike shops. I do the same too- Infact, right now I have a 50% completed AR15 and a 90% done AKM.

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil powerI don't give two shits what the Second Amendment says. We're a Federal Republic, remember? My State's pretty damn clear on this issue.

How? We've never tried it so we really cant tell.

Look at Chicago and San Fransico. Crime has increased since they banned guns inside those cities.

an oped I wrote some months back back: If the facts of reduced crime are not enough (some people don’t like them when they don’t fit an ideology) then we can look to American history and the Constitution of the United States. Since the settlement at Jamestown in 1607 guns have been part of America and its traditional culture. Not for murder or other foul motives but for hunting, self protection, and sport. The second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that no neo-liberal anti-gun professional fear artist can take those traditions away. It says that “the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, constraints can be put on how you buy guns and what you do with them but you cannot take away the basic right to own them. Some say that the second amenment only refers to state militias. This is an obvious falsehood. State militias are mentioned by name in other places in the constitution but not anywhere near the second amendment.

I remember seeing a rally for John Kerry (remember him?) back in the 2004 election in which he lashed out at the President for letting gun restrictions go lax. He didn’t mention those crime statistics but he did give a strong talking points in which he stated that “guns do not stop crime”. All candidates have secret service protection and he was surrounded by agents. Those agents were all armed with handguns. I would have given a week’s pay to ask the Senator why they were armed if the guns that they carried didn’t stop crime. I guess he wanted the guns before he didn’t……….The fact is that all law professionals carry guns to stop crime. The hypocrisy of the left wing in America is that they don’t believe that the same gun that the police officer has who investigates a person’s murder could have helped the person from defending himself from murderer to begin with. It is common sense that it is true but they don’t believe it because it does not fit into the ideology of pacifism that is creeping into our culture. A culture that says that even the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.

Another important thing to remember is that if a person wants to kill someone they are going to find a way to do it. Guns or no guns the murder will take place. After all, for thousands of years humanity existed without guns and some of the most bloody battles and murders ever performed took place in that time frame.After all, some people commit murders with baseball bats or cars but nobody is trying to stop you from driving to the ballgame.

When you get right down to it the facts become clear. Less gun restriction actually leads to less crime. The right to use guns properly is a Constitutional freedom the same way that freedom of religion and the right to vote are. Guns prevent crimes but are not the cause of crimes. To limit them would be dangerous. To ban them would be downright unconstitutional.

I don't give two shits what the Second Amendment says. We're a Federal Republic, remember? My State's pretty damn clear on this issue.

I think all state constitutions have that amendment in it.

I don't give two shits what the Second Amendment says. We're a Federal Republic, remember? My State's pretty damn clear on this issue.

What's so special about oregon? Teach me...

The text of the Constitution matters. It is scary how Judicial activists will create new rights that are not in the text, while at the same time deny rights that are in the text.

What's so special about oregon? Teach me...

Nothing except that is the 2nd state constitution that gaurentees the right to bear arms.

I think all state constitutions have that amendment in it.

No they don't. Some are more specific (see my post earlier in the thread) while others don't have it at all (California).

Meh, here's what guarantees my right to own guns



Either way, gun control is a state issue, and Uncle Sam should keep his filthy paws off of it.



Agreed. I also say hands off my gun!

My oped that I posted pretty much busts any anti-second amendment arguments.

My oped that I posted pretty much busts any anti-second amendment arguments.

I hate to say this but your op-ed is nothing more than your own opinion.

I hate to say this but your op-ed is nothing more than your own opinion.

Well so are your opinions. They are opinons. This is, after all, a forum. If you want the only relavent fact go to the text of the Constitution. The debate ends.

My oped that I posted pretty much busts any anti-second amendment arguments.





Please explain.......http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/images/smilies/shrug2.gif (http://z9.invisionfree.com/Disney_Haters/index.php?)Clicky Clicky

Well so are your opinions. They are opinons. This is, after all, a forum. If you want the only relavent fact go to the text of the Constitution. The debate ends.

Unfortunately, we are not constitutional lawyers. To say "go to the constitution, the debate ends" is irrelevent.

http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/images/smilies/wtf.gif


Please explain.......http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/images/smilies/shrug2.gif (http://z9.invisionfree.com/Disney_Haters/index.php?)Clicky Clicky
I posted it.

Unfortunately, we are not constitutional lawyers. To say "go to the constitution, the debate ends" is irrelevent.

hah, do somthing the activist liberals rarely do...look at the text of the document. It is very very very simple.

I posted it.



I am to lazy to look, so.......http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/images/smilies/beatit.gif

hah, do somthing the activist liberals rarely do...look at the text of the document. It is very very very simple.

Is it? Is it really as simple as you are making it out to be?

Well so are your opinions. They are opinons. This is, after all, a forum. If you want the only relavent fact go to the text of the Constitution. The debate ends.
No it doesn't, the constitution is written very, VERY vaguely.

Is it? Is it really as simple as you are making it out to be?

yes. The text says that " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

No it doesn't, the constitution is written very, VERY vaguely.

Untrue. Liberal activist myth.

Untrue. Liberal activist myth.

So is Abortion a protected right under the constitution?

Untrue. Liberal activist myth.

Some of it is my friend.

So is Abortion a protected right under the constitution?

Sorry I am not being sidetracked. Not relavent to the discussion.

Some of it is my friend.

the right of the people not the bear arms shall not be infringed

not that part of it.

Sorry I am not being sidetracked. Not relavent to the discussion.

Actually it is relevent to the discussion at hand in regards to the Constitution. Granted it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment but you are the one that said that the Constitution is easy to interpret.

So if it is easy to interpret then answering my question should not be a problem.

the right of the people not the bear arms shall not be infringed

not that part of it.

Not that part no but the Constitution is written vaguely for a reason.

Actually it is relevent to the discussion at hand in regards to the Constitution. Granted it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment but ...

but nothing. You said it yourself. Get back on topic....if you have anything to say about it.

Not that part no but the Constitution is written vaguely for a reason.
the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

:confused: vague?

Unfortunately, we are not constitutional lawyers. To say "go to the constitution, the debate ends" is irrelevent.

I thought the Federal Supreme Court was reponsible for deciding what the Constitution actually means.

I thought the Federal Supreme Court was reponsible for deciding what the Constitution actually means.

No. Rush Libaugh.

I thought the Federal Supreme Court was reponsible for deciding what the Constitution actually means.

Correct. We can read it for ourselves too. It is very specific on this matter.

The only supreme court case to directly involve the amendment was US V. Miller.

The court ruled that weapons not used for militias were not protected, but private ownership of weapons that could in any way be used by a militia are protected.

I predict great logical discoveries in this thread.

Especially ones we've never heard of in the other 989345980340594 threads about this.

EDIT: We live under a Constitution, but it means whatever the fuck the Supreme Court says it means.

At one time, I'm sure it meant that everyone could own firearms because at one time, I'd wager a majority of Americans did. But the Supreme Court lately hasn't interpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right . . .

that is incorrect...they just decided on a case in new orleans in favor of individual possesion of firearms,as they should have.
and i believe the attorney general is completely in favor of private ownership,and will not push the issue.

hell,i am no "new republican type" as a matter of fact i have nothing but disdain for them,as they have violated every tenet of real conservatism.
i am a libertarian if anything,
that said,if forced to choose between the retards that claim to be republicans
or the democrats..i would vote republican on this issue alone...it is that basic to our rights...ergo the bill of rights...something the dems would happily shit on given the chance.
not that the repug's dont do it, what with the pathetic patriot act...if the city dwelling left dropped their irrational and unfounded fear of guns(in legal hands)i would look at them with a less jaded eye.

as it stands,at least the repug's have a shred of credibility with me because of the gun issue....or the fact that they are not actively trying to disarm me and leave me vulnerable to the crimminals or reliant on the non existant cops..that have no responsibility to protect me(only the community)another supreme court decision.

luckily,i can throw my vote away on a libertarian....and at least they are pro gun/constitution/self defense..and not vote for some asswipe from either side of the aisle...especially not on a "i know whats best for you democrap like chuck schumer"
easy to be anti gun when you have armed guards now isnt it.

enforce the laws about unlawfull possesion,and leave the legal owners alone..then i would consider a dem..but no way would i consider a schumer or hitlery..just on this issue..tells you volumes about their agenda and attitude.

rant off

I find it confusing how liberals find rights that have no place in the Constitution but cannot find a right like this that is in the Consitution.

I find it confusing how liberals find rights that have no place in the Constitution but cannot find a right like this that is in the Consitution.

i guess it would be because it is conveniant for their agenda/cause celebre!

kind of how the aclu will fight tooth and nail over an obscure "right" that is not even in the constitution...but look the other way when it is written plain as day in the bill of rights....they will twist logic into a pretzel,as only lawyers can, to find some shred of precident to validate their cause or interpertation to further their agenda....but when plain language contradicts their dogma..never mind..lol...silly liberals..hypocrites....they will argue till the end of days that the constitution allows flag burning,gay marriage...(which i have zero problem with) but the 2nd amendment..err...it is vague,it doesnt really mean what it says..yada yada yada..pathetic hypocrites to me,and quite transparent as well.

i guess it would be because it is conveniant for their agenda/cause celebre!

kind of how the aclu will fight tooth and nail over an obscure "right" that is not even in the constitution...but look the other way when it is written plain as day in the bill of rights....they will twist logic into a pretzel,as only lawyers can, to find some shred of precident to validate their cause or interpertation to further their agenda....but when plain language contradicts their dogma..never mind..lol...silly liberals..hypocrites....they will argue till the end of days that the constitution allows flag burning,gay marriage...(which i have zero problem with) but the 2nd amendment..err...it is vague,it doesnt really mean what it says..yada yada yada..pathetic hypocrites to me,and quite transparent as well.

They claim that a direct statement is vague. Remember what Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes used to say....if you have no clue about somthing...deny all terms and conditions.

They claim that a direct statement is vague. Remember what Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes used to say....if you have no clue about somthing...deny all terms and conditions.

it is truly baffling with the liberals about this....vague or non existent rights are fought over...but as you said..direct statements suddenly became vague?

guess when it does not fit their world view or agenda...then it is either ignored or twisted into something it is not....but then they do the reverse on non direct statements...baffling and pretty intellectualy dishonest.
but they know that dont they...because it is for the "cause"

total hypocrites or worse....stupid brainwashed idealogues...just as alot of neocons are about their pet issues..(abortion,separation of church and state,etc)the dems stick to their talking points as doggedly as the neocons...facts be damned...along with my rights!
i am sick and disgusted with the lot of them.

for what it's worth....
i am
pro legal gun ownership
pro choice
fervantly for seperation of church and state
pro free speech..no matter how inflammatory
pro free market
for securing the border
for equal rights....
pretty much whatever is in the bill of rights....i dont pick and choose to fit some parties agenda...i am pragmatic on issues...the hell with any parties so called platform....or talking points.

i am all about individual freedom...period!

it is truly baffling with the liberals about this....vague or non existent rights are fought over...but as you said..direct statements suddenly became vague?

guess when it does not fit their world view or agenda...then it is either ignored or twisted into something it is not....but then they do the reverse on non direct statements...baffling and pretty intellectualy dishonest.
but they know that dont they...because it is for the "cause"

total hypocrites or worse....stupid brainwashed idealogues...just as alot of neocons are about their pet issues..(abortion,separation of church and state,etc)the dems stick to their talking points as doggedly as the neocons...facts be damned...along with my rights!
i am sick and disgusted with the lot of them.

you are a rarity on this forum. WELL DONE.

thank you,i dissagree with some of your more extreme positions,but this is a no brainer to me,as much of a no brainer as free speech and all of the rest of the bor...
you cant pick and choose the rights you want to support...and if you happen to dissagree with one..bring up specious arguments in an attempt to undermine it...because of your political bias...and both party's are blatantly doing that...how completely un american for all the so called leaders of america...they should be ashamed of themselves.

i will be unpopular for my position...but i have a right to my op...as does everyone..but dont tell me what rights i have when it is spelled out,cause your afraid of guns,or afraid of speech.

get a grip and suck it up...i say
or move to england were you are gonna have thought police soon..lol

I'm a Republican. Hell I'm a neo-con, alot of you already know that. I like Bush and I support the war in Iraq. However, when it comes to guns and gun control I am completely opposite my party. I see armed robberies, murders etc., and it's really sickening, so I think that I should stir up some contraversy.

This is the actual text of the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

Lets break that sentence down.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
~We're talking a militia here, like the ones in old Revolutionary and Civil War militias.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
~It is the right of the people (in the militia) to bear arms.

So therefore, the 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right of the populace to form a militia to promote the security of the state, and it guarantees the right of the people in that militia to bear arms. However, it does not specifically address the right of the people not affiliated with a militia to bear arms.

Now I'm not saying to get rid of all guns. Having a rifle and going hunting every now and then is fine, but what people shouldn't have is AK-47's and other assault weapons. I doubt that the founding fathers ever dreamed that those kinds of guns would be used. So I'm not for banning guns, just regulation on which guns are lawful and which should be banned.


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.

Actually, what this sentence is saying is that the people's right to keep and bear arms is necessary to regulate the militia in order to maintain the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms was not provided to us in order to form militias, it was given to us to protect ourselves FROM them. :)

I find it confusing how liberals find rights that have no place in the Constitution but cannot find a right like this that is in the Consitution.
Ooh, ooh! Can I be the one to burst his bubble on this one??

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.So if there's a right that is not explicitly protected by the Constitution, you still can't be denied it.

