|
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 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
(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.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right.
James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA.
It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control.
|
On December 30 2012 14:47 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
(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.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right. James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA. It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control.
James Madison wrote it, but the others accepted it and drafted it. their opinions certainly do matter, as it was under their opinions that the right was accepted into American society and law. further, do you have any reason to believe that Madison believed it to be solely a collective right, and not as also an individual right? it was also always enforced as an individual right, as the right of one citizen to bear arms has always and universally been protected, not as his being a part of an organized militia, but as his ability to form a militia at any moment using his own weapons.
every single leading legal scholar of the Founding times saw it as both a collective and an individual right. otherwise, at least someone would have affirmed, in writing, that it was distinctly not an individual right. this never happened, and in fact, universally, the opposite has happened.
|
On December 30 2012 14:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 14:47 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
(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.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right. James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA. It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control. James Madison wrote it, but the others accepted it and drafted it. their opinions certainly do matter, as it was under their opinions that the right was accepted into American society and law. further, do you have any reason to believe that Madison believed it to be solely a collective right, and not as also an individual right? it was also always enforced as an individual right, as the right of one citizen to bear arms has always and universally been protected, not as his being a part of an organized militia, but as his ability to form a militia at any moment using his own weapons. every single leading legal scholar of the Founding times saw it as both a collective and an individual right. otherwise, at least someone would have affirmed, in writing, that it was distinctly not an individual right. this never happened, and in fact, universally, the opposite has happened.
No it wasn't, it was always treated as a collective right, one that wasn't extended to ordinary civilians but to militia members. It came up to the supreme court a small number of times and in each one it was ruled in the collective rights. the most recent one was in 1939 US vs Miller, where the judges said and I quote
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
A couple quotes from James Madison
"An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government."
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
It was always about a well regulated and trained militia, composed of the people, it's a citizens army.
And if you really want to go into the linguistics of it, go back quite a few pages to where I talked about it. Dennis Baron is a professor of linguistics, and specializes in linguistics pertaining to that time period, the amendment was written in such a way that the half of it was not to be ignored, it was important for establishing the justification for the second half of it. It's not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is "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."
Not only is their 3 commas, not 1, like most people mistakenly believe, but you aren't supposed to ignore the whole first part of the sentence just because a commas there, because that's not how commas worked in the 18th century. The states have a right to have a militia, the people of the states have a right to join the militia, and when in the militia they are to be well regulated and they are guaranteed the right to bear arms in that militia. It's a safeguard against federal military coups.
It's not difficult.
|
On December 30 2012 14:24 kukarachaa wrote:
I was reading this thread and don't understand something. Why do people constantly compare the two incidents one in Connecticut where a lot of people died and one in China where no one died, and ignore all the other ones, and use it as a staple in their arguments for gun control. They are on completely different sides of severity spectrum. I can easily can find an incident where no guns were involved and plenty of deaths and then use it to compare to a shooting with no fatalities involved. Don't get me wrong I realize that guns are more destructive than knives or other tools in the hands of the psychopath, but it's no where near as bad as some people make it out to be.
Find one then. I don't think the efficiency of firearms as weapons of killing has ever been of debate here, it's about the balance between individual liberty and collective security. I imagine it would be an insignificant minority of people who think that mass shootings wouldn't be less severe if they were mass stabbings or slashings.
On December 30 2012 14:47 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
(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.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right. James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA. It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control.
That's some pretty tin-foil-hat conspiracy thinking you've got going on there, care to provide any evidence to these claimed facts and truths? Because the way I understand constitutional law, the bill or rights didn't even apply to states until the incorporation doctrine that came from interpretation of the fourteenth amendment. Prior to that the federal government was restricted from disarming the population in any way, but each state was free to restrict firearm ownership, use and storage any way they chose, most of them choosing not to restrict ownership at all. So whatever court cases arose before the civil war were restricted to state courts and so never dealt directly with the second amendment, and only referred to it to aid in interpreting the states own constitutional legislation on firearms. After the civil war, and the drafting of the fourteenth amendment, the courts were concerned about the treatment of newly freed slaves in the southern states and considered their right to arm themselves as an essential right of their citizenship. So to my knowledge, the second amendment was not interpreted as protecting individual rights as a way for American gun makers to make a profit, but as a protection of citizen's rights to life and liberty.
