Supremes have granted cert to the DC gun ban case

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the Supreme Court has decided that they WILL hear and adjudicate the case of the gun ban imposed in Washington DC.

This could become quite a landmark case, if they give a ruling about whether the 2nd amendment protects the right of ordinary people to keep and vbear arms, regardless of their military affiliation or the type of weapons (military-style or non-military style) in question.

OTOH, they might simply say that the weapons owned by the man who brought the case, are or are not protected by the 2nd, but that their ruling does NOT apply to "weapons and rights generally".

I hope they decide the former, and rule that the 2nd means exactly what it says. In modern language: "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

Such a ruling by the highest court in the land, could eventually result in the entire house of cards built by gun-ban fanatics, tumbling down as more and more cases are brought subsequent to the ruling.

---------------------------------------

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1I6H80&show_article=1

Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

Nov 20 02:09 PM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

[April15]

Or they could affirm certain weapons have no place in the general populace.

[Little-Acorn]

Or they could affirm certain weapons have no place in the general populace.

True, they could. After all, the USSC has at various times ruled that the Fed could ban states from regulating abortion - a Federal power found nowhere in the Constitution; and they have ruled that Eminent Domain could be used to transfer property from one private group to another, a flat violation of the 5th amendment; and even that the Fed could regulate political speech before an election, in flat violation of the 1st amendment.

So yes, the Supremes might invent the "fact" that certain guns aren't protected by the 2nd amendment, and carry on their history of fallacious judicial activism mentioned above.

Hopefully, though, with the addition of Roberts and Alito and the retirement of weathervane O'Connor, they will begin to reverse that trend, and rule that the 2nd means exactly what it says.

Another essay on the same topic, with more detail and analysis:

------------------------------------------

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Court agrees to rule on gun case

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 1:02 pm
by Lyle Denniston

After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.

Actually, the way the justice(s) phrased the question in their statement announcing cert, is a very good sign of how they may rule.

From the second article above:



Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”



Here we have one or more Justices writing in plain black and white, that the 2nd protects a right of non-militia people to KBA for private use; and merely asking whether the DC gun ban violates that right.

No way that phrasing could be accidental. Not on this issue.

They could just as easily have asked, "Do non-militia people have a Constitutionally protected right to KBA for private use? **IF SO**, do the DC Code sections violate it?"

That would have left open the possibility that people don't have the RKBA. But the Justices DID NOT phrase it that way.

The long darkness of the Judiciary's unconstitutional denial of the 2nd amendment, may be drawing to a close at last.

:clap:

[Pale Rider]

This is going to be the most important case the USSC has heard for many, many years.

Myself, I can't see how this statement is that hard to understand.

"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."

If they decide that it is unlawful for people to keep and bear arms, we will be closer to a another civil war than ever before. I for one, will NEVER give up my guns. I'll die first.

[actsnoblemartin]

You should be able to have a shotgun, or pistol. Machine gun no.

There is the comprimise.

[Joe Steel]

This is going to be the most important case the USSC has heard for many, many years.

Myself, I can't see how this statement is that hard to understand.

"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."

If they decide that it is unlawful for people to keep and bear arms, we will be closer to a another civil war than ever before. I for one, will NEVER give up my guns. I'll die first.

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

[Pale Rider]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

I disagree. People means me, one among many. And I'll shoot the first person that tries to take my guns. You wanna try?

[Joe Steel]

I disagree. People means me, one among many. And I'll shoot the first person that tries to take my guns. You wanna try?

Tell it to David Koresh.

[diuretic]

It's being reported here on domestic radio, creating some interest. I'll be keen to see the interpretation by the Supreme Court for legal reasons, nothing to do with gun control (it's one of the American domestic issues I try to stay away from). I think it will be a fascinating read.

[Jeep Driver]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

The Militia of the time of the writting of the Bill of Rights kept thier guns at home because they were
"thier guns."
Many of them were some of the most advanced wepons of thier day.(ie Rifles instead of Muskets)
We the People have an obgliation to own Machine Guns , Tanks , Artillery, Air power,
The Declateration requires that we the people have a duty to alter or abolish
Those forms of goverment that no longer serve to provide for our personal defense and therby instute new goverment to preserve the consent of the governed.

Our founders ment for us to control our goverment by whatever means nessary . Period
But If the people of this nation decide to use thier power of voteing to place us into slavery. we the people have it with in our power to place ourselves into A form of slavery that we can never vote ourselves out of, ever again.

And armed man is a citizen an unarmed man is a slave.

It started before with taxes. Otherwise known as Robbery.

When I read the Declaration, I see Bravery that has few equals in human history.

[Pale Rider]

Tell it to David Koresh.

I'm telling you.

[5stringJeff]

Or they could affirm certain weapons have no place in the general populace.

Just like Hitler did!!! :thumb:

[5stringJeff]

If they decide that it is unlawful for people to keep and bear arms, we will be closer to a another civil war than ever before. I for one, will NEVER give up my guns. I'll die first.

I'll be right there with you, weapons at the ready.

[Pale Rider]

I'll be right there with you, weapons at the ready.

We won't be alone Jeff. There will be tens of millions of Americans that will unite. It'll either be another civil war, or the the SC will reverse it's decision. They will NEVER completely disarm this nation without a battle. A battle that would fracture it forever, maybe for the better. We can give the liberals that want to disarm the people Washington DC, and when their murder rate quadruples like it did in Australia because only the criminals have guns, we can have the last laugh.

[pegwinn]

No offense Joe, but I gotta disagree with a couple of points.


"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms. No sir, "people" was (and still is) both the plural of person and a collective reference to a specific group of persons. IE, the people of England, of Virginia, of Dallas, etc etc.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force. In common English of the period, Arms actually meant "weapons" in the collective. Considering that firearms were fairly rare on a per capita basis, the term "arms" also includes swords, daggers, clubs, pistols, rifles, pikes, axes, etc. The question we need to ask is when did "arms" begin to mean only firearms. The second amendment also means that outlawing crossbows or knives with six inch blades is in fact unconstitutional.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force." To Bear actually means "to carry". There is a chance that your definition was in common usage as slang. However, the plain language of the US Constitution demonstrates that there was no intent to use popular or slang versions of the language.

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective. Actually the second amendment is directive on the states to maintain a militia, and to ensure that said militia is able to be formed by the armed citizenry. Historically my interpretation is accurate since the majority of states required service in the militia. Additionally the language syntax follows in a directive and supportive fashion.

Hi, I'm Phil. Tag; You're it.

[diuretic]

We won't be alone Jeff. There will be tens of millions of Americans that will unite. It'll either be another civil war, or the the SC will reverse it's decision. They will NEVER completely disarm this nation without a battle. A battle that would fracture it forever, maybe for the better. We can give the liberals that want to disarm the people Washington DC, and when their murder rate quadruples like it did in Australia because only the criminals have guns, we can have the last laugh.

Pale, the murder rate hasn't quadrupled here, you've been given false information. And plenty of legit people have legit guns here, you've been given false information again.

[Pale Rider]

Pale, the murder rate hasn't quadrupled here, you've been given false information. And plenty of legit people have legit guns here, you've been given false information again.

I don't know about quadrupled, but I have read plenty on the internet about higher murder rates since you people were disarmed, and this was written by your own press. You may want to look around at what is being said about Australia by Australians... start here... http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/guns.html

[diuretic]

I don't know about quadrupled, but I have read plenty on the internet about higher murder rates since you people were disarmed, and this was written by your own press. You may want to look around at what is being said about Australia by Australians... start here... http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/guns.html

On murder rates - http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi153.html

Yes, I've seen that sheila's site before. It's her personal website and fair enough, she's expressing a bunch of opinions. But when it comes to the claim that homicide rates have gone up simply because of gun control, it's not a sustainable claim.

