Ten oz Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 I'm still wondering. Do you actually believe that, if only the rich and powerful had guns, the rest of us would be slaves? That seems to be the basis of the opposition to the revocation of the 2nd amendment. and it doesn't seem to me like the way people actually behave. The powerful have drones, spy satellites, nuclear powered submarines 7 aircraft carriers, and etc. If the the right for well regulated miltia's to bear arms is meant to defend local populations from the tyranny of the powerful than it would need to protect far more "arms" than just guns. The Government owns tanks that are bullet proof.
John Cuthber Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) OK, feel free to expand the definition of "guns" if you like so: Do you actually believe that, if only the rich and powerful had arms, the rest of us would be slaves? That seems to be the basis of the opposition to the revocation of the 2nd amendment. and it doesn't seem to me like the way people actually behave. Incidentally, "a plague o' both your houses". OK, but surely slightly more plague on the house that... Is responsible for these guns killing children has to hide behind a centuries old bit of paper as if it was holy writ and Pretends that prohibition is the same as revocation of prohibition, their pea shooters will save them from the government's tanks, and that the 2nd amendment isn't actually an amendment. While the other house's major failing seems to be that a lot of people like guns and are unwilling to give them up and that it's difficult to change that. Edited October 25, 2015 by John Cuthber
Ten oz Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 @ John Cuthber, my comments were not to expand the definition of gun but rather to reflect how silly the notion is that guns protect average people from the prower.
John Cuthber Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 @ John Cuthber, my comments were not to expand the definition of gun but rather to reflect how silly the notion is that guns protect average people from the prower. I realise that, but I'd still like to hear people's answer to the question- especially from those who think that guns are their defence against a tyranical government- even if they would need very heavy weapons. So, (at the risk of repeating myself) Do people actually believe that, if only the rich and powerful had arms, the rest of us would be slaves?
ydoaPs Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 I realise that, but I'd still like to hear people's answer to the question- especially from those who think that guns are their defence against a tyranical government- even if they would need very heavy weapons. So, (at the risk of repeating myself) Do people actually believe that, if only the rich and powerful had arms, the rest of us would be slaves? The rich and powerful have all of the power and influence--we're already slaves. 1
MonDie Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) I'm looking back at post #816, and I'm starting to doubt the supreme court's argument against a collective rights interpretation. The other rights assigned to "the people" are - "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (A-I) - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". (A-IV) Assembling isn't something you can do as an individual. One person cannot assemble with himself. Assembling is done collectively. Petitioning is also something that is, if not done by many people, done for the benefit of the people in whole. Amendment IV can also be interpreted collectively. It only applies to individuals because it specifies things which often belong to individuals (houses, papers, one's own person). If we interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" collectively, the "keeping" (or storage) of arms could be done by many individuals in concert rather than by each individual. Amendments VI and VII refer to a "right", but within a context, when you are "the accused". The right to keep and bear arms is given no context, so what are we to assume regarding the right to bear (i.e. to carry) arms? Should we assume the right of each individual to carry a gun wherever they go, to the movie theater, to the bank? Certainly not. Perhaps this is a right possessed by the people, not by each person. Also, on this matter, comparisons to free speech perhaps aren't apt since speech is assigned as a "freedom" rather than a "right". "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" Furthermore, unlike carrying a gun, speech is generally more about the what than the where. My discussion with Overtone further highlights the strangeness of an individual rights interpretation. The prefatory clause states the purpose as the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. It would be ludicrously over-reaching to conclude that, for this end, we must allow every person to keep and bear a gun regardless of whether they're currently in a (well-regulated) militia. The operative clause follows from the prefatory clause more cleanly when we give a collective rights interpretation. I do not agree with the reasons given by the courts favoring an individual rights interpretation. Here it is again. