Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On December 20 2012 01:10 Civilkurage wrote: It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation.
On December 20 2012 00:40 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 00:25 ninini wrote:
On December 19 2012 23:14 Zaqwe wrote:
On December 19 2012 23:07 Scarecrow wrote:
On December 19 2012 23:00 Zaqwe wrote:
On December 19 2012 22:08 QuXn wrote:
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
There's no need to debate the 2nd amendment. The Supreme court has said time and time again "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So really anyone who is of the opinion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today is literally saying they know constitutional law better than the supreme court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
Well if you had read it you would understand they are misinterpreting it and taking it out of its historical context. In short, they are ignoring half of it, when in fact everything in the constitution is supposed to be taken as a whole, not in part.
lol... The Supreme Court of The United States of America's interpretation which they have come to the same conclusion multiple times, mind you, is literally the law of the land. Your interpretation means nothing as does mine. Besides who are people to trust? People who spent their entire lives learning US constitutional law or some guys mostly not even from America on a video game website?
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion . Pp. 32–47.
I know that is what your opinion had to be, or close to it... because that is what it rapidly distills down to.
Banning all pistols and box-fed rifles. Once you start pulling the thread..that is how it unravels.
And that is never going to happen unless there there is a constitutional amendment.
You deliberately misinterpret my post, I am not on a crusade to 'disarm' the population of america. If you actually read what I wrote you'd see that I clearly said such a ban would most likely not be possible or even effectual and that I said I wasnt even going to try and start debating about peoples right to defend themselves. You are however defending a clear evil by saying something vague about how that may or may not lead to something else far away in the future that you can not support.
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote: Why would the most powerfull country in the world have a third world violence problem and the biggest inmate population! Something is obviously wrong or is it just me?
Demographics. Yes, I am aware the recent spree shooting was not committed by a minority. The inmate population and murder rate isn't primarily from spree shootings.
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote: Do you think it's better for them if all their neighbours have a m16 in their house? If everybody only had knifes with a few krav maga lessons you could survive one of those.. if everybody has AMG and SMG you are in a battle field..
Do you really think women, children, and elderly would be so great at protecting themselves from young males who are the worst violent criminals, using "knifes with a few krav maga lessons"?
Or do you just not care about anyone other than yourself?
On December 20 2012 01:10 Civilkurage wrote: It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
There's no need to debate the 2nd amendment. The Supreme court has said time and time again "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So really anyone who is of the opinion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today is literally saying they know constitutional law better than the supreme court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
Well if you had read it you would understand they are misinterpreting it and taking it out of its historical context. In short, they are ignoring half of it, when in fact everything in the constitution is supposed to be taken as a whole, not in part.
lol... The Supreme Court of The United States of America's interpretation which they have come to the same conclusion multiple times, mind you, is literally the law of the land. Your interpretation means nothing as does mine. Besides who are people to trust? People who spent their entire lives learning US law or some guys mostly not even from America on a video game website?
Only as far back as 1960, the collectivist interpretation goes back to our founding, and it's supreme court rulings, when it was eventually getting contested goes back as far as 1876.
They may be supreme court judges, but they aren't experts on linguistics, and commonly misconstrue the meaning of the second amendment for reasons they don't apply to other similarly written amendments.
On December 20 2012 01:10 Civilkurage wrote: It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation.
On December 20 2012 00:40 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 00:25 ninini wrote:
On December 19 2012 23:14 Zaqwe wrote:
On December 19 2012 23:07 Scarecrow wrote:
On December 19 2012 23:00 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
There's no need to debate the 2nd amendment. The Supreme court has said time and time again "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So really anyone who is of the opinion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today is literally saying they know constitutional law better than the supreme court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
Well if you had read it you would understand they are misinterpreting it and taking it out of its historical context. In short, they are ignoring half of it, when in fact everything in the constitution is supposed to be taken as a whole, not in part.
lol... The Supreme Court of The United States of America's interpretation which they have come to the same conclusion multiple times, mind you, is literally the law of the land. Your interpretation means nothing as does mine. Besides who are people to trust? People who spent their entire lives learning US law or some guys mostly not even from America on a video game website?