By the by, when you said the Constitution is easy to interpret. You realize that you're wrong on that, correct?

Ooh, ooh! Can I be the one to burst his bubble on this one??

So if there's a right that is not explicitly protected by the Constitution, you still can't be denied it.

By the by, when you said the Constitution is easy to interpret. You realize that you're wrong on that, correct?

HOORAY! :D

I'm a Republican. Hell I'm a neo-con, alot of you already know that. I like Bush and I support the war in Iraq. However, when it comes to guns and gun control I am completely opposite my party. I see armed robberies, murders etc., and it's really sickening, so I think that I should stir up some contraversy.
Wtf? a Republican who isn't a walking stereotype? ;)

If my rubby ducky likes guns, why can't liberals tolerate them? INTOLERANT BIGOTS! :p

I'm a Republican. Hell I'm a neo-con, alot of you already know that. I like Bush and I support the war in Iraq. However, when it comes to guns and gun control I am completely opposite my party.

Try to get it right who you need to be insulting, DM.

The Founding Fathers would have been more careful with their punctuation had they known we'd be falling over each other trying to interpret it - 200 years later.

There is nothing wrong with the wording of the 2nd Amendment, it simply needs to be read using 18th century language.

Militia refers to all men between the ages of 17 and 40 (something in that approximate range). It has nothing to do with the National Guard. The NG wasn't created until 1903.

Well regulated means well trained, it has nothing to do with the State. This is because the purpose of the militia is to ensure the power belongs to the people. The Founding Fathers embraced the idea of citizen militias. They were opposed to having a standing army maganged by the gov't because they had just finished a war in which a standing army was used to oppress them.

Try to get it right who you need to be insulting, DM.

Being a Democrat is not prerequisite to being a "Liberal".

The Founding Fathers would have been more careful with their punctuation had they known we'd be falling over each other trying to interpret it - 200 years later.

Actually, they were extremely careful with their punctuation. We're just undereducated. :p

So many statements not being challenged... *sigh*

As has been pointed out many times before in this forum, the first part of the amendment is subordinate to the second part. I know someone has the link to the article (IIRC, it was written by the US DOJ) that breaks down and examines everything about the 2nd.
It has been pointed out many times, yes. It has never been proven to be based on more fact that the other side of the argument. It's an interpretation.

It has been proven that gun control does not cut crime.
It has not been proved one way or another. Otherwise, show me the proof.

Looking at the countrys that have banned guns outright, yes it has.
It has not been proved one way or another.

Look at Chicago and San Fransico. Crime has increased since they banned guns inside those cities.
That is grossly misrepresenting a wide range of socio-economic factors and narrowing it down to one single issue which might not even have an effect on the statistic.

The text of the Constitution matters. It is scary how Judicial activists will create new rights that are not in the text, while at the same time deny rights that are in the text.
Who denied any rights? All I see is people arguing over if the second amendment applies to militias or all citizens.

My oped that I posted pretty much busts any anti-second amendment arguments.
Hardly :rolleyes:

hah, do somthing the activist liberals rarely do...look at the text of the document. It is very very very simple.
says the guy with no background in law. Nevermind the fact that it's been debated for over a century now. It must not be so simple for a great many people.

yes. The text says that " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
IF you cut the whole first section of the amendment. Let's look at another sentence and see how that tactic is stupid:

"That shirt does not make you look fat, the fact that you are fat makes you look fat."
Now, let's remove the latter part. We are left with:
"That shirt does not make you look fat"

hardly the same significance, now does it?

I find it confusing how liberals find rights that have no place in the Constitution but cannot find a right like this that is in the Consitution.
how is that post even slightly relevant to the discussion? Like you said yourself: get back to the topic at hand.

i guess it would be because it is conveniant for their agenda/cause celebre!

kind of how the aclu will fight tooth and nail over an obscure "right" that is not even in the constitution...but look the other way when it is written plain as day in the bill of rights....they will twist logic into a pretzel,as only lawyers can, to find some shred of precident to validate their cause or interpertation to further their agenda....but when plain language contradicts their dogma..never mind..lol...silly liberals..hypocrites....they will argue till the end of days that the constitution allows flag burning,gay marriage...(which i have zero problem with) but the 2nd amendment..err...it is vague,it doesnt really mean what it says..yada yada yada..pathetic hypocrites to me,and quite transparent as well.
:rolleyes:

You'll find that the ACLU has a "hands off" approach to the second amendment and is pooling it's ressources on other parts of the constitution that don't already have a lobby like the gun lobby and the NRA.

You are grossly misrepresenting the ACLU. Show me one case law where the ACLU has actively argued against the right to bear arms. Now put up or shut up.

Being a Democrat is not prerequisite to being a "Liberal".
neocon and liberal are, however, mutually exclusive terms.

Being a Democrat is not prerequisite to being a "Liberal".

He said he was a Republican and a neo-con.

Means he's not Liberal.

Jumping down Liberal throats in this thread is pointless as the OP is not Liberal.

Knee-jerk reactionaries make me chuckle.

Actually, the statement was that the right of the people to form a militia shall not be infringed, and their right to keep and bear arms, and therefore be able to effectively form a militia, shall not be infringed.

It's an "If...then" type of statement.

I thought the Federal Supreme Court was reponsible for deciding what the Constitution actually means.

You are indeed correct. That is why to say look at the constitution is really stupid to say.

I hate to use this analogy but it does seem to fit. Reading the Constitution is like reading the bible, you can get different interpretations regardless on how many times you read it.

Correct. We can read it for ourselves too. It is very specific on this matter.

The only supreme court case to directly involve the amendment was US V. Miller.

The court ruled that weapons not used for militias were not protected, but private ownership of weapons that could in any way be used by a militia are protected.

And you do not find this confusing?

WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections

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

the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

:confused: vague?


the constitution does have some vagueness in it. the necessary and proper clause. Gives the executive the power to do whatever is necessary and proper for the well being of the state. So if you follow that technically wire tapping isnt illegal and liberals should shut up about the patriot act.

WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections

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

w00t! Straight from the DOJ. Can't much argue with them, unless you hold a seat on the Supreme Court.

And you do not find this confusing?


Nope.

Weapons that may be used for militia service are protrected. Period. If misused outside of militia purposes, they are not protected.

I find it very odd that you call yourself a neo-con and your name is Amadinijad. Very odd indeed.

As for the issue, if you look at most crimes that involve guns, you will find that they have been perpetrated by people who obtained those guns illegally, thus, the focus should be on preventing these weapons from being sold on the streets, and not simply banning them.

However, I don't think it's a good idea to let convicts have guns.

Nope.

Weapons that may be used for militia service are protrected. Period. If misused outside of militia purposes, they are not protected.
Even to protect yourself from a burglar?

Nope.

Weapons that may be used for militia service are protrected. Period. If misused outside of militia purposes, they are not protected.

Now provide your evidence. Period.

Edit: I find it odd that you say this after responding to my DOJ post w/ Woot.

Nope.

Weapons that may be used for militia service are protrected. Period. If misused outside of militia purposes, they are not protected.

Now define a weapon that may be used for militia service! Under this definition, I can have a nice little 155mm howitzer in my drive way as it can be used for militia service.

Also, I can have just about any type of weapon I want including assault rifles and sub machine guns.

Now define a weapon that may be used for militia service! Under this definition, I can have a nice little 155mm howitzer in my drive way as it can be used for militia service.

Also, I can have just about any type of weapon I want including assault rifles and sub machine guns.

That's an answer I've never been able to get. They'll always say which ones "aren't" usable for "militia service", but will never say which ones "are".

Now I'm not saying to get rid of all guns. Having a rifle and going hunting every now and then is fine, but what people shouldn't have is AK-47's and other assault weapons. I doubt that the founding fathers ever dreamed that those kinds of guns would be used. So I'm not for banning guns, just regulation on which guns are lawful and which should be banned.


Just as a point, an AK-47 is NOT an "assault weapon", it is an assault rifle. An "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic firearm that LOOKS like a military assault rifle. These, before the Brady Bunch and thier ilk tried to demonize them, were known as "sporters".

Even to protect yourself from a burglar?

I'm still TCT, just had to switch names for an RP.

That would not be misuse. Self defense is a legitemate use of a firearm.

Now provide your evidence. Period.

Edit: I find it odd that you say this after responding to my DOJ post w/ Woot.

Well, my evidence would be that I simply translated the ruling made by the supreme court. I am quite in favor of civilian possession of firearms, and own several myself. I believe my statement was misinterpreted as saying that I agreed with the concept presented. I simply stated the decision as I interpreted it, and as I believed it was meant.

Now define a weapon that may be used for militia service! Under this definition, I can have a nice little 155mm howitzer in my drive way as it can be used for militia service.

Also, I can have just about any type of weapon I want including assault rifles and sub machine guns.

I'd say that any weapon employed by the regular army, other than arty, would be a weapon used by the militia. Arty is a specialist weapon, that requires proper training for effective use. On the other hand, if you want Ma Duece, go out and get one. I'd love to own any weapon I wanted.

w00t! Straight from the DOJ. Can't much argue with them, unless you hold a seat on the Supreme Court.
You can very much argue with the DOJ. See the whole torture debate for evidence.

I'm still TCT, just had to switch names for an RP.

That would not be misuse. Self defense is a legitemate use of a firearm.



Well, my evidence would be that I simply translated the ruling made by the supreme court. I am quite in favor of civilian possession of firearms, and own several myself. I believe my statement was misinterpreted as saying that I agreed with the concept presented. I simply stated the decision as I interpreted it, and as I believed it was meant.



I'd say that any weapon employed by the regular army, other than arty, would be a weapon used by the militia. Arty is a specialist weapon, that requires proper training for effective use. On the other hand, if you want Ma Duece, go out and get one. I'd love to own any weapon I wanted.


See, now the contradiction is that numerous weapons used by the regular army have been declared by SCOTUS to be not useful for a militia and are therefore "not covered". It can't be both ways.

:rolleyes:

You'll find that the ACLU has a "hands off" approach to the second amendment and is pooling it's ressources on other parts of the constitution that don't already have a lobby like the gun lobby and the NRA.

You are grossly misrepresenting the ACLU. Show me one case law where the ACLU has actively argued against the right to bear arms. Now put up or shut up.

i will concede to you on this.
you are in fact correct.i was using it as the first example that came to mind of a pretty well known liberal group to illustrate a point...poorly it would appear.

thanks for pointing that out,as i do have alot of respect for what the aclu does for many disenfranchised people.

my bad

See, now the contradiction is that numerous weapons used by the regular army have been declared by SCOTUS to be not useful for a militia and are therefore "not covered". It can't be both ways.

You never asked me what THEY said. I say you should be able to own anything short of artillery. IU gavea definition(mine) as was requested.

i will concede to you on this.
you are in fact correct.i was using it as the first example that came to mind of a pretty well known liberal group to illustrate a point...poorly it would appear.

thanks for pointing that out,as i do have alot of respect for what the aclu does for many disenfranchised people.

my bad
no problem. Carry on with your grudge of other hypocritical liberal institutions now that we have shown that the ACLU is not one of them.

I'd say that any weapon employed by the regular army, other than arty, would be a weapon used by the militia. Arty is a specialist weapon, that requires proper training for effective use. On the other hand, if you want Ma Duece, go out and get one. I'd love to own any weapon I wanted.

Well....any weapon needs special training in order to be used properly. Arty pieces are also used by militia and therefore, by definition, can be legally owned if we want to use your definition.

Well....any weapon needs special training in order to be used properly. Arty pieces are also used by militia and therefore, by definition, can be legally owned if we want to use your definition.

Arty is used by the Guard and the military. Guard is not militia. Militia is every man of a certain age. Guard is a select group that have volunteered, trained in the use of those weapons. Any hunter can use an M-60 or similar. It takes special training to know how to put that 155 shell where you want it. That's why Line Dogs and Cannon Cockers get different training past basic. Any idiot can punch numbers, but you have to know what they mean to use it effectively.

Arty is used by the Guard and the military. Guard is not militia. Militia is every man of a certain age. Guard is a select group that have volunteered, trained in the use of those weapons. Any hunter can use an M-60 or similar. It takes special training to know how to put that 155 shell where you want it. That's why Line Dogs and Cannon Cockers get different training past basic. Any idiot can punch numbers, but you have to know what they mean to use it effectively.

That has not stopped people before in using military hardware. If one does not care where it ends up, they do not need special training in order to use it effectively. Therefore, point still stands that by your definition, a militia can have arty pieces.

Arty is used by the Guard and the military. Guard is not militia. Militia is every man of a certain age. Guard is a select group that have volunteered, trained in the use of those weapons. Any hunter can use an M-60 or similar. It takes special training to know how to put that 155 shell where you want it. That's why Line Dogs and Cannon Cockers get different training past basic. Any idiot can punch numbers, but you have to know what they mean to use it effectively.

Actually, the Nat'l Guard is classified as the organized militia:

USC title 10>subtitle A> Part 1>chapter 13>sec 311

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.

(
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

Nope.

Weapons that may be used for militia service are protrected. Period. If misused outside of militia purposes, they are not protected.

But you understand that militia meant every man between defined ages. The militia was never official or federal and rarely even organized. It was the name given to the group of people that gathered, when their homes or states were threatened. No private gun ownership= No militia.

Secondly, "People" has been used multiple times in the constitution, The second sentence is dominant over the first.

Actually, the Nat'l Guard is classified as the organized militia:

USC title 10>subtitle A> Part 1>chapter 13>sec 311

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.