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html 1. Operative Clause. a. Right of the People. The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a right of the people. The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase right of the people two other times, in the First Amendment s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not collective rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5 Three provisions of the Constitution refer to the people in a context other than rightsthe famous preamble (We the people), §2 of Article I (providing that the people will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with the States or the people). Those provisions arguably refer to the people acting collectivelybut they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a right attributed to the people refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention the people, the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) : [T]he people seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution . [its uses] sugges[t] that the people protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. This contrasts markedly with the phrase the militia in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the militia in colonial America consisted of a subset of the peoplethose who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to keep and bear Arms in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clauses description of the holder of that right as the people. We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. Edited October 25, 2015 by MonDie
overtone Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) I'm still wondering.Do you actually believe that, if only the rich and powerful had guns, the rest of us would be slaves? That seems to be the basis of the opposition to the revocation of the 2nd amendment. OK, but surely slightly more plague on the house that...Is responsible for these guns killing children has to hide behind a centuries old bit of paper as if it was holy writ and Pretends that prohibition is the same as revocation of prohibition, their pea shooters will save them from the government's tanks, and that the 2nd amendment isn't actually an amendment. The powerful have drones, spy satellites, nuclear powered submarines 7 aircraft carriers, and etc. If the the right for well regulated miltia's to bear arms is meant to defend local populations from the tyranny of the powerful than it would need to protect far more "arms" than just guns. The Government owns tanks that are bullet proof. So apparently no amount of repetition of argument and evidence and reason is capable of getting through to these people. The same old slanders and strawmen and downright stupidities are invulnerable - and from the "side" of reason and prudence and good government. So the issue is trashed, deadlocked in hopeless absurdity for the time being. So drop it. The thread topic is gun violence - there are a lot of ways to approach reduction in gun violence in the US besides gun control. Some of them would work better straight up - never mind the debacle of the "discussion" around gun control. Do people actually believe that, if only the rich and powerful had arms, the rest of us would be slaves? Not would be, might be. Can be, at any time - whenever it's worth the trouble, to whomever has the guns. And not slaves - they're expensive. Serfs, sharecroppers, bonded and indentured and "minimum wage" employees, or maybe just competition for various stuff, as in the American South until the 1970s - no point in owning and feeding children, unless there's a market. Historically, and globally these days, it's cheaper to rent than own - owning's becoming increasingly expensive, what with firearms and all. What odds would you accept? Assembling isn't something you can do as an individual. Yes, it is. You individually schlep your own personal ass down to wherever, and assemble with the others. Getting arrested for illegally assembling is individual also. They jail you, individually, and get you individually fired from your job, and fine you individually lots of money, and so forth. And they will do that, if they are allowed to do that, for what you as an individual did when you assembled. Rights are denied individually. So if they are not possessed individually, they can be denied at will. The prefatory clause states the purpose as the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. No, it doesn't. Well regulated militia are not "maintained" - they are not even necessarily standing forces, or defined in advance of the need. It would be ludicrously over-reaching to conclude that, for this end, we must allow every person to keep a gun regardless of whether they are currently in a militia All the adult men under age 45, and all women in the National Guard, are currently in the US national militia. You read that in I believe inow's link, remember? At the time the Constitution was written, it was common for localities to define their militia as every resident man old enough to handle a rifle. That is the understood context - in order to form and raise a well regulated militia, everybody has to be able to bring a gun when called upon. Edited October 25, 2015 by overtone
John Cuthber Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Not would be, might be. Can be, at any time - whenever it's worth the trouble, to whomever has the guns. And not slaves - they're expensive. Serfs, sharecroppers, bonded and indentured and "minimum wage" employees, or maybe just competition for various stuff, as in the American South until the 1970s - no point in owning and feeding children, unless there's a market. Historically, and globally these days, it's cheaper to rent than own - owning's becoming increasingly expensive, what with firearms and all. What odds would you accept? Good question; What odds are you offering?