Only as far back as 1960, the collectivist interpretation goes back to our founding, and it's supreme court rulings, when it was eventually getting contested goes back as far as 1876.
They may be supreme court judges, but they aren't experts on linguistics, and commonly misconstrue the meaning of the second amendment for reasons they don't apply to other similarly written amendments.
They've got it wrong right now.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
end of your argument. think about what you're actually trying to debate. that all courts since the ratification of the amendment are wrong and you are correct. it's freaking absurd.
On December 20 2012 01:10 Civilkurage wrote: It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation.
On December 20 2012 00:40 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 00:25 ninini wrote:
On December 19 2012 23:14 Zaqwe wrote:
On December 19 2012 23:07 Scarecrow wrote: [quote] Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
There's no need to debate the 2nd amendment. The Supreme court has said time and time again "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So really anyone who is of the opinion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today is literally saying they know constitutional law better than the supreme court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
Well if you had read it you would understand they are misinterpreting it and taking it out of its historical context. In short, they are ignoring half of it, when in fact everything in the constitution is supposed to be taken as a whole, not in part.
lol... The Supreme Court of The United States of America's interpretation which they have come to the same conclusion multiple times, mind you, is literally the law of the land. Your interpretation means nothing as does mine. Besides who are people to trust? People who spent their entire lives learning US law or some guys mostly not even from America on a video game website?
Only as far back as 1960, the collectivist interpretation goes back to our founding, and it's supreme court rulings, when it was eventually getting contested goes back as far as 1876.
They may be supreme court judges, but they aren't experts on linguistics, and commonly misconstrue the meaning of the second amendment for reasons they don't apply to other similarly written amendments.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
end of your argument. think about what you're actually trying to debate. that all courts since the ratification of the amendment are wrong and you are correct. it's freaking absurd.
First of all, I'd like a source to that copy paste.
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun! in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible.
On December 20 2012 01:10 Civilkurage wrote: It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation.
On December 20 2012 00:40 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 00:25 ninini wrote:
On December 19 2012 23:14 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
There's no need to debate the 2nd amendment. The Supreme court has said time and time again "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So really anyone who is of the opinion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today is literally saying they know constitutional law better than the supreme court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
Well if you had read it you would understand they are misinterpreting it and taking it out of its historical context. In short, they are ignoring half of it, when in fact everything in the constitution is supposed to be taken as a whole, not in part.
lol... The Supreme Court of The United States of America's interpretation which they have come to the same conclusion multiple times, mind you, is literally the law of the land. Your interpretation means nothing as does mine. Besides who are people to trust? People who spent their entire lives learning US law or some guys mostly not even from America on a video game website?
Only as far back as 1960, the collectivist interpretation goes back to our founding, and it's supreme court rulings, when it was eventually getting contested goes back as far as 1876.
They may be supreme court judges, but they aren't experts on linguistics, and commonly misconstrue the meaning of the second amendment for reasons they don't apply to other similarly written amendments.
They've got it wrong right now.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
end of your argument. think about what you're actually trying to debate. that all courts since the ratification of the amendment are wrong and you are correct. it's freaking absurd.
First of all, I'd like a source to that copy paste.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote: don't you guys want to have a safer enviornment for your kids?
20 children got killed recently because they were sent to a zone where guns were forbidden. The question is do you want a safer environment for them?
If you want to protect someone, you don't accomplish that by disarming them and anyone who could possibly come to their defense.
That is your interpretation of what happened. People who are not from the USA interpret it as 26 people being killed because a lunatic had access to an automatic rifle.
And a better way of protecting people then to have a shootout around them is to prevent the guy that wants to harm them from having an automatic rifle.
