Yep, this is what going mad feels like. by Fremdfirma

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"It is a basic right in law."

Only in the presence of a militia. That means all the other supposed 'reasons' to own a gun - target shooting, hunting, even self-defense - are NOT recognized in the Constitution.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

It's a good thing then that my neighbors and fellow countryman are the militia envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:46 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Americans don't just see it as a basic right. It is a basic right in law.

I don't see how that changes a single thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:47 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It's a good thing then that my neighbors and fellow countryman are the militia envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

Their millitia is "well regulated" is it?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Or is that a right to shoot at bare arms.

***************************************************************
Buy me a burkah, quick !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:57 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Or is that a right to shoot at bare arms.

Rue, if yer gonna be silly here, we have nothing more to discuss.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Americans don't just see it as a basic right. It is a basic right in law.
I don't see how that changes a single thing.

I'm not saying this discounts your argument in any way. What I mean is that the limitations on sword/firearm ownership you propose are not as simple in the US as elsewhere. It will require an Amendment to the Constitution. Doing it any other way in the US will mean another Civil War.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Only in the presence of a militia. That means all the other supposed 'reasons' to own a gun - target shooting, hunting, even self-defense - are NOT recognized in the Constitution.

That’s not true. The second amendment clearly provides the right to bare arms, because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It does not say that those arms have to bared only in the presence of a well-regulated militia.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Only in the presence of a militia. That means all the other supposed 'reasons' to own a gun - target shooting, hunting, even self-defense - are NOT recognized in the Constitution.
That’s not true. The second amendment clearly provides the right to bare arms, because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It does not say that those arms have to bared only in the presence of a well-regulated militia.

The US Supreme Court ruled that a certain type of weapon was not covered under the second amendment because it did not contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

From this it could be argued, but not by me as I'm just too tired lately, that the right to bear a given weapon is only protected by the second amendment if it contributes to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. In the absence of a well-regulated militia no weapon can contribute to said militia's efficiency so it could be argued, again, that there is at present no weapon protected under the second amendment.

-

Of course it could also be argued that the second amendment protects every American's right to be nuclear armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
From this it could be argued, but not by me as I'm just too tired lately, that the right to bear a given weapon is only protected by the second amendment if it contributes to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

This I agree with. Any weapon that cannot be used by a well-regulated militia (whatever such a weapon is) would not necessarily be protected by the Second Amendment, since said amendment is explicit justified by the need for a well regulated militia.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
In the absence of a well-regulated militia no weapon can contribute to said militia's efficiency so it could be argued, again, that there is at present no weapon protected under the second amendment.

This is not born out by the amendment. Once again, the Second Amendment does not state that a weapon is only protected if it exists in conjunction with an existent militia. It ONLY states that the right to bear arms is based upon the need for a well regulated militia.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"This is not born out by the amendment."

I's born out by over a century of court rulings. Individuals do NOT have a right to weapons, absent a militia. That's why regulations and outright bans have been ruled over and over again as constitutional. That's why the US doesn't have weddings where people aim their AK-47's up in the air for a little celebratory round of - gunfire.

***************************************************************
Let me buy this round. CHEERS !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"This is not born out by the amendment."

I's born out by over a century of court rulings. Individuals do NOT have a right to weapons, absent a militia. That's why regulations and outright bans have been ruled over and over again as constitutional. That's why the US doesn't have weddings where people aim their AK-47's up in the air for a little celebratory round of - gunfire.

Practically everyone in my family legally owns and carries weapons. None of us are in any kind of militia, regulated or otherwise. So obviously, you’ve misinterpreted the court rulings.

And shooting an automatic rifle in the air at weddings has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms, it doesn't grant the right to be stupid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:46 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Someone shouldn't be entrusted with a deadly weapon until they have earned that trust, and proven they can act responsibly with it."

Hello,

I advocate competency based testing, which shows an understanding of safe operation and basic maintenance, for gun ownership.

I also advocate a basic understanding of use-of-force law, for carrying guns.

These can be simple classes followed by simple tests to gauge understanding of the principles involved. The principles of gun ownership are not overly complex. Just as I feel that most people can pass a driver's test once properly instructed, I feel most people would be able to pass a firearms test once properly instructed.

This is the source of my repeated statements of, "Most people should be allowed to carry guns/drive."

It would take a truly deficient intellect to be unable to grasp the concepts of vehicular and firearm ownership.

A test can only gauge understanding of principles. It can't test a person's capacity to behave responsibly. Only life can do that.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"This is not born out by the amendment."

I's born out by over a century of court rulings. Individuals do NOT have a right to weapons, absent a militia. That's why regulations and outright bans have been ruled over and over again as constitutional. That's why the US doesn't have weddings where people aim their AK-47's up in the air for a little celebratory round of - gunfire.
Practically everyone in my family legally owns and carries weapons. None of us are in any kind of militia, regulated or otherwise. So obviously, you’ve misinterpreted the court rulings.

I'm not going to argue the meaning of the second amendment, but I am going to nitpick a little tiny bit.