|
On December 30 2012 15:08 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 14:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 14:47 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
(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.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right. James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA. It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control. James Madison wrote it, but the others accepted it and drafted it. their opinions certainly do matter, as it was under their opinions that the right was accepted into American society and law. further, do you have any reason to believe that Madison believed it to be solely a collective right, and not as also an individual right? it was also always enforced as an individual right, as the right of one citizen to bear arms has always and universally been protected, not as his being a part of an organized militia, but as his ability to form a militia at any moment using his own weapons. every single leading legal scholar of the Founding times saw it as both a collective and an individual right. otherwise, at least someone would have affirmed, in writing, that it was distinctly not an individual right. this never happened, and in fact, universally, the opposite has happened. No it wasn't, it was always treated as a collective right, one that wasn't extended to ordinary civilians but to militia members. It came up to the supreme court a small number of times and in each one it was ruled in the collective rights. the most recent one was in 1939 US vs Miller, where the judges said and I quote "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." A couple quotes from James Madison "An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government." "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." It was always about a well regulated and trained militia, composed of the people, it's a citizens army. And if you really want to go into the linguistics of it, go back quite a few pages to where I talked about it. Dennis Baron is a professor of linguistics, and specializes in linguistics pertaining to that time period, the amendment was written in such a way that the half of it was not to be ignored, it was important for establishing the justification for the second half of it. It's not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is "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." Not only is their 3 commas, not 1, like most people mistakenly believe, but you aren't supposed to ignore the whole first part of the sentence just because a commas there, because that's not how commas worked in the 18th century. The states have a right to have a militia, the people of the states have a right to join the militia, and when in the militia they are to be well regulated and they are guaranteed the right to bear arms in that militia. It's a safeguard against federal military coups. It's not difficult.
if it wasn't extended to ordinary citizens then why did so many citizens have guns, and why was there almost no regulation on what guns an ordinary citizen could purchase, until modern times? (I'll answer for you, your interpretation is the modern one, not mine.)
and neither of those two quotes establishes an opinion that the individual right to bear arms doesn't exist, it just supports the existence of militia's composed of civilians. further, almost universally were militias supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens, who would provide their own arms, not receive them from any government.
further, there is not one case of any Founding Father ever supporting the idea that the second amendment does not guarantee the right of an ordinary citizen, not as a member of any trained militia, to possess and purchase guns. they universally talked about it as the right of any citizen to possess and train with arms. this is supported by the existence of frontier borders in which the government could not and would not secure, and expected the citizens themselves to take care of. (the posse of the wild west is an example).
and that Supreme Court quote that you provided talks about one type of gun, popular among organized crime. they did not, in any way, broaden this to include all guns of all types. you haven't found a single instance in which the law was legally interpreted in the way in which you speak.
once again, why did every Founding Father speak of it as both a collective and individual right, and why has the right of the ordinary citizen to possess arms never been widely rejected? because it has always been an individual right of a law-abiding citizen to bear arms.
(also, the linguistics point can be (and is) argued. Mr. Dennis Baron is not the only linguistics expert of the time. and even if he was, lol, that still doesn't mean anything, because we're not talking about literature, but legal language.)
edit: also, when you think about it, Madison's personal opinion (though it supports my own assertions) is unimportant. the law clearly states: "...the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." whether you philosophically disagree with such a statement does not negate the fact that it is as it is.