MonDie Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Yes, it is. You individually schlep your own personal ass down to wherever, and assemble with the others. Getting arrested for illegally assembling is individual also. They jail you, individually, and get you individually fired from your job, and fine you individually lots of money, and so forth. And they will do that, if they are allowed to do that, for what you as an individual did when you assembled. Rights are denied individually. So if they are not possessed individually, they can be denied at will. No, it doesn't. Well regulated militia are not "maintained" - they are not even necessarily standing forces, or defined in advance of the need. All the adult men under age 45, and all women in the National Guard, are currently in the US national militia. You read that in I believe inow's link, remember? At the time the Constitution was written, it was common for localities to define their militia as every resident man old enough to handle a rifle. That is the understood context - in order to form and raise a well regulated militia, everybody has to be able to bring a gun when called upon. Exactly, you assemble with the others, not on your own. To say this right can't be interpreted collectively is absurd. Likewise you can keep arms with the others, as opposed to on your own. This may be true for many rights, such as those assigned in amendments VI and VII, but the rights of amendments I, II, and IV are assigned to "the people". The bill of rights must not be refering to that militia then, because that militia wouldn't be well regulated. Edited October 25, 2015 by MonDie 2
overtone Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Good question; What odds are you offering? Historically speaking, a thousand to one in favor over any time more than one generation. There are very, very few - if any - examples of a substantial population of prosperous unarmed people not being subjugated, if not by the nearest armed strangers than by their own government. We may have reason to believe that these odds have improved recently, with some innovations in government and civilian control of the military - but from negligible to acceptable would be a very dramatic change. Evidence of that is lacking - to understate the case. Look at the KKK in the US, or the Rodney King riots - let's get at least a generation past that action before we disarm the target populations, how about. Exactly, you assemble with the others, not on your own Each one of the others is assembling, like you, with you, on their own. If you don't believe me, look at the arrest warrant and the name on the imposed penalty for unlawful assembly. It will be one name, one person, guilty of assembling in violation of the law. When it's a crime, it's something an individual did. When you forbid the government from making it a crime, you are forbidding the government from taking action against individuals. To say this right can't be interpreted collectively is absurd If individuals don't have the right to assemble then nobody has the right to assemble. The bill of rights must not be refering to that militia then, because that militia wouldn't be well regulated. Around my town hundreds of them would be not only well armed but with years of military training and command experience and full kits of field gear they know how to use - about as well regulated as any militia has ever been in the history of the planet. But that is completely beside the point. How many times does the simple physical reality of a militia have to be explained to you guys? The reference in the 2nd Amendment is to any or all militia that may or may not even exist at the moment, in any state of regulation whatsoever including nonexistence. That is why it is "the people" who are guaranteed arms, and not "the militia". You can't raise a well regulated militia from among unarmed people unfamiliar with weapons. That's the point. The population has to be armed, already. Before any callup, before the militia has even been defined, let alone provided with "regulations" or structure, the population from which you intend to raise it has to have weapons at hand and experience with them - same as they need boots, reasonably good health, etc. And this level of discussion, repeated over and over and over, is why gun control is a useless way of addressing gun violence in the US. It's stuck in this mud. Edited October 25, 2015 by overtone
Ten oz Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 So apparently no amount of repetition of argument and evidence and reason is capable of getting through to these people. The same old slanders and strawmen and downright stupidities are invulnerable - and from the "side" of reason and prudence and good government. So the issue is trashed, deadlocked in hopeless absurdity for the time being. So drop it. The thread topic is gun violence - there are a lot of ways to approach reduction in gun violence in the US besides gun control. Some of them would work better straight up - never mind the debacle of the "discussion" around gun control. Not would be, might be. Can be, at any time - whenever it's worth the trouble, to whomever has the guns. And not slaves - they're expensive. Serfs, sharecroppers, bonded and indentured and "minimum wage" employees, or maybe just competition for various stuff, as in the American South until