Another problem with protection through guns is that it is incredibly dangerous by itself. If you have your gun secured in a save in your home, and at a different place then its ammunition, which is apparently how all gun lobbyists handle their guns, it won't protect you from anything. If you always carry your gun with you in a way that makes it easy and fast to reach and fire, which would be necessary to protect yourself from someone else with a gun, and know that everyone else could be and is very likely to be carrying a concealed gun himself, you suddenly have a situation where lots of scared people with guns ready to fire run around and fear that someone else might shoot them first, before they can fire their gun. In my opinion, this situation is far more likely to get innocent people shot by accident then it is to protect anyone from gun violence.
One has to be realistic. There is no way that noone in any country will ever get murdered. What one should look for is the way that reduces the amount of violent crime, the severity of the results of those violent crimes, and the amount of accidents happening.
I would rather live in a country where only the government and organized crime has access to firearms then in one where everyone has. Luckily for me i do, except for some people who shoot for sports and hunter with a licence, and i am not really convinced that that is an overly good idea either.
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote: Why would the most powerfull country in the world have a third world violence problem and the biggest inmate population! Something is obviously wrong or is it just me?
Demographics. Yes, I am aware the recent spree shooting was not committed by a minority. The inmate population and murder rate isn't primarily from spree shootings.
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote: don't you guys want to have a safer enviornment for your kids?
20 children got killed recently because they were sent to a zone where guns were forbidden. The question is do you want a safer environment for them?
If you want to protect someone, you don't accomplish that by disarming them and anyone who could possibly come to their defense.
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote: Do you think it's better for them if all their neighbours have a m16 in their house? If everybody only had knifes with a few krav maga lessons you could survive one of those.. if everybody has AMG and SMG you are in a battle field..
Do you really think women, children, and elderly would be so great at protecting themselves from young males who are the worst violent criminals, using "knifes with a few krav maga lessons"?
Or do you just not care about anyone other than yourself?
Seriously? Don't let propaganda think for you.
What, if anything, is incorrect about what I said?
On December 20 2012 01:10 Civilkurage wrote: It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation.
On December 20 2012 00:40 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 00:25 ninini wrote: [quote] That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
There's no need to debate the 2nd amendment. The Supreme court has said time and time again "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So really anyone who is of the opinion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today is literally saying they know constitutional law better than the supreme court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
Well if you had read it you would understand they are misinterpreting it and taking it out of its historical context. In short, they are ignoring half of it, when in fact everything in the constitution is supposed to be taken as a whole, not in part.
lol... The Supreme Court of The United States of America's interpretation which they have come to the same conclusion multiple times, mind you, is literally the law of the land. Your interpretation means nothing as does mine. Besides who are people to trust? People who spent their entire lives learning US law or some guys mostly not even from America on a video game website?
Only as far back as 1960, the collectivist interpretation goes back to our founding, and it's supreme court rulings, when it was eventually getting contested goes back as far as 1876.
They may be supreme court judges, but they aren't experts on linguistics, and commonly misconstrue the meaning of the second amendment for reasons they don't apply to other similarly written amendments.
They've got it wrong right now.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
end of your argument. think about what you're actually trying to debate. that all courts since the ratification of the amendment are wrong and you are correct. it's freaking absurd.
First of all, I'd like a source to that copy paste.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
Here's 1939 for ya.
Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
btw dcvheller is a 2008 case so you aren't making your case any better by only citing the most recent rulings you can find.
The clear point is they are interpreting it wrong. and the linguistics professor I linked about a page back explains exactly how and why they are getting it wrong. They don't understand the grammar of those days and think the second half of the sentence is the operative clause and it negates the first half of the sentence. it doesn't work that way.
On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote: i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16.
Fully automatic guns are almost completely illegal in the USA fyi, including the m16, for civilians.
I like the idea of reducing bullet capacity in legal guns, but I'm not sure how to do it. If everything stays the same except a limit is placed on clip size, then well, it's really easy to make a bigger clip illegally.
On December 20 2012 01:10 Civilkurage wrote: It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation.
