NationStates Jolt Archive

In other words, does it apply to the People or the States?

Some claim that this protection role is meant for the states to provide, that the Second Amendment merely asserts the state’s right to have a militia, or guard unit.

Wrong.

Those who claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right should first read the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 10, Clause 3;

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The operative phrase here is, of course, "No State shall ... keep Troops ... ." Granted, the states can do so if, IF, Congress allows it, but such has not happened. As can be seen, states DO NOT have the right to keep troops, which proves the fallacy of the "collective" argument.

Thus, it follows that the Second Amendment is an individual right guaranteed to the People.

It refers to the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the states to keep and bear arms, so I'd say it's pretty clear. It protects my right to own a gun.

Fairly certain it's an individual right.

Can I hold the opinion, stubbornly, that the Constitution is indicating that it is a collective right even though I may very well be wrong? It just may be nice to really, really believe something no matter what the facts may be.

It refers to the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the states to keep and bear arms, so I'd say it's pretty clear. It protects my right to own a gun.

So, just out of curiosity, why is all that nonsense about a well-ordered militia included?

So, just out of curiosity, why is all that nonsense about a well-ordered militia included?

It's a justification for allowing people to have arms.

You've also got to remember that according to the US Code, every man between 18 and 45 is legally a member of the unorganized militia. Something I think should be extended to women as well.

Can I hold the opinion, stubbornly, that the Constitution is indicating that it is a collective right even though I may very well be wrong? It just may be nice to really, really believe something no matter what the facts may be.

Why do you believe this, in light of the words of the Constitution?

Further, the supreme Court has upheld the individual nature of the Second Amendment in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990), where the meaning of the term "the people" was unanimously held by the court to have the same meaning as in the Preamble and the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments.


So, if "the people" in the Second Amendment has the same meaning as it does in the First, would the argument that only the states have the freedom to worship as they please hold any water?

So, just out of curiosity, why is all that nonsense about a well-ordered militia included?

Personally I think it's saying that since a military (well regulated militia) is necessary for the state's security the people should be armed to make sure that the necessary evil of a standing army under control of the state doesn't get out of line. Remember, these folks just finished fighting against a well organized army of British soldiers. They don't want to be disarmed in case the new American government becomes oppressive.

Why do you believe this, in light of the words of the Constitution?

Further, the supreme Court has upheld the individual nature of the Second Amendment in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990), where the meaning of the term "the people" was unanimously held by the court to have the same meaning as in the Preamble and the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments.


So, if "the people" in the Second Amendment has the same meaning as it does in the First, would the argument that only the states have the freedom to worship as they please hold any water?
Because I have faith?



i don't know why...

I've recently come to the conclusion that I don't care how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted. It would be interesting to see the Supreme Court take a case involving it but I don't honestly think it much matters one way or the other. My instinctive reaction to people waving a 2nd Amendment banner has always been that they're gun-toting jerks, and that for no good reason except that the ones that get on TV often seem to be gun-toting jerks. I think that most of the boys who proclaim that their guns will have to be pried from their cold, dead fingers would line up like third-graders if a conservative government spun the issue properly; the ones who didn't would have their wish granted fairly quickly by the Police, National Guard or Army, or at least be led away crying like little girls.

Not that I think any of that is about to happen. Target weapons, hunting weapons, collectors' items? Sure, why not, just make sure the silly thing is registered and that you at least kept one eye open during the training. Automatic weapons for private use? I kind of question that. Unless Bambi and Thumper have recently been buying arms from Wile E Coyote, you probably don't need one for hunting.

Anyway, US culture and the role of guns in it is not likely to change very soon, so I see the 2nd as a dead letter.

So, just out of curiosity, why is all that nonsense about a well-ordered militia included?

It is a job of the People to be a part of the Militia. USC 10 backs this up.

How would a militia be formed, if the People were not armed?

It is a job of the People to be a part of the Militia. USC 10 backs this up.