(
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 stand corected.

I stand corected.

It's OK, you can sit.

the constitution does have some vagueness in it. the necessary and proper clause. Gives the executive the power to do whatever is necessary and proper for the well being of the state. So if you follow that technically wire tapping isnt illegal and liberals should shut up about the patriot act.
You see? This is what pisses me off about the Supreme Court. People act as though the Constitution is "vague on State's Rightss" and then cite the necessary and proper clause. But guess what.

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.When the founders were writing the Bill of Rights, they thought that "necessary and proper" was no good, thus Tenth Amendment. To say otherwise is like saying prohibition is still in effect because of the Eighteenth Amendment.

But that's a discussion for another time.

Exactly opposite you on the political spectrum, and so:
It does not say: "A well regulated militia... the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It says right of the people.
And don't you think it would be kind of stupid to grant the army weapons in the bill of rights? Wouldn't this be something that even a corrupt government would already DO?

AT the time any hunting rifle was considered on the same level as an army rifle, but times have changed, you can not own an m-16 unless it was given to you by the army.

AT the time any hunting rifle was considered on the same level as an army rifle, but times have changed, you can not own an m-16 unless it was given to you by the army.

Incorrect. Built before 1986 and a Class III federal license.

The second amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"

it is rather simple.

The second amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"

it is rather simple.
only if you cut half of the words in the amendment.

only if you cut half of the words in the amendment.
full text: "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 supreme court has held that any weapon that could in any way be used to aid a militia is therefore a consititutionaly protected piece of property

Like I said, it is very simple.

full text: "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 supreme court has held that any weapon that could in any way be used to aid a militia is therefore a consititutionaly protected piece of property

Like I said, it is very simple.

Its not simple thats the problem.

What constitutes a well regulated militia?

In todays day and age is a well regulated militia necassary to the security of the state?

Does the reference to "people" refer to militia members or the people in general?

How do you judge what weapon cna and cannot be used to aid a militia? A cutlass or an ICBM?

Far from simple, my friend, far from simple

full text: "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 supreme court has held that any weapon that could in any way be used to aid a militia is therefore a consititutionaly protected piece of property

Like I said, it is very simple.
You coming in here and stating (five times, no less) that it is simple and that the amendment says one thing while truncating half the words is not only disingenious, it's aggravating.

The supreme court also said that other weapons or militia weapons used in another capacity are not protected so who's to say when and which weapons cannot be banned.

Not to mention that the SC's judgment (and I'd like a link, or a pointer where I can find it) can be overturned by other SC judgments.

The second amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"

it is rather simple.

Why not just change the text or remove it completely?

Its not simple thats the problem.

What constitutes a well regulated militia?

In todays day and age is a well regulated militia necassary to the security of the state?

Does the reference to "people" refer to militia members or the people in general?

How do you judge what weapon cna and cannot be used to aid a militia? A cutlass or an ICBM?

Far from simple, my friend, far from simple

In the opinion of the case U.S. v. Miller the court said that "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "

Your second question is not relavent because the text of the Constitution still says what it says. The answer to your third question is yes...the word people, in fact, means ...people. The judgement of what weapons is obvious. No militia uses ICBM'. This is not a complicated issue.

The supreme court also said that other weapons or militia weapons used in another capacity are not protected so who's to say when and which weapons cannot be banned.

Not to mention that the SC's judgment (and I'd like a link, or a pointer where I can find it) can be overturned by other SC judgments.

The Supreme court gets to decide. They are the deciders. It cn be overturned but it has not been revisited since 1939 so I doubt it will be. If you can't google the damned thing yourself I feel bad for you.

This is not a complicated issue.
eight pages in this thread and countless other threads on this very subject in the past says you are very much mistaken.

Why not just change the text or remove it completely?

That would take an amendment. Very unlikely. Why not change the text of the first amendment or remove it completely?

eight pages in this thread and countless other threads on this very subject in the past says you are very much mistaken.

It is not complicated. It has been made to look complicated by a bunch of anti-gun extremists who wish to deny the text of the Consitution.

The second ammendment is to prevent governmental tyranny. Which is why people should be allowed to keep assault weaponry, armored vehicles, and fighter jets, as well as personal firearms.

The Supreme court gets to decide. They are the deciders. It cn be overturned but it has not been revisited since 1939 so I doubt it will be. If you can't google the damned thing yourself I feel bad for you.
the simple name of the bloody judgment would have sufficed. If you can't be bothered by giving me just this little information, I shall call you a lazy liar and be done with you. Feel bad for me all you want.

That would take an amendment. Very unlikely. Why not change the text of the first amendment or remove it completely?

It has precedent. The no alcohol amendment was removed, that it can be changed is inherent to it's very name, '2nd Amendment'.

the simple name of the bloody judgment would have sufficed. If you can't be bothered by giving me just this little information, I shall call you a lazy liar and be done with you. Feel bad for me all you want.

U.S. vs. miller 1939. I believe I already said that.

It is not complicated. It has been made to look complicated by a bunch of anti-gun extremists who wish to deny the text of the Consitution.
then, by all means, it should have been done by page two, three at the most. I wonder why it has gone for so long, so many times in so many different avenues of discussions as forums, papers, lower courts and so on.

It has precedent. The no alcohol amendment was removed, that it can be changed is inherent to it's very name, '2nd Amendment'.

Which 2/3 of the House and Senate along with 3/4 of the State legislatures do you think are going to remove the second Amendment?

The judgement of what weapons is obvious. No militia uses ICBM'. This is not a complicated issue.

Will SCOTUS be reevaluating this in response to the Lebanon-Israel affair? After all a militia there was armed with long range missiles. It seems that this area is slightly more complicated than you assert.

then, by all means, it should have been done by page two, three at the most. I wonder why it has gone for so long, so many times in so many different avenues of discussions as forums, papers, lower courts and so on.

A big chunk of the American left wishes the Constitution does not say what it says. They deny this right while creating others that cannot be found in the text.

U.S. vs. miller 1939. I believe I already said that.
Thank you. See, wasn't so bad, now was it?

Will SCOTUS be reevaluating this in response to the Lebanon-Israel affair? After all a militia there was armed with long range missiles. It seems that this area is slightly more complicated than you assert.
The American Consitution only pretains to what goes on within the United States or is done by our government or people. Don't be an asshat.

In the opinion of the case U.S. v. Miller the court said that "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "

Your second question is not relavent because the text of the Constitution still says what it says. The answer to your third question is yes...the word people, in fact, means ...people. The judgement of what weapons is obvious. No militia uses ICBM'. This is not a complicated issue.

By that definition the entire male population of the US could be called for military service. A little extreme perhaps?

The second question is relevant. There is a law in England that requires all adult males to spend one hour practicing archery on the village green. It is blatently out of date and therefore ignored. If the law is out of date why not change it? The answer to the third question is... yes it does in your opinion. Thats the whole crux of the atter. You have yet to prove that point. Fourthly, the judgement of weapons is not obvious at all. What do you include? Howitzers for personal use? They are certainly used by armed militias, as are GtoA missiles, grenades and rocket launchers. By your definition these items would be covered by the second ammendment. Are they?

Thank you. See, wasn't so bad, now was it?
Look at my first post on page 8 of this thread. You made me repeat myself. Was it a mistake or just trying to be annoying?

Which 2/3 of the House and Senate along with 3/4 of the State legislatures do you think are going to remove the second Amendment?

That it probably won't be changed is a failing of the American 'i love my gun' mentality rather than anything else. I just think it would be nice for gun nuts to just come out and say 'i love shooting shit' rather than try to hide behind a piece of legislation safe in the knowledge that reversing it will be extremely difficult.

The American Consitution only pretains to what goes on within the United States or is done by our government or people. Don't be an asshat.

How can the line 'militia don't use this, therefore we don't have to make it legal' be continued when it is plainly obvious from world affair that militia do use these pieces of equipment.

Furthermore, Hezbollah were unable to defeat Israel even with this stuff so ho can anybody claim that having handguns is an effective conterbalance to prevent governmental abuse of the population. The entire reason for the existance of the 2nd ammendment is removed by these rulings.

That it probably won't be changed is a failing of the American 'i love my gun' mentality rather than anything else. I just think it would be nice for gun nuts to just come out and say 'i love shooting shit' rather than try to hide behind a piece of legislation safe in the knowledge that reversing it will be extremely difficult.

Most "gun nuts" do say they love shooting and then "hide behind" the founding document of our country when Hoplophobes come to try to take the firearms away based on their own neurosis.

Look at my first post on page 8 of this thread. You made me repeat myself. Was it a mistake or just trying to be annoying?
and if you look at my post, you'll see that I was asking for a link or a way to find said link. You could have said "post 172 (or something)" and that would have been that. But no, you had to be pedant.

And you complaining of having to repeat yourself is funny as all hell because that's all you did on this thread:

"It is simple"

"The second amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" "

"the liberals (insert your latest flamebait)"

Most "gun nuts" do say they love shooting and then "hide behind" the founding document of our country when Hoplophobes come to try to take the firearms away based on their own neurosis.

A neurosis founded on a law stating that it is a legally protected right to own a tool specifically designed to kill people. Pretty justified neurosis I'd say

That it probably won't be changed is a failing of the American 'i love my gun' mentality rather than anything else. I just think it would be nice for gun nuts to just come out and say 'i love shooting shit' rather than try to hide behind a piece of legislation safe in the knowledge that reversing it will be extremely difficult.

Well I am an NRA member as was my father and grandfather. WE support the second Amendment because
a) it as as much a consitutional right as the first amendment
B) we love shooting shit.

:D

How can the line 'militia don't use this, therefore we don't have to make it legal' be continued when it is plainly obvious from world affair that militia do use these pieces of equipment.

Furthermore, Hezbollah were unable to defeat Israel even with this stuff so ho can anybody claim that having handguns is an effective conterbalance to prevent governmental abuse of the population. The entire reason for the existance of the 2nd ammendment is removed by these rulings.

Now if you look at the other threads, people are claiming Hezbollah "won".

Noone is also exclusively talking about "handguns". There have been measures passed to ban or restrict effectively every type of firearm for a myriad of reasons.

"It's to accurate"
It's not accurate enough
It shoots to far
It doesn't shoot far
It's to small
It's to big
It holds to many bullets
It doesn't hold enough bullets"
It's to cheap
It's to expensive
It's to powerful
It's not powerful enough

You name it, they've tried to ban it.

A neurosis founded on a law stating that it is a legally protected right to own a tool specifically designed to kill people. Pretty justified neurosis I'd say

No. Still just a neurosis.

Most "gun nuts" do say they love shooting and then "hide behind" the founding document of our country when Hoplophobes come to try to take the firearms away based on their own neurosis.

Are you hiding behind the first amendment when you burn a flag?
Are women hiding behind the 19th amendment when they vote?

I personnaly loved Chris Rocks logic that if bullets cost $5,000 each, there would be no innocent bystanders:p

Edit for my atrocious spelling

"the liberals (insert your latest flamebait)"

I flamed no person.

No. Still just a neurosis.

So being scared of something designed to kill you is a neurosis? Hows that exactly?

No. Still just a neurosis.

Just like freedom of speech and the establishment clause.

Just like freedom of speech and the establishment clause.

?

So being scared of something designed to kill you is a neurosis? Hows that exactly?

Are you scared of knives? A firearm is an object. It does nothing on its own. A fear of an inanimate object is a neurosis.

Most firearms aren't "designed to kill people". Most are designed w/ hunting, target shooting, skeet/clay shooting, etc. Even after that, the majority are not used against humans.

"the liberals (insert your latest flamebait)"

I flamed no person.
Notice the bait part, as in flamebait.

Anyways, Post 55 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11557657&postcount=55) (just one at random):
I find it confusing how liberals find rights that have no place in the Constitution but cannot find a right like this that is in the Consitution.

Are you scared of knives? A firearm is an object. It does nothing on its own. A fear of an inanimate object is a neurosis.

Most firearms aren't "designed to kill people". Most are designed w/ hunting, target shooting, skeet/clay shooting, etc. Even after that, the majority are not used against humans.

I have a healthy respect for knives. I can use them to prepare my dinner or clear my garden. Guns can't do that.

Firearms ARE designed to kill people. Thats what they were invented for. Thats their purpose.

I have a healthy respect for knives. I can use them to prepare my dinner or clear my garden. Guns can't do that.

Firearms ARE designed to kill people. Thats what they were invented for. Thats their purpose.

And I have a healthy respect for firearms.

No, that's not thier only purpose. I've already listed a myriad of different uses and designes for firearms. Just because you refuse to see that doesn't make it any less true.

I also don't use a hammer to paint or a screwdriver to hammer nails.

And I have a healthy respect for firearms.

No, that's not thier only purpose. I've already listed a myriad of different uses and designes for firearms. Just because you refuse to see that doesn't make it any less true.

I also don't use a hammer to paint or a screwdriver to hammer nails.

How many hunt with a baretta? How many skeet shoot with a 357?

While guns (mostly handguns) may have other uses, their primary function is designed as a device to kill.

Whether or not they "have other uses", to claim that "to kill someone" was not the primary reason they were designed is spurious and silly.

Will SCOTUS be reevaluating this in response to the Lebanon-Israel affair? After all a militia there was armed with long range missiles. It seems that this area is slightly more complicated than you assert.

Hezbollah isnt really a nation, nor one that falls under US lands or jurisdiction, so I dont see your point. A rogue faction in a war-torn area is not comparable to an American militia.

How many hunt with a baretta? How many skeet shoot with a 357?