On December 20 2012 00:40 Keldrath wrote: [quote] The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
There's no need to debate the 2nd amendment. The Supreme court has said time and time again "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So really anyone who is of the opinion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today is literally saying they know constitutional law better than the supreme court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
Well if you had read it you would understand they are misinterpreting it and taking it out of its historical context. In short, they are ignoring half of it, when in fact everything in the constitution is supposed to be taken as a whole, not in part.
lol... The Supreme Court of The United States of America's interpretation which they have come to the same conclusion multiple times, mind you, is literally the law of the land. Your interpretation means nothing as does mine. Besides who are people to trust? People who spent their entire lives learning US law or some guys mostly not even from America on a video game website?
Only as far back as 1960, the collectivist interpretation goes back to our founding, and it's supreme court rulings, when it was eventually getting contested goes back as far as 1876.
They may be supreme court judges, but they aren't experts on linguistics, and commonly misconstrue the meaning of the second amendment for reasons they don't apply to other similarly written amendments.
They've got it wrong right now.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
end of your argument. think about what you're actually trying to debate. that all courts since the ratification of the amendment are wrong and you are correct. it's freaking absurd.
First of all, I'd like a source to that copy paste.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
Here's 1939 for ya.
Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
btw dcvheller is a 2008 case so you aren't making your case any better by only citing the most recent rulings you can find.
The clear point is they are interpreting it wrong. and the linguistics professor I linked about a page back explains exactly how and why they are getting it wrong. They don't understand the grammar of those days and think the second half of the sentence is the operative clause and it negates the first half of the sentence. it doesn't work that way.
I see you're getting desperate.
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
US Supreme Court on the United States vs MIller case.
The courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment in the same way as united states vs heller since it's ratification, that is a fact.
On December 20 2012 01:10 Civilkurage wrote: It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation. [quote]
There's no need to debate the 2nd amendment. The Supreme court has said time and time again "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So really anyone who is of the opinion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today is literally saying they know constitutional law better than the supreme court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
Well if you had read it you would understand they are misinterpreting it and taking it out of its historical context. In short, they are ignoring half of it, when in fact everything in the constitution is supposed to be taken as a whole, not in part.
lol... The Supreme Court of The United States of America's interpretation which they have come to the same conclusion multiple times, mind you, is literally the law of the land. Your interpretation means nothing as does mine. Besides who are people to trust? People who spent their entire lives learning US law or some guys mostly not even from America on a video game website?
Only as far back as 1960, the collectivist interpretation goes back to our founding, and it's supreme court rulings, when it was eventually getting contested goes back as far as 1876.
They may be supreme court judges, but they aren't experts on linguistics, and commonly misconstrue the meaning of the second amendment for reasons they don't apply to other similarly written amendments.
They've got it wrong right now.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
end of your argument. think about what you're actually trying to debate. that all courts since the ratification of the amendment are wrong and you are correct. it's freaking absurd.
First of all, I'd like a source to that copy paste.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
Here's 1939 for ya.
Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
btw dcvheller is a 2008 case so you aren't making your case any better by only citing the most recent rulings you can find.
The clear point is they are interpreting it wrong. and the linguistics professor I linked about a page back explains exactly how and why they are getting it wrong. They don't understand the grammar of those days and think the second half of the sentence is the operative clause and it negates the first half of the sentence. it doesn't work that way.
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
US Supreme Court on the United States vs MIller case.
The courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment in the same way as united states vs heller since it's ratification, that is a fact.
Yes I know the DC V Heller case. The guy I sourced earlier wrote that whole thing up FOR them, he was brought in to explain this all to them along with a few others. the judges split down their own ideological lines. The fact they could interpret "possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," Just shows it even more. There's nothing "individual rights" about that statement at all, notice the "well regulated militia" bit. They completely ignore it.
Sorry if you don't like that I'm just being a strict constructionist, but I'm proud of that fact.
It's not my fault the supreme court decided only what they learned about commas in school applies and not waht the framers actually understood about commas when they wrote it, because comma usage has changed quite a bit since then.
"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."
united states vs emerson
You're not being a "strict constitutional" you're flat out wrong implying YOUR interpretation of the constitution is correct without any meaningful evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have brought up was irrelevant to this discussion on on "right to bear arms" not being limited to a militia.