How would a militia be formed, if the People were not armed?

The State goes and buy the weapons? Where does the Natonal Guard get weapons now? And how many private individuals have artillery they can haul behind the Volvo to the assembly point?

The State goes and buy the weapons? Where does the Natonal Guard get weapons now? And how many private individuals have artillery they can hauk behind the Volvo to the assembly point?

But then the weapons would be in the hands of the state, not the people. Beyond that, the National Guard are not a militia in the sense that the Constitution is describing.

Beyond that, the concept is not that the people and the state would engage in a classical battle on the field, but that the people would be able to engage in an insurgency type campaign, and using sheer numbers, be able to overwhelm the forces of the state.

The State goes and buy the weapons?

There are no taxes allocated for this. And, how would the citizens know how to use the weapons? From playing Grand Theft Auto? Watching Rambo or Die Hard?

Where does the Natonal Guard get weapons now?

From their tax-supported armories. Armories that are not accessible by the people.

And how many private individuals have artillery they can hauk behind the Volvo to the assembly point?

I am aware of some, but they don't have Volvos.

It's a justification for allowing people to have arms.

You've also got to remember that according to the US Code, every man between 18 and 45 is legally a member of the unorganized militia. Something I think should be extended to women as well.


Personally I think it's saying that since a military (well regulated militia) is necessary for the state's security the people should be armed to make sure that the necessary evil of a standing army under control of the state doesn't get out of line. Remember, these folks just finished fighting against a well organized army of British soldiers. They don't want to be disarmed in case the new American government becomes oppressive.

Makes sense. I run into so many people who want to *ignore* the rest of the wording and pretend it isn't there.

There are no taxes allocated for this. And, how would the citizens know how to use the weapons? From playing Grand Theft Auto? Watching Rambo or Die Hard?


Shouldn't they do this then, or at least provide training to those who do have guns?

Shouldn't they do this then, or at least provide training to those who do have guns?

No, because the militia is not a tax-payer funded entity. It is comprised of free citizens who are self-armed and self-trained.

Hence, the Second Amendment guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, so that we can perform our duty as the militia.

We do not have this duty as a defense from tryanny run rampant in the US government. It is also to act as a defense against foreign invaders, as an aid to the regular military, as we did in the Revolution.

No, because the militia is not a tax-payer funded entity. It is comprised of free citizens who are self-armed and self-trained.

Hence, the Second Amendment guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, so that we can perform our duty as the militia.

We do not have this duty as a defense from tryanny run rampant in the US government. It is also to act as a defense against foreign invaders, as an aid to the regular military, as we did in the Revolution.

Where does it say self armed and self trained? I can see self armed working, but self trained seems to me to just be asking for trouble with a few who know what they are doing and the rest getting those ones killed because they have fuck all clue about how to handle a gun. Further if its not for protection in case of a needed revolt against the goverment, but to help the goverment wouldn't it make sense to actually let the goverment train people so that they will be a help and not a hinderance? I'm even if person knows how to handle a gun and woodcraft from hunting, but would't it make sense to provide some level of paramilitary training? Yes, I know some people do that, but for most they just use it for hunting or home deffense and would probably be of more use in such a situation if they had further training.

In other words, does it apply to the People or the States?

Some claim that this protection role is meant for the states to provide, that the Second Amendment merely asserts the state’s right to have a militia, or guard unit.

Wrong.

Those who claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right should first read the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 10, Clause 3;

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The operative phrase here is, of course, "No State shall ... keep Troops ... ." Granted, the states can do so if, IF, Congress allows it, but such has not happened. As can be seen, states DO NOT have the right to keep troops, which proves the fallacy of the "collective" argument.

Thus, it follows that the Second Amendment is an individual right guaranteed to the People.


No shit sherlock.:rolleyes:

http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-secondamendment-gallery-835.jpg

You've also got to remember that according to the US Code, every man between 18 and 45 is legally a member of the unorganized militia. Something I think should be extended to women as well.
So America is meant to have been a militarist state?