the 1970s - no point in owning and feeding children, unless there's a market. Historically, and globally these days, it's cheaper to rent than own - owning's becoming increasingly expensive, what with firearms and all. What odds would you accept? Yes, it is. You individually schlep your own personal ass down to wherever, and assemble with the others. Getting arrested for illegally assembling is individual also. They jail you, individually, and get you individually fired from your job, and fine you individually lots of money, and so forth. And they will do that, if they are allowed to do that, for what you as an individual did when you assembled. Rights are denied individually. So if they are not possessed individually, they can be denied at will. No, it doesn't. Well regulated militia are not "maintained" - they are not even necessarily standing forces, or defined in advance of the need. All the adult men under age 45, and all women in the National Guard, are currently in the US national militia. You read that in I believe inow's link, remember? At the time the Constitution was written, it was common for localities to define their militia as every resident man old enough to handle a rifle. That is the understood context - in order to form and raise a well regulated militia, everybody has to be able to bring a gun when called upon. I have repeatedly made the argument in this thread that the 2nd Admendment itself is not limiting as to what "arms" are. The founders themselves wrote the and amendment during a time when standing armies and armed local law enforcement did not exist. The Founders explicitly wrote about the people being empowered to protect their own local populations and form militias as need to defend against everything up to the level of an evading army. Arms in context to the time was not restrictive. The peole were meant to bar whatever arms were needed to combat the threats they faced. A hundred plus years later a supreme court decision defined "arms" as gun. You accept the definition of "arms" to specifically mean gun, as do most gun advocates, because the later is too obvious a of loser. Then attempt to argue that somehow guns are sufficient to conducting war against powerful governments and use guerilla tactics as explains. Of course those tactics themselves do not limit their use of "arms" to guns. The Second admendment has already be greatly limited; it has been defined as purely a right to guns and not all arms which may be needed for protection against any and all threats. To square that corner you practice ethical realitism. You make an argument which is common to people on your side of the agrument and then proceed to assume that by doing so you have irrefutably proved something without individually addressing the counters. Then later lament that the counters persist.
MonDie Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Each one of the others is assembling, like you, with you, on their own. If you don't believe me, look at the arrest warrant and the name on the imposed penalty for unlawful assembly. It will be one name, one person, guilty of assembling in violation of the law. When it's a crime, it's something an individual did. When you forbid the government from making it a crime, you are forbidding the government from taking action against individuals. If individuals don't have the right to assemble then nobody has the right to assemble. No, I don't assemble, you don't assemble, we assemble. I purchase, but we run the market. I vote, but we elect politicians. A more accurate phrasing might be partaking in unlawful assembly. If I had an individual right to assemble, I could arguably force others to assemble with me, and force venues to permit my assemblies. The reality is that assembling is done in concert, and needs the consent of all involved. One might argue that the same reasoning is already being applied to bearing arms. After all, I can't bear arms in your bank without your permission. Around my town hundreds of them would be not only well armed but with years of military training and command experience and full kits of field gear they know how to use - about as well regulated as any militia has ever been in the history of the planet. But that is completely beside the point. Some being disciplined doesn't make it well regulated, they're still included regardless of discipline level. How many times does the simple physical reality of a militia have to be explained to you guys? The reference in the 2nd Amendment is to any or all militia that may or may not even exist at the moment, in any state of regulation whatsoever including nonexistence. That is why it is "the people" who are guaranteed arms, and not "the militia". You can't raise a well regulated militia from among unarmed people unfamiliar with weapons. That's the point. The population has to be armed, already. Before any callup, before the militia has even been defined, let alone provided with "regulations" or structure, the population from which you intend to raise it has to have weapons at hand and experience with them - same as they need boots, reasonably good health, etc. You don't need to own a gun yourself to practice shooting. In fact, the gun range is arguably the only place where you should be practicing. It doesn't matter how you define "militia" as much as how you define "well regulated militia". The amendment doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms to any militia. It states as its purpose, in the prefatory clause, to respect the necessity of a well regulated militia. As I have pointed out, guaranteeing everybody the right to keep and bear their own arms is completely overdoing it, which is why I am questioning that interpretation. Edited October 25, 2015 by MonDie