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote: don't you guys want to have a safer enviornment for your kids?
20 children got killed recently because they were sent to a zone where guns were forbidden. The question is do you want a safer environment for them?
If you want to protect someone, you don't accomplish that by disarming them and anyone who could possibly come to their defense.
That is your interpretation of what happened. People who are not from the USA interpret it as 26 people being killed because a lunatic had access to an automatic rifle.
And a better way of protecting people then to have a shootout around them is to prevent the guy that wants to harm them from having an automatic rifle.
Another problem with protection through guns is that it is incredibly dangerous by itself. If you have your gun secured in a save in your home, and at a different place then its ammunition, which is apparently how all gun lobbyists handle their guns, it won't protect you from anything. If you always carry your gun with you in a way that makes it easy and fast to reach and fire, which would be necessary to protect yourself from someone else with a gun, and know that everyone else could be and is very likely to be carrying a concealed gun himself, you suddenly have a situation where lots of scared people with guns ready to fire run around and fear that someone else might shoot them first, before they can fire their gun. In my opinion, this situation is far more likely to get innocent people shot by accident then it is to protect anyone from gun violence.
Your wild, panicked, fearful fantasy is so detached from reality it would be funny if not for the fact that you are advocating denying people their human right to self defense.
This type of "argumentation" (to be generous) is startlingly typical of gun control advocates. They go off on completely insane rants about how gun ownership will cause some sort of chain reaction apocalypse of shootouts over absolutely nothing.
When you try to show them facts contradictory to their delusions, they are blind to them. When you ask for evidence supporting their doomsday scenario, they go mute.
On December 20 2012 01:49 Simberto wrote: One has to be realistic. There is no way that noone in any country will ever get murdered. What one should look for is the way that reduces the amount of violent crime, the severity of the results of those violent crimes, and the amount of accidents happening.
I would rather live in a country where only the government and organized crime has access to firearms then in one where everyone has. Luckily for me i do, except for some people who shoot for sports and hunter with a licence, and i am not really convinced that that is an overly good idea either.
Yes, please, let's try to be realistic. Let's look at reality instead of writing preposterous fiction about the horrors of people being able to defend themselves instead of being completely helpless.
Spree shootings happen places where guns are banned. By contrast, places where everyone has a gun are incredibly safe. How often do you hear about 26 people being killed by a gunman at a gun show, or an NRA meeting?
It is a disparity in power that encourages violence. What you are advocating is to create a huge disparity in power between law abiding people and criminals, and between citizens and their government.
Just try for a second to observe reality. Look what the gun ban in school zones accomplished. Do you want more of that? If you want more of that, then surely keep at it. But if you think that it was a tragedy and want to prevent them from happening again, gun bans need to be reversed.
"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."
united states vs emerson
You're not being a "strict constitutional" you're flat out wrong implying YOUR interpretation of the constitution is correct without any meaningful evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have brought up was irrelevant to this discussion.
There is a whole section addressing that as well, I wish you guys would actually read it before responding like this with things that are already addressed.
What's the point in arguing with you guys, I could copy paste the entire thing in here for you to rebut everything you are bringing up and you still wouldn't bother to read it.
Ah what the hell, ill get your bear arms part in the second copy paste. First one is addressing the comma issue.
The italics is flavor, it's not part of the Guns and Grammar pdf i linked.
The court dismissed the prefatory clause about militias as not central to the amendment and concluded that the operative clause prevents the government from interfering with an individual's right to tote a gun. Needless to say, the National Rifle Association is very happy with this interpretation. But I dissent. Strict constructionists, such as the majority on the appeals court, might do better to interpret the 2nd Amendment based not on what they learned about commas in college but on what the framers actually thought about commas in the 18th century.