Where does it say self armed and self trained?

Define, "it."

That aside, it is part of what a MILITIA is. If trained by the state, then the unit ceases to be militia and becomes part of the state's armed forces.

So America is meant to have been a militarist state?

If that is what it means to have a militia, yes.

Further, the supreme Court has upheld the individual nature of the Second Amendment in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990), where the meaning of the term "the people" was unanimously held by the court to have the same meaning as in the Preamble and the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments.If you're going to cite Supreme Court cases, you might bother to read them.

First of all, Verdugo-Urquidez was a Fourth Amendment case, so any language regarding the Second Amendment is obiter dicta without the force of precedent.

Secondly, the decision was NOT unanimous--the decision was 6-3, and only 5 justices signed on to Rehnquist's opinion.

Finally, if you actually read the case you will find that the term "the people" is interpreted as referring to a collectivity. In fact, Rehnquist's entire point in this argument is to show that "the people" refers to a narrower group than "persons" (but broader than "citizens"). Thus, on Rehnquist's argument the Second Amendment (and the Fourth in this case) applies to members of a "national community" but not to non-members. At the very least, then, it is an "individual right" in a very different sense than, say, due process or equal protection of the laws.

This is very poor precedent, at best, for the notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right... and given the consistent refusal of the Court to incorporate the Amendment against the States on the grounds that it is a collective right, I doubt legal arguments will be able to take it very far at all.

You're grasping at straws.

Of course, at last count almost all of the States had their own constitutional protections similar to that in the Second Amendment, and presumably these should be read to protect an individual right. (A fact that does cause some interpretive difficulty due to the fact that many States literally copied the Second Amendment into their own constitutions. Thus, the language would appear to mean different things in different places.)

Of course, at last count almost all of the States had their own constitutional protections similar to that in the Second Amendment, and presumably these should be read to protect an individual right. (A fact that does cause some interpretive difficulty due to the fact that many States literally copied the Second Amendment into their own constitutions. Thus, the language would appear to mean different things in different places.)


My state's Constitution says

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

It's rather clear, so I'm not all that concerned about the 2nd Amendment. Michigan protects my right to have firearms, so as long as the Federal government stays out of it I'm happy.

My state's Constitution says

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

It's rather clear, so I'm not all that concerned about the 2nd Amendment. Michigan protects my right to have firearms, so as long as the Federal government stays out of it I'm happy.

Yep, that's true in one way or another for most States, which is why it's a little absurd that many gun enthusiasts get themselves all tied up about the Second Amendment. This is not to say that they have no valid concerns: States can effectively have their own standards, which may cause complications in traveling or relocating with guns; or one may not be satisfied with the standard established in her/his own State. Then again, there is no guarantee that the federal courts will always uphold a (subjectively) better standard, so it's not clear that nationalizing the issue is a useful solution.

My opinion is that decentralized standards are appropriate when it comes to gun law. The laws appropriate to Michigan, or even my own home in rural Pennsylvania, may not be equally appropriate in New York City or Philadelphia. Individual states are probably in a better position to judge of these differences than are federal officials--and especially federal judges.

http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-secondamendment-gallery-835.jpg
Luckily it isn't the right to "bare" penis. :D

If you're going to cite Supreme Court cases, you might bother to read them.

I have read them.

Secondly, the decision was NOT unanimous--the decision was 6-3, and only 5 justices signed on to Rehnquist's opinion.

Hmm. 5+1=6. Hey, the math works!

At any rate, your comment is irrelevant. A supreme Court decision bears equal weight whether it is unanimous or a bare majority. The decision stands.

Finally, if you actually read the case you will find that the term "the people" is interpreted as referring to a collectivity.

Really?

So, our protection from illegal search and seizure only applies if ALL are being searched or seized?

Our protection to worship as we please only applies as long as ALL are worshippping?