I'm more than happy to discuss the gun buybacks. But let me get one thing straight - they were bloody stupid policy moves and I am personally totally opposed to them. They achieved two-fifths of nothing, they were populist moves by our knee-jerk reflex Prime Minister.

I do support gun control in our country (in our states) because the way we've done it is reasonable. Yes, there's a lot of ignorance about firearms here but that's because apart from rural communities and firearms afficionados, most people haven't got a clue because we are not a major firearms-owning society. I've owned various firearms, I've trained withi them and I've used them operationally, they don't scare me, I like using firearms. I'm an unusual Australian citizen in that way. If I lived in the States I would be lining up for a CCW permit about ten minutes after I got through Customs.

I've said I'm uncomfortable with discussing gun control policies in the US because for me it's a purely domestic issue that has no effect on me or my country and anyway I don't know enough about it to constructively contribute. I'm very happy to discuss it here in Oz though, so I can point out some of the misinformation that many Americans have been given.

Now - :cheers2: (but not on the firin' range :D)

[Pale Rider]

On murder rates - http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi153.html

Yes, I've seen that sheila's site before. It's her personal website and fair enough, she's expressing a bunch of opinions. But when it comes to the claim that homicide rates have gone up simply because of gun control, it's not a sustainable claim.

I'm more than happy to discuss the gun buybacks. But let me get one thing straight - they were bloody stupid policy moves and I am personally totally opposed to them. They achieved two-fifths of nothing, they were populist moves by our knee-jerk reflex Prime Minister.

I do support gun control in our country (in our states) because the way we've done it is reasonable. Yes, there's a lot of ignorance about firearms here but that's because apart from rural communities and firearms afficionados, most people haven't got a clue because we are not a major firearms-owning society. I've owned various firearms, I've trained withi them and I've used them operationally, they don't scare me, I like using firearms. I'm an unusual Australian citizen in that way. If I lived in the States I would be lining up for a CCW permit about ten minutes after I got through Customs.

I've said I'm uncomfortable with discussing gun control policies in the US because for me it's a purely domestic issue that has no effect on me or my country and anyway I don't know enough about it to constructively contribute. I'm very happy to discuss it here in Oz though, so I can point out some of the misinformation that many Americans have been given.

Now - :cheers2: (but not on the firin' range :D)
I appreciate your input coming from someone who lives in Australia, however skewed it may be to the left or right, I won't judge.

Now for many Americans such as myself, I was literally born with a gun in my hands. My family were big sportmen, and we did a lot of hunting. I was raised in a home where there were at least a dozen assorted rifles and shot guns, and half a dozen pistols. My family still owns a considerable amount of firearms. A 2003 survey of gun ownership in America found that there was between 83 to 96 firearms per 100 people in America. Almost one gun for every person. If that number has moved, I'd guess it's gone up. For the most part Americans cherish their right to keep and bear arms. It's is the norm rather than the exception.

Now our SC is hearing a case on whether or not our second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that if they found it is NOT our right, there will be an uprising of armed citizenry in this country not seen since the civil war, and I will be one of them.

The day they disarm America, is the day America will cease to be America.

[diuretic]

I would think that the right is self-evident in the 2nd amendment (regardless of the niceties of interpretation of the wording). Even if it was overturned somehow (which I really can't see) then I couldn't see firearms being totally outlawed in the US, I just can't see it happening. Whether or not the decision turns to the extent to which legislatures can act on gun control, I still can't see wholesale banning of firearms, I don't think it's possible - and speaking personally, I don't see it as being desirable. But now I'm pronouncing and I want to avoid that.

[5stringJeff]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the context of 20th century Marxism, yes, people has a collective meaning to it. In the context of 18th century leaders who believed in liberty and freedom, no. People = >1 person.


In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

Wrong. Keep means keep, and arms means arms. To keep and bear arms means just that: keep (i.e. have with you) and bear (i.e. be able to use or threaten to use) arms (guns, muskets, pistols, etc.).


The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

Since your two premises (above) are both incorrect, then obviously, your conclusion is wrong.

[5stringJeff]

Tell it to David Koresh.

The example of David Koresh is exactly why we should fear a government that wants to disarm the populace.

[Monkeybone]

if they can do it to the 2nd Amendment...even is they make it in just 'urban' areas, what is to keep them from doing it to any of the other rights that we have? that was my first thought.

[Little-Acorn]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.


Well well, the flower of public education speaks.

You need serious training in basic English usage and grammar.

Your "definitions" are completely cockeyed, apparently pulled from thin air.

"The people" does, in fact, mean ordinary Joes (plural) like me, my wife, the guy walking down the street... and even you. Each and every one of us has the right to keep and bear arms.

"Keep" meant to own. Management is only a part of that. Your attempt to carefully cut out the rest, is laughable.

"Arms" isn't a metaphor at all. It's a word. And it refers to weapons, like the ones you can hold in your hands, both in 1789 and now. Not some far-off armed force. I'm at a loss to understand how you got this one so completely wrong... and how you could possibly expect any sensible person to believe your desperate newspeak.

Your "Bear arms" definition is equally crazy. It simply means to carry those weapon(s) with you. It's in there to keep gun-hating ignoramouses such as yourself from claiming that if someone owns a gun but is required to keep it disassembled and locked up in his house 24/7/365 (as the DC gun ban did with most long guns), somehow his rights aren't violated.

I can't think of a better example of some rabid zealot twisting and redefining straightforward language in insane ways, all to pretend the Constitution said what he wanted it to say instead of what it really says, than yours.

I've heard people say that we should always keep one or two liberals around to remind us of just how kooky they can get. Thanks for volunteering! :slap:

[Hagbard Celine]

This is going to be the most important case the USSC has heard for many, many years.

Myself, I can't see how this statement is that hard to understand.

"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."

If they decide that it is unlawful for people to keep and bear arms, we will be closer to a another civil war than ever before. I for one, will NEVER give up my guns. I'll die first.

In your opinion, aren't the phrases "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" in the same article kinda contradictory? Are the two ideas (a well regulated militia) and the people's right to (keep and bear arms) two separate things or are they interdependent? In other words, if regulating fire-arm ownership is or became in the interest of "regulating" the militia, what would trump? Is a well-regulated militia more or less important than the people's right to keep and bear arms? And do we even have a militia anymore? It seems what we actually have is a Federal Army, which if we are to follow the letter of the Constitution, is unconstitutional. What I read is that Congress is supposed to provide and maintain a NAVY. It says specifically that the militia is to be called up from the States by the Congress when needed to enforce the laws of the Union. It says nothing about a standing army. Would a draft be more Constitutional than the current volunteer service? Have we outgrown the Constitution's wording? Does the second amendment really still apply as it was meant to by the founders?

[Little-Acorn]

The amendment means, "Since a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to KBA shall not be infringed."

The part before the comma above, is an explanation, not a condition, for banning govt interference in the RKBA. If someone proved that a well regulated militia were NOT necessary, the ban on govt interference with the RKBA would still remain in force.

To put it another way, if the 2nd amendment read only "The right of the people to KBA shall not be infringed", it would have exactly the same impact and effect as the way it's really written. Militias, well regulated or not, wouldn't matter.