The most popular grammars in the framers' day were written by Robert Lowth (1762) and Lindley Murray (1795). Though both are concerned with correcting writing mistakes, neither dwells much on punctuation. Lowth calls punctuation "imperfect," with few precise rules and many exceptions. Murray adds that commas signal a pause for breath. Here's an example of such a pause, from the Constitution: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court" (Article III, Section 1). But times change. If a student put that comma in a paper today, it would be marked wrong.
The first comma in the 2nd Amendment signals a pause. At first glance, it looks like it's setting off a phrase in apposition, but by the time you get to the second comma, even if you don't know what a phrase in apposition is, you realize that it doesn't do that. That second comma identifies what grammarians call an absolute clause, which modifies the entire subsequent clause. Murray gave this example: "His father dying, he succeeded to the estate." With such absolute constructions, the second clause follows logically from the first.
So, the 2nd Amendment's second comma tells us that the subsequent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," is the logical result of what preceded the comma: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The third comma, the one after "Arms," just signals a pause. But the justices repeatedly dropped that final comma altogether when quoting the 2nd Amendment — not wise if you're arguing that commas are vital to meaning.
and for the bear arms bit.
To keep and bear arms In addition to the question of the syntax and function of the absolute, the discussion of the meaning of the Second Amendment focuses on the interpretation of the word militia and the phrase bear arms. Bear arms (analogous to, and perhaps initially a translation of, the Latin arma fero, or arma ferre) typically refers to the act of soldiering and the use of military weapons. Perhaps the most pertinent American reference to bearing arms before the Second Amendment is its use in the Declaration of Independence: The present King of Great Britain . . . has constrained our fellow citizens . . . to bear arms against their country. Arms themselves are weapons, and in older uses, armor as well. John Cowell (1701, s.v. armor, arma) writes in his legal dictionary that the signification of arms and armor, “in understanding of Law, is extended to any thing that a Man in his wrath or fury taketh into his hand, or wears for a defence, wherewith to cast at or strike another . . . . So Armorum appellatio non utique scuta & gladios significat, sed & fustus & lapides (‘Arms means not only shields and swords, but also sticks and stones’).” However, while arms may be anything from Saturday night specials and brass knuckles to broken beer bottles, fistfuls of gravel, and clubs fashioned from tree limbs, the idiomatic phrase bear arms has always primarily meant ‘to go for a soldier,’ as in this example from a proclamation made by Josiah Martin, the British governor of North Carolina, in 1776: I do hereby in the King’s Name and by his MAJESTY’S Royal Authority offer, promise, and assure, to each and every Person or Persons who shall join His MAJESTY’S Forces and bear Arms against the Rebels in this Province (besides the Pay, and every other Encouragement allowed by His MAJESTY to his regular Troops) a Grant or Grants of Land in Proportion to their Circumstances, Merit and Pretensions. . . . [Martin 1776] It’s also the metaphorical equivalent of soldiering, as when Hamlet wonders whether to take arms against a sea of troubles. On very rare occasions, bear arms may also refer to individuals carrying weapons, as in this isolated example from 1645: “There shall be a cessation of bearing of armes vnto the meeting howse vpon the Lord’s daye” (Craigie 1938, s.v. arm). In oral arguments, Justice Scalia referred to a 1716 Parliamentary act for disarming the Scottish Highlanders to underscore his sense that ‘bear arms’ regularly refers to carrying weapons in nonmilitary contexts: [A]s I recall the legislation against Scottish highlanders and against – against Roman Catholics did use the term – forbade them to keep and bear arms, and they weren't just talking about their joining militias; they were talking about whether they could have arms. [Supreme Court 2008, 17] What the Highlander statute actually says is that . . . it should not be lawful for any Person or Persons . . . to have in his, her or their Custody, use or bear, Broad Sword or Target, Poynard, Whingar or Durk, Side-Pistol or Side-Pistols, or Gun, or any other warlike Weapons, in the Fields, or in the Way coming or going to, from or at any Church, Market, Fair, Burials, Huntings, Meetings or any other occasion whatsoever.