I can think of a lot of court cases that fly in teh face of your collectivist argument.

Hence, the Second Amendment guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, so that we can perform our duty as the militia.

But there is no well-regulated militia thus your argument is void.

Yep, that's true in one way or another for most States, which is why it's a little absurd that many gun enthusiasts get themselves all tied up about the Second Amendment.

Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution gets us "tied up" about the Second Amendment;

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Supreme law of the land. It overrides state law AND constitutions. So, if a state constitution is contrary to whatever decision is made about the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment wins.

As a result, we get concerned when nine guys in black start finagling with the Constitution.

But there is no well-regulated militia thus your argument is void.

Here ya go;

“10 USC S 311 (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.”

You don’t even have to be a citizen; simply state your intent to become one, and you become a part of the militia (providing you meet the required age and gender qualifications).

So much for "void," eh?

Here ya go;

“10 USC S 311 (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.”

You don’t even have to be a citizen; simply state your intent to become one, and you become a part of the militia (providing you meet the required age and gender qualifications).

So much for "void," eh?
"Well regulated." A general militia of all men is not regulated, much less well regulated.

But there is no well-regulated militia thus your argument is void.

It's based off of the ability to be able to form a militia that is important, not whether there is one or not. Take note, there is no qualifier on the matter of militia in the wording of the amendment.

It's based off of the ability to be able to form a militia that is important, not whether there is one or not.

Under your assumption.

Take note, there is no qualifier on the matter of militia in the wording of the amendment.
Assumption. You are assuming that the founders did not mean for the well regulated militia itself to be the qualifier for arms.

"Well regulated." A general militia of all men is not regulated, much less well regulated.

So, you're arguing that 10 USC S 311 is a law that defines what a non-existant body is?

So, you're arguing that 10 USC S 311 is a law that defines what a non-existant body is?

Are you asserting a general militia of all able bodied men can be construed to be well regulated?
America is more full of well regulated driving unions than it is of well regulated militias.

Under your assumption.

Assumption. You are assuming that the founders did not mean for the well regulated militia itself to be the qualifier for arms.

As are you, but 10 USC S 311 is important in understanding the second amendment. You must remember that the paradigm of a militia in the time of the framers was that of the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, who were not what you'd call particularly well regulated.

As are you, but 10 USC S 311 is important in understanding the second amendment. You must remember that the paradigm of a militia in the time of the framers was that of the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, who were not what you'd call particularly well regulated.
Yes, they were. They regularly trained in concert.

Here ya go;

“10 USC S 311 (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.”

You don’t even have to be a citizen; simply state your intent to become one, and you become a part of the militia (providing you meet the required age and gender qualifications).

So much for "void," eh?

So no-one over the age of 45 can legally have a gun?

Yes, they were. They regularly trained in concert.

Umm, no, unless you consider "muster" to be "training".

Showing up with your own firearm and no uniform when called to a regular meeting, which consists of calling roll...

Yes, they were. They regularly trained in concert.

With beer in their bellies, I might add. The average meeting of militiamen from that point in time took place in a tavern, and people came home light in the heads and in the wallets.

Umm, no, unless you consider "muster" to be "training".

Showing up with your own firearm and no uniform when called to a regular meeting, which consists of calling roll...

Then going off to the local tavern to imbibe some of New England's finest beers and ales...

Umm, no, unless you consider "muster" to be "training".
They gathered at least 4 times a year to train together. In addition, they were organized into military like units. If you people want to throw stuff in my face, at least have some level of knowledge about the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen

With beer in their bellies, I might add. The average meeting of militiamen from that point in time took place in a tavern, and people came home light in the heads and in the wallets.
So you admit they were organized such that they regularly met regardless of reason? Sounds pretty well regulated to me.

So no-one over the age of 45 can legally have a gun?
Zing, fucking zing.

Under your assumption.

And, you are arguing under your own assumption.