The 2nd amendment is a flat ban on any government taking away or restricting your and my right to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

It's amazing some of the twists people go through to try to pretend otherwise. See the example provided by Joe Steel earlier in this thread - it's a classic of hysterical wishful thinking. :laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

No sir, "people" was (and still is) both the plural of person and a collective reference to a specific group of persons. IE, the people of England, of Virginia, of Dallas, etc etc.

The US Constitution uses both "people" and "persons" but in substantially different contexts. The Founders used "people" where they consider issues of sovereignty and "person" when they wanted to consider individuals. Unlike you, when the US Consitution makes reference to a specific group of persons, it uses "persons." See Article I.




In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

In common English of the period, Arms actually meant "weapons" in the collective. Considering that firearms were fairly rare on a per capita basis, the term "arms" also includes swords, daggers, clubs, pistols, rifles, pikes, axes, etc. The question we need to ask is when did "arms" begin to mean only firearms. The second amendment also means that outlawing crossbows or knives with six inch blades is in fact unconstitutional.

Yes "arms" can be synonymous with "weapons." However, the phrases "keep...arms" and "bear arms" mean "manage and serve in an armed force."




"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

To Bear actually means "to carry". There is a chance that your definition was in common usage as slang. However, the plain language of the US Constitution demonstrates that there was no intent to use popular or slang versions of the language.

It's not slang. It's the "plain English" of the late 18th Century which, in fact, was so highly stylized someone who could read but who wasn't particularly well-read might not understand.




The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

Actually the second amendment is directive on the states to maintain a militia, and to ensure that said militia is able to be formed by the armed citizenry. Historically my interpretation is accurate since the majority of states required service in the militia. Additionally the language syntax follows in a directive and supportive fashion.

In fact, the Second Amendment serves the Founders intent to ensure the US was not oppressed by a standing army.

The British army was a "professional" or "standing" army. It comprised aristocrats, mercenaries, adventurers and impressed derelicts. The Founders feared such an army would be more loyal to its officers than to the People. They wanted to ensure the American army was loyal to the American People so they declared the People's right to manage and serve in a militia, or army of common citizens, which as presumed to be friendly to the interests of the People. See Federalist 29.

[Pale Rider]

In your opinion, aren't the phrases "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" in the same article kinda contradictory? Are the two ideas (a well regulated militia) and the people's right to (keep and bear arms) two separate things or are they interdependent? In other words, if regulating fire-arm ownership is or became in the interest of "regulating" the militia, what would trump? Is a well-regulated militia more or less important than the people's right to keep and bear arms? And do we even have a militia anymore? It seems what we actually have is a Federal Army, which if we are to follow the letter of the Constitution, is unconstitutional. What I read is that Congress is supposed to provide and maintain a NAVY. It says specifically that the militia is to be called up from the States by the Congress when needed to enforce the laws of the Union. It says nothing about a standing army. Would a draft be more Constitutional than the current volunteer service? Have we outgrown the Constitution's wording? Does the second amendment really still apply as it was meant to by the founders?

I can't see as to why one statement can't contain more than one declaration. Why dissect it when each is self explanatory?

[Hagbard Celine]

I can't see as to why one statement can't contain more than one declaration. Why dissect it when each is self explanatory?

Why dissect it? Really?

[Pale Rider]

The British army was a "professional" or "standing" army. It comprised aristocrats, mercenaries, adventurers and impressed derelicts. The Founders feared such an army would be more loyal to its officers than to the People. They wanted to ensure the American army was loyal to the American People so they declared the People's right to manage and serve in a militia, or army of common citizens, which as presumed to be friendly to the interests of the People. See Federalist 29.

Are you suggesting that we lay down our arms because today those very same fears do not exist?

How long do you think it would take our government to over run us like a runaway train if "we the people" were unarmed?

I think it is our right "to keep and bear arms" that has kept the government in check all these years.

[Pale Rider]

Why dissect it? Really?

It's second amendment is such a short and concise statement. What part of it do you find so confusing?

[Hagbard Celine]

It's second amendment is such a short and concise statement. What part of it do you find so confusing?

I thought I made that clear in my earlier post. The statement giving us the freedom to keep and bear arms is apparently contingent upon the existence of a well-regulated militia. Since we no longer have a militia, does the article still apply to our current society? OR. Is the current state of the military unconstitutional? Should the US military be scaled-down from a full-time type force in favor of a militia, kinda like the reserve is now? Should the US Congress conscript militia men from among the populace? Isn't that what the Constitution says anyway? Simply having an armed populace doesn't make much sense from the stance of a Constitution writer. But if that populace was meant to be able to stand up as a militia at any time, it would make perfect sense.

[Pale Rider]

I thought I made that clear in my earlier post. The statement giving us the freedom to keep and bear arms is apparently contingent upon the existence of a well-regulated militia. Since we no longer have a militia, does the article still apply to our current society? OR. Is the current state of the military unconstitutional? Should the US military be scaled-down from a full-time type force in favor of a militia, kinda like the reserve is now? Should the US Congress conscript militia men from among the populace? Isn't that what the Constitution says anyway? Simply having an armed populace doesn't make much sense from the stance of a Constitution writer. But if that populace was meant to be able to stand up as a militia at any time, it would make perfect sense.

I see it as both, as I said. I think it means we have the right to keep and bear arms FOR a state militia, AND for personal use. Remember, the gun wasn't just for fighting a war. It was as much of a necessity back then as a hammer or an axe. That may have changed, but the constitutional amendment hasn't. I believe the only way our government could legally ever disarm this nation, would be to write a new amendment. If they ever do that, kiss your country goodbye.

[Little-Acorn]

I believe the only way our government could legally ever disarm this nation, would be to write a new amendment.
Quite true.

But since when has the government been interested in doing things legally?

The 2nd amendment was written in case they tried "the other way".

Unsurprisingly, the govt has been steadily eroding the 2nd ever since. That's what makes this upcoming USSC review of the Heller case so significant. The Supremes have a chance to point out what the govt has been doing (enacting unconstitutional gun bans and restrictions), and to slap them down for it, in full public view.

[Hagbard Celine]

I see it as both, as I said. I think it means we have the right to keep and bears FOR a state militia, AND for personal use. Remember, the gun wasn't just for fighting a war. It was as much of a necessity back then as a hammer or an axe. That may have changed, but the constitutional amendment hasn't. I believe the only way our government could legally ever disarm this nation, would be to write a new amendment. If they ever do that, kiss your country goodbye.

Good point. I see what you mean. Do you think there should be any regulations? Waiting periods, licenses, bans on certain types of weapons? I think there should be personally.

[Pale Rider]

Good point. I see what you mean. Do you think there should be any regulations? Waiting periods, licenses, bans on certain types of weapons? I think there should be personally.

I don't think there's anything wrong with background checks. Gun dealers should have a way to do instant checks. I have a problem with waiting periods. I think they're unconstitutional. I don't think someone should be required to have a firearm licensed or even register their guns. If I want to own one gun or five hundred, it's my business. Some people collect baseball cards, some collect cars, some collect guns. As long as it's legal, leave them alone.

If you're a felon, retarded or have mental problems, have been convicted of any sort of violent crime, your gun ownership rights are gone.

[Yurt]

I thought I made that clear in my earlier post. The statement giving us the freedom to keep and bear arms is apparently contingent upon the existence of a well-regulated militia. Since we no longer have a militia, does the article still apply to our current society? OR. Is the current state of the military unconstitutional? Should the US military be scaled-down from a full-time type force in favor of a militia, kinda like the reserve is now? Should the US Congress conscript militia men from among the populace? Isn't that what the Constitution says anyway? Simply having an armed populace doesn't make much sense from the stance of a Constitution writer. But if that populace was meant to be able to stand up as a militia at any time, it would make perfect sense.