|
On December 30 2012 15:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 15:08 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 14:47 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
(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.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right. James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA. It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control. James Madison wrote it, but the others accepted it and drafted it. their opinions certainly do matter, as it was under their opinions that the right was accepted into American society and law. further, do you have any reason to believe that Madison believed it to be solely a collective right, and not as also an individual right? it was also always enforced as an individual right, as the right of one citizen to bear arms has always and universally been protected, not as his being a part of an organized militia, but as his ability to form a militia at any moment using his own weapons. every single leading legal scholar of the Founding times saw it as both a collective and an individual right. otherwise, at least someone would have affirmed, in writing, that it was distinctly not an individual right. this never happened, and in fact, universally, the opposite has happened. No it wasn't, it was always treated as a collective right, one that wasn't extended to ordinary civilians but to militia members. It came up to the supreme court a small number of times and in each one it was ruled in the collective rights. the most recent one was in 1939 US vs Miller, where the judges said and I quote "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." A couple quotes from James Madison "An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government." "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." It was always about a well regulated and trained militia, composed of the people, it's a citizens army. And if you really want to go into the linguistics of it, go back quite a few pages to where I talked about it. Dennis Baron is a professor of linguistics, and specializes in linguistics pertaining to that time period, the amendment was written in such a way that the half of it was not to be ignored, it was important for establishing the justification for the second half of it. It's not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is "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." Not only is their 3 commas, not 1, like most people mistakenly believe, but you aren't supposed to ignore the whole first part of the sentence just because a commas there, because that's not how commas worked in the 18th century. The states have a right to have a militia, the people of the states have a right to join the militia, and when in the militia they are to be well regulated and they are guaranteed the right to bear arms in that militia. It's a safeguard against federal military coups. It's not difficult. if it wasn't extended to ordinary citizens then why did so many citizens have guns, and why was there almost no regulation on what guns an ordinary citizen could purchase, until modern times? (I'll answer for you, your interpretation is the modern one, not mine.) and neither of those two quotes establishes an opinion that the individual right to bear arms doesn't exist, it just supports the existence of militia's composed of civilians. further, almost universally were militias supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens, who would provide their own arms, not receive them from any government. further, there is not one case of any Founding Father ever supporting the idea that the second amendment does not guarantee the right of an ordinary citizen, not as a member of any trained militia, to possess and purchase guns. they universally talked about it as the right of any citizen to possess and train with arms. this is supported by the existence of frontier borders in which the government could not and would not secure, and expected the citizens themselves to take care of. (the posse of the wild west is an example). and that Supreme Court quote that you provided talks about one type of gun, popular among organized crime. they did not, in any way, broaden this to include all guns of all types. you haven't found a single instance in which the law was legally interpreted in the way in which you speak. once again, why did every Founding Father speak of it as both a collective and individual right, and why has the right of the ordinary citizen to possess arms never been widely rejected? because it has always been an individual right of a law-abiding citizen to bear arms. (also, the linguistics point can be (and is) argued. Mr. Dennis Baron is not the only linguistics expert of the time. and even if he was, lol, that still doesn't mean anything, because we're not talking about literature, but legal language.) edit: also, when you think about it, Madison's personal opinion (though it supports my own assertions) is unimportant. the law clearly states: "...the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." whether you philosophically disagree with such a statement does not negate the fact that it is as it is.
Ordinary civilians didn't have guns, idk why a lot of people seem to think everyone and their grandma was packing back then, they weren't. Militiamen had them, and there were a lot of militia men, pretty much every man of age was one.
And I also can't see how you could interpret that supreme court quote any differently, it's extremely clear and I don't really see how yougot yourself into thinking it doesnt mean what it says it means.
first, they dont see how that gun would have any practical militia use, and as such do not believe the second amendment grants them the right to have it, you know, because the second amendment guarantees the militia the right to bear arms, not every ordinary citizen.
|
On December 30 2012 15:55 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 15:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 15:08 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 14:47 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