While guns (mostly handguns) may have other uses, their primary function is designed as a device to kill.

Whether or not they "have other uses", to claim that "to kill someone" was not the primary reason they were designed is spurious and silly.

Pistol hunting is actually quite common. It all depends on what you're hunting as to the caliber and type of bullet used.

Now you're changing your tune from "Killing people" to just "killing". The majority of firearms are designed for hunting animals. There's also many designed w/ target shooting in mind. That is not "to kill someone". Rocks were originally sharped to kill. Should we ban rocks? Yes that's a silly arguement. Just like saying someone did something hundreds of years ago so the absolute intention is still the same for every thing related.

Hezbollah isnt really a nation, nor one that falls under US lands or jurisdiction, so I dont see your point. A rogue faction in a war-torn area is not comparable to an American militia.

It defines itself as a militia. SCOTUS said that militia don't use these weapons and so banned them but Hezbollah do, therefore militia do use the weapons that SCOTUS says they don't.

Pistol hunting is actually quite common. It all depends on what you're hunting as to the caliber and type of bullet used.

Now you're changing your tune from "Killing people" to just "killing". The majority of firearms are designed for hunting animals. There's also many designed w/ target shooting in mind. That is not "to kill someone". Rocks were originally sharped to kill. Should we ban rocks? Yes that's a silly arguement. Just like saying someone did something hundreds of years ago so the absolute intention is still the same for every thing related.

Are you honestly telling me with a straight face that the primary purpose for which handguns are designed, manufactured, and sold, is NOT as a weapon to kill another person?

You're creating ludicrus analogies. We don't ban rocks because the primary purpose for rocks is not to kill. We don't ban knives because the primary purpose of knives is not to kill. In some instances when the knive can be conceiled and utilized quickly, it can be questionable whether that is the reason to kill or not. Like switchblades.

And guess what....they're banned in many states.

Handguns are designed for the primary purpose as a weapon to kill other human beings. That is it. Whether they have other uses such as blowing bambi away is irrelevant, I could use a gun to stir soup if I wanted to. That doesn't mean that this magically becomes the reason they're made.

They're made to kill people.

Are you honestly telling me with a straight face that the primary purpose for which handguns are designed, manufactured, and sold, is NOT as a weapon to kill another person?

It depends on the handgun. There are handguns designed for target shooting, collecting, hunting, defense, etc.

You're creating ludicrus analogies. We don't ban rocks because the primary purpose for rocks is not to kill. We don't ban knives because the primary purpose of knives is not to kill. In some instances when the knive can be conceiled and utilized quickly, it can be questionable whether that is the reason to kill or not. Like switchblades.

And guess what....they're banned in many states.

They're banned in some. Some firearms are banned. Some are not.

Handguns are designed for the primary purpose as a weapon to kill other human beings. That is it. Whether they have other uses such as blowing bambi away is irrelevant, I could use a gun to stir soup if I wanted to. That doesn't mean that this magically becomes the reason they're made.

They're made to kill people.

Only in your limited world. I've already shown that. Once again, just because you refuse to recognize it, doesn't make it true.

Not a single one of these handguns were desinged as a weapon to kill other human beings.

http://nealjguns.com/ss_store/StandardPistols.html

Nor these:

http://www.geocities.com/pistoleer2001/Evolution.html

Round and round we go.

Only in your limited world. I've already shown that. Once again, just because you refuse to recognize it, doesn't make it true.



No, you haven't shown it, you've said it, but you haven't shown it.

Prove what you say is true, and demonstrate to me that only the firearms that 'are not meant to kill people" are the ones that should be allowed.

Go on, prove that. Because you're gonna have a hard time saying that only the weapons that aren't designed to kill human beings are a functional part of a militia, which has as its function....killing human beings.

http://www.geocities.com/pistoleer2001/Evolution.html

Might want to rethink this link. It says that the design of those guns was based in duelling. That involved shooting people as far as I know ;)

No, you haven't shown it, you've said it, but you haven't shown it.

Prove what you say is true, and demonstrate to me that only the firearms that 'are not meant to kill people" are the ones that should be allowed.

Go on, prove that. Because you're gonna have a hard time saying that only the weapons that aren't designed to kill human beings are a functional part of a militia, which has as its function....killing human beings.

Already did.

http://www.geocities.com/pistoleer2001/Evolution.html
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=1210268&mpage=1&key=&

Now you get to show that handguns are "only" designed to "kill people"

Go ahead, I'll wait.


Now you're trying to mix and match your arguements. I don't argue that the only firearms that should be allowed are ones that are a functional part of the militia. SCOTUS decisions themselves have rendered the point as moot as they have banned firearms that are part of a functional militia.

A big chunk of the American left wishes the Constitution does not say what it says. They deny this right while creating others that cannot be found in the text.
Gee wiz, the left must be rather powerful considering that the idea that the second amendment does not protect an individual right to firearms goes back to the 1700's.

Might want to rethink this link. It says that the design of those guns was based in duelling. That involved shooting people as far as I know ;)

It also included target/saloon pistols.

Already did.

http://www.geocities.com/pistoleer2001/Evolution.html
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=1210268&mpage=1&key=&

Now you get to show that handguns are "only" designed to "kill people"

Go ahead, I'll wait.


Now you're trying to mix and match your arguements. I don't argue that the only firearms that should be allowed are ones that are a functional part of the militia. SCOTUS decisions themselves have rendered the point as moot as they have banned firearms that are part of a functional militia.
Militia, of course, referring to the armies of the states, not two whitepower advocates up in bumfuck, idaho.

Militia, of course, referring to the armies of the states, not two whitepower advocates up in bumfuck, idaho.

Now go back and read where I posted the legal definition of "militia".

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

Gee wiz, the left must be rather powerful considering that the idea that the second amendment does not protect an individual right to firearms goes back to the 1700's.

Prove it.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright 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.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Now go back and read where I posted the legal definition of "militia".

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
Congradulations, you posted something from a debate. Would you like a cookie? If you missed it, you need two sides to actually have a debate.


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.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The point of that? The states can do whatever the fuck they want to their own militias, including disbanding all weapons in their state, and the federal government can do likewise unless the weapon "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia"

Congradulations, you posted something from a debate. Would you like a cookie? If you missed it, you need two sides to actually have a debate.




The point of that? The states can do whatever the fuck they want to their own militias, including disbanding all weapons in their state, and the federal government can do likewise unless the weapon "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia"

You stated that "militia" refers to the armies of the states.

Wrong:

USC title 10>subtitle A> Part 1>chapter 13>sec 311

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.

(
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


You stated the idea that"the idea that the second amendment does not protect an individual right to firearms goes back to the 1700's."

I asked you to prove it.

The majority of states have the protection in thier own constitutions as well.

Do some reading then try and come back w/ some evidence, ay?

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

Prove it.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright 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.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Again, pointless. If you want to play games, the second amendment has never provided an absolute right to own arms, as it was a right given to the states against the federal government (lack of standing is a favorite for dismissal of second amendment claims, as a state has to sue the federal government as it alone holds second amendment rights), nor was it ever intended to (none of the amendments in the bill of rights were intended to). That alone makes those two quotes moot.

You stated that "militia" refers to the armies of the states.

Wrong:

USC title 10>subtitle A> Part 1>chapter 13>sec 311

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.

(
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


You stated the idea that"the idea that the second amendment does not protect an individual right to firearms goes back to the 1700's."

I asked you to prove it.

The majority of states have the protection in thier own constitutions as well.

Do some reading then try and come back w/ some evidence, ay?

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowcons.html
Let's see here:

US supreme court, ''www.guncite.com''. Hmm.


I think the SCOTUS wins, no?

Congradulations, you posted something from a debate. Would you like a cookie? If you missed it, you need two sides to actually have a debate.




The point of that? The states can do whatever the fuck they want to their own militias, including disbanding all weapons in their state, and the federal government can do likewise unless the weapon "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia"

You may also want to note that US v Miller also upheld the banning of firearms that were in regular use in the military. Since everyone else refuses to answer, what firearms do have ""has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia"?

Let's see here:

US supreme court, ''www.guncite.com''. Hmm.


I think the SCOTUS wins, no?

Translation: I didn't even bother reading the article which was originally publishe d in the Dayton Law review and choose instead to make Ad hominem attacks against it and go w/ on select section of a SCOTUS case and completely ignore US Law.

From Miller:

[T]he Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.[103]

Did you know that US v Miller didn't even have a defendant present?

Translation: I didn't even bother reading the article which was originally publishe d in the Dayton Law review and choose instead to make Ad hominem attacks against it and go w/ on select section of a SCOTUS case.

From Miller:

[T]he Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.[103]

Did you know that US v Miller didn't even have a defendant present?
I've read miller. I can also read 'No appearance for appellees.' So? Oral arguments are mostly a formality. Very rarely do they actually have an effect on a court (if you listen to oral arguments you can easily tell which judges are voting which way from how they jump in to protect their side when they struggle)

You also didn't read the entire case. "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." That establishes the federal right to regulate arms.

Moving on to the state right:

The indictment charged in substance that Presser, on September 24, 1897, in the county of Cook, in the state of Illinois, 'did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with, an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the state of Illinois, or the troops of the United States.' A motion to quash the indictment was overruled.
...
We are next to inquire whether the fifth and sixth sections of article 11 of the Military Code are in violation of the other provisions of the constitution of the United States relied on by the plaintiff in error. The first of these is the second amendment, which declares: '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.'

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.

I've read miller. I can also read 'No appearance for appellees.' So? Oral arguments are mostly a formality. Very rarely do they actually have an effect on a court (if you listen to oral arguments you can easily tell which judges are voting which way from how they jump in to protect their side when they struggle)

So having no appellee present doesn't affect the case?
Do these words stand out?

"In the absence of any evidence.."

You also didn't read the entire case. "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." That establishes the federal right to regulate arms.



James J. Featherstone, Richard E. Gardiner, Robert Dowlut, "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms", 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 83-109 (Comm. print 1982).

In support of its position that the Second Amendment's protection and guarantee was limited to "ordinary military equipment" or weapons whose use "could contribute to the common defense," the Court cited one case, Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 2 Humph. 154 (1840). In Aymette, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court was construing not the Second Amendment but the provision of Tennessee's constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, a provision which, unlike the Second Amendment, spoke of each citizen's right to keep and bear arms only as it related to the common defense. The Tennessee court thus reasoned that not all objects which could conceivably be used as weapons were protected by the Tennessee Constitution, but only those weapons "such as usually employed in civilized warfare." Id. at 158. This limitation is not, however, applicable to the Second Amendment since the First Congress, while debating what ultimately became the Second Amendment, emphatically rejected the " common defense" language upon which the Aymette decision turned. It is plain, therefore, that the interpretation of the Second Amendment in Miller is more limited than it should be and that the Second Amendment protects the keeping and bearing of all types of arms which could be carried by individuals. Moreover, the rejection of the "common defense" limitation signified the Framers' intention that the constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was not inextricably tied to a militia nexus, but existed independently of it. Even accepting, however, that a militia or common defense nexus was necessary, Aymette went on to say that, " The citizens have an unqualified right to keep the weapon."

It's interesting to note that in one breath you're saying that SCOTUS says the federal Gov't can regulate firearms then quote a desicion stating:

The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress.

I also don't deny that the courts have decided not to include the 2nd in the 14th. One of those nice little bits of Hypocrisy that the gov't just loves. So since the majority of states have constitutional protection of firearms in their states, the decisions for them to allow CCW and firearms shouldn't be a problem.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=63

You may also like to read the in dicta of presser:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

So having no appellee present doesn't affect the case?
Do these words stand out?

"In the absence of any evidence.."

Say it with me: The Supreme Court Is Not (or rather doesn't like to be) A Trier of Fact. The case was remanded to the lower court for consideration in relation to the opinion.


James J. Featherstone, Richard E. Gardiner, Robert Dowlut, "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms", 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 83-109 (Comm. print 1982).

In support of its position that the Second Amendment's protection and guarantee was limited to "ordinary military equipment" or weapons whose use "could contribute to the common defense," the Court cited one case, Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 2 Humph. 154 (1840). In Aymette, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court was construing not the Second Amendment but the provision of Tennessee's constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, a provision which, unlike the Second Amendment, spoke of each citizen's right to keep and bear arms only as it related to the common defense. The Tennessee court thus reasoned that not all objects which could conceivably be used as weapons were protected by the Tennessee Constitution, but only those weapons "such as usually employed in civilized warfare." Id. at 158. This limitation is not, however, applicable to the Second Amendment since the First Congress, while debating what ultimately became the Second Amendment, emphatically rejected the " common defense" language upon which the Aymette decision turned. It is plain, therefore, that the interpretation of the Second Amendment in Miller is more limited than it should be and that the Second Amendment protects the keeping and bearing of all types of arms which could be carried by individuals. Moreover, the rejection of the "common defense" limitation signified the Framers' intention that the constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was not inextricably tied to a militia nexus, but existed independently of it. Even accepting, however, that a militia or common defense nexus was necessary, Aymette went on to say that, " The citizens have an unqualified right to keep the weapon."

Law review conjecture. Start citing actual case law stating that (and stuff that is actually relevent, like a clarification of Miller) and we can start to have a discussion.

It's interesting to note that in one breath you're saying that SCOTUS says the federal Gov't can regulate firearms then quote a desicion stating:

The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress.

Read:
"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.

Provided that it does not infringe upon the common defense, it is allowed. Much as how speech for which the government has a compelling interest in banning is allowed to be banned.