I think that is also the case. However, I also believe that the 2nd amendment is for individual rights as it is part of the Bill of Rights that was meant to protect the rights of the people. This is a good summation:


Significantly, the Second Amendment refers explicitly to "the right of the people," not the rights of states or the militia. And the Bill of Rights is the section of our Constitution that deals exclusively with individual liberties.

link (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.proguns21nov21,0,6765483.story)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To me, it is clear that the comma indicates that the subject matter is in fact "changed," e.g., that a militia shall not be infringed and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Joe Steel]

Are you suggesting that we lay down our arms because today those very same fears do not exist?

That hazard is as real today as it was in the 18th century. An army of professional soldiers is loyal to itself. It is a danger to the citizenry.


How long do you think it would take our government to over run us like a runaway train if "we the people" were unarmed?

With a "professional" army, not long. With an army of citizens, never.


I think it is our right "to keep and bear arms" that has kept the government in check all these years.

Nonsense.

Our strong tradition of democracy and wide participation in it has kept the government from oppressing the People.

[pegwinn]

I thought I made that clear in my earlier post. The statement giving us the freedom to keep and bear arms is apparently contingent upon the existence of a well-regulated militia.

With respect, the statement about a militia is in fact a directive from the fed to the several states to ensure a militia exists. It was phrased as self evident and understood to mean that a militia would be kept and that all white male (at that time frame) citizens would serve in it.

Since we no longer have a militia, does the article still apply to our current society?

The direct decendent of the militia is the Army and Air National Guard. Notice I did not say "reserves", they are part of the standing professional military.

OR. Is the current state of the military unconstitutional? Nope. The Navy is established via the Constitution directly. The Army is temporary and can only be funded for two years at a time. We get around that stricture by funding with an annual budget.

Should the US military be scaled-down from a full-time type force in favor of a militia, kinda like the reserve is now? You are thinking of the ANG/AirGuard. See the above please.

Should the US Congress conscript militia men from among the populace?
Why would you ever consider conscription anymore? Conscription is an entire debate on it's own. Suffice to say that consription as a standing rule is AntiAmerican as it promotes class warfare, aristocracy within the service, while simultaniously lowering the caliber (no pun intended) of the service.

Isn't that what the Constitution says anyway? Simply having an armed populace doesn't make much sense from the stance of a Constitution writer. But if that populace was meant to be able to stand up as a militia at any time, it would make perfect sense.


Good point. I see what you mean. Do you think there should be any regulations? Waiting periods, licenses, bans on certain types of weapons? I think there should be personally. I oppose bans on any weapon. See earlier my question about when "arms" became firearms. Why am I not allowed to own a functional sword and carry it openly? BTW I am very well armed, but I prefer weapons that require one to look closely at the opponent. If it's worth killing, normally it's worth looking it in the eye first.


I don't think there's anything wrong with background checks. Gun dealers should have a way to do instant checks. I have a problem with waiting periods. I think they're unconstitutional. I don't think someone should be required to have a firearm licensed or even register their guns. If I want to own one gun or five hundred, it's my business. Some people collect baseball cards, some collect cars, some collect guns. As long as it's legal, leave them alone. Agreed. As I mentioned, I like non-firearms weapons. But, by law I cannot any of them concealed. Yep, my trusty K-bar that has more world travel on it than most citizens cannot accompany me to the local K-Mart (concealed or not).

If you're a felon, retarded or have mental problems, have been convicted of any sort of violent crime, your gun ownership rights are gone. I don't fully agree. Like a car, if you are not competant then you cannot use a car. As to felons, well, if they have fully paid thier debt to society (meaning time served and completed parole or probation) then they should be restored to full rights. If we cannot trust them, then lock em up forever or give them a needle. Just my two cents of course.


That hazard is as real today as it was in the 18th century. An army of professional soldiers is loyal to itself. It is a danger to the citizenry. And you can back this up how? By personal observation of whom? Perhaps with your many years of service in the Army and having experienced it perhaps? Please elaborate. Perhaps a seperate thread in the debate area is called for?

With a "professional" army, not long. With an army of citizens, never.

Nonsense.

Our strong tradition of democracy and wide participation in it has kept the government from oppressing the People.
+

[Little-Acorn]

With respect, the statement about a militia is in fact a directive from the fed to the several states to ensure a militia exists. It was phrased as self evident and understood to mean that a militia would be kept and that all white male (at that time frame) citizens would serve in it.

Sorry, but that's not correct. The statement about a militia in the 2nd amendment, is there merely to explain WHY the right shall not be infringed. If the framers had eliminated the reference to militias entirely, the meaning and effect of the 2nd would remain unchanged: Government is forbidden to take away or restrict the right of ordinary peoiple to keep and bear arms. The Framers don't HAVE to explain themselves, and usually didn't in this document. The 2nd amendment is one of the few places they chose to.

After seeing the incredible confusion emanating from the left in this country, I almost wish they hadn't bothered. However, presence or absence of explanations has no effect on the command given by this law: Gun bans or restrictions are unconstitutional.

[pegwinn]

Sorry, but that's not correct. The statement about a militia in the 2nd amendment, is there merely to explain WHY the right shall not be infringed. If the framers had eliminated the reference to militias entirely, the meaning and effect of the 2nd would remain unchanged: Government is forbidden to take away or restrict the right of ordinary peoiple to keep and bear arms. The Framers don't HAVE to explain themselves, and usually didn't in this document. The 2nd amendment is one of the few places they chose to.

After seeing the incredible confusion emanating from the left in this country, I almost wish they hadn't bothered. However, presence or absence of explanations has no effect on the command given by this law: Gun bans or restrictions are unconstitutional.

Overall I agree, especially with your last sentence. But, I still believe that the opening sentence is directive, otherwise why bother engraving in stone that which was in common use anyway?

[Joe Steel]

That hazard is as real today as it was in the 18th century. An army of professional soldiers is loyal to itself. It is a danger to the citizenry.

And you can back this up how? By personal observation of whom? Perhaps with your many years of service in the Army and having experienced it perhaps? Please elaborate. Perhaps a seperate thread in the debate area is called for?

Read the writings of the founding generation. They feared a standing army.

Here's a discussion of the issue:Time To Reconsider Jefferson's Call For Universal Service (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm)

[pegwinn]

Read the writings of the founding generation. They feared a standing army.

Here's a discussion of the issue:Time To Reconsider Jefferson's Call For Universal Service (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm)

I actually agree and understand. But, with all due respect, that isn't what you said. You said:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by pegwinn
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Joe Steel
That hazard is as real today as it was in the 18th century. An army of professional soldiers is loyal to itself. It is a danger to the citizenry.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></I>
And you can back this up how? By personal observation of whom? Perhaps with your many years of service in the Army and having experienced it perhaps? Please elaborate. Perhaps a seperate thread in the debate area is called for?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I emphasized the part where you made an assertion of fact without relevent data to back it up. If you truly believe that today, in the here and now, the Army is a bonafide threat to the citizenry then a seperate thread in the debate area is called for.

Note to someone: We need a smiley for throwing down the gauntlet.....

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

The bottom line is WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS

[Pale Rider]

That hazard is as real today as it was in the 18th century. An army of professional soldiers is loyal to itself. It is a danger to the citizenry.



