posted
If the water is so murky, is it then safe to say that SYG was/is not, in fact, such a pressing need to be passed where it has not, or such a powerfully vital protection where it has?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do you find it at all problematic that your primary means of self-defense actually raises the level of danger?
I taught other people gun safety professionally, so I'm not "a national average statistic", so I in no way accept that my danger level is raised. Nor that it has to be that way.
We need to make gun safety a larger component of our gun culture, make mandatory safe handling testing a part of gun ownership, make mandatory safe storage a part of our laws.
The concept that guns are more dangerous to their owners then potentially helpful is one that pains me, as it is entirely unnecessary, it is damn shame (as in we should be ashamed) and more over an utter failure of groups like the NRA who oppose all legislation which might improve the safety if they are even a small and reasonable restriction of "gun rights".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That if it was intended for something along those lines, it was meant not as a personal/individual right, but as an organized group right, which is a very different thing.
I'm not sure why you think this, given that militias were not given the right to bear arms, the people were, clear and simple.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That if it was intended for something along those lines, it was meant not as a personal/individual right, but as an organized group right, which is a very different thing.
I'm not sure why you think this, given that militias were not given the right to bear arms, the people were, clear and simple.
You're right, it IS clear and simple. The amendment says the words "militia" and "regulated" right there in the text. The militia ARE the people.
But I love it when people ignore all the words they don't like.
As for why I think that, it's because the Founders told me so.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on, Lyr, you're a historian. I'm sure you're familiar with the interpretation that "the people" has a specific meaning in the Constitution, and all such references share that common meaning. It's a pretty common interpretation.
And by that interpretation, what he said is perfectly accurate, and doesn't require ignoring words. "Militia" and "the people" being two distinct and listed entities.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How difficult would it to have been to write the Second Amendment like this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people in said Militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
posted
I'm going to re-post something I wrote for Hatrack a few years ago because it bears repeating, and because we've dipped into the Framers/Founders argument quite a bit here. While I don't think everything they thought is pure gold, I think it's important to know exactly what they were thinking with regards to the Second Amendment, and why modern interpretations completely distort their original intent into something completely different.
As a sort of pseudo essay post, my thesis is this: The second amendment was written for the sole purpose of ensuring the arming of militias, and was never intended to be a universal individual right to own a gun. I will say that I can see a middle ground between the insurrection argument and mine. It comes down to semantics, I think. Militias were viewed at the time as the people’s way of keeping the government in check. They were against standing armies, and thought they were pathways and playthings for governments on their way to corruption and tyranny, and thought that if the power was vested in the people’s army, a militia, then the government would never be able to overcome them. So in effect, keeping the guns with the people, organized in a militia, could be considered a way for the people to ‘rebel’ if the government gets out of hand. But this action would only be taken if the government actually called out the army for use on civilian soil, violating what soon became the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (passed to make sure a "Reconstruction" style military act never happened again) and also the spirit of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Militia service was designed to repel military aggression from the government should it ever come. Lots of people think it means you should march on Washington when you don't like what Congress is doing. That's precisely what the Framers feared, not wanted.
Granted I don’t think home state loyalty is what it was in the 1860’s, there’s very few who would say their loyalty to Virginia is higher than that to the US, though I suppose it would have to depend on the circumstances. The militias themselves, that are mentioned in the multiple state constitutions and in the previous versions of the second amendment were there specifically for defense of the states (individually and together), against foreign enemies and domestic insurrections. They weren’t created as an instrument of insurrection, but as a prevention and defense mechanism.
Anyway, the history of the amendment can be traced back to England. The English Declaration of Rights gave Protestants (no dice for Catholics and Jews) the right to “have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law” (English Declaration of Rights) At the early stages of the Revolution, the British tried to take away the guns of the militias in an effort to quash the ability of the Americans to stage a real revolt. Colonists tried to cite the above stated passage, and parts of Common Law as reason to keep their weapons, that they be allowed to have them for hunting, self defense, militia obligations, etc.