I also don't deny that the courts have decided not to include the 2nd in the 14th. One of those nice little bits of Hypocrisy that the gov't just loves. So since the majority of states have constitutional protection of firearms in their states, the decisions for them to allow CCW and firearms shouldn't be a problem.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=63

Not really relevant.

You may also like to read the in dicta of presser:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.
dictae aren't case law, never have been, never will be.

Say it with me: The Supreme Court Is Not (or rather doesn't like to be) A Trier of Fact.

The entire decision was based on the lack of facts. It was stated that a shortbarreled shotgun was not part of military equipment when in fact it was.


Law review conjecture. Start citing actual case law stating that (and stuff that is actually relevent, like a clarification of Miller) and we can start to have a discussion.

No, you don't want a discussion. You've ignored federal law, the founding fathers, and the actual wording of the cases, none of which have shown that there is no "right to keep and bear arms".

Read:
"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.

Provided that it does not infringe upon the common defense, it is allowed. Much as how speech for which the government has a compelling interest in banning is allowed to be banned.

Your own opinions now? Define "infringe". Show me the case that uses that term. First Miller says that it needs to be part of "ordinary military equipment but now you say"Provided that it does not infringe upon the common defense, "? Miller covered on piece of equipment. I ask again. What firearms have "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,"

Not really relevant.

Why,because you disagree? Or because they do provide for the right to keep and bear arms?

dictae aren't case law, never have been, never will be.

Never said they were.

You've also yet to show that the second doesn't protect an individual going back to the 1700's.

The entire decision was based on the lack of facts. It was stated that a shortbarreled shotgun was not part of military equipment when in fact it was.

Which isn't the point. The point is that rather there exists no prohibition against a ban upon weapons that have no significant contribution to the common defense. It is up to the trial courts to decide that, not the supreme court.


No, you don't want a discussion. You've ignored federal law, the founding fathers, and the actual wording of the cases, none of which have shown that there is no "right to keep and bear arms".

You've posted conjecture and debate, while I've posted actual cases that have UPHELD the right to limit gun ownership. I think that rather strongly supports my point that there exists no absolute right to gun ownership.


Your own opinions now? Define "infringe". Show me the case that uses that term. First Miller says that it needs to be part of "ordinary military equipment but now you say"Provided that it does not infringe upon the common defense, "? Miller covered on piece of equipment. I ask again. What firearms have "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,"

Since you seem to be incapable of understanding "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", I tried to break it down some for you. I will say it one more time. Unless the weapon has some relationship to protecting the common defense, then it can be banned. If the ban (federal) obstructs the right of states to regulate militia, then it is unconsitutional. Otherwise, open season.


Why,because you disagree? Or because they do provide for the right to keep and bear arms?

Because conjecture over why the second amendment hasn't been extended to the states is pointless so long as you think that there is a massive liberal conspiracy in the courts to prevent god fearing americans from bearing arms.

Never said they were.

You've also yet to show that the second doesn't protect an individual going back to the 1700's.
You mean besides Cruikshank?

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution.

Which isn't the point. The point is that rather there exists no prohibition against a ban upon weapons that have no significant contribution to the common defense. It is up to the trial courts to decide that, not the supreme court.

And yet it was the SCOTUS that decided it. The lower courts supported Miller.


You've posted conjecture and debate, while I've posted actual cases that have UPHELD the right to limit gun ownership. I think that rather strongly supports my point that there exists no absolute right to gun ownership.

I never said there was an "absolute" right to anything. Presser did not limit firearm ownership, it limited independant militia's. Miller also limited firearm ownership based off of flawed information and no defense.


Since you seem to be incapable of understanding "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", I tried to break it down some for you. I will say it one more time. Unless the weapon has some relationship to protecting the common defense, then it can be banned. If the ban (federal) obstructs the right of states to regulate militia, then it is unconsitutional. Otherwise, open season.

And I've already shown that there was no way to "show any evidence" as there was no defendant and that the particular peice of equipment WAS part of the common defense. Miller also did not present the "militia test" as to what was or was not a "reasonable relationship". You've yet to answer that question. The typical dodging. What case shows which firearms "obstructs the right of states to regulate militia"? Can you answer? Did the judges in Miller?


Because conjecture over why the second amendment hasn't been extended to the states is pointless so long as you think that there is a massive liberal conspiracy in the courts to prevent god fearing americans from bearing arms.

Now w/ the personal attacks. Prove that I've made any "massive liberal conspiracy".

You mean besides Cruikshank?

Ah, you mean the case that states that rights are independant of the constitution and protected clansmen from blacks? the one that states that the federal gov't had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual and that citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.

I love how you edited that to exclude: "neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

A little dishonesty goes a long way.

Hmm, still no collective rights.

And yet it was the SCOTUS that decided it. The lower courts supported Miller.

Three words that seem to be escaping you. "Reversed and remanded". Look them up. I have nothing left to argue with you about if you don't even know how the supreme court works. That seems to be your basic problem. You cite law reviews (not case law), dictae (not case law), conjecture (not case law), and improperly cite case law. Your entire line of argument against miller seems to be based upon ignorance of how the court operates. I can do it for you, provided you agree to drop this entire stupid "miller didn't have a defense" line of argument.

v. re·versed, re·vers·ing, re·vers·es
v. tr.
4. Law. To revoke or annul (a decision or decree, for example).

tr.v. re·mand·ed, re·mand·ing, re·mands
2. Law.
2. To send back (a case) to a lower court with instructions about further proceedings.


That second bit, about sending back to a lower court with instruction about further proceedings, is the important part. The United States appealed a lower court decision that it felt was decided wrongly on a point of law, namely does the second amendment allow any federal prohibition upon ownership of arms by individuals. The supreme court (without the appellee giving arguments, which as I have said earlier is trivial, oral arguments don't matter that much at all) decided that federal prohibitions upon ownership of arms are constitutional provided that they meet standards XYZ (this is called a test). They then, keeping in line with how the court operates, did not apply this test to the case itself but rather reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered them to retry the case in light of the decisions they have made. Understand?

Three words that seem to be escaping you. "Reversed and remanded". Look them up. I have nothing left to argue with you about if you don't even know how the supreme court works. That seems to be your basic problem. You cite law reviews (not case law), dictae (not case law), conjecture (not case law), and improperly cite case law. Your entire line of argument against miller seems to be based upon ignorance of how the court operates. I can do it for you, provided you agree to drop this entire stupid "miller didn't have a defense" line of argument.

v. re·versed, re·vers·ing, re·vers·es
v. tr.
4. Law. To revoke or annul (a decision or decree, for example).

tr.v. re·mand·ed, re·mand·ing, re·mands
2. Law.
2. To send back (a case) to a lower court with instructions about further proceedings.


That second bit, about sending back to a lower court with instruction about further proceedings, is the important part. The United States appealed a lower court decision that it felt was decided wrongly on a point of law, namely does the second amendment allow any federal prohibition upon ownership of arms by individuals. The supreme court (without the appellee giving arguments, which as I have said earlier is trivial, oral arguments don't matter that much at all) decided that federal prohibitions upon ownership of arms are constitutional provided that they meet standards XYZ (this is called a test). They then, keeping in line with how the court operates, did not apply this test to the case itself but rather reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered them to retry the case in light of the decisions they have made. Understand?


What I understand is that you're trying to base your arguement off of a case w/o a defendant even having a written, nevermind an oral, brief so ONLY the Gov'ts side was presented at all. Ifyou don't think that's important, you are deluding yourself. Unless you can show me that brief?

Edit: I like how you keep avoiding this part:

"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."

and:

"And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Even though short-barreled shotguns WERE part of oridnary military equipment and were regularly used by military and police. I guess haveing no brief by the defendant didn't matter, right?

And they quote this"

"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence."

That's a collective arguement?

You interpret parts of it as you see fit but complain when I do the same and present reviews supporting me.

They did not provide a test nor any standards, but based their decision soley on the Gov't brief.

You claimed I stated there was a "massive liberal conspiracy". Nope.

The case was never remanded as the defendant was dead, therefore, noone to continue the case.

It's nice to know that you keep avoiding the question. SCOTUS determines a firearm isn't suitable for militia purpose yet refuses to define what is suitable. You refuse to answer.

You stated that the collective arguement had gone back to the 1700's yet only cited Cruishank from the middle 1800's and were wrong about that as well.

You can cut and run if you want. I've come to expect no better in these threads.

What I understand is that you're trying to base your arguement off of a case w/o a defendant even having a written, nevermind an oral, brief so ONLY the Gov'ts side was presented at all. Ifyou don't think that's important, you are deluding yourself. Unless you can show me that brief?

One: The opinion of the court was unanimous. Two: It simply doesn't matter that one side wasn't represented. If you seriously think that the supreme court will ignore one side (or doesn't know what one sides argument is before they make it) you severly underestimate court. Three: No, it isn't important. Hell, for quite some time one or both sides weren't represented.

You interpret parts of it as you see fit but complain when I do the same and present reviews supporting me.

They did not provide a test nor any standards, but based their decision soley on the Gov't brief.

Wonderful. Does this happen to be a crime or are we now prohibiting appellants from actually being correct in their brief? What do you mean no test? Reasonable relationship is a test...

The case was never remanded as the defendant was dead, therefore, noone to continue the case.

It's nice to know that you keep avoiding the question. SCOTUS determines a firearm isn't suitable for militia purpose yet refuses to define what is suitable. You refuse to answer.

The first part is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which is what I've been saying for quite some time. The point of Miller is that the supreme court ruled that the second amendment is not absolute with respect to the federal government.

Reasonable person standards. It says it right here: "'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..."

If you expect something clearer from the court you haven't read many decisions. Let's look at our old friend Mr. Lemon

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

What on earth is excessive entanglement? By whose standards?

Well, in short, the court's. How do you know? Appeal cases to the supreme court. If the lower court on appeal would have held that the law was still invalid, we would have had some more debate on the merits of the application of the test. Most likely the supreme court would have deferred to the lower court anyway (the court does not like to rule on matters of fact, but rather of matters of law), but who knows.

You stated that the collective arguement had gone back to the 1700's yet
only cited Cruishank from the middle 1800's and were wrong about that as well.

You can cut and run if you want. I've come to expect no better in these threads.
Uhuh. Because you think that Cruishank is bad case law (which it doesn't seem to be) doesn't make it "wrong".
If you'd continue looking down some we come to our old friend
The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
So the second amendment does not apply to the states. And we go about in circles. However, this clearly states that the second amendment never applied to the states, and as such the second amendment was never absolute.

Look at my first post on page 8 of this thread. You made me repeat myself. Was it a mistake or just trying to be annoying?
He's trying to be annoying. He's been shown that very case 1000's of times before, in the 10,000's of different gun control/2nd amendment threads.

He's good at it.

One: The opinion of the court was unanimous. Two: It simply doesn't matter that one side wasn't represented. If you seriously think that the supreme court will ignore one side (or doesn't know what one sides argument is before they make it) you severly underestimate court. Three: No, it isn't important. Hell, for quite some time one or both sides weren't represented.

Proof of this? You seem to overestimate the court, especially since the decision was factually incorrect on numerous points that I've shown.

The court says a gun isn't protected if it has a "reasonable relationship" to the militia. The militia is meant as a reserve to the military and police. A weapon used by the military and police isn't considered to have a "reasonable relationship" to the militia because the court says so.

Is this about the jist of your arguement?

Wonderful. Does this happen to be a crime or are we now prohibiting appellants from actually being correct in their brief? What do you mean no test? Reasonable relationship is a test...

Really? What are the standards? What are the requirements for "reasonable relationship? Apparently a short-barreled shotgun, used by the military and police doesn't fall under it? No definition has ever been given. What is the test?

Did I say anything about appellants being factually incorrect? Did I say anything about it being a "crime"? You think it's correct for the courts to make a decision based upon only one side? Are you stating that briefs are never one sided in their arguements? Have you even read the Gov't brief?

The first part is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which is what I've been saying for quite some time. The point of Miller is that the supreme court ruled that the second amendment is not absolute with respect to the federal government.

I never claimed it was. Another strawman?

You only claim it's "irrelevant" because it couldn't be reffered to a lower court and challenged, hence making it incomplete.

Reasonable person standards. It says it right here: "'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..."

"Reasonable person standards"? Is that a legal definition? Show me the standards. The court upheld a restriction of a firearm based on it even w/ flawed facts.

If you expect something clearer from the court you haven't read many decisions. Let's look at our old friend Mr. Lemon

What on earth is excessive entanglement? By whose standards?

Well, in short, the court's. How do you know? Appeal cases to the supreme court. If the lower court on appeal would have held that the law was still invalid, we would have had some more debate on the merits of the application of the test. Most likely the supreme court would have deferred to the lower court anyway (the court does not like to rule on matters of fact, but rather of matters of law), but who knows.

So you admit that there are no standards for the courts/states and it is all just arbitrary? Whatever they feels like banning at the time due to biased information and cultural bias' is A Okay and constitutional?

Uhuh. Because you think that Cruishank is bad case law (which it doesn't seem to be) doesn't make it "wrong".

Never said it was wrong, I said you were wrong about it. Lots of strawmen from you tonight.

You're still ignoring the 1700's connection. I've shown quotes from the founding founders as to thier beliefs. Anything to counter that? Bueller?


So the second amendment does not apply to the states. And we go about in circles. However, this clearly states that the second amendment never applied to the states, and as such the second amendment was never absolute.