How long do you think it would take our government to over run us like a runaway train if "we the people" were unarmed?



With a "professional" army, not long. With an army of citizens, never.


Nonsense.

Our strong tradition of democracy and wide participation in it has kept the government from oppressing the People.

I can't recall the last time I saw a greater and more stark contradiction in the same post by the same person.

[Little-Acorn]

Overall I agree, especially with your last sentence. But, I still believe that the opening sentence is directive, otherwise why bother engraving in stone that which was in common use anyway?

I'm not sure how the first part can be directive. In modern language, the 2nd says"

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

Well, OK, I didn't translate "militia", "infringed", etc. to modern language this time, but this will serve to discuss the first part. The translation of "being" to "since", within its context, is accurate.

You can see from this that the fist part, about militias and their necessity, is merely explanatory. The amendment in no way commands that militias exist, or do certain things, or have certain privileges or powers. It merely says that since we need them, people have to be able to own and carry guns etc.

[pegwinn]

I'm not sure how the first part can be directive. In modern language, the 2nd says"

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

Well, OK, I didn't translate "militia", "infringed", etc. to modern language this time, but this will serve to discuss the first part. The translation of "being" to "since", within its context, is accurate.

You can see from this that the fist part, about militias and their necessity, is merely explanatory. The amendment in no way commands that militias exist, or do certain things, or have certain privileges or powers. It merely says that since we need them, people have to be able to own and carry guns etc.

Interesting interpretation. I personally try for the literal meaning following the language and syntax of the time the item was written. If you read period literature and news etc directive statements were often phrased as the opening to the second amendment. Most did not come out an say "I command thee" etc. Instead, the writer was assumed to be the superior of the reader and a self evident statement held the force of a command and an assumption of correctness.

Of course I also believe that if it takes a book to interpret an amendment, it might be time to update said amendment.

[Jeep Driver]

If updating the second amd. is what you are refering to.
How would you update it?

[Little-Acorn]

Interesting interpretation.
Normal interpretation. Also correct.


I personally try for the literal meaning following the language and syntax of the time the item was written.
Ditto. And so do many others.

Here's one:


THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:


"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."


My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:


"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."


After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor ?


The amendment means just what it says. In modern language, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken awa or restricted."

[Yurt]

Normal interpretation. Also correct.


Ditto. And so do many others.

Here's one:


The amendment means just what it says. In modern language, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken awa or restricted."

Fairly decent modern language attempt. "other such weapons" I am not so sure. It is possibly right because the amendment does not mention "swords," a weapon at the time that the authors understood to be "outdated" in that, a sword will not keep a populace ready to secure freedom. I am not sure because I do not believe the authors meant "any" weapon. Cannon balls are not mentioned, yet were in existence.

[Jeep Driver]

Little A
I enjoyed your article. Thanks for posting it. I like it when I can see the
final conculsion of one of our most able, line up perty much with the true meaninng of the word's chosen by the writers.
I do understand the intent of trying to seperate the the mindset of the writters and look purly at the words only. Just for the sake of not getting too mixed up with available knowlage of the writters mind set.
But not taking into consideration the people involved I belive has allowed an error to occure on point 5.
Well regulated has been incompleatly described by many to mean controled by a superior authority alone with no other intent.
Professer Schulman Correctly refers to the authority intended as the civilian authority. But the intent of " well regulated " Is as I belive. and can be succesfully proven to mean also Well Trained. ie
Proficent , One of the greatest weeknesses of our Continental Army was being able to stand up to the profesionally proficent British Army.
Keeping a standing army that was ready and able to do battle was of the utmost concern.
We also must remember that it was Shay's rebllion that gave Support to the Bill of Rights. Because many of Shay's men were some of the representaves that voted to ratify the Constitution to include the Bill of Rights. They knew that the Constitution alone was not enough.
The point being That a group of well armed men intent on defending themselves from corrupt goverment. cannot not be held back by any goverment regulation.
Well Regulated means ready to show that this republic is and will remain a goverment of the people. by whatever means necessary.
Because we have a Well Trained Militia. An Able Civilian organization not regulated by the goverment. To preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all Enemies both Foreign and Domestic
They put this word "Domestic" in because they knew that greed would find it's way into our goverment. As is the nature of man.

[pegwinn]

If updating the second amd. is what you are refering to.
How would you update it?

The same way any other portion of the Constitution is updated, via the amendment process.

Look at all the words we've used to discuss the meaning of the opening clause. I'd say it's about time to hold a constitutional convention and make it clear enough that the courts are not needed to interpret it.

As an example. Little Acorn put out an excellent article with an eminent authority on the English language. Part of it says:

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

In spite of his advanced degrees and experience, I simply think he is wrong. If you read things like operational dispatches, the news papers, the essays, and popular literature of the day you can clearly see differences in usage and general style as well as meanings. Trying to parse the 1790's into the Y2K+8 simply isn't going to foster agreement among ten people let alone the population and courts.

So, a Constitutional Convention is needed.

[Little-Acorn]

Well, Pegwinn, I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree, then.

Don't rely too much on a Constitutional Convention, BTW. It cannot change the Constitution, by itself. The best it can do, is substitute for Congress's role in the amendment process: proposing amendments. Anything a ConCon passes, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it winds up in the trash can.

[pegwinn]

Well, Pegwinn, I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree, then. Fair nuff. At least it didn't turn into a shit slinging contest. Well done [handshake]

Don't rely too much on a Constitutional Convention, BTW. It cannot change the Constitution, by itself. The best it can do, is substitute for Congress's role in the amendment process: proposing amendments. Anything a ConCon passes, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it winds up in the trash can. I know that, I was advocating the opening move which has to take place. I like the process since it is one of the last real, enforceable, vestiges of free and independent states as part of a federal system

Maybe they can make my penchant for things out of the middle ages legal. Likely not though.

[musicman]

In spite of his advanced degrees and experience, I simply think he is wrong. If you read things like operational dispatches, the news papers, the essays, and popular literature of the day you can clearly see differences in usage and general style as well as meanings. Trying to parse the 1790's into the Y2K+8 simply isn't going to foster agreement among ten people let alone the population and courts.

Does anyone, besides me, remember that awful classroom and homework exercise known as "diagramming sentences"? "What pointless drudgery!", I thought, so many times. "What possible relevance is this jackassery ever going to have in real life?"

I think I understand a little better now. Endless repetition of the task of applying the fundamental rules of English language sentence structure to ponderous mini-essays felt like torture, at the time. But, I've found that I now, automatically, read sentences in a certain way - instinctively separating the meat from the modifiers. What felt like a gratuitous waste of time has turned out to be - for me, at least - an aid to clear thinking.

Usage, general style, and meanings may certainly have changed over a couple of hundred years, but I doubt that the fundamental rules of sentence structure are much altered. Diagram the Second Amendment. Strip away the modifiers and get to the meat - subject, predicate, direct object. Here's what I get:

right shall not be infringed

All else is modification; secondary and auxiliary to the principal thought. I trust that our founding fathers were acceptably well-versed in the basic rules of their native tongue.

[Kathianne]

Does anyone, besides me, remember that awful classroom and homework exercise known as "diagramming sentences"? "What pointless drudgery!", I thought, so many times. "What possible relevance is this jackassery ever going to have in real life?"