(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.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right. James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA. It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control. James Madison wrote it, but the others accepted it and drafted it. their opinions certainly do matter, as it was under their opinions that the right was accepted into American society and law. further, do you have any reason to believe that Madison believed it to be solely a collective right, and not as also an individual right? it was also always enforced as an individual right, as the right of one citizen to bear arms has always and universally been protected, not as his being a part of an organized militia, but as his ability to form a militia at any moment using his own weapons. every single leading legal scholar of the Founding times saw it as both a collective and an individual right. otherwise, at least someone would have affirmed, in writing, that it was distinctly not an individual right. this never happened, and in fact, universally, the opposite has happened. No it wasn't, it was always treated as a collective right, one that wasn't extended to ordinary civilians but to militia members. It came up to the supreme court a small number of times and in each one it was ruled in the collective rights. the most recent one was in 1939 US vs Miller, where the judges said and I quote "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." A couple quotes from James Madison "An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government." "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." It was always about a well regulated and trained militia, composed of the people, it's a citizens army. And if you really want to go into the linguistics of it, go back quite a few pages to where I talked about it. Dennis Baron is a professor of linguistics, and specializes in linguistics pertaining to that time period, the amendment was written in such a way that the half of it was not to be ignored, it was important for establishing the justification for the second half of it. It's not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is "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." Not only is their 3 commas, not 1, like most people mistakenly believe, but you aren't supposed to ignore the whole first part of the sentence just because a commas there, because that's not how commas worked in the 18th century. The states have a right to have a militia, the people of the states have a right to join the militia, and when in the militia they are to be well regulated and they are guaranteed the right to bear arms in that militia. It's a safeguard against federal military coups. It's not difficult. if it wasn't extended to ordinary citizens then why did so many citizens have guns, and why was there almost no regulation on what guns an ordinary citizen could purchase, until modern times? (I'll answer for you, your interpretation is the modern one, not mine.) and neither of those two quotes establishes an opinion that the individual right to bear arms doesn't exist, it just supports the existence of militia's composed of civilians. further, almost universally were militias supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens, who would provide their own arms, not receive them from any government. further, there is not one case of any Founding Father ever supporting the idea that the second amendment does not guarantee the right of an ordinary citizen, not as a member of any trained militia, to possess and purchase guns. they universally talked about it as the right of any citizen to possess and train with arms. this is supported by the existence of frontier borders in which the government could not and would not secure, and expected the citizens themselves to take care of. (the posse of the wild west is an example). and that Supreme Court quote that you provided talks about one type of gun, popular among organized crime. they did not, in any way, broaden this to include all guns of all types. you haven't found a single instance in which the law was legally interpreted in the way in which you speak. once again, why did every Founding Father speak of it as both a collective and individual right, and why has the right of the ordinary citizen to possess arms never been widely rejected? because it has always been an individual right of a law-abiding citizen to bear arms. (also, the linguistics point can be (and is) argued. Mr. Dennis Baron is not the only linguistics expert of the time. and even if he was, lol, that still doesn't mean anything, because we're not talking about literature, but legal language.) edit: also, when you think about it, Madison's personal opinion (though it supports my own assertions) is unimportant. the law clearly states: "...the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." whether you philosophically disagree with such a statement does not negate the fact that it is as it is. Ordinary civilians didn't have guns, idk why a lot of people seem to think everyone and their grandma was packing back then, they weren't. Militiamen had them, and there were a lot of militia men, pretty much every man of age was one. And I also can't see how you could interpret that supreme court quote any differently, it's extremely clear and I don't really see how yougot yourself into thinking it doesnt mean what it says it means. first, they dont see how that gun would have any practical militia use, and as such do not believe the second amendment grants them the right to have it, you know, because the second amendment guarantees the militia the right to bear arms, not every ordinary citizen.
women owned guns at a rate of about 18% in 1774. this didn't really drop either with the founding of America. and every male was a potential militia member, sure. that doesn't mean that those who weren't (frontiersmen, elders, women) weren't allowed to own and carry guns.
edit: and the Supreme Court quote does not broadly ban guns, but supports the ban of ONE type of gun.
once again: why did every Founding Father speak of it as both a collective and individual right, and why has the right of the ordinary citizen to possess arms never been widely rejected? because it has always been an individual right of a law-abiding citizen to bear arms.