I never claimed it was absolute nor did I claim the 2nd applied to the states. SCOTUS cases clearly state that the rights are not granted by the constitution but are inherent. A point you convienently deleted. Why would you do that?

I've mentioned that the majority of states have RKBA statements anyway so they can't "do whatever the fuck they like". You've stated that doesn't matter.

Proof of this? You seem to overestimate the court, especially since the decision was factually incorrect on numerous points that I've shown.

Factually incorrect? That would be why it's standing caselaw through around 100 years of the finest legal minds that this country has ever produced? Are you seriously claiming that you're more knowledgable about United States Law then the justices who have say upon the bench? That's most of the decisions I've posted were unanimous, because those damn judges didn't have a clue what they were doing.


Really? What are the standards? What are the requirements for "reasonable relationship? Apparently a short-barreled shotgun, used by the military and police doesn't fall under it? No definition has ever been given. What is the test?

Are you a lawyer? FCS, reasonable tests are pretty standard in all sections of law (reasonable person, reasonable doubt, reasonable care, reasonable force, reasonable time, reasonable use, reasonable accomidation), and are based around fair and justifiable evidence. Reasonable relationship is the test - if, without jumping to insane depths, banning the weapon would not cause harm to the common defense, then it can be banned. That's it. That's the test. That's the definition. Application is why we have courts.

Did I say anything about appellants being factually incorrect? Are you stating that briefs are never one sided in their arguements? Have you even read the Gov't brief?

I'm stating that it may be possible for one side to actually be correct in their arguments. Simply because the court chose to side with the reasoning in the government brief does not mean that the court decided to railroadthe appellee

Though if you've managed to produce the brief I'd like to see it, considering that they don't tend to be archived as well as opinions.

I never claimed it was. Another strawman?

Then what the hell exactly are you arguing? If you're saying that the federal government can limit gun ownership, what's the point of this entire conversation?


"Reasonable person standards"? Is that a legal definition? Show me the standards.

From Black's Law Dictionary:
Reasonable Person. A hypothetical person used as a legal standard, esp. to determine when someone acted with negligence.


So you admit that there are no standards for the courts/states and it is all just arbitrary?

As arbitrary as for any other court in any other case. That's how the law works. How do you think we solve tort cases dealing with negligence?


Never said it was wrong, I said you were wrong about it. Lots of strawmen from you tonight.

You're still ignoring the 1700's connection.

Unless you can pull cases pre-1800 that counter Cruikshank it's safe to assume that the court didn't pull it from its ass. That a case wasn't mounted against it has little to do with anything. Though, if you'd take a look at the federalist papers you'd rather clearly see that militia is spoken in the same breath as the state from which it comes, organized by the states with officers appointed by the states, armed by states, etc. That doesn't sound quite like a bunch of idahoians, does it?


I never claimed it was absolute nor did I claim the 2nd applied to the states. SCOTUS cases clearly state that the rights are not granted by the constitution but are inherent. A point you convienently deleted. Why would you do that?
Because in case you missed it rights not granted by the constitution really don't mean much in constitutional law.

Then you also must admit that the states can do whatever they want with gun control. Making your entire agruement and this thread quite moot.

Factually incorrect? That would be why it's standing caselaw through around 100 years of the finest legal minds that this country has ever produced? Are you seriously claiming that you're more knowledgable about United States Law then the justices who have say upon the bench? That's most of the decisions I've posted were unanimous, because those damn judges didn't have a clue what they were doing.

Yes, factually incorrect. Like the fact that shortbarreled shotguns were and are used by the police. You've posted what? Two or three decisions? I'm apparently more knowledgable on firearms and military hardware than the judges. Keep trying.


Are you a lawyer? FCS, reasonable tests are pretty standard in all sections of law (reasonable person, reasonable doubt, reasonable care, reasonable force, reasonable time, reasonable use, reasonable accomidation), and are based around fair and justifiable evidence. Reasonable relationship is the test - if, without jumping to insane depths, banning the weapon would not cause harm to the common defense, then it can be banned. That's it. That's the test. That's the definition. Application is why we have courts.

Once again, you admit there are no standards and the definition is just arbitrary. I've shown that the short barreled shotgun has a "reasonable" use in the militia. You're now turning the words around to say "cause harm to the common defense". Show me where it stated that.

I'm stating that it may be possible for one side to actually be correct in their arguments. Simply because the court chose to side with the reasoning in the government brief does not mean that the court decided to railroadthe appellee

Once again, THERE WAS NO BRIEF BY THE APPELLEE.

Though if you've managed to produce the brief I'd like to see it, considering that they don't tend to be archived as well as opinions.

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

Then what the hell exactly are you arguing? If you're saying that the federal government can limit gun ownership, what's the point of this entire conversation?

It started as collective v individual rights. I support free speech, but I don't support slander. Ect.


From Black's Law Dictionary:
Reasonable Person. A hypothetical person used as a legal standard, esp. to determine when someone acted with negligence.


As arbitrary as for any other court in any other case. That's how the law works. How do you think we solve tort cases dealing with negligence?

And now we've gone from restricting firearms to negligence? Bounce around much?


Unless you can pull cases pre-1800 that counter Cruikshank it's safe to assume that the court didn't pull it from its ass. That a case wasn't mounted against it has little to do with anything. Though, if you'd take a look at the federalist papers you'd rather clearly see that militia is spoken in the same breath as the state from which it comes, organized by the states with officers appointed by the states, armed by states, etc. That doesn't sound quite like a bunch of idahoians, does it?

You obviously have not read the federalist papers much. I've provided examples. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. Come on, show some proof.


Because in case you missed it rights not granted by the constitution really don't mean much in constitutional law.

Um, cruishank, the SCOTUS case you selectively edited, stated that very thing. Are you now trying to say that that case doesn't matter in constitutional law?

Then you also must admit that the states can do whatever they want with gun control. Making your entire agruement and this thread quite moot.

No. Once again, you're ignoring the fact that most of the states have protections in their constitutions. Can they go against thier own constitutions?

Are you stating that the "people" in the second does not mean the same "people" referenced throughout the rest of the constitution?

Yes, factually incorrect. Like the fact that shortbarreled shotguns were and are used by the police. You've posted what? Two or three decisions? I'm apparently more knowledgable on firearms and military hardware than the judges. Keep trying.

The lower court would decide the factual issues. The supreme court decided the legal matter.



Once again, you admit there are no standards and the definition is just arbitrary. I've shown that the short barreled shotgun has a "reasonable" use in the militia. You're now turning the words around to say "cause harm to the common defense". Show me where it stated that.

Show it to the court, not me. All that miller states is that the lower court must decide if banning shotguns would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

Once again, THERE WAS NO BRIEF BY THE APPELLEE.

Once again, that really doesn't matter.


And now we've gone from restricting firearms to negligence? Bounce around much?

Same kind of standard. It's an example. Reasonable x standards are commonplace in law.



You obviously have not read the federalist papers much. I've provided examples. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. Come on, show some proof.

You've provided debates. I really couldn't give a flying damn about debates. I've shown you the court cases which have held that the second amendment is a collective right held by the states to protect against the federal government.



Um, cruishank, the SCOTUS case you selectively edited, stated that very thing. Are you now trying to say that that case doesn't matter in constitutional law?

Cruikshank said nothing of the sort. It said that it had NO basis in constitutional law to find an individual right to bear arms. Any right outside of that (I can't think of what he is referring to, there exists no common law right to bear arms either) is irrelevant for constitutional purposes.


No. Once again, you're ignoring the fact that most of the states have protections in their constitutions. Can they go against thier own constitutions?

Nope. That's a different ball game and has nothing to do with the second amendment.

I'm a Republican. Hell I'm a neo-con, alot of you already know that. I like Bush and I support the war in Iraq. However, when it comes to guns and gun control I am completely opposite my party. I see armed robberies, murders etc., and it's really sickening, so I think that I should stir up some contraversy.
Banning guns wouldn't stop murder. Poeple would murder each other with knives, or blunt objects, poison, pushing each other off cliffs, et cetera, et cetera.


Now I'm not saying to get rid of all guns. Having a rifle and going hunting every now and then is fine, but what people shouldn't have is AK-47's and other assault weapons. I doubt that the founding fathers ever dreamed that those kinds of guns would be used. So I'm not for banning guns, just regulation on which guns are lawful and which should be banned.
All assualt weapons available to the civilians have been made into semi-automatic weapons. Besides, fully automatic guns aren't very hard to get, especially if you know your friendly neighborhood Black Market dealer. By the way, do you want some, uh, "pocket watchs"?

And upon further reading of that article you're just apeing someone elses work, down to your snide referrences to lack of counsel.

Oh, and continuing:

U.S. v. Adams, 11 F.Supp. 216
The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,"
has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant
the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the
character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a
protective force of government; to the collective body and not
individual rights. This is well presented in State v. Workman, 35
W. Va. 367, 372, 14 S. E. 9, 14 L. R. A. 600, and is sustained by
the following: Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Civil Rights Case, 109 U.
S. 3, 31, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.
S. 275, 281, 17 S. Ct. 326, 41 L. Ed. 715; McKenna, The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms.


So, would you like to start on your copy and paste law rebuttals from 'www.guncite.com' now?

The lower court would decide the factual issues. The supreme court decided the legal matter.

Show it to the court, not me. All that miller states is that the lower court must decide if banning shotguns would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

Then why did they decide that the shotgun DID NOT have a reasonable relationship? You stated it in your first post. Why did they decide a factual matter?

Once again, that really doesn't matter.

In your opinion. Mostly because it hurts your arguement. It's just so convienent that you say that when there couldn't be a referral back to the lower courts based on that case.


Same kind of standard. It's an example. Reasonable x standards are commonplace in law.

So you're still trying to argue that w/o evidence being presented, it is perfectly acceptable to make "reasonable" decisions and you'll stand by those decisions even when the facts are wrong?



You've provided debates. I really couldn't give a flying damn about debates. I've shown you the court cases which have held that the second amendment is a collective right held by the states to protect against the federal government.

No you have not. You've shown no such thing. You're own cases stated that the BOR are the rights of the individual. Nice way to make invent things.

I've shown quotes from the founding fathers. You've shown a few selectively edited court cases. You claimed the collective rights arguement went back to the 1700's. You claimed it is throughout the Federalist papers, but have yet to even provide one source for it.


Cruikshank said nothing of the sort. It said that it had NO basis in constitutional law to find an individual right to bear arms. Any right outside of that (I can't think of what he is referring to, there exists no common law right to bear arms either) is irrelevant for constitutional purposes.

Oh, right, the selectively edited parts again.

"Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Once again, you're providing your personal opinions yet try and condemn me for providing legal briefs and discourses.

Unless you're trying to say the ONLY rights we have are those listed in the BOR?

Nope. That's a different ball game and has nothing to do with the second amendment.

But you said the states could do whatever the F*ck they wanted. You quoted presser, here's some more of it that you selectively deleted:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

And upon further reading of that article you're just apeing someone elses work, down to your snide referrences to lack of counsel.

Oh, and continuing:

U.S. v. Adams, 11 F.Supp. 216
The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,"
has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant
the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the
character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a
protective force of government; to the collective body and not
individual rights. This is well presented in State v. Workman, 35
W. Va. 367, 372, 14 S. E. 9, 14 L. R. A. 600, and is sustained by
the following: Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Civil Rights Case, 109 U.
S. 3, 31, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.
S. 275, 281, 17 S. Ct. 326, 41 L. Ed. 715; McKenna, The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms.


So, would you like to start on your copy and paste law rebuttals from 'www.guncite.com' now?

Oh, an ad Hominem and a personal attack. How cute, even though they have sources.

Do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis? Was there counsel, was there even a brief? I've provided evidence, provide yours.

howabout this:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright 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.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Howabout US v Emerson?

"All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans,"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms....We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment.

Howabout the US code I've repetedly sourced?

Then why did they decide that the shotgun DID NOT have a reasonable relationship? You stated it in your first post. Why did they decide a factual matter?

They said that they found nothing that proved that it did, and reversed and remanded.

[qupte]
In your opinion. Mostly because it hurts your arguement. It's just so convienent that you say that when there couldn't be a referral back to the lower courts based on that case.
[/quote]
If you want to seriously argue that a 70 year old case was decided wrong and hasn't been over turned because no one has made the proper argument, be my guest.



So you're still trying to argue that w/o evidence being presented, it is perfectly acceptable to make "reasonable" decisions and you'll stand by those decisions even when the facts are wrong?

I don't make it a habit to second guess judges. Especially ones whose opinions have stood up to the test of time.


No you have not. You've shown no such thing. You're own cases stated that the BOR are the rights of the individual. Nice way to make invent things.

I've shown quotes from the founding fathers. You've shown a few selectively edited court cases. You claimed the collective rights arguement went back to the 1700's. You claimed it is throughout the Federalist papers, but have yet to even provide one source for it.

Really. That's nice. Now you're simply going ad hominem. I've shown you standing caselaw on the issue. You've shown me non-binding debate. That must explain why there hasn't been a gun control law stuck down on second amendment grounds in a long time.



Oh, right, the selectively edited parts again.

"Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Once again, you're providing your personal opinions yet try and condemn me for providing legal briefs and discourses.
[quote]
Doesn't matter. Not part of the constitution or english common law, not relevant to the courts. What don't you understand about that?
[quote]
Unless you're trying to say the ONLY rights we have are those listed in the BOR?

Pretty much from a legal standpoint. The bill of rights and english common law rights.