I think I understand a little better now. Endless repetition of the task of applying the fundamental rules of English language sentence structure to ponderous mini-essays felt like torture, at the time. But, I've found that I now, automatically, read sentences in a certain way - instinctively separating the meat from the modifiers. What felt like a gratuitous waste of time has turned out to be - for me, at least - an aid to clear thinking.

Usage, general style, and meanings may certainly have changed over a couple of hundred years, but I doubt that the fundamental rules of sentence structure are much altered. Diagram the Second Amendment. Strip away the modifiers and get to the meat - subject, predicate, direct object. Here's what I get:

right shall not be infringed

All else is modification; secondary and auxiliary to the principal thought. I trust that our founding fathers were acceptably well-versed in the basic rules of their native tongue.
Just to make you feel better, diagramming sentences has once again entered the language arts curriculum. Oh my, I had to study the book, I've forgotten so much!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TeHhFuxw_5w&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TeHhFuxw_5w&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Joe Steel]

I actually agree and understand. But, with all due respect, that isn't what you said. You said:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by pegwinn
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Joe Steel
That hazard is as real today as it was in the 18th century. An army of professional soldiers is loyal to itself. It is a danger to the citizenry.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></I>
And you can back this up how? By personal observation of whom? Perhaps with your many years of service in the Army and having experienced it perhaps? Please elaborate. Perhaps a seperate thread in the debate area is called for?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I emphasized the part where you made an assertion of fact without relevent data to back it up. If you truly believe that today, in the here and now, the Army is a bonafide threat to the citizenry then a seperate thread in the debate area is called for.

Note to someone: We need a smiley for throwing down the gauntlet.....

Let me clarify then.

Leonard W. Levy, in Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution, reports James Madison on interpreting the Constitution. He says Madison believed the meaning of the document was to be found in the contemporaneous expositions of those who ratified it. The article I cited mentions writing by Hamilton and Jefferson. While Hamilton and Jefferson were not ratifiers, their writings were read by ratifiers and certainly influenced them. I'm relying on these contemporaneous expositions for my understanding of the danger. To put it more bluntly, the Founders said professional armies were bad and I believe them.

[5stringJeff]

To put it more bluntly, the Founders said professional armies were bad and I believe them.

Yes, they did believe that, based on their experiences. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the Second Amendment is so important; it gives all citizens the ability to put up armed resistance against a tyrannical government.

[5stringJeff]

Here's a great article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010898) by Mike Cox, the Attorney General of Michigan, regarding this very topic.

A small quote:
Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights. As a result, Madison proposed a bill of rights that reflected, as Stanford University historian Jack Rakove notes, his belief that the "greatest dangers to liberty would continue to arise within the states, rather than from a reconstituted national government." Accordingly, Mr. Rakove writes that "Madison justified all of these proposals (Bill of Rights) in terms of the protection they would extend to individual and minority rights."

[Joe Steel]

Yes, they did believe that, based on their experiences. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the Second Amendment is so important; it gives all citizens the ability to put up armed resistance against a tyrannical government.

You've missed the point.

If we had a Second Amendment military, i.e. an military substantially comprising common citizens, no government could oppress the People. The citizen soldiers would not follow orders to attack their fellow citizens. See Federalist 29 for Hamilton on this issue.

[5stringJeff]

You've missed the point.

If we had a Second Amendment military, i.e. an military substantially comprising common citizens, no government could oppress the People. The citizen soldiers would not follow orders to attack their fellow citizens. See Federalist 29 for Hamilton on this issue.

Our military does substantially consist of common citizens. Nevertheless, the Second Amendment is the protection of non-military citizens against the potential of a tyrannical leader using the military to thwart God-given individual rights.

[Joe Steel]

Our military does substantially consist of common citizens. Nevertheless, the Second Amendment is the protection of non-military citizens against the potential of a tyrannical leader using the military to thwart God-given individual rights.

They are not common citizens. They are citizens who volunteered for the military. Most citizens don't want to be in the military. The Second Amendment protects the People by ensuring some the members of the military will be citizens who don't want to be there. They won't love it so much they'd do anything to stay there. Presumably, these reluctant soldiers will refuse orders to oppress their fellow citizens.

[82Marine89]

They are not common citizens. They are citizens who volunteered for the military. Most citizens don't want to be in the military. The Second Amendment protects the People by ensuring some the members of the military will be citizens who don't want to be there. They won't love it so much they'd do anything to stay there. Presumably, these reluctant soldiers will refuse orders to oppress their fellow citizens.

Huh?

[Joe Steel]

Huh?

Theoretically, military members who want to be in the military will do whatever is necessary to stay in the military. That includes following unlawful orders. Members who don't want to be in the military will not follow unlawful orders. They have no interest in the goals of the military.

[Kathianne]

Theoretically, military members who want to be in the military will do whatever is necessary to stay in the military. That includes following unlawful orders. Members who don't want to be in the military will not follow unlawful orders. They have no interest in the goals of the military.

And those who don't want to be in the military volunteered why?

[Joe Steel]

And those who don't want to be in the military volunteered why?

They didn't. They were drafted.

The Second Amendment presumes the People will draft a cross-section of the population. It will include those who wish to be in the military and those who don't.

[Kathianne]

They didn't. They were drafted.

The Second Amendment presumes the People will draft a cross-section of the population. It will include those who wish to be in the military and those who don't.

So you are not including the current military, rather historical?

[Joe Steel]

So you are not including the current military, rather historical?

Yes. This is about the original intent of the Founders and the strict construction of the Constitution.

[Pale Rider]

Most citizens don't want to be in the military.

And where did you get this piece of wisdom, or is that just what you "think?"

[Kathianne]

Yes. This is about the original intent of the Founders and the strict construction of the Constitution.

They didn't have conscription in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. So who would have been these soldiers that 'stood up' to the unlawful orders or rather deserted?

[Joe Steel]

And where did you get this piece of wisdom, or is that just what you "think?"

Don't be silly. Even in peacetime, the military never has been the choice of a great number of citizens, certainly not the majority. Right now, in "wartime," the military is having a very difficult time meeting its recruitment goals. It's lowered its standards to the point of accepting felons and the mentally-challenged.

[Joe Steel]

They didn't have conscription in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. So who would have been these soldiers that 'stood up' to the unlawful orders or rather deserted?

Militia service was mandatory. However, the regular army relied on voluntary enlistments of limited duration.

Who do you think resisted unlawful orders? I never said anyone did.

[Monkeybone]

could we say take it as that, we the people, have the right to bears arms and even though we don't need a militia at this moment...that if we ever do need one, those ppl that want/have guns, then are able to form a militia at short notice to protect the people? that is why it shall not be infringed upon, so that they can never take away our ability to form a militia to stand up to who ever.

that make sense?

[Kathianne]

Militia service was mandatory. However, the regular army relied on voluntary enlistments of limited duration.

Who do you think resisted unlawful orders? I never said anyone did.

So either your post
Theoretically, military members who want to be in the military will do whatever is necessary to stay in the military. That includes following unlawful orders. Members who don't want to be in the military will not follow unlawful orders. They have no interest in the goals of the military.

Oh so it was all 'theoretical'. Gotcha. Life in the perfect world of Joe Steel

[Joe Steel]

could we say take it as that, we the people, have the right to bears arms and even though we don't need a militia at this moment...that if we ever do need one, those ppl that want/have guns, then are able to form a militia at short notice to protect the people? that is why it shall not be infringed upon, so that they can never take away our ability to form a militia to stand up to who ever.

that make sense?

It's inconsistent with the intention of the Founders and strict construction of the Constitution. The American military should reflect the demographics and political opinions of the general population. No such military ever would allow itself to be used in oppression of the People.