|
On December 30 2012 15:55 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 15:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 15:08 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 14:47 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
(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.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right. James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA. It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control. James Madison wrote it, but the others accepted it and drafted it. their opinions certainly do matter, as it was under their opinions that the right was accepted into American society and law. further, do you have any reason to believe that Madison believed it to be solely a collective right, and not as also an individual right? it was also always enforced as an individual right, as the right of one citizen to bear arms has always and universally been protected, not as his being a part of an organized militia, but as his ability to form a militia at any moment using his own weapons. every single leading legal scholar of the Founding times saw it as both a collective and an individual right. otherwise, at least someone would have affirmed, in writing, that it was distinctly not an individual right. this never happened, and in fact, universally, the opposite has happened. No it wasn't, it was always treated as a collective right, one that wasn't extended to ordinary civilians but to militia members. It came up to the supreme court a small number of times and in each one it was ruled in the collective rights. the most recent one was in 1939 US vs Miller, where the judges said and I quote "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." A couple quotes from James Madison "An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government." "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." It was always about a well regulated and trained militia, composed of the people, it's a citizens army. And if you really want to go into the linguistics of it, go back quite a few pages to where I talked about it. Dennis Baron is a professor of linguistics, and specializes in linguistics pertaining to that time period, the amendment was written in such a way that the half of it was not to be ignored, it was important for establishing the justification for the second half of it. It's not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is "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." Not only is their 3 commas, not 1, like most people mistakenly believe, but you aren't supposed to ignore the whole first part of the sentence just because a commas there, because that's not how commas worked in the 18th century. The states have a right to have a militia, the people of the states have a right to join the militia, and when in the militia they are to be well regulated and they are guaranteed the right to bear arms in that militia. It's a safeguard against federal military coups. It's not difficult. if it wasn't extended to ordinary citizens then why did so many citizens have guns, and why was there almost no regulation on what guns an ordinary citizen could purchase, until modern times? (I'll answer for you, your interpretation is the modern one, not mine.) and neither of those two quotes establishes an opinion that the individual right to bear arms doesn't exist, it just supports the existence of militia's composed of civilians. further, almost universally were militias supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens, who would provide their own arms, not receive them from any government. further, there is not one case of any Founding Father ever supporting the idea that the second amendment does not guarantee the right of an ordinary citizen, not as a member of any trained militia, to possess and purchase guns. they universally talked about it as the right of any citizen to possess and train with arms. this is supported by the existence of frontier borders in which the government could not and would not secure, and expected the citizens themselves to take care of. (the posse of the wild west is an example). and that Supreme Court quote that you provided talks about one type of gun, popular among organized crime. they did not, in any way, broaden this to include all guns of all types. you haven't found a single instance in which the law was legally interpreted in the way in which you speak. once again, why did every Founding Father speak of it as both a collective and individual right, and why has the right of the ordinary citizen to possess arms never been widely rejected? because it has always been an individual right of a law-abiding citizen to bear arms. (also, the linguistics point can be (and is) argued. Mr. Dennis Baron is not the only linguistics expert of the time. and even if he was, lol, that still doesn't mean anything, because we're not talking about literature, but legal language.) edit: also, when you think about it, Madison's personal opinion (though it supports my own assertions) is unimportant. the law clearly states: "...the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." whether you philosophically disagree with such a statement does not negate the fact that it is as it is. Ordinary civilians didn't have guns, idk why a lot of people seem to think everyone and their grandma was packing back then, they weren't. Militiamen had them, and there were a lot of militia men, pretty much every man of age was one.And I also can't see how you could interpret that supreme court quote any differently, it's extremely clear and I don't really see how yougot yourself into thinking it doesnt mean what it says it means. first, they dont see how that gun would have any practical militia use, and as such do not believe the second amendment grants them the right to have it, you know, because the second amendment guarantees the militia the right to bear arms, not every ordinary citizen.
So what's the difference between ordinary civilians and "Every man of age"? Because I'm not seeing one.
|
On December 30 2012 16:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 15:55 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 15:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 15:08 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 14:47 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