What makes your assumption more valid than that of others?

Assumption. You are assuming that the founders did not mean for the well regulated militia itself to be the qualifier for arms.

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

You do know who Thomas Jefferson was, don't you?

How about Richard Henry Lee? Do you know who he was?

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms"
-- Richard Henry Lee

And, then there's James Madison.

"The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."
-- James Madison

Familiar with these guys?

I see that they support your argument; that the people must not be armed.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
It lays the groundwork, stating that the ability of the people to form a militia if the need be is vitally important to a free state.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This half guarantees one of the key elements in being able to form a militia, having your own weapon.

Are you asserting a general militia of all able bodied men can be construed to be well regulated?
America is more full of well regulated driving unions than it is of well regulated militias.

I am asserting that a well-regulated militia is a subset of the individually armed general public.

Militias, regulated or not, provide their own arms, not the State. An unarmed populace is a poor pool from which to draw the regulated militia.

In Virginia, if you are capable of bearing arms, you are in the State Militia, whether you like it or not.

See the entry for "Virginia Militia" on Wikipedia.

Pantless, you have been pwned.

So you admit they were organized such that they regularly met regardless of reason? Sounds pretty well regulated to me.
Being drunk and marching around in circles hardly sounds well regulated.


Zing, fucking zing.

I believe part of the logic is that if it's available to these folks, in the spirit of equal protection, it should be expanded to every adult.


Beyond that, in the current time we have no immediate need of forming a militia, but in the future such a need might arise, and as such, the people must be properly equipped in the event that a militia is needed.

So no-one over the age of 45 can legally have a gun?

No.

No one over 45 is a part of the militia. They are still free to own arms.

As Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

And, you are arguing under your own assumption.

What makes your assumption more valid than that of others?
It doesn't. But that inversely does not make your assumption any more founded than mine.



"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

You do know who Thomas Jefferson was, don't you?
Yes, do you? He had no part in writing the Constitution. Well not no part, but he was no present in its writing and only minimally influenced the committee.

How about Richard Henry Lee? Do you know who he was?

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms"
-- Richard Henry Lee
Opposed the Constitution.

And, then there's James Madison.

"The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."
-- James Madison

Familiar with these guys?
1 out of 3, I suppose you could do worse. But I suppose you assert James Madison was talking about people 200 years in the future when he spoke of "gallant citizens of America."

Zing, fucking zing.

This means something?

It doesn't. But that inversely does not make your assumption any more founded than mine.

Yes, do you? He had no part in writing the Constitution. Well not no part, but he was no present in its writing and only minimally influenced the committee.

Opposed the Constitution.

1 out of 3, I suppose you could do worse. But I suppose you assert James Madison was talking about people 200 years in the future when he spoke of "gallant citizens of America."

Cherrypicking again? A lot more people were involved. Read the Federalist Papers.

It doesn't. But that inversely does not make your assumption any more founded than mine.



Yes, do you? He had no part in writing the Constitution. Well not no part, but he was no present in its writing and only minimally influenced the committee.

But it was because of Jefferson's faction that the Amendments were included. The Federalists could not get the anti-Federalists to come along and sign without the amendments.


Opposed the Constitution.
Once again, Lee was one of the people that the amendments were designed to sway.


1 out of 3, I suppose you could do worse. But I suppose you assert James Madison was talking about people 200 years in the future when he spoke of "gallant citizens of America."

Madison was talking about all people, at all times. You must remember that these were viewed as universal rights (for the holders of rights, a definition that has immensely expanded over time)

I am asserting that a well-regulated militia is a subset of the individually armed general public.
I guess you suppose regulation is pulled out of Santa Claus' jolly ass?

Militias, regulated or not, provide their own arms, not the State. An unarmed populace is a poor pool from which to draw the regulated militia.
Gee, I guess you do suppose that.

In Virginia, if you are capable of bearing arms, you are in the State Militia, whether you like it or not.