[Joe Steel]

So either your post

Oh so it was all 'theoretical'. Gotcha. Life in the perfect world of Joe Steel

Nope. Life in the political philosophy of the founding generation. They wrote the Constitution. I'm just telling you what they meant.

[Monkeybone]

It's inconsistent with the intention of the Founders and strict construction of the Constitution. The American military should reflect the demographics and political opinions of the general population. No such military ever would allow itself to be used in oppression of the People.

i said militia for one thing...not the military. that is what the thread/part of the 2nd that we are talking about. no where in there did i say how the military should act and what not. maybe you should read what is there and not assume that is part of your 'oppresive military' tangent

[Kathianne]

Nope. Life in the political philosophy of the founding generation. They wrote the Constitution. I'm just telling you what they meant.

Well considering both the colonial experience when the British attempted to confiscate their guns, their knowledge of British Civil War and the subsequent Bill of Rights, and the basic needs to protect their property and often to hunt, I disagree.

[Joe Steel]

i said militia for one thing...not the military. that is what the thread/part of the 2nd that we are talking about. no where in there did i say how the military should act and what not. maybe you should read what is there and not assume that is part of your 'oppresive military' tangent

Take your advice. Read what I've already posted.

[Joe Steel]

Well considering both the colonial experience when the British attempted to confiscate their guns, their knowledge of British Civil War and the subsequent Bill of Rights, and the basic needs to protect their property and often to hunt, I disagree.

That's your choice but you're making a mistake. Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison are major Founders and they agree with me.

[pegwinn]

Let me clarify then.

Leonard W. Levy, in Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution, reports James Madison on interpreting the Constitution. He says Madison believed the meaning of the document was to be found in the contemporaneous expositions of those who ratified it. The article I cited mentions writing by Hamilton and Jefferson. While Hamilton and Jefferson were not ratifiers, their writings were read by ratifiers and certainly influenced them. I'm relying on these contemporaneous expositions for my understanding of the danger. To put it more bluntly, the Founders said professional armies were bad and I believe them.

You are still doing it. Dispariging the current Army while claiming not to.


You've missed the point.

If we had a Second Amendment military, i.e. an military substantially comprising common citizens, no government could oppress the People. The citizen soldiers would not follow orders to attack their fellow citizens. See Federalist 29 for Hamilton on this issue.

Whiskey Rebellion


They are not common citizens. They are citizens who volunteered for the military. Most citizens don't want to be in the military. The Second Amendment protects the People by ensuring some the members of the military will be citizens who don't want to be there. They won't love it so much they'd do anything to stay there. Presumably, these reluctant soldiers will refuse orders to oppress their fellow citizens.

Kent State


Theoretically, military members who want to be in the military will do whatever is necessary to stay in the military. That includes following unlawful orders. Members who don't want to be in the military will not follow unlawful orders. They have no interest in the goals of the military.

Interment of Japanese Americans


Yes. This is about the original intent of the Founders and the strict construction of the Constitution.

Then modify your language and stop including the current all volunteer force.


It's inconsistent with the intention of the Founders and strict construction of the Constitution. The American military should reflect the demographics and political opinions of the general population. No such military ever would allow itself to be used in oppression of the People.

Bonus Army

The point is that the .mil obeys orders. All orders from a lawful source are assumed to be lawful. Consription or Volunteer forces follow the same pattern. Each incident above is historical fact and took place using volunteers and conscripts or a combination of each. Thus, since each event spans the history of the nation, your argument is null and void.

I tried to sell this on ebay and they would not take it. Baby needs new shoes......

[Kathianne]

That's your choice but you're making a mistake. Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison are major Founders and they agree with me.

Maybe, but here's a bunch of quotes you'll need to refute, including multiple from Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

To be fair, here is one that agrees with you:


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)


* "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

* "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

* "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

* If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

* "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

* "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

* "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

* "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 pretense, 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).

* "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against 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.

* "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

* "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

* "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

* "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

* "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

* " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

* " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

* "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

* "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

* "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

* "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

* "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

* "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

* " ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

* "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

* "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams
I tried to keep the bold to founders/framers

[Joe Steel]

Maybe, but here's a bunch of quotes you'll need to refute, including multiple from Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

To be fair, here is one that agrees with you:

Looks to be me like most of them agree with me.

[Kathianne]

Looks to be me like most of them agree with me.

With that you either can't read or you are the troll everyone has been saying you are. Either way, dismissed.

[Abbey Marie]

With that you either can't read or you are the troll everyone has been saying you are. Either way, dismissed.

Well said, Kathianne. I don't get what people hope to accomplish by arguing the insupportable, especially when contrary proof is right there for all to read. In the end, it just makes them look dishonest and spoils any hope of spreading their pov.

[Joe Steel]

With that you either can't read or you are the troll everyone has been saying you are. Either way, dismissed.

I read quite well and, more importantly, understand what I read. Obviously, you don't.

I applaud your decision to run-away. It's a wise move for you.

[Joe Steel]

Well said, Kathianne. I don't get what people hope to accomplish by arguing the insupportable, especially when contrary proof is right there for all to read. In the end, it just makes them look dishonest and spoils any hope of spreading their pov.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

But you have to make an argument. You can't just cut paste huge volumes of ambiguous quotes and hope I'll explain each one of them to you.

State a proposition and prove it.

Put-up or shut-up.

[Abbey Marie]

Feel free to prove me wrong.

But you have to make an argument. You can't just cut paste huge volumes of ambiguous quotes and hope I'll explain each one of them to you.

State a proposition and prove it.

Put-up or shut-up.

How quaint.

That's the beauty of the quotes that Kathianne put-up (as you like to phrase it). They support her argument and are easy to understand, so they speak for themsleves for anyone who bothers to read them. And there are so many of them, it is ludicrous to try to argue the opposite view. But I think you already knew that.

[Kathianne]

How quaint.

That's the beauty of the quotes that Kathianne put-up (as you like to phrase it). They support her argument and are easy to understand, so they speak for themsleves for anyone who bothers to read them. And there are so many of them, it is ludicrous to try to argue the opposite view. But I think you already knew that.

Thanks Abbey, guess ole' Joe just figured he could throw Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison into a post and it would all end. Then of course, he has analysis on what Jefferson 'really meant' from a brainiac at Commondreams. Sigh.

Joe fails to understand or perhaps to have studied history or the political philosophies that prepared the Founders/Framers for what they would write, be it the Constitution or the defense of it or against it. From that list of quotes, there are Federalists, (all of those Joe first claimed 'agreed' with his pov') and Anti-federalists.

In order to buy into his argument, one has to accept that the entire Bill of Rights was written on individual freedoms, except this one amendment. From the writings of the founders/framers we find that Joe's premise is not just faulty, but wrong.

[pegwinn]

Feel free to prove me wrong.

But you have to make an argument. You can't just cut paste huge volumes of ambiguous quotes and hope I'll explain each one of them to you.

State a proposition and prove it.

Put-up or shut-up.

I believe more than one poster has done just that.......

[Joe Steel]

How quaint.

That's the beauty of the quotes that Kathianne put-up (as you like to phrase it). They support her argument and are easy to understand, so they speak for themsleves for anyone who bothers to read them. And there are so many of them, it is ludicrous to try to argue the opposite view. But I think you already knew that.

Then state a proposition and use the quotes to prove it.

[pegwinn]

Then state a proposition and use the quotes to prove it.

I beleive they and others are awaiting your counters to previous posts.