Their real fear was a standing army. Standing armies were to them the ultimate tool that a president (or king) could use to revoke the civil rights and liberties of the people. Jefferson, writing to John Adams while they were in Europe (Paris and London respectively) said of the Presidency: “He may be reelected from four years to for years for life…Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union…he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him.” (From The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson & Abigail & John Adams edited by Lester J. Cappon). At the start of the United States of America (post Articles of Confederation), there were less than a 1,000 men in the Federal Army (John Adams by David McCullough). They believed that militias were the best form of defense against foreign enemies and domestic insurrections, such as the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay’s Rebellion, though it’s also true that Shay’s Rebellion is a probably the best representation of why the looser Articles of Confederation weren’t strong enough to deal with threats to the nation.
On the subject of militias vs. a standing army, James Madison had this to say (From Federalist No. 46).
quote: Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
The ongoing French Revolution scared the hell out of a lot of people too. John Adams, while remarking on the debate around the second amendment had this to say:
quote: The State is in critical Circumstances, and have been brought into them by the Heat and Impatience of the People. If nothing will bring them to consideration, I fear they will suffer
His fear was that if the people were armed, and dissatisfied with their government, they’d take up arms and let mob rule supplant the government, to the ruin of all. Something along the lines of the decline that followed in Russia after the Revolution killed off the Romanoffs. Remember that the Bill of Rights was being debated and voted on in the early days of the French Revolution, an ongoing event that utterly terrified the Framers who were already afraid of the vicissitudes of the common man.
Alexander Hamilton, speaking on the subject of militias in Federalist No. 29 had this to say:
quote: The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy … This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
What he and the others are saying, is similar to what others on this board were saying, that an armed populace is the an ultimate defense against a tyrannical government, but that isn’t the same thing as saying the second amendment was forged for the purpose of the people retaining the right to insurrection at will. On the contrary, it was designed so that standing armies, being the most obvious threat to liberty and civil rights at the time, would be rendered unnecessary except in times of war, and that militias would always outnumber them and could always overpower them at any given time, for the defense of liberty, and of the state, against domestic insurrection and foreign invasion. The idea was that if the federal government did become out of control, and used military force against the people, the states would use the power of their domestic militia to overpower the Federal Army and restore Constitutional law. I think there is an emphasis on the collective rights of people to keep and bear arms, as a militia, rather than the individual right of a person to. In other words, your second amendment right is contingent upon militia service, to be regulated by states. This is anachronistic, since we don't really do it this way anymore, but that was the intent.
If you look at earlier versions of the second amendment, the material being played with had entirely to do with military service to a militia:
quote: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. … A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. … A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. … A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The words “necessary to” were added before the final version, “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.” was submitted to the states for approval. I think it should be especially noted, that a measure was put forth in the Senate and the House to add the words “for the common defense” after “bear arms” but was defeated narrowly. Much of this had to do with compromise, but clearly the thought of the time was that the defense of the nation against all threats, foreign and domestic was best held in the hands of a regulated militia.
Forty-Four states have a right to bear arms in their state Constitutions, around 28 of those states specifically include the provision that the right to bear arms is for the common defense of the state, or similar language. And considering the importance of context, the majority of them are constitutions passed earlier rather than later in history, which suggests it was recognized by all that the second amendment was intended for militia service alone.
quote: Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence … Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796) … Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Several states sent requests for a Bill of Rights, and that they include the following amendments:
quote: New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion. … Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power. … New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power. … North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms." … Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.
The North Carolina Declaration of Rights (12/18/1776) states:
quote:“The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Pennsylvania and Vermont wrote an almost identical provision in their Declaration.
Another interesting conversation to be had, as an aside from this one would be the Militia Act of 1903. It was the act that turned what had once been citizen militias into what is today the National Guard, which functions as a highly trained offshoot of the regular army. That did away with citizen militias, which theoretically I think anyway, is a violation of the spirit of the second amendment and the Constitution, but apparently doesn’t violate the letter of the law. I’m more a fan of something akin to the (not outdated, I believe) Swiss system, which is I think what the framers intended us to have, a well-regulated, trained force of citizens who could be called up to defend the state with a medium amount of training, which would also serve as a bulwark against a standing army’s threat to personal liberty.