overtone Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) The founders themselves wrote the and amendment during a time when standing armies and armed local law enforcement did not exist. Please. Standing armies were common throughout Europe, and armed law enforcement wherever the Crowned Heads needed them. You accept the definition of "arms" to specifically mean gun, - - No, I don't. Never have. I have noted that the 2nd Amendment was cleverly worded to definitely include the finest guerrilla rifles in the world, superior to the weapons possessed by the British Army regulars of the time, as weapons the people of the United States had a right to keep and bear - but that was in no sense a limit, in itself. Then attempt to argue that somehow guns are sufficient to conducting war against powerful governments and use guerilla tactics as explains. I made no such argument. Never have. I have instead several times pointed out that assuming such arguments to be the significant body of gun rights arguments is a strawman, an irrational approach which is essentially slander rather than argument, and a contribution to the deadlock. To square that corner you practice ethical realitism. You make an argument which is common to people on your side of the agrument and then proceed to assume that by doing so you have irrefutably proved something without individually addressing the counters. If that is some kind of attempt to suggest that my observations regarding the gun control advocacy here, such as yours, have been anything like that, you are just being silly, and your abstract lack of examples is no mystery - there is no way you can have come to that description by reading my posts. I've been doing almost nothing here except address individual arguments, for example. Look: If you want to make goofy extremist arguments against the goofy extremists on the "other side", how about you leave me out of the middle. And once again - gun violence, thread topic actual, y'know? Any takers? = = = = = = No, I don't assemble, you don't assemble, we assemble. The restriction is on the government - it is forbidden to make assembling illegal. If the government were to make assembly illegal, and you assembled with your fellow scofflaws, you would each be individually guilty of a crime. Do you understand? The government is forbidden to do that, forbidden to make your individual behavior a crime. If the government were not forbidden to do that, it could. If you were to stand up in court and claim innocence because you, as an individual, could not possibly have assembled by definition, you would provide a moment of levity but not a serious claim of innocence. The guys who wrote the Constitution had had plenty of experience with governments making it illegal for people - individuals - to assemble. They forbade this. Some being disciplined doesn't make it well regulated, they're still included regardless of discipline level. They'd be the best regulated militia ever seen on this planet. Far better than the militia of the 1700s in the US - that was before boot camp was invented for regular army even. Not that that's relevant here - we were discussing the 2nd Amendment, which seems to confuse people badly for some reason. The amendment doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms to any militia It guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to every citizen of the US - "the people", all of them. And not just any "arms" - militia quality weapons. You don't need to own a gun yourself to practice shooting. - - You did when the Constitution was written. You probably still need to own a gun to bring one with you when the militia is raised - unless you have quite generous friends. Edited October 26, 2015 by overtone
Ten oz Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Please. Standing armies were common throughout Europe, and armed law enforcement wherever the Crowned Heads needed them. No, I don't. Never have. I have noted that the 2nd Amendment was cleverly worded to definitely include the finest guerrilla rifles in the world, superior to the weapons possessed by the British Army regulars of the time, as weapons the people of the United States had a right to keep and bear - but that was in no sense a limit, in itself. I made no such argument. Never have. I have instead several times pointed out that assuming such arguments to be the significant body of gun rights arguments is a strawman, an irrational approach which is essentially slander rather than argument, and a contribution to the deadlock. If that is some kind of attempt to suggest that my observations regarding the gun control advocacy here, such as yours, have been anything like that, you are just being silly, and your abstract lack of examples is no mystery - there is no way you can have come to that description by reading my posts. I've been doing almost nothing here except address individual arguments, for example. Look: If you want to make goofy extremist arguments against the goofy extremists on