But you said the states could do whatever the F*ck they wanted. You quoted presser, here's some more of it that you selectively deleted:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.
Within their own constitutions. As for the rest of Presser, that's nothing more then I've said all along. So long as they don't heavily infringe upon the other powers in the constitution, it's open season.

Now I'm not saying to get rid of all guns. Having a rifle and going hunting every now and then is fine, but what people shouldn't have is AK-47's and other assault weapons. I doubt that the founding fathers ever dreamed that those kinds of guns would be used. So I'm not for banning guns, just regulation on which guns are lawful and which should be banned.

I don't think you've ever been to Detroit
:sniper: :mp5: :mp5:

They said that they found nothing that proved that it did, and reversed and remanded.

They were presented nothing that proved it did. Hence the line:

In the absence of any evidence

Round and round we go.


If you want to seriously argue that a 70 year old case was decided wrong and hasn't been over turned because no one has made the proper argument, be my guest.

Hasn't been overturned why? I made that arguement? Nope, another strawman.


I don't make it a habit to second guess judges. Especially ones whose opinions have stood up to the test of time.

A little hero worship here. You would have supported slavery then. Especially that long-held case law precedent that blacks weren't "people" . Do you second guess that?

Seems the "test of time" is changing on this as well. More federal courts are supporting the individual right lately.

Don't believe me? Ad hominem this:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Recent decisions of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have begun to remedy the relatively sparse judicial analysis of the meaning of the Second Amendment. In 2001, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson adopted the individual-right view, based on an extensive analysis of the Amendment's text and history. (34) The following year, the Ninth Circuit in Silveira v. Lockyer rejected Emerson with an extended counter-analysis and reaffirmed its adherence to the collective-right view. (35) Six members of the Ninth Circuit dissented from denial of rehearing en banc and endorsed an individual-right view. (36)

It's also got quite a bit of pre-1850 cases in it.


Really. That's nice. Now you're simply going ad hominem. I've shown you standing caselaw on the issue. You've shown me non-binding debate. That must explain why there hasn't been a gun control law stuck down on second amendment grounds in a long time.

You've ad hominemed the site that sourced law reviews. Seems like you're the one making the "snide comments". You've shown me case law and then added your interpretations of said decisions.

You stated that there were references to the "collective view" back to 1700. You haven't shown a single thing proving that at all. Anything. Keep dodging the issue. It's entertaining.

Got that quote from me about the "liberal conspiracy" yet?

You might also notice that all the new laws removing many "gun controls" haven't been struck down either.

Doesn't matter. Not part of the constitution or english common law, not relevant to the courts. What don't you understand about that?

The part where you neglect the 9th and 10th amendments.

Pretty much from a legal standpoint. The bill of rights and english common law rights.

So where in either is the right to privacy? It's standing caselaw. Where did it come from?


Within their own constitutions. As for the rest of Presser, that's nothing more then I've said all along. So long as they don't heavily infringe upon the other powers in the constitution, it's open season.

So you deny saying that they could disarm their people if they wanted? Want me to go and quote you ? Changing your statements again?

Oh, what the hell:

The states can do whatever the fuck they want to their own militias, including disbanding all weapons in their state, and the federal government can do likewise unless the weapon "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia"

That sure doesn't = Presser

I don't think you've ever been to Detroit
:sniper: :mp5: :mp5:

What exactly are you trying to say?

Also, why on earth did you use gun smilies in your first post? Everyone does that, and I've never been able to figure out why.

Some People all insist on high powered guns being outlawed because they have no use in hunting and although I tend to agree in that manner they completely dissregard the need for personal protection.
I don't own a gas powered semi-automatic high calibur assault rifle for hunting :mp5: I own it because I've had my house shot at by gangbangers and I need to defend my property and house from other humans not random animals.
This is not just an issolated incident iether. Many high populated areas can be good examples, such as L.A., New York, Chicago, and many others.
Now who would argue against me to my constitutional right to keep and bear arms as well as to defend my home and property?:confused:

What exactly are you trying to say?
Does that answer your question?

and I used guns to express a meaning that people use guns for more than hunting

Looking at the countrys that have banned guns outright, yes it has.
However, the 2nd amendment prevents a total ban, and so it can't go farther then control.
Unfortunatly for most people, there are ways to get guns that do not involve going into a store.


It's an issue with the people not the guns. For example the per capita murder rate in Canada is waaaay lower than the US's although the Canadians own more guns per person. Also if all guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

The second amendment says that:"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 Supreme Court has held that..
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "

This protects any weapon that may be used for the common defense. Limits may be put on how you buy a gun, where you take it, where you can fire it, and what type of gun it is.....but your basic right to have armaments is guarenteed by this Amendment.

I said that the 2nd amendment was vauge a while ago.
People argued with me then, so I've come to defend my statement:
The second amendment IS vauge, because it doesn't define three terms used in it:
1: It doesn't define what "the people" are. Is it everyone? Then you can't disallow criminals firearms. Is it people who can vote? Maybe. Is it government officials? Equally possible. Is it the militia mentioned in the first clause? Also possible. And on that note:
2: It doesn't define "militia". Is it the Army? Is it the police? Is it everyone who could serve in the army? Who knows?
Finally:
3: It doesn't define "arms". Does it mean pistols? Does it mean rifles? Does it mean military grade weapons(bombs, anti-air, etc.)? Does it mean nukes? Could it even literally mean arms, like in that joke? Doesn't say.
And so we get the possible reading: A well regulated everybody, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the army to keep and bear limbs, shall not be infringed.
Obviously, this makes absolutely no sense at all.
But it's perfectly within the wording.
Don't tell me it's not vauge.

I said that the 2nd amendment was vauge a while ago.
People argued with me then, so I've come to defend my statement:
The second amendment IS vauge, because it doesn't define three terms used in it:
1: It doesn't define what "the people" are. Is it everyone? Then you can't disallow criminals firearms. Is it people who can vote? Maybe. Is it government officials? Equally possible. Is it the militia mentioned in the first clause? Also possible. And on that note:
2: It doesn't define "militia". Is it the Army? Is it the police? Is it everyone who could serve in the army? Who knows?
Finally:
3: It doesn't define "arms". Does it mean pistols? Does it mean rifles? Does it mean military grade weapons(bombs, anti-air, etc.)? Does it mean nukes? Could it even literally mean arms, like in that joke? Doesn't say.
And so we get the possible reading: A well regulated everybody, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the army to keep and bear limbs, shall not be infringed.
Obviously, this makes absolutely no sense at all.
But it's perfectly within the wording.
Don't tell me it's not vauge.

The court found that "the people" are anybody who resides within American society.
The court found that a militia is " all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"
The court defined arms as handheld weapons that are used for military purposes.
The Court found that the federal government can only regulate this part of the Constitution under the interstate commerce clause. In other words, they can barely regulate it at all. States, on the other hand, have a slightly freer reign. It is all in case law and very established and consistant. Not confusing.

The court found that "the people" are anybody who resides within American society.
The court found that a militia is " all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"
The court defined arms as handheld weapons that are used for military purposes.
The Court found that the federal government can only regulate this part of the Constitution under the interstate commerce clause. In other words, they can barely regulate it at all. States, on the other hand, have a slightly freer reign. It is all in case law and very established and consistant. Not confusing.
And still, that is the court, not the text itself.
The vagueness stands.

And still, that is the court, not the text itself.
The vagueness stands.
The text is not vague. The court merely spelled out its meaning more clearly because people like your claim not to understand the meaning of "militia", "people" and "arms".

The text is not vague. The court merely spelled out its meaning more clearly because people like your claim not to understand the meaning of "militia", "people" and "arms".
Considering the constitution is a legal document, and people need to know the definitions of all the nouns in it very clearly to enforce it, it is a very vaguely written document.
And all three are up for interpretation.
Militia could easily mean army or everyone.
People could easily mean everyone(again, this includes felons)or it could mean non-felons or it could mean people who are eligible to vote or it could mean the militia mentioned before.
Arms could mean guns on the level of pistols or it could mean any gun a civilian would be expected to have or it could mean military grade weapons or it could mean any weapon.
That's 2x4x4= 32 obvious interpretations. And that's obvious interpretations alone.

Considering the constitution is a legal document, and people need to know the definitions of all the nouns in it very clearly to enforce it, it is a very vaguely written document.
And all three are up for interpretation.
Militia could easily mean army or everyone.
People could easily mean everyone(again, this includes felons)or it could mean non-felons or it could mean people who are eligible to vote or it could mean the militia mentioned before.
Arms could mean guns on the level of pistols or it could mean any gun a civilian would be expected to have or it could mean military grade weapons or it could mean any weapon.
That's 2x4x4= 32 obvious interpretations. And that's obvious interpretations alone.
A militia is by definition never a federal army or "everyone".
People refers to the human beings who may be part of a militia
Arms refers to any weapon that could in any way be used by a militia ( never more than hand held)

A militia is by definition never a federal army or "everyone".
People refers to the human beings who may be part of a militia
Arms refers to any weapon that could in any way be used by a militia ( never more than hand held)
That's by no means intuitive.
For one thing, the second part of the amendment doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the first half.
And I think I'll just get the dictionary definitions and see what happens.

EDIT: Here we are:
mi·li·tia ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

people
n.
1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.
2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people.
5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: “those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes” (Thomas Jefferson).
6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.
7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people.
8. Family, relatives, or ancestors.
9. Informal. Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods.

arm
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
4. arms
a. Heraldry. Bearings.
b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.

So that would be 3x9x6=162 interpretations of it, just going by the dictionary definitions.
By the way, your definitions for people and arms aren't even in there.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8490506794163083426&q=bullshit

only if you cut half of the words in the amendment.

You mean that part about a well regulated militia? Yep. Thats in the 2nd Amendment too but so is the right of the people to bear arms.

full text: "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 supreme court has held that any weapon that could in any way be used to aid a militia is therefore a consititutionaly protected piece of property

Like I said, it is very simple.

Sweet!

I would like a 155mm Howitzer and a Shoulder Fire SAM launcher complete with SAMs.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8490506794163083426&q=bullshit

Why not just change the text or remove it completely?

Because only a fool would propose that and it would not pass congress even if someone did propose it.

Will SCOTUS be reevaluating this in response to the Lebanon-Israel affair? After all a militia there was armed with long range missiles. It seems that this area is slightly more complicated than you assert.

No they won't because our militias are not in the habit of attacking other nations and capturing forieng troops on their own soil.

By that definition the entire male population of the US could be called for military service. A little extreme perhaps?

Ever hear of the Selective Service Act?

You live in a very strange country...Really...

You live in a very strange country...Really...
Not as strange as Switzerland, in terms of the government handing out assault rifles and ammunition, and making all adults males serve in the Army.

Banning guns wouldn't stop murder. Poeple would murder each other with knives, or blunt objects, poison, pushing each other off cliffs, et cetera, et cetera.

Or with guns :D

All assualt weapons available to the civilians have been made into semi-automatic weapons. Besides, fully automatic guns aren't very hard to get, especially if you know your friendly neighborhood Black Market dealer. By the way, do you want some, uh, "pocket watchs"?

So very true.

Compare the USA and Switzerland??? What a strange idea!!!

Hum...Sorry, to a stupid french like me, your country is strange. Your president is strange too...You know, the one "they" "misunderestimate"...Your laws are very strange...The place accorded to religion is unusual...
But, after all, I think that americans don't understand French neither...So it's ok...

Compare the USA and Switzerland??? What a strange idea!!!

Hum...Sorry, to a stupid french like me, your country is strange. Your president is strange too...You know, the one "they" "misunderestimate"...Your laws are very strange...The place accorded to religion is unusual...
But, after all, I think that americans don't understand French neither...So it's ok...
The tradition still lives in Switzerland today. All able-bodied males from 20 to 42 years of age are required to keep rifles or handguns at home. Gun shops are everywhere. A Zurich tourist brochure recommends people visit September's Knabenschiessen (a young person's shooting contest): "The oldest Zurich tradition . . . consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fair."

You live in a very strange country...Really...

As opposed to france who has had several revolutions whereas we only had two and the last one ended 141 years ago?

Not as strange as Switzerland, in terms of the government handing out assault rifles and ammunition, and making all adults males serve in the Army.

Let me guess...

No crime either?

Let me guess...

No crime either?
Pretty low.

Pretty low.

Amazing what a "gun-toting" society can accomplish :D

Either way, gun control is a state issue, and Uncle Sam should keep his filthy paws off of it.

Amen, it should be a states-rights issue

Just like Abortion, the Definition of Marriage, and anything else that Article I, Section 8 doesn't give congress the right to make laws about.

Amazing what a "gun-toting" society can accomplish :D
It's why the crime in my county is low. And why I carry a pistol everywhere I go.

That's by no means intuitive.
For one thing, the second part of the amendment doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the first half.
And I think I'll just get the dictionary definitions and see what happens.

*snip the inane dictionary definitions*

Once again folks, lets see what the law defines them as:

Militia:

USC title 10>subtitle A> Part 1>chapter 13>sec 311

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.

(
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

Arms:

And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

US v Miller

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

People:

The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

Dredd scott V sanford

Alleghany....Oh yeah, the old tradition...Not a tradition, let's say an obsession... Yes, I know. Revolution. It's an old ghost...During protest, that's our best weapon "Give us what we want or you will see another revolution". Yes, we had many revolution. And that's all...
Hey, don't be jealous because you don't know the joy of demonstrations!lol
Seriously...We're like that...But you should really study the context of those revolutions. You'll see: our ancestors had excellent reasons to do what they did!