Early American common usage of “to bear arms” had a decidedly military bent to it.
quote:“The Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight". This study casts doubt on the modern definition of 'bear arms' to mean 'carry firearms'. In Amyette v. The State the court stated in 1840 that bear arms "has a military sense, and no other."
There's still more to the story than this, this is just a collection of some sources I could pull together in a couple hours of looking online, but it lays out the argument in its historical context. The Framers had just finished fighting a war where a standing army was a powerful threat to their liberty, and was defeated by citizen soldiers. They thought the common law protections of rights to bear arms were not strong enough, and wanted them codified more concretely to make sure they could have militias strong enough to stand up against the federal government should it ever come to that. Stat constitutions written at the country's founding back that up, as does the internal debate in 1789.
There's also another aspect to this that I haven't touched on much, and that's Supreme Court findings. The most recent couple of cases on guns in the last ten years overturned 200 years of case law. Historically, the Supreme Court agreed that the second amendment dealt with militia service, that gun control laws were perfectly acceptable, and that it was not an individual right. What we've seen recently is a dramatic shift in understanding on what the amendment means.
There are two great resources some might enjoy on the history of the second amendment:
The Avalon Project is a resource about colonial charters and founding documents for the state governments where you can tease out some information.
But the really helpful link of second amendment sources is from the UCLA Law website. It has a large number of references and documents that provide a primary source historical understanding of the second amendment.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It almost sounds like you're saying that the Founders never saw even *one* Western movie, where everyone everywhere could be relied upon to be carrying a firearm!
Thanks as others have said for all of that. One of the (many, many) funny American notions about What the Founders Thought to me is the idea that they wanted all people (well, white men) to have firearms for any reason or no reason, or shades of that. It's funny to me because of just how far trust in the people actually went among the Founders-that is, not nearly as far as has been made out
posted
While I feel you made persuasive argument for why the founders gave us the right own weapons, I must disagree that they did not intend for citizens to have an individual right to own guns.
quote:Problem is, as Washington himself knew from the beginning of the conflict, militia was undependable, poorly trained, and generally ineffective on the field of battle. They came armed with civilian weapons ranging from fine rifles to cheap trade muskets to fowling pieces—known today as shotguns. Within each of these categories of arms, there were differences among individual weapons. A unit equipped with almost as many different kinds of arms as soldiers could not load and rapidly fire volleys in unison.
In many of the colonies, militia laws specified a few days of annual training. Selection of militia officers was more often based on social status and charisma than on military experience and skill, and the colonies frequently were reluctant to send their militia units outside their borders. Militia units were notorious for leaving camp to tend to their lives as farmers or tradesmen. One militia unit apparently left the field immediately before the October 7, 1777, struggle at Saratoga. At Camden, South Carolina, August 16, 1780, the bulk of American forces was militia. British regulars charged the colonials with bayonets fixed, and the militiamen panicked, many dropping their loaded arms, never having fired a shot in one of the most decisive American defeats of the war.
Washington called the militia “a broken staff” and consistently pressed the Continental Congress to authorize the recruitment of regular troops. These recruits became the Continental Army with which he prosecuted the Revolution. He worried that militiamen possessed “an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes” and that “shameful and scandalous desertions” might harm the morale of the regulars.
The militia brought their own guns. So, yes, the reason Americans were given the right to own guns was so we could defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our towns, our cities, our states, but the right to own and bear arms is an individual right, and always was.
It isn't like the national guard where you show up empty handed and are issued a weapon while serving, which you leave behind when you go home.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your quoted section is a very good reason why the Founders passed laws soon after the Constitution was passed mandating training, and why armories were some of the first things they built so the militia would have better weapons. They knew the pitfalls from the war, and wanted to correct them, and it worked out for the first 70 years or so, but things started to change pretty seriously after the Civil War, and then more seriously than that after the launch of the Great White Fleet.