See the entry for "Virginia Militia" on Wikipedia.

Pantless, you have been pwned.
I would have been, if any of you could read. There is no regulation thus there can be no well regulated militia. A general militia of all citizens it not well regulated.

Being drunk and marching around in circles hardly sounds well regulated.
Do you consider the Boy Scouts to be a organized group of individuals? What about the local drinking club? Even the latter is better regulated than a general militia of all people. Drunk and marching in circles or not, there was a level of regulation present in order for meetings to take place.

I believe part of the logic is that if it's available to these folks, in the spirit of equal protection, it should be expanded to every adult.
So when your already ice thin defense falls through, you fall back on unfounded assumption.


No one over 45 is a part of the militia. They are still free to own arms.
You don't even try.

As Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry was the most outspoken opponent of the US Constitution.

It doesn't. But that inversely does not make your assumption any more founded than mine.

Which is why I provided reasoning to go with my assumption to support it.

Yes, do you? He had no part in writing the Constitution. Well not no part, but he was no present in its writing and only minimally influenced the committee.

Indeed. As author of the Declaration of Independence, he didn't have a clue on the mindset of the Founding Fathers.

Opposed the Constitution.

Indeed he did. But, he was at the Convention. But, I guess as a doorstop as, he too, had no idea on what the others were talking about.

1 out of 3, I suppose you could do worse.

Your math needs work. 3 out of 3.

But I suppose you assert James Madison was talking about people 200 years in the future when he spoke of "gallant citizens of America."

Relevancy?

Cherrypicking again? A lot more people were involved. Read the Federalist Papers.

How was I cherry picking? I responded to every point he made and can only respond to points he made. I think you need to go troll elsewhere or at least make up less absurd arguments.

I would have been, if any of you could read. There is no regulation thus there can be no well regulated militia. A general militia of all citizens it not well regulated.
Once again, how does a well regulated militia develop if there are no arms available with which they are to equip themselves? That there is not one right now is irrelevant, that there could be one is what matters.


Patrick Henry was the most outspoken opponent of the US Constitution.

Once again, the amendments were designed to woo the anti-Federalists, in order to get them to agree to the Constitution.

How was I cherry picking? I responded to every point he made and can only respond to points he made. I think you need to go troll elsewhere or at least make up less absurd arguments.

You're cherrypicking who you say was pro-individual gun rights, and who was involved in writing the Constitution. 1 out of 3 my ass.

Indeed. As author of the Declaration of Independence, he didn't have a clue on the mindset of the Founding Fathers.
But has nothing to do with authoring the Constitution.

Indeed he did. But, he was at the Convention.
No, actually he wasn't. He refused to go.

Relevancy?
Nothing has changed in 200 years?

I guess you suppose regulation is pulled out of Santa Claus' jolly ass?

Hardly. I suppose that what you do for sexual stimulation in your own time is your own affair.

Gee, I guess you do suppose that.

Gee, I guess you're wrong.

From where, do you think, was the militia - regulated or not - to be drawn? A magic hat?

I would have been, if any of you could read. There is no regulation thus there can be no well regulated militia. A general militia of all citizens it not well regulated.

Work on your quoting skills. I made no mention of the Virgina Constitution.

Patrick Henry was the most outspoken opponent of the US Constitution.

Which makes his words irrelevant, how again?

You're cherrypicking who you say was pro-individual gun rights, and who was involved in writing the Constitution. 1 out of 3 my ass.
Right. I am cherry picking who was pro-gun rights, despite the fact I have not quoted any founders out of context about their opinion on gun rights and have only replied to things other people have said.

Yeah...

But has nothing to do with authoring the Constitution.
Besides the influence he had on several of the framers.


Nothing has changed in 200 years?

As far as rights are concerned, no.

From where, do you think, was the militia - regulated or not - to be drawn? A magic hat?
You then assert, against evidence, that the Minutemen and state militias were not regulated?