This law bans weapons which qualify as “warlike” from public gatherings, and its goal is to disarm the population – both men and women – not to prevent them from hunting or defending their homes against criminal trespass, but in order to end organized rebellion against the crown in Scotland. Its impact was to hamper hunting and selfdefense as well, to be sure, an act which surely aroused further antipathy toward the crown, but that was not its primary intent. In another example where bear arms may be thought to refer to nonmilitary use of weapons, the opponents of gun control make much of the minority view expressed by the antifederalist faction in the Pennsylvania convention to ratify the Constitution, who try to extend bear arms to include not just the defense of the state, but also hunting and self defense. This antifederalist minority argued that it could only support ratification if the Constitution included a Bill of Rights with fourteen additional provisions, including this:“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game.” Even this Pennsylvania “minority report,” which was rejected, recognizes the need to regulate weapons for the public good: “And no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals” (Address 1787, 6; emphasis added). Pennsylvania ratified the Federal Constitution without a Bill of Rights, but it did include a Bill of Rights in its state constitution of 1790. That bill omitted hunting from its scope, but it did refer to personal self defense: “The right of the citizens to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.” Similar language is found in Ohio’s state constitution of 1802 (Davis 1823, 91; 179). However, this extension of bear arms to include self defense alongside the traditional civil defense is rare and suggests an attempt on the part of Pennsylvania and Ohio to broaden the customary understanding of bear arms. But again, even so, the Second Amendment does not include such language. The Pennsylvania and Ohio state constitutions appeared after the Second Amendment was drafted, and whether they seek to remedy a perceived defect in the Second Amendment by applying the right to bear arms to individual self defense, or they simply wish to extend the notion of bearing arms beyond its normal military use, such specification was unusual and did not reflect the ordinary meaning of the phrase to bear arms, as used, for example, in Article XVII of the 1805 Massachusetts constitution, which reads, “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence” (Freeman 1805, 11). In any case, the final version of the Second Amendment, while it recognizes the connection between arms and a well-regulated militia, makes no mention of bearing arms “for the defense of [individuals] . . . or for the purpose of killing game,” and so the Pennsylvania minority opinion was either ignored or rejected by the framers of the federal Constitution. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century dictionaries that record the phrase agree that bear arms refers either to military service or to the wearing of heraldic insignia. The Oxford English Dictionary (1888, s.v. bear, vb.) defines bear arms against as “to be engaged in hostilities with.” Funk and Wagnall’s New Standard Dictionary (1929, s.v. bear, vb.) has “to do military service,” and Webster’s Second New International Dictionary (1934, s.v. bear arms) defines the phrase as, “To serve as a soldier.” More recently, though, Webster’s Third (1961, s.v. bear) moved away from the military reference, perhaps in response to a broadening of bear arms by today’s gun rights advocates, redefining the phrase more generally as “to carry or possess arms,” with a citation to the Second Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms – U.S. Constitution.” Although groups like the National Rifle Association are flooding the language with prose in which bear arms is a synonym for carrying guns, the idiom does not stretch comfortably to accommodate this meaning. In oral arguments in the Heller case, Justice Souter challenged Solicitor General Paul Clement on the meaning of keep and bear arms. Souter felt keep and bear was a unitary phrase, like ordinary and customary, while Clement read them as two separate verbs, with keep arms meaning ‘to store them at home,’ and bear arms meaning ‘to carry them outside the home.’ Souter asked Clement, “But wait a minute. You’re not saying that if somebody goes hunting deer he is bearing arms, or are you?” Clement replied, “I would say that and so would Madison and so would Jefferson, I would submit.” But Souter wasn’t convinced, and rephrased his question, “Somebody going out to – in the eighteenth century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?” Clement finally conceded that, no, it is not the way they talk: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.” And Justice Souter concluded the exchange, “But it’s ‘arms’ that has the kind of the military – the martial connotation, I would have thought” (Supreme Court 2008, 36- 37). As Justice Souter knew, from the first occurrences of the phrase to today, bear arms does not typically refer to hunting or to personal self defense. Or, as the historian Garry Wills (1995) put it, “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.”
There that's the entire bear arms segment, read it this time please.