(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.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right. James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA. It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control. James Madison wrote it, but the others accepted it and drafted it. their opinions certainly do matter, as it was under their opinions that the right was accepted into American society and law. further, do you have any reason to believe that Madison believed it to be solely a collective right, and not as also an individual right? it was also always enforced as an individual right, as the right of one citizen to bear arms has always and universally been protected, not as his being a part of an organized militia, but as his ability to form a militia at any moment using his own weapons. every single leading legal scholar of the Founding times saw it as both a collective and an individual right. otherwise, at least someone would have affirmed, in writing, that it was distinctly not an individual right. this never happened, and in fact, universally, the opposite has happened. No it wasn't, it was always treated as a collective right, one that wasn't extended to ordinary civilians but to militia members. It came up to the supreme court a small number of times and in each one it was ruled in the collective rights. the most recent one was in 1939 US vs Miller, where the judges said and I quote "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." A couple quotes from James Madison "An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government." "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." It was always about a well regulated and trained militia, composed of the people, it's a citizens army. And if you really want to go into the linguistics of it, go back quite a few pages to where I talked about it. Dennis Baron is a professor of linguistics, and specializes in linguistics pertaining to that time period, the amendment was written in such a way that the half of it was not to be ignored, it was important for establishing the justification for the second half of it. It's not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is "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." Not only is their 3 commas, not 1, like most people mistakenly believe, but you aren't supposed to ignore the whole first part of the sentence just because a commas there, because that's not how commas worked in the 18th century. The states have a right to have a militia, the people of the states have a right to join the militia, and when in the militia they are to be well regulated and they are guaranteed the right to bear arms in that militia. It's a safeguard against federal military coups. It's not difficult. if it wasn't extended to ordinary citizens then why did so many citizens have guns, and why was there almost no regulation on what guns an ordinary citizen could purchase, until modern times? (I'll answer for you, your interpretation is the modern one, not mine.) and neither of those two quotes establishes an opinion that the individual right to bear arms doesn't exist, it just supports the existence of militia's composed of civilians. further, almost universally were militias supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens, who would provide their own arms, not receive them from any government. further, there is not one case of any Founding Father ever supporting the idea that the second amendment does not guarantee the right of an ordinary citizen, not as a member of any trained militia, to possess and purchase guns. they universally talked about it as the right of any citizen to possess and train with arms. this is supported by the existence of frontier borders in which the government could not and would not secure, and expected the citizens themselves to take care of. (the posse of the wild west is an example). and that Supreme Court quote that you provided talks about one type of gun, popular among organized crime. they did not, in any way, broaden this to include all guns of all types. you haven't found a single instance in which the law was legally interpreted in the way in which you speak. once again, why did every Founding Father speak of it as both a collective and individual right, and why has the right of the ordinary citizen to possess arms never been widely rejected? because it has always been an individual right of a law-abiding citizen to bear arms. (also, the linguistics point can be (and is) argued. Mr. Dennis Baron is not the only linguistics expert of the time. and even if he was, lol, that still doesn't mean anything, because we're not talking about literature, but legal language.) edit: also, when you think about it, Madison's personal opinion (though it supports my own assertions) is unimportant. the law clearly states: "...the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." whether you philosophically disagree with such a statement does not negate the fact that it is as it is. Ordinary civilians didn't have guns, idk why a lot of people seem to think everyone and their grandma was packing back then, they weren't. Militiamen had them, and there were a lot of militia men, pretty much every man of age was one.And I also can't see how you could interpret that supreme court quote any differently, it's extremely clear and I don't really see how yougot yourself into thinking it doesnt mean what it says it means. first, they dont see how that gun would have any practical militia use, and as such do not believe the second amendment grants them the right to have it, you know, because the second amendment guarantees the militia the right to bear arms, not every ordinary citizen. So what's the difference between ordinary civilians and "Every man of age"? Because I'm not seeing one.
Not every man of age was qualified and could serve in the militia, many did though, but there's a big difference between a militiaman and an ordinary civilian.
|
On December 30 2012 16:45 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 16:14 Millitron wrote:On December 30 2012 15:55 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 15:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 15:08 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 14:47 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
[quote]
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right. James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA. It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control. James Madison wrote it, but the others accepted it and drafted it. their opinions certainly do matter, as it was under their opinions that the right was accepted into American society and law. further, do you have any reason to believe that Madison believed it to be solely a collective right, and not as also an individual right? it was also always enforced as an individual right, as the right of one citizen to bear arms has always and universally been protected, not as his being a part of an organized militia, but as his ability to form a militia at any moment using his own weapons. every single leading legal scholar of the Founding times saw it as both a collective and an individual right. otherwise, at least someone would have affirmed, in writing, that it was distinctly not an individual right. this never happened, and in fact, universally, the opposite has happened. No it wasn't, it was always treated as a collective right, one that wasn't extended to ordinary civilians but to militia members. It came up to the supreme court a small number of times and in each one it was ruled in the collective rights. the most recent one was in 1939 US vs Miller, where the judges said and I quote "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." A couple quotes from James Madison "An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government." "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." It was always about a well regulated and trained militia, composed of the people, it's a citizens army. And if you really want to go into the linguistics of it, go back quite a few pages to where I talked about it. Dennis Baron is a professor of linguistics, and specializes in linguistics pertaining to that time period, the amendment was written in such a way that the half of it was not to be ignored, it was important for establishing the justification for the second half of it. It's not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is "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." Not only is their 3 commas, not 1, like most people mistakenly believe, but you aren't supposed to ignore the whole first part of the sentence just because a commas there, because that's not how commas worked in the 18th century. The states have a right to have a militia, the people of the states have a right to join the militia, and when in the militia they are to be well regulated and they are guaranteed the right to bear arms in that militia. It's a safeguard against federal military coups. It's not difficult. if it wasn't extended to ordinary citizens then why did so many citizens have guns, and why was there almost no regulation on what guns an ordinary citizen could purchase, until modern times? (I'll answer for you, your interpretation is the modern one, not mine.) and neither of those two quotes establishes an opinion that the individual right to bear arms doesn't exist, it just supports the existence of militia's composed of civilians. further, almost universally were militias supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens, who would provide their own arms, not receive them from any government. further, there is not one case of any Founding Father ever supporting the idea that the second amendment does not guarantee the right of an ordinary citizen, not as a member of any trained militia, to possess and purchase guns. they universally talked about it as the right of any citizen to possess and train with arms. this is supported by the existence of frontier borders in which the government could not and would not secure, and expected the citizens themselves to take care of. (the posse of the wild west is an example). and that Supreme Court quote that you provided talks about one type of gun, popular among organized crime. they did not, in any way, broaden this to include all guns of all types. you haven't found a single instance in which the law was legally interpreted in the way in which you speak. once again, why did every Founding Father speak of it as both a collective and individual right, and why has the right of the ordinary citizen to possess arms never been widely rejected? because it has always been an individual right of a law-abiding citizen to bear arms. (also, the linguistics point can be (and is) argued. Mr. Dennis Baron is not the only linguistics expert of the time. and even if he was, lol, that still doesn't mean anything, because we're not talking about literature, but legal language.) edit: also, when you think about it, Madison's personal opinion (though it supports my own assertions) is unimportant. the law clearly states: "...the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." whether you philosophically disagree with such a statement does not negate the fact that it is as it is. Ordinary civilians didn't have guns, idk why a lot of people seem to think everyone and their grandma was packing back then, they weren't. Militiamen had them, and there were a lot of militia men, pretty much every man of age was one.And I also can't see how you could interpret that supreme court quote any differently, it's extremely clear and I don't really see how yougot yourself into thinking it doesnt mean what it says it means. first, they dont see how that gun would have any practical militia use, and as such do not believe the second amendment grants them the right to have it, you know, because the second amendment guarantees the militia the right to bear arms, not every ordinary citizen. So what's the difference between ordinary civilians and "Every man of age"? Because I'm not seeing one. Not every man of age was qualified and could serve in the militia, many did though, but there's a big difference between a militiaman and an ordinary civilian.
So which is it? In your previous post you said "Militiamen had them, and there were a lot of militia men, pretty much every man of age was one." And now you're saying that not every man of age was qualified?
And a better question is, where did these militiamen keep there guns? The answer is obviously in their own home. They owned their own guns, the states didn't own them.
|
On December 20 2012 13:35 fight_or_flight wrote:If americans no longer had guns, I wonder if swat teams would stop kicking people's doors in a 3 am with "search warrants"? I wonder if all the $500,000 police drone grants from homeland security would stop being given out? Would the departments still be getting armored vehicles and assault weapons? I wonder if weapons were gone, if drug gangs that go back and forth across the boarder would finally be dealt with? I wonder if the TSA would stop expanding to amtrak, bus stations, all other public transportation? Do you think the war on terrorism would diminish? Would Obama's kill list be discarded? Would the " double tapdouble tap" drone tactics be abolished? I wonder the department of homeland security's use of powers granted by the patriot act would be used more, or less? The fact is, guns have been legal in America since forever. But we are only recently seeing a very disturbing trend of this type of inexcusable behavior on the government's part. That seems like a pretty good reason not to ban high-cap mags and assault rifles. I didn't make up the stuff in the above paragraph...this is a real trend and it will continue. We should look at the meds these shooters are on. It's a common theme. Can you really have suicidal thoughts without homicidal thoughts? How come pharmaceutical companies never put that on the label? Why do so many people require these medications nowadays? That's a good measure of how sick our society is, literally. We have sick individuals who need medication. We have a government which is showing some kind of psychological sickness, or maybe they're causing it. Before even talking gun control (even having a debate), I'd like to first see the government behave reasonably, responsibly, and in american citizens' best interest. These people gave illegal weapons to drug dealers (fast and furious), leave the border open, kill americans with drones, it goes on and on. And they want us to give up assault weapons and high-cap mags? Give up guns? Seriously?? They need to get their fricken act together. They have no credibility. They make the whole situation much worse.