Which makes his words irrelevant, how again?
Let's see, you quote him "supporting" the Constitution (nothing about gun control), yet he was its most outspoken opponent.

Nothing has changed in 200 years?

Well, I guess you're saying the "right of the people" has changed over the past 200 years then.

So, the "right of the people" to "keep and bear arms" goes out the window with you.

Might as well look at eliminating the First Amendment. Or are you saying "the People" in the First Amendment are not the same "the People" in the Second?

Besides the influence he had on several of the framers.
Already acknowledged, try again.

As far as rights are concerned, no.
Madison's focus was not rights themselves, but the nature of citizens and thusly rights. So people havn't changed in 200 years?

Individuals in the US have had guns for over two hundred years now ... why is this being questioned now?

Madison's focus was not rights themselves, but the nature of citizens and thusly rights. So people havn't changed in 200 years?

People haven't changed in 2000 years, let alone 200. 200 years is an incrdibly short time span.

But has nothing to do with authoring the Constitution.

Like I said, obviously he had no idea on what the other Founding Fathers were thinking, working in a vacuum as he was.

No, actually he wasn't. He refused to go.

I'll concede that one. I failed to recollect that one properly. However, he DID lead the fight to get the Bill of Rights included, fearing too much centralized power. The Second Amendment, being a part of the BoR, is something that he would know something about.

Nothing has changed in 200 years?

As far as the law is concerned, until amended, no.

People haven't changed in 2000 years, let alone 200. 200 years is an incrdibly short time span.

That's absurd.

You then assert, against evidence, that the Minutemen and state militias were not regulated?

Don't recall saying either way.

What I said is that a militia - regardless of its regulation - is drawn from the populace and that an unarmed populace is a poor pool from which to draw a self-armed militia.

Let's see, you quote him "supporting" the Constitution (nothing about gun control), yet he was its most outspoken opponent.

He did not support the pre-BoR Constitution. Once the BoR was added, which he was a major influence in its addition, he supported it wholeheartedly.

=============================
Subsequently, Henry was among those most responsible for adding a bill of rights to the Constitution, and with the bill's passage he gave his support to the amended Constitution.
=============================
-- http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/artifact/Painting_31_00011.htm

I think collectivists should placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds for their insolence. :D Pretty standard, really.

If you would permit me, I would recommend an excellent book on this subject written by Les Adams, former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and once collectivist interpreter of the second amendment.


Second Amendment Primer (http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Primer-Authorities-Constitutional/dp/B0006QSTH4/sr=8-1/qid=1166025284/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9567021-3851804?ie=UTF8&s=books)

Yep, yep. Good stuff.

J.

That's absurd.

Not at all. Look at western civilization, we've got the same problems the Romans had, the Greeks had. All that's different is we've got some shiny new toys, that's all. Humanity has not changed in 2000 years.

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

Beyond that, the Bill of Rights were not ratified at the same time as the Constitution, they were ratified somewhat later, on December 15, 1791. Over a year and a half after the Constitution was ratified by the last of the states.

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

More than that, Patrick Henry was instrumental in forcing the Bill of Rights, and because of his role, his words on the matter must certainly be considered.

Hmm. 5+1=6. Hey, the math works!Ummm, yes. But you do know the difference between concurring in the judgment and concurring in the opinion, yes? When a justice concurs in the judgment but not in the opinion, it means that he/she does not endorse the reasoning used in the majority opinion to reach the decision.

At any rate, your comment is irrelevant. A supreme Court decision bears equal weight whether it is unanimous or a bare majority. The decision stands.Now, that is just not true. There is a reason that justices struggle to convince their colleagues with their opinions, especially on important issues: they know that the further from unanimity they stray, the less likely it is that the opinion will serve as binding precedent. Lower courts will be less likely to enforce it consistently, and government officials will cite language from the dissents to justify narrow interpretations or outright defiance.