the "other side", how about you leave me out of the middle. And once again - gun violence, thread topic actual, y'know? Any takers? = = = = = = The restriction is on the government - it is forbidden to make assembling illegal. If the government were to make assembly illegal, and you assembled with your fellow scofflaws, you would each be individually guilty of a crime. Do you understand? The government is forbidden to do that, forbidden to make your individual behavior a crime. If the government were not forbidden to do that, it could. If you were to stand up in court and claim innocence because you, as an individual, could not possibly have assembled by definition, you would provide a moment of levity but not a serious claim of innocence. The guys who wrote the Constitution had had plenty of experience with governments making it illegal for people - individuals - to assemble. They forbade this. They'd be the best regulated militia ever seen on this planet. Far better than the militia of the 1700s in the US - that was before boot camp was invented for regular army even. Not that that's relevant here - we were discussing the 2nd Amendment, which seems to confuse people badly for some reason. It guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to every citizen of the US - "the people", all of them. And not just any "arms" - militia quality weapons. You did when the Constitution was written. You probably still need to own a gun to bring one with you when the militia is raised - unless you have quite generous friends. Standing armies were common is Europe? What does that have to do the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Do you believe it was written to specifically protect an individuals right to own a gun or to allow individuals the right to combat tyranical governments and other threats to personal and public safety? While Europe may have had standing armies the States did not. It was the people who were to form militias and needed to protect their home and uphold law. When the 1st Admendment was wriiten the most popular forms of "speech" were written and was one said. As technology advanced and times changed what's said on radio, television, phones, the internet, and etc is all covered. An argument that only speech most readily used during the times of the countries founding is covered was never successfully made. Such an argument was successfully made with regards to the 2nd amendment. A fact gun advocates ignore because it means that the 2nd amendment no longer serves it orginal purpose. During the revolutionary war were any explosive devices used? Does one need to already have such devices to bring with them when the militia is raised?
waitforufo Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) - we were discussing the 2nd Amendment, which seems to confuse people badly for some reason. The second amendment doesn't confuse anyone. Some people just don't like the fact that it guarantees that all people in the US the right to choose to own firearms. You are mistaking confusion with willful obfuscation. Changing the constitution is difficult and they don't want to put forth the effort so the obfuscate. Edited October 26, 2015 by waitforufo
ydoaPs Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 The second amendment doesn't confuse anyone. Some people just don't like the fact that it guarantees that all people in the US the right to choose to own firearms. You are mistaking confusion with willful obfuscation. Changing the constitution is difficult and they don't want to put forth the effort so the obfuscate. It's funny how every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA disagrees with you. It's only in 2008 when the court reverses opinion on whether or not it's about militia service. Do you believe it was written to specifically protect an individuals right to own a gun or to allow individuals the right to combat tyranical governments and other threats to personal and public safety? While Europe may have had standing armies the States did not. It was the people who were to form militias and needed to protect their home and uphold law. Considering the fact that the only crime outlined in the Constitution is treason, it's doubtful that the second amendment was written as a ringing endorsement of treason.
MonDie Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 The second amendment doesn't confuse anyone. Some people just don't like the fact that it guarantees that all people in the US the right to choose to own firearms. You are mistaking confusion with willful obfuscation. Changing the constitution is difficult and they don't want to put forth the effort so the obfuscate. It specifically says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". They could have just said "the right to keep and bear arms", but they didn't.
waitforufo Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 It's funny how every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA disagrees with you. It's only in 2008 when the court reverses opinion on whether or not it's about militia service. Could you please site the case? Considering the fact that the only crime outlined in the Constitution is treason, it's doubtful that the second amendment was written as a ringing endorsement of treason. Is it impossible for the government to be treasonous if they are acting against the people or their rights?