"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."
united states vs emerson
You're not being a "strict constitutional" you're flat out wrong implying YOUR interpretation of the constitution is correct without any meaningful evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have brought up was irrelevant to this discussion.
There is a whole section addressing that as well, I wish you guys would actually read it before responding like this with things that are already addressed.
What's the point in arguing with you guys, I could copy paste the entire thing in here for you to rebut everything you are bringing up and you still wouldn't bother to read it.
So basically you and some random linguistics professor are correct and the multiple rulings by the supreme courts are wrong. Am I getting this right?
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
#1 So you write a respected criminologist off because they're Swedish and then somehow Zergofobic has the authority to say there's absolutely no correlation? #2 There were 0 casualties in that knife attack, stop spouting nonsense. Glad the guy had a knife and not a military grade firearm. #3 So we shouldn't try to reduce mass shootings?
An example from my home country:
"Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since." from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html
So there, I prove that you are lying and distorting the truth to promote victim disarmament zones so that the criminals can have guns and law abiding citizens can't and so you have to think of the state as your god so they pretend to protect you, when they only come after the crime has been committed.
As far as Australia is concerned there is still big gun ownership there with the people that didn't disarm and if you look at a 30 year period, mass shootings have been flat. So there is no correlation between less guns and more gun control.
Look at Andres Breivik, he wasn't supposed to have guns, but did he care?
"There is a total ban on automatic weapons for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime." - Ups, oh gee guess he didn't read the law the he wasn't supposed to have automatic weapons. Of, these gun laws protected all those dead children really good.
I bet if everyone was packing that day, they'd killed him before he could have aimed.
You can't compare Breivik with some random awkward teenager. Breivik is not stupid and he had to prepare and jump through a lot of hoops to get his weapons and explosives. And it cost him a lot of money too. Not that I want to put Breivik on a pedestal, but there's a major difference between him and the ppl who does school shootings. Breivik had political motives too, so he was much more calculating. Ppl like him are much more dangerous than ppl like Adam Lanza. If Adam Lanza was a norwegian guy, nothing would have happened. As long as his parents aren't registered hunters, he wouldn't have had access to a weapon. On the other hand, if Breivik lived in USA, with their easy access to weapons and explosives, I believe he could have killed hundreds of ppl if he wanted to. I'm sorry to break it to you, but we will never be completely safe from lunatics. To put up restrictions is a great way to discourage them though, and to decrease the potential harm that can be done.
Anyway, I feel like I'm repeating myself, but the murder rate by guns in Sweden is non-existent if you exclude victims of criminal background, and I personally have little sympathy for them. And we have heavy restrictions on weapons. You get the hint? If weapon restrictions works here, why wouldn't it work in USA? Are we really that different? I think you guys have been so conditioned by the availability of guns that you don't even realize how hard they are to get in certain countries. You can't just go to a gun vendor. There's no such thing here. All the guns here (apart from hunting-rifles) have been imported by criminal networks illegally, mostly from Russia or Eastern Europe, and these weapons have been smuggled from somewhere else originally. If you get caught smuggling or possessing guns you get jail-time. That should tell you something about how valuable these weapons and their ammunition are. How do you figure the chances are of them sharing one of their weapons with a awkward 20 year old? The chances of him getting even the simplest gun is very slim, and the chances of him getting an assault rifle is not even worth considering. That will just never happen, because they are so rare.
"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."
united states vs emerson
You're not being a "strict constitutional" you're flat out wrong implying YOUR interpretation of the constitution is correct without any meaningful evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have brought up was irrelevant to this discussion.
There is a whole section addressing that as well, I wish you guys would actually read it before responding like this with things that are already addressed.
What's the point in arguing with you guys, I could copy paste the entire thing in here for you to rebut everything you are bringing up and you still wouldn't bother to read it.
So basically you and some random linguistics professor are correct and the multiple rulings by the supreme courts are wrong. Am I getting this right?
Yes, he is actually an authority on the subject of language. Not only that but he specializes in this very subject of language.
EPT