[Joe Steel]

I beleive they and others are awaiting your counters to previous posts.

Really?

Which ones?

[Kathianne]

You should be able to have a shotgun, or pistol. Machine gun no.

There is the comprimise.

Wrong, you don't compromise on 'rights', they are a given.

[retiredman]

machine guns? yes?

RPG's? yes?

shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles? yes?

satchel nukes? yes?

photon torpedoes? yes?

no lines drawn? anywhere?

[Kathianne]

machine guns? yes?

RPG's? yes?

shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles? yes?

satchel nukes? yes?

photon torpedoes? yes?

no lines drawn? anywhere?

If the permits are issued, yes. How many concealed carry license holders have been convicted of crimes using firearms? The problem isn't the weapon or the law abiding, it's the criminals. That being the case, the reason for the second amendment hasn't changed from the beginning.

[retiredman]

If the permits are issued, yes. How many concealed carry license holders have been convicted of crimes using firearms? The problem isn't the weapon or the law abiding, it's the criminals. That being the case, the reason for the second amendment hasn't changed from the beginning.

so, if you think it should be legal to own a shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile, do you think it should also be legal to sell then to any law abiding citizen?

[Yurt]

machine guns? yes?

RPG's? yes?

shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles? yes?

satchel nukes? yes?

photon torpedoes? yes?

no lines drawn? anywhere?

you forgot phasers

[retiredman]

you forgot phasers

I would be willing to allow civilians to have phasers if they were only set to "stun".

[Yurt]

I would be willing to allow civilians to have phasers if they were only set to "stun".

i'm stunned you would feel that way

[Kathianne]

so, if you think it should be legal to own a shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile, do you think it should also be legal to sell then to any law abiding citizen?

As long as done according to the law, yes. However, the purpose of the DC ban and the challenge to it is not on these types of weapons, and you know it. What some fool might want with a torpedo, if he hasn't a sub is weird on its face.

As far as RPG, I think it's much more likely to be in the hands of a criminal than licensed gun owner, don't you?

[Yurt]

As long as done according to the law, yes. However, the purpose of the DC ban and the challenge to it is not on these types of weapons, and you know it. What some fool might want with a torpedo, if he hasn't a sub is weird on its face.

As far as RPG, I think it's much more likely to be in the hands of a criminal than licensed gun owner, don't you?

He is committing the logical fallacy of illicit conversion. I think it possible that he knows it, however, he has some small perverse pleasure out of reveling in nuances that are meaningless. He could just be a simpleton though

:dunno:

[retiredman]

my point is: if you say there are no limits to the right to bear arms, then there are no limits. If you are willing to draw a line ANYWHERE, then you are admitting that there ARE limits to the ownership of weaponry, and that line drawing is, itself, a political process.

[Yurt]

my point is: if you say there are no limits to the right to bear arms, then there are no limits. If you are willing to draw a line ANYWHERE, then you are admitting that there ARE limits to the ownership of weaponry, and that line drawing is, itself, a political process.

When we review a statute, we must review the statute in its context. Same applies for amendments. What do you think "arms" meant when the amendment was drafted?

[Kathianne]

my point is: if you say there are no limits to the right to bear arms, then there are no limits. If you are willing to draw a line ANYWHERE, then you are admitting that there ARE limits to the ownership of weaponry, and that line drawing is, itself, a political process.

I got your point from the beginning. In actuality I've conceded that there should be background checks, for the simple reason I don't think felons should own weapons or vote, so I nod to you there. With that exception, no restrictions.

[Yurt]

I got your point from the beginning. In actuality I've conceded that there should be background checks, for the simple reason I don't think felons should own weapons or vote, so I nod to you there. With that exception, no restrictions.

nukes? what are "arms?"

[Jeep Driver]

could we say take it as that, we the people, have the right to bears arms and even though we don't need a militia at this moment...that if we ever do need one, those ppl that want/have guns, then are able to form a militia at short notice to protect the people? that is why it shall not be infringed upon, so that they can never take away our ability to form a militia to stand up to who ever.

that make sense?


Monkeybone
Thank you

[Kathianne]

nukes? what are "arms?"

You know what? I'll even open it up to nukes. See when speaking of the general right of American's right to bear arms, I'll chance those in their 'right mind' to make the right choices.

Yurt, I'm dismayed that you think differently.

[pegwinn]

machine guns? yes?

RPG's? yes?

shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles? yes?

satchel nukes? yes?

photon torpedoes? yes?

no lines drawn? anywhere?

Not to mention disruptors, claymores, samurai swords, tonfa, nunchuku, morningstars, switchblades, lockblades, butterfly, Claymores again from the mines family, C4, RDX, BARS, k-BARS, TittyBars (oh wait, wrong thread), flamethrowers, tasers, lasers, masers, and of course phasers set to thrill and kill.

These and any other arms should be the right of every law abiding citizen of the USA.

The are only two exceptions I am willing to even think about.

The first would be for convicted felons still serving some form of sentence such as probation, parole, or still owning a fine. Once the debt to society is fully paid, then he's no longer a criminal but a law abiding citizen again. IOW if you don't trust him with weapons or a vote, don't let him out.

The second would be for the mentally incompetent. And, I stipulate that the burden of proof is on the state.

I know that there are many who are willing to fight this one out so have at you.

BTW Joe, still waitin buddy.

[Little-Acorn]

This sort of become two separate questions:

1.) Does the 2nd amendment currently protect your right to own and carry all these weapons?

2.) Do you think the 2nd amendment should be modified to protect or remove the right to keep and bear certain type(s) of weapons?

My own personal answers:

1.) Yes.

2.) No. This country was founded on the idea that ordinary people do a better job of governing such things, than government can do. Or to put it more realistically, government will mess it up worse than ordinary people will. And on the idea that government cannot be trusted with the authority to disarm its people, even partially: A lesson repeatedly and cruelly learned throughout history.

[pegwinn]

This sort of become two separate questions:

1.) Does the 2nd amendment currently protect your right to own and carry all these weapons?

2.) Do you think the 2nd amendment should be modified to protect or remove the right to keep and bear certain type(s) of weapons?

My own personal answers:

1.) Yes.

2.) No. This country was founded on the idea that ordinary people do a better job of governing such things, than government can do. Or to put it more realistically, government will mess it up worse than ordinary people will. And on the idea that government cannot be trusted with the authority to disarm its people, even partially: A lesson repeatedly and cruelly learned throughout history.

:clap:

[musicman]

Just to make you feel better, diagramming sentences has once again entered the language arts curriculum.

I cannot overstate the importance and seriousness of the following:

Diagram the Second Amendment. It halts all arguments in their tracks. "Right shall not be infringed" - period, paragraph. All else is supplemental; auxiliary.

I'm glad that diagramming is coming back into vogue. It is an aid to clear thinking, and clear thinking is the mortal enemy of tyranny.

[Kathianne]

Is the Brady campaign going anti-semitic?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/index.php

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3028/cartoonaf6.gif

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/11/brady_campaign_22.php


Brady Campaign getting a bit antisemitic?
Posted by David Hardy · 24 November 2007 01:35 PM

Go to their webpage and look at the animation of Judge Silberman (author of the Circuit opinion that struck down the handgun ban).

Judge Silberman and Brady Campaign.jpg

Not so long ago, NRA took heat for using an image of an octopus which, the media assured all, was a symbol used by the Nazis. I rather doubt the media have the same interest in Brady using a caricature that Goebbels would have had autographed and framed.