That is precisely the reason that the justices famously compromised on the "all deliberate speed" language in Brown 2: they feared that if they lost unaminity, that highly divisive case would simply become trampled by history.

Really?

So, our protection from illegal search and seizure only applies if ALL are being searched or seized?That's not what I said. You really need to read the damn opinion: Rehnquist is being very muddy in his interpretation of the language, because that's what serves his ends. He says that "the people" refers to a "national community"--a group--so that he can exclude other people from its protections. He does not make any clear statement at all about whether this word should be consistently treated as protecting the group itself or individual members of the group--that is a separate issue of interpretation which may depend on context. The important thing is that he does refer to a group identity such that this makes poor precedent indeed for an individual right in the Second Amendment--especially since its reasoning is mere dicta when applied to the Second.

Our protection to worship as we please only applies as long as ALL are worshippping?Since when does the Free Exercise clause use the word "people," anyway?

I can think of a lot of court cases that fly in teh face of your collectivist argument.
Then you are welcome to name them. But I would suggest reading them first. Don't just cite them because some overzealous gun website is grabbing at them for support. Reach your own conclusions.

Supreme law of the land. It overrides state law AND constitutions. So, if a state constitution is contrary to whatever decision is made about the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment wins.

As a result, we get concerned when nine guys in black start finagling with the Constitution.You misunderstand the Supremacy Clause and its effect on State law.

Clearly if the Second Amendment applies to the States and a State attempts to regulate gun ownership or gun use in a way that violates controlling Second Amendment doctrine, the State action will be ruled unconstitutional and, consistent with our federal system, the State will be expected to change its behavior.

If, however, the Second Amendment does NOT apply to the States, then the States are perfectly free to institute their own protections of gun ownership. Indeed, even when it comes to incorporated Amendments (e.g. Free Exercise), States may choose to institute additional protections.

In the case of the Second Amendment, since most states have their own protections, most of them similar to the Second or stronger, States are unlikely to protect gun ownership on significantly lower standards than the federal courts.

arguably, following the reasoning behind most of the other Rights granted under the Bill of Rights, the second amendment was probably intended to allow people to keep arms in order to defend their rights in the event that the government exceeded it's jurisdiction with regards to same rights.

arguably, following the reasoning behind most of the other Rights granted under the Bill of Rights, the second amendment was probably intended to allow people to keep arms in order to defend their rights in the event that the government exceeded it's jurisdiction with regards to same rights.

First, this is an overly simplistic read on most of the rights secured by the first Eight Amendments; but for the moment, let us accept that it holds water.

Even so, it needs to be understood in the context of the early federal system. Many of the States did not themselves have similar Bills of Rights, nor would they for some time. More importantly, advocacy for a Bill of Rights in the federal constitution often stopped there: people who strongly pushed for the federal Bill of Rights did NOT turn around and fight to get the same in their States. At the State level, they were satisfied without such explicit grants of immunity.

Now, it is well accepted that the first Eight Amendments originally applied only to actions of the federal government: "Congress shall make no law..." It was not until some time after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment that courts would accept the argument that some of the protections in the Bill of Rights apply against the States.

Returning to the Second Amendment, the courts have read any protection against tyranny (and there were many other, possibly more compelling, arguments for passing and ratifying the Amendment, not least of them the right to self-defense against foreign invasion) to refer to protection against the tyranny of the federal government. That is, people who were NOT afraid of their States (because they identified more closely with the State) demanded a protection against being disarmed by the federal government.

At the State level, they accepted the normal protections of the political process: try to take my guns, and I'll kick you out of office. They were not convinced (for good reason) that they could have as immediate an effect on the federal government.

In essence, then, the argument asserts that the people of each State will regulate guns as they see fit, not as the federal government orders. It was understood by many at the time of ratification, and by most courts since, to apply only against the federal government.

In the time of the framing of the Constitution and the BoR, "Well Regulated" was a term that was used in a different way. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

IMO, the second amendment was, is, and always should be an individual right.