But regardless, gun ownership was clearly contingent on militia service. If you want to get into the specifics of what the phrase "to keep and bear arms" means in the context of 1789, you might be surprised that it doesn't mean what you think it does. As I noted above, "bear arms" means to engage in military service. "keep" doesn't necessarily mean "own." In other words, a plain text reading of the amendment could absolutely mean, like the Swiss used to do, that you could be issued a rifle never to be used unless called upon for military service in a militia. Given what the original intent of the amendment was, this seems a perfectly reasonable way to interpret the words as written.
It's also how the Supreme Court understood the amendment for 200 years. The theory you're putting forward is only a few decades old.
quote:It isn't like the national guard where you show up empty handed and are issued a weapon while serving, which you leave behind when you go home.
Because the concept your describing here didn't exist in 1789.
quote:is an individual right, and always was.
What do you mean when you say "always was"? To what time are you referring? Before the amendment? Or are you simply backdating your theory to the passing of the amendment itself?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's also how the Supreme Court understood the amendment for 200 years
Can you clarify what you mean here? Do you mean that the Supreme court understood the second amendment to mean that ownership of arms was a right of the militia? If so, I'd be interested in which supreme court cases you could cite to support this claim, since I'm not really willing to accept that just because you said so.
The Supreme Court has treated the second amendment as two separate provisions in every case it has heard that's really even close to related to the second amendment, and the standard model, which has existed since 1820, views ownership of arms as an individual right.
[ January 14, 2013, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But regardless, gun ownership was clearly contingent on militia service.
So, you are saying that if you were not a militia member, you couldn't own a gun, right? Because I don't believe that is even remotely true. Perhaps I am not understanding you...but if I am, do you have any evidence to this claim?
quote:If you want to get into the specifics of what the phrase "to keep and bear arms" means in the context of 1789, you might be surprised that it doesn't mean what you think it does. As I noted above, "bear arms" means to engage in military service. "keep" doesn't necessarily mean "own."
Here is some good evidence to the contrary.
quote:THE ENGLISH RIGHT TO HAVE AND USE ARMS BELONGED TO INDIVIDUALS BROADLY, REGARDLESS OF MILITIA SERVICE, AND PARTICULARLY PROTECTED THEIR “KEEPING” OF GUNS FOR SELFDEFENSE. The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right. It could not have been a federalism provision, and none of them conditioned it on militia service—depredations by the king’s militia having provided one reason for it. Pre-existing restrictions fell away as the right developed after 1689, such that by the Second Amendment’s adoption Americans had inherited a broadly applicable and robust individual right that had been settled for at least fifty years. This right of course had limits, but they did not intrude on the core right to keep firearms to defend home and family: They confirmed it. A. The English Right was, by Well Before the Founding, a Broadly Applicable Right of Individuals, not Depending on Militia Service. 1. The right to arms was declared in the 1689 Declaration of Rights, part of England’s Glorious Revolution. A “Convention” Parliament adopted the Declaration; William and Mary accepted it before Parliament proclaimed them King and Queen; and the ensuing regular Parliament enacted it as the Bill 5 of Rights. William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries *128, *211-16 (“Blackstone”).2 The Declaration presented twelve indictments against King James II (Mary’s father), including for having “caus[ed] several good subjects, being protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law.” Then, in a parallel list of thirteen articles, it stated: “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.” 1 W. & M., Sess. 2, c.2, § 1 (1689). This article set out a personal right. See Lois G. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, at 283 (1981) (recognizing that many articles “guaranteed rights to the individual,” including the right “to bear arms (under certain restrictions)”). Neither the article nor the indictment tied having arms to militia service, which the Declaration nowhere mentioned. Rather, being “armed” and “employed” were distinct. Furthermore, the right belonged to “Subjects,” allowed arms “for their Defence”; indeed, Parliament adopted such language in lieu of the House of Commons’ drafts referring to “their common Defence,” see G&V at 58-59.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights was widely based on English law, and even predating our lovely republic, the right to own firearms known as "keep and bear arms" did not mean military service.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:It isn't like the national guard where you show up empty handed and are issued a weapon while serving, which you leave behind when you go home.