MonDie Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Shall I also show you what ydoaPs and swansot have uncovered in the other thread? https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
dimreepr Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) It specifically says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". They could have just said "the right to keep and bear arms", but they didn't. At the risk of an audible worldwide groan, the average American would be far safer if it said “the right of the people to keep and arm bears” provided, of course, the bears were restricted. The argument has, long since, become a parody of itself and despite ‘overtones’ insistence that both sides are equally culpable only the gun nuts have made it so; every country that have restricted guns have not confiscated or banned them entirely, so please America, for the sake of your children, grow up and accept the fact that times have changed. Edited October 26, 2015 by dimreepr
overtone Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) When the 1st Admendment was wriiten the most popular forms of "speech" were written and was one said. As technology advanced and times changed what's said on radio, television, phones, the internet, and etc is all covered. An argument that only speech most readily used during the times of the countries founding is covered was never successfully made. Such an argument was successfully made with regards to the 2nd amendment. A fact gun advocates ignore because it means that the 2nd amendment no longer serves it orginal purpose. Now what? - are you actually trying to claim that it is the gun nuts who have been working hard to restrict the scope of the 2nd Amendment? Meanwhile, what is this "original purpose" that is no longer served, and why do we care? During the revolutionary war were any explosive devices used? Does one need to already have such devices to bring with them when the militia is raised? Yes - mostly by the regular army. // No, but you do need a rifle and some experience using it. Why do you ask? Shall I also show you what ydoaPs and swansot have uncovered in the other thread? You should also try to make whatever argument you think is supported by that - it's not clear why you found that stuff significant, and of course those two seemed to be in state of confusion in the other thread - not something that needs importing here. It specifically says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" Yes. This is much different from saying, for example, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. The people who wrote the Constitution chose their words carefully, and they saw the central government coming - with its habit of disarming the peasantry under various pretexts. Notice the clever invocation of militia, so that the pretext of "no use for such powerful weapons" is prevented, followed by "the people", so that the government cannot demand onerous membership in some standing State force, or restrict the keeping and bearing to those on duty and under State control at the moment. The only thing they couldn't forestall - even if foreseen - was incomprehension, inability to read. Edited October 26, 2015 by overtone -1
waitforufo Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) At the risk of an audible worldwide groan, the average American would be far safer if it said “the right of the people to keep and arm bears” provided, of course, the bears were restricted. I'm not sure why the gun control advocates on this topic are not arguing that the intent of the founders was to provide arms to bears. They can't figure out what a militia is. They can't figure out what well regulated means. Making an argument to arm bears would be completely consistent. Edited October 26, 2015 by waitforufo
ydoaPs Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 I'm not sure why the gun control advocates on this topic are not arguing that the intent of the founders was to provide arms to bears. They can't figure out what a militia is. They can't figure out what well regulated means. Making an argument to arm bears would be completely consistent. Anyone who has read the Constitution knows what the militia is: the National Guard. Could you please site the case? District of Columbia v Heller Until then, SCOTUS agreed that it meant what it said. Once the NRA got involved things went to [euphemism]feces[/euphemism]. Is it impossible for the government to be treasonous if they are acting against the people or their rights? Not if you're speaking English.
MonDie Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) The second amendment doesn't confuse anyone. Some people just don't like the fact that it guarantees that all people in the US the right to choose to own firearms. You are mistaking confusion with willful obfuscation. Changing the constitution is difficult and they don't want to put forth the effort so the obfuscate. Actually, my interpretation is closer to the original meaning, the meaning it had until this happened... https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. Your interpretation is actually only five years old. Arguably its original purpose was to restrict federal law from interfering with state-level militias, not to guarantee each citizen the right to their own gun (and to carry it wherever they go). Edited October 26, 2015 by MonDie
waitforufo Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) Anyone who has read the Constitution knows what the militia is: the National Guard. The United states recognizes two militias. The organized militia and the unorganized militia. The National Guard is the organized militia. Citizens with guns make up the unorganized militia. Look up the Dick Act of 1902. The national guard was formed officially in 1903. District of Columbia v Heller Until then, SCOTUS agreed that it meant what it said. Once the NRA got involved things went to [euphemism]feces[/euphemism]. I'm fully aware of Heller. You said "It's funny how every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA disagrees with you." Please list those cases prior to the formation of the NRA that disagree with me. Not if you're speaking English. In the United states, the people control the government. If the government stopped responding to that control, would it not be a treasonous government due to it's violation of the Constitution? Edited October 26, 2015 by waitforufo
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now