Alleghany....Oh yeah, the old tradition...Not a tradition, let's say an obsession... Yes, I know. Revolution. It's an old ghost...During protest, that's our best weapon "Give us what we want or you will see another revolution". Yes, we had many revolution. And that's all...
Hey, don't be jealous because you don't know the joy of demonstrations!lol
Seriously...We're like that...But you should really study the context of those revolutions. You'll see: our ancestors had excellent reasons to do what they did!

Love that "Reign Of Terror" thing... So, what justification do you give for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

Amazing what a "gun-toting" society can accomplish :D

Plus the fact that over half the crime is by "non-citizens".

Alleghany....Oh yeah, the old tradition...Not a tradition, let's say an obsession... Yes, I know. Revolution. It's an old ghost...During protest, that's our best weapon "Give us what we want or you will see another revolution". Yes, we had many revolution. And that's all...
Hey, don't be jealous because you don't know the joy of demonstrations!lol
Seriously...We're like that...But you should really study the context of those revolutions. You'll see: our ancestors had excellent reasons to do what they did!

Oh we know how to demonstrate! We just do ours peacefully, most of the time. Besides, we have our share of riots that take place in many cities and on college campuses too. :D

Anyways...I like the French. They are good people.

Plus the fact that over half the crime is by "non-citizens".

That is true.

The explanation:

French were testing democracy....
Several ideas were opposed to each other. And powerful people were fighting for power. And then, a rumor started: in the rank of the jacobiens (the ones who conducted revolution), there were traitors. Looking for those traitors, people, especially in Paris and big cities, started to arrest them. Robespierre, was obsessed by his conception of republic. And finally, he decided to change everything. Imagine: during centuries, there was a King. There were poor people...Suddenly, people discover that they could be free, Encyclopedia, New Ideas and that all...That changed many things...They needed to test. To know their limits...To find the right definition of republic, of democracy...We have an entire chapter in history about it..IT could be very long to explain...I can, if you really want, I have my notebooks next to me... You really wanna know everything about the terror????

The explanation:

French were testing democracy....
Several ideas were opposed to each other. And powerful people were fighting for power. And then, a rumor started: in the rank of the jacobiens (the ones who conducted revolution), there were traitors. Looking for those traitors, people, especially in Paris and big cities, started to arrest them. Robespierre, was obsessed by his conception of republic. And finally, he decided to change everything. Imagine: during centuries, there was a King. There were poor people...Suddenly, people discover that they could be free, Encyclopedia, New Ideas and that all...That changed many things...They needed to test. To know their limits...To find the right definition of republic, of democracy...We have an entire chapter in history about it..IT could be very long to explain...I can, if you really want, I have my notebooks next to me... You really wanna know everything about the terror????


I want to know how you justify picking people at random, accusing them, and then hacking their heads off for public sport.

People say I'm evil because I advocated picking specific people and eliminating them by more subtle means. I want to know how you justify the Terror.

Amazing what a "gun-toting" society can accomplish :D
:rolleyes:
Amazing what a society can accomplish. Gun-toting is merely one part of a society. If I had to describe switzerland, their guns would even enter into my description.

There has been no correlation established between guns and crimes in any survey done.

:rolleyes:
Amazing what a society can accomplish. Gun-toting is merely one part of a society. If I had to describe switzerland, their guns would even enter into my description.

There has been no correlation established between guns and crimes in any survey done.

It is amazing that when gun ownership goes up, gun crime goes down.

It is amazing that when gun ownership goes up, gun crime goes down.
where?

'Cause it seems the US has quite a big crime rate and quite a big gun ownership rate compared to, say, the UK.

Care to back up your claims?

where?

'Cause it seems the US has quite a big crime rate and quite a big gun ownership rate compared to, say, the UK.

Care to back up your claims?

Why? I already know you won't believe it since it would come from the Government.

Why? I already know you won't believe it since it would come from the Government.
Go on, proove me wrong. Show me a study where it has been shown that gun-ownership and crime has had a direct correlation. There is no such thing.

Another thing that should be remembered East Canuck. We have over 300 million people in America.

Another thing that should be remembered East Canuck. We have over 300 million people in America.
I believe you'll find crime rate to be the number of crimes per set amount of people. As such, the amount of population shouldn't influence the data.

I believe you'll find crime rate to be the number of crimes per set amount of people. As such, the amount of population shouldn't influence the data.

It makes a difference if you are going to compare criminal statestics between countries.

It makes a difference if you are going to compare criminal statestics between countries.
You are the one claiming that gun ownership lowers the crime rate. It would seem a lawless place like the UK where gun ownership is strictly regulated should have a much higher rate than the US where gun ownership is prevalent.

But I digress, show me a study made in the same country where gun ownership (and gun ownership only) has been linked to a variation in crime rate.

The latest study to date was inconclusive. They couldn't find a relation between the two.

I'm a Republican. Hell I'm a neo-con, alot of you already know that. I like Bush and I support the war in Iraq. However, when it comes to guns and gun control I am completely opposite my party. I see armed robberies, murders etc., and it's really sickening, so I think that I should stir up some contraversy.

This is the actual text of the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

Lets break that sentence down.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
~We're talking a militia here, like the ones in old Revolutionary and Civil War militias.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
~It is the right of the people (in the militia) to bear arms.

So therefore, the 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right of the populace to form a militia to promote the security of the state, and it guarantees the right of the people in that militia to bear arms. However, it does not specifically address the right of the people not affiliated with a militia to bear arms.

Now I'm not saying to get rid of all guns. Having a rifle and going hunting every now and then is fine, but what people shouldn't have is AK-47's and other assault weapons. I doubt that the founding fathers ever dreamed that those kinds of guns would be used. So I'm not for banning guns, just regulation on which guns are lawful and which should be banned.

Why do you need guns? Here in the UK there aren't any, everyone is happy and the proportion of deaths from guns is 20 times lower than in the US - what could be wrong with that?

Why do you need guns? Here in the UK there aren't any, everyone is happy and the proportion of deaths from guns is 20 times lower than in the US - what could be wrong with that?

There aren't any? Then why has UK gun crime increased as well as most other forms of crime? Why were the rates lower than the US even before the various grabbing schemes? Why has US crime dropped even w/ more firearms and less restrictive laws?
Can you prove that "everyone is happy"?

This lady sure doesn't seem to be enjoying things.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=399145&in_page_id=1770

Nor these:

Maureen Jennings, 50, of Manchester.

Martin James, 64, late of Birmingham.

Bill Clifford, 77, late of Hampshire.

David Benton, 44, of Moorby

Linda Walker, 47, of Greater Manchester

Why do you need guns? Here in the UK there aren't any, everyone is happy and the proportion of deaths from guns is 20 times lower than in the US - what could be wrong with that?
Why do you need a car? There are other means of transportation.
Why do you need a computer? There are other means of communication.

What does need have to do with anything.

A gun is simply a tool. A tool with many different uses. One important use is self defense. Every human being has the right to self defense. Every human being should have the right to reasonable ownership of arms.

Why do you need guns? Here in the UK there aren't any, everyone is happy and the proportion of deaths from guns is 20 times lower than in the US - what could be wrong with that?

Isnt UK's victimization rate around 25%?

Look at Chicago and San Fransico. Crime has increased since they banned guns inside those cities.
Sure, look at Chicago:

Murder rates across the nation have been slowly climbing since 2000, when the nation's 15,517 murders were the lowest since 1965.

The FBI didn't provide raw numbers Monday with the preliminary data so the total number of killings in 2004 isn't yet known.

But the declining percentages show that the uptick in killings may have been temporary. Contributing heavily to the decline in big city murder rates is Chicago, where 448 people were slain in 2004 compared with 598 in 2003. That's nearly a 25% decrease.

And what about San Francisco?

San Francisco had 88 murders in 2004, up from 69 in 2003. Sixty-three of last year's homicides involved a firearm, San Francisco Police Sgt. Neville Gittens said. The city has averaged 71 homicides a year over the past decade, from a low of 58 in 1998 to a high of 99 in 1995.

While last year's number of homicides is an increase from the previous year, it's comparable to other U.S. cities of similar size. In 2003, for example, Jacksonville, Fla., had 92 murders and Indianapolis had 112.

That is without a handgun ban in San Francisco. I don't believe that stats have been released yet to determine the effect that a handgun ban has had on San Francisco?

I'm a Republican. Hell I'm a neo-con, alot of you already know that. I like Bush and I support the war in Iraq. However, when it comes to guns and gun control I am completely opposite my party. I see armed robberies, murders etc., and it's really sickening, so I think that I should stir up some contraversy.

This is the actual text of the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

Lets break that sentence down.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
~We're talking a militia here, like the ones in old Revolutionary and Civil War militias.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
~It is the right of the people (in the militia) to bear arms.

So therefore, the 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right of the populace to form a militia to promote the security of the state, and it guarantees the right of the people in that militia to bear arms. However, it does not specifically address the right of the people not affiliated with a militia to bear arms.

Now I'm not saying to get rid of all guns. Having a rifle and going hunting every now and then is fine, but what people shouldn't have is AK-47's and other assault weapons. I doubt that the founding fathers ever dreamed that those kinds of guns would be used. So I'm not for banning guns, just regulation on which guns are lawful and which should be banned.


your kind of a dumbass arent you?

your kind of a dumbass arent you?
Now, was that really necessary?

Where's your rebuttal, your arguments, your explanations as to why he's wrong?

No, only a petty insult. Go back under your bridge.

You know what. I really don't care. You're wrong. And I’m really getting tired of this. You can continue talking all you want, but that really doesn’t change the fact that in black and white the second amendment refers to a collective right. Period. End of story. That’s how it currently stands in US case law, like it or not. There is no debate on that point. If this is proper or not is another issue that I don’t feel like getting into. A few circuit courts getting out of line is tiddlywinks compared to the supreme court's constant viewpoint. State governments are permitted to do pretty much whatever they want (note NYC and DC's near ban on guns, still constitutional) and same for the Federal Government.


If you think you're so right, I'll tell you what. Go and break a gun control law, then sue for habeas on second amendment grounds (never mind you don't even have standing for sueing to enforce the second amendment). Perhaps you'll listen to a judge when he laughs your ass out of court and into a jail cell. I'm done, I've posted enough standing case law to prove my point. If you don't believe me, put your liberty where your damn mouth is and violate the law.

Now, was that really necessary?

Where's your rebuttal, your arguments, your explanations as to why he's wrong?

No, only a petty insult. Go back under your bridge.

See, no matter how much "rebuttal" or "explantions" I use. No matter if I'm right or not, he will never change his opinion. Biggest rule of arguing is that no-one wins, because most of the time people wont change theyre opinion even if they know they're wrong. So I'll just simply insult them and make myself win to myself, and not give a shit.:)

See, no matter how much "rebuttal" or "explantions" I use. No matter if I'm right or not, he will never change his opinion. Biggest rule of arguing is that no-one wins, because most of the time people wont change theyre opinion even if they know they're wrong. So I'll just simply insult them and make myself win to myself, and not give a shit.:)
thereby breaking the rules of the forum. I can see you'll have a quick career.

*snip*

You can believe "I'm wrong" all you want. Doesn't make it true.

I also won't "break a law" to test it. I'ld take it to court w/o breaking it. Kind of like the illegal actions of NOLA that was stopped by the courts. No collectivity there.

You're posts of a few cases and your interpretations of them are just that, interpretations. I've posted other interpretations. The case laws do not blatantly state collectivity. The founding fathers did not promote collectivity. You did not prove this at all even though you made the claim. The lower courts claimin collectivity seem to be the ones "getting out of line" by jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon and ignoring all the historical precedent and the very clear ideas set down by the FF's.

Have a nice day.

See, no matter how much "rebuttal" or "explantions" I use. No matter if I'm right or not, he will never change his opinion. Biggest rule of arguing is that no-one wins, because most of the time people wont change theyre opinion even if they know they're wrong. So I'll just simply insult them and make myself win to myself, and not give a shit.:)

Insulting = Flaming = Rule Breaking.

Unless you want to get the big DEAT, i would suggest that you refrain from insulting people on the NationStates boards...

Sure, look at Chicago:



And what about San Francisco?



That is without a handgun ban in San Francisco. I don't believe that stats have been released yet to determine the effect that a handgun ban has had on San Francisco?

Now a link to the stats please since you pulled them out. Provide the link.

Now a link to the stats please since you pulled them out. Provide the link.

His stats are correct. However he fails to mention that the use of firearms in murders in Chicago actually increased after the ban along w/ the murder rate.

Now a link to the stats please since you pulled them out. Provide the link.
No problem:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-06-crime-drop_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/01/19/state1722EST7739.DTL

Now. Where did you get your information from? :D

His stats are correct. However he fails to mention that the use of firearms in murders in Chicago actually increased after the ban along w/ the murder rate.
Thus demonstrating that a ban doesn't even achieve its primary objectives.

His stats are correct. However he fails to mention that the use of firearms in murders in Chicago actually increased after the ban along w/ the murder rate.

Same thing happened with the Australian and UK bans I think, I'll try to find the source for that.

No problem:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-06-crime-drop_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/01/19/state1722EST7739.DTL

Thank you kindly dear sir.

Now. Where did you get your information from? :D

Goes to show what happens when you listen to hearsay :D

Insulting = Flaming = Rule Breaking.

Unless you want to get the big DEAT, i would suggest that you refrain from insulting people on the NationStates boards...

wow, did you just get pumped up at the thought of expressing your all awesome internet powers of complying? thats really sad dude...get a real life.