Because the concept your describing here didn't exist in 1789.
The concept that you show up, are armed with a firearm which belongs to the state, to be used only while on duty, and returned when off duty? Can you provide evidence that militia were not allowed to own their own weapons, and supplied from a government armory as described above?
quote:What do you mean when you say "always was"? To what time are you referring? Before the amendment? Or are you simply backdating your theory to the passing of the amendment itself?
Always was...as in, as long as our country has been here, citizens have been allowed to own firearms for the defense of their homes and families regardless of their involvement with the militia.Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The concept that you show up, are armed with a firearm which belongs to the state, to be used only while on duty, and returned when off duty? Can you provide evidence that militia were not allowed to own their own weapons, and supplied from a government armory as described above?
The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 required militia members to arm themselves (With their own funds) and outlined the equipment that each militia member should have, so the concept of state-owned arms did not exist at that point in history. There were a couple modifications to the Uniform Militia Act, but nothing regarding the procurement of arms until it was replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the National Guard.
Now, it also conscripted every able-bodied (white) man to the local militia with a few exceptions granted to infrastructure workers (coach drivers, ferrymen, etc.) and some others, so I guess *technically* you could say that owning arms was dependent on membership in the Militia. But members were not limited to the weapons they used for militia service.
[ January 14, 2013, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:citizens have been allowed to own firearms for the defense of their homes and families
Can you show me a single bit of text in the Constitution that suggests that citizens are allowed to own firearms for the defense of their homes and families?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
quote:Furthermore, the right belonged to “Subjects,” allowed arms “for their Defence”;
It's inferred.
Can you show me a single bit of text in the Constitution that people have the right to free speech on telephones? Or in emails?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:citizens have been allowed to own firearms for the defense of their homes and families
Can you show me a single bit of text in the Constitution that suggests that citizens are allowed to own firearms for the defense of their homes and families?
How about the ninth amendment? Just because it doesn't say it specifically doesn't mean it doesn't allow it.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm going to re-post something I wrote for Hatrack a few years ago because it bears repeating, and because we've dipped into the Framers/Founders argument quite a bit here. While I don't think everything they thought is pure gold, I think it's important to know exactly what they were thinking with regards to the Second Amendment, and why modern interpretations completely distort their original intent into something completely different.
<insert long explainy text here>
This is basically a distilled version of the Dissenting opinion for DC vs Heller. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court affirmed the opposite of what you placed here. I'm currently parsing through the Opinion and Dissenting Opinion of DC vs Heller (for giggles, cause being contracted to a help desk is pretty non-stimulating for my brain these days). So far it's an interesting exploration of the history of the 2nd Amendment.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
While it's arguable that the Ninth can be interpreted to extend that right, I'm not sure how you'd be able to infer the rationale behind that right as SW has done.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
We have the right to own guns...for any bloody lawful purpose we choose, including defending our homes and families.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That the federal government cannot tell a state's citizens that they can't own guns, because that state might need to mobilize its citizens as part of a militia.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly that was the Founders' intent. As to whether an activist, right-wing court would interpret the Fourteenth in a way that'd undo that clear meaning, well, obviously they have.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So do you think it's appropriate that the federal government restricts the type of guns, or should they leave it up to the states?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fine with leaving that up to the states, although obviously interstate commerce complicates that a bit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone_Wolf_, don't you think it is important for people to retain the right to defend themselves from tanks? Bombs? Jet fighters? Should individuals have the right to have those things, too?
Man, that would be so wicked awesome.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Bureaucracy for its own sake?