These people know what I'm talking about:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/
If there ever was a history lesson to be learned, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more stark example than what the Russians have gone through. Millions and millions of deaths, and corruption and abuse that continues to this very day. Human trafficing.
Disarmament is the precursor to genocide. That's simply a fact.
|
On December 30 2012 13:46 Kaitlin wrote:
Because we have a right to protect ourselves and our family. Intrusion into a home in the U.S. is the most severe type of intrusion. It's not coincidental that law enforcement can't even enter a home without court approval, or other exigent circumstances. We in America put a high value on protecting our families in our homes. You violate that, you give up your right to life.
Yes, that's the same here. Neither law enforcement (without court approval) nor other people, not even your landlord (if you live in a rented home), may enter your home without your permission or, as you say, exigent circumstances. It is a basic right recorded in the constitution (for specifics, click here).
We seem to severely disagree on the precedence of rights, though. Protecting your family members' lives takes precedence over a burglar's right to life, I think I mentioned that. There would have to be an immediate threat, though. Protecting any material wealth should not take precedence over anyone's right to life.
On December 30 2012 13:46 Kaitlin wrote:
What kind of dumbass hypothetical burglar is going to burglarize the home of someone he knows is: a) home, and b) armed. It's a fantasy land you are creating. A burglar will avoid such a circumstance and burglarize the house where it's unlikely armed resistance will be encountered.
Obviously my hypothetical burglar will not knowingly enter said scenario. I didn't have that in mind. Let's say he enters a house the inhabitant of which he assumes to be on a vacation. He is wrong and is surprised by someone in there. Consider two cases: a) This happens in a society where guns are abundant. b) It happens in a society where almost no civilians own guns. In society a) he has an incentive to shoot (I'm not saying he necessarily does, but he may). In society b) he will almost certainly just run away. This is not Fantasy Land. Burglars do break into houses with inhabitants who are at home. They don't do so on purpose, but it happens.
\edit:
On December 30 2012 19:51 fight_or_flight wrote:
Disarmament is the precursor to genocide. That's simply a fact.
That is the conclusion you draw from the cited article? I am amazed.
Even if it were true that every oppressive government disarmed its people, this still wouldn't imply that "disarmament is the precursor to genocide". Especially not always and everywhere.
Also, reading the article, I find it to be heavily subjective, naïve and somewhat ideologically coloured. The author raises some valid concerns, but I don't see a convincing argument that armament of the general populace is an effective answer to those, let alone the ideal answer.
|
|
|
It was an off-duty sheriff's deputy, though. Your proposed headline is deliberately misleading. Bias is not the same as "not what I want."
|
On December 31 2012 05:31 HunterX11 wrote:It was an off-duty sheriff's deputy, though. Your proposed headline is deliberately misleading. Bias is not the same as "not what I want."
There's plenty of cases where it's a pure civilian and it also manages to get minimal coverage. The times where a gun improves the situation never quite manage to make international headlines. And they are out there.
|
Media bias is indeed pretty terrible when it comes to the gun control debate. But, come on, its Huffington Post......what did you expect?
|
United States41959 Posts
On December 31 2012 05:31 HunterX11 wrote:It was an off-duty sheriff's deputy, though. Your proposed headline is deliberately misleading. Bias is not the same as "not what I want."
It was an off duty deputy working as a security guard. Security guard does job. Man employed to use gun to protect the area uses gun to protect the area. It has literally no bearing on any concealed carry or personal use of firearms debate because this was a professional doing his job.
|
United States41959 Posts
Also the argument about the founding fathers and the exact phrasing of the constitution seems absurd to me as a non-American. If it's good for society then who cares if it's in the constitution, things aren't good because they're in the constitution, the intent is that the things in the constitution ought to be good. Argue the merits of gun ownership based upon the merits of gun ownership, not based upon their relation to an infallible foundation myth. And if you think it's so good that it ought to be a right and the constitution doesn't reflect that as well as you'd like then write it into the constitution.
|
|
|
On December 31 2012 05:40 farvacola wrote:Media bias is indeed pretty terrible when it comes to the gun control debate. But, come on, its Huffington Post......what did you expect?
well, it was the ONLY national media note of the incident i could find. That in itself says a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