A single "stolen" gun makes the whole point moot. And why is this any better than government mandated background checks? Kids can still steal dad's gun. Same problem. And don't most of these shooters have clean backgrounds / psych profiles? It's video games that does it too them, right?
Not true. I'm fairly certain that prohibition completely eradicated the whole drinking problem around here. Ditto with Cocaine being illegal.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
So... every weapon ever invented is a weapon of war, then, up to and including rocks and fists. I mean, they were used in wars sometime, right?
Um...yes. But I saw that Troy movie, and apparently hot chicks cause wars too. So being hot should probably be banned. Or at least require a background check.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it's bullshit like "Obama is taking our freedoms!" then my guess is most of them aren't going to join the revolution. If a president actually does something dramatic that oversteps the Constitution in a particularly heinous way, or Congress passes a law that curtails freedoms in an egregious way, then sure, I honestly wouldn't be surprised, and it would necessarily even bother me depending on how it was done.
What if the freedom thieving happens gradually, like becoming obese?
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was unclear. My point is that there are obviously some reasonable limits to our "right to defend ourselves" that most sane, responsible people find acceptable. It is not an absolute right and, like freedom of speech, is already subject to some limitation.
Say what you want. RPG's would rock. I'd write stuff on the nose of mine, like "Don't blink, or you'll miss it"
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fire arms are the primary form of self defense.
If we had access to phasers, which we could set to permanent stun then we could ban guns forever! We do not. So until that point, guns = self defense as far as rights go.
Tazer X26. They even make a version just for consumers that has a 30 second cycle specifically to give you time to run away. Want a link? Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Violence is down, man. What are you talking about?
I was referring to the fact that Lyr said owning a gun "raises the level of danger." But guns exist. So that level of danger is already risen, since other people can own them.
Violence and homicide are on the decline, though. So... not sure where you're going with this line of thinking.
I like all of these words. And as near as I can tell, they are in the right order.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Can you show me a single bit of text in the Constitution that people have the right to free speech on telephones? Or in emails?
No. So I think you should all cease this electronic transfer of Constitutionally UNprotected prattle!
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Can you show me a single bit of text in the Constitution that people have the right to free speech on telephones? Or in emails?
Actually you don't have the right to say certain things over telephone or via email. Just like you don't have the right to say anything you want in person. Freedom of speech is limited by precedent, just like all our rights are.
And even so, it's a false analogy. A better one would be: would the constitution guarantee the right to, say, drive down the street blasting your voice from a megaphone for no reason?
The answer is probably no- the constitution doesn't protect *all* speech, only *some* speech, and precedent has established what type of speech (usually based on the intent involved), is not protected.
So the fact that the constitution guarantees *a* right to bear arms, says very little about the type of arms, the number of arms, and other provisos. And just because the right itself exists, does not mean that it cannot be limited by precedent. It already has been: there are categories of arms which are not legal to own in the US. As technology progresses, there will be others.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Certainly that was the Founders' intent. As to whether an activist, right-wing court would interpret the Fourteenth in a way that'd undo that clear meaning, well, obviously they have.
You mean like the activist court that oversaw US vs Miller in 1939 (the only Supreme Court case brought against the National Firearms Act) after both claimants were already dead and buried? There was no defense available to make arguments during that trial, and as such no evidence was presented to the court as it was in the district court that overturned the NFA. Realistically, the supreme court never should have overseen that case and should have dismissed it, but they ruled in absentia instead. I would submit that the results of that trial, which has been the precedent for all following federal weapons bans, is a significantly greater violation of constitutional principles than the decisions handed down in DC vs Heller and Chicago vs McDonald.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would submit that the results of that trial, which has been the precedent for all following federal weapons bans, is a significantly greater violation of constitutional principles...
Why? Note that you aren't saying that the mechanisms of the trial itself are flawed here; you're claiming that the results of Miller violate constitutional principles more than Heller does. That seems highly suspect to me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It helps when you begin with the assumption that it's a constitutional right, period, and when the Supreme Court affirm it they are in accord with the Constitution, and when they don't, they aren't. Simple.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