The fact that practically everyone in your family legally owns and carries weapons without being in a militia does not obviously mean that rue misinterpreted the court rulings. It doesn't say anything about either the second amendment or the courts interpretations of it.

Even if the courts ruled that the second amendment protected no form or armament at all it would still be possible for practically everyone in your family to legally own and carry weapons (without being in a militia.)

Even if there were no second amendment to to make rulings on it would still be possible for practically everyone in your family to legally own and carry weapons (without being in a militia.)

A lack of protection is not the same as a prohibition. The fact that practically everyone in your family legally owns and carries weapons says nothing about the second amendment or its interpretation because that fact does not cover whether they are able to do this because of lack or prohibition or protection, it also doesn't speak to what provides the protection if any exists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:08 PM

Well, this is some pretty deeply convoluted nitpicks. Let me just cut to the chase, a few people in my family carry a weapon because they are entrusted as an agent of the state, but most people in my family who own a weapon or weapons, do so because the Second Amendment provides them that right. In fact, even those people who are agents of the state own at least some weapons that are protected under the Second Amendment. So yes, rue very likely has misinterpreted the court rulings as I understand what rue stated, and in general, it is not the court that bans or regulates weapons, but rather the Congress.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hi 6-ix

I was going to get into that - looking at relative poverty rates and so forth - but to do justice (so to speak) to the entire topic would take a PhD thesis. What I would say in general is that many developed European societies that until recently had kings and queens (and some still do) seem to have done much better with the whole 'democracy' concept than the US. Government as representative of the people as a whole, promoting the general welfare, securing the common defense, providing for themselves and their posterity, and so on.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Though this may be true Rue, I will take freedom over security anyday.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:32 PM

Given that you have not said what the weapons in question are it is, of course, impossible for me to know if you are right.

If you had said, for example, "My father in law owns a ____ which would have been outlawed under the ___ legislation in ____ if it hadn't failed to pass/been overturned based on the argument it violated the second amendment in spite of the lack of an existing militia at the time," then of course I would agree with you.

You did not say that. You said that your family legally having weapons proves that the courts have not had the interpretation rue claims they have had. It doesn't.

The fact that I can legally own and carry X does not prove that the courts interpret the ability to own and carry X to be a protected right, regardless of what X is. It proves that there is not a law prohibiting me for owning and carrying X.

In the US I can legally own and carry ANYTHING I want as long there is not a law prohibiting doing such. This does not mean that the courts have interpreted preexisting laws as meaning I have a right to carry these things, it means only that they have not been prohibited.

The only way your family being armed proves that rue is wrong about the interpretation of the second amendment by the courts is if the specific weapons they are armed with are available only because the courts made decisions contrary to the interpretation rue describes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:57 PM

Let’s look at this way. The US Constitution is the law of the land. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states the right to bear arms. Some laws, passed by Congress, most notably the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 regulate what weapons can be legally privately owned and certain state laws also regulate the ownership of weapons. Unless these laws are unconstitutional they cannot eliminate the right to bear arms. In fact, neither the Court nor the Congress can eliminate this right without an amendment to the US Constitution. No amendment, as far as I know, has been passed, therefore there must be certain weapons which a private citizen can own, unless current gun control laws are unconstitutional. And in fact, that is the case. A US citizen can, given certain restriction, legally own a weapon in the United States. Many Americans do own - nearly half the population.

The burden is on you and rue, to show that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons. A contention you’ll likely find very difficult to demonstrate, I expect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"This is not born out by the amendment."

I's born out by over a century of court rulings. Individuals do NOT have a right to weapons, absent a militia. That's why regulations and outright bans have been ruled over and over again as constitutional. That's why the US doesn't have weddings where people aim their AK-47's up in the air for a little celebratory round of - gunfire.

If your referring to the Miller case in 1939 the Supreme court made a very narrow ruling saying that sawed off shotguns are not protected because they are not suitable for a "militia". Since then liberal lower courts have taken this narrow ruling and used it improperly to come up with the "collective right" argument. The Supreme's have never made a decisive decision on this issue. This may change in this court session because the court has agreed to take up the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court could use this case to decisively settle this issue for the next century. Judging by the chatter on the Internet the anti-gunners are shaking in their boots over this one and the NRA feels pretty confident.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I have to agree with our Cynic. It is possible, for instance, that the 2nd ammendment could be abolished by another ammendment someday.

And were that the case, I would still be able to walk around heeled in Arizona. This is because Arizona law allows me the right to keep and bear arms independent of the Federal government.

Keep in mind also that the 2nd ammendment has historically not prevented states or cities from enacting severe gun-control legislation and enforcement. (Some of which I believe violate the 2nd ammendment protections.)

Very soon, the Supreme Court will be deciding on one such law in D.C. Even if they decide that states or municipalities can ban guns, that doesn't mean your state or municipality will do so.

However, if they decide that states or municipalities can't ban guns, then your rights would be protected no matter where you are in this country. This is the result I am hoping for.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
...the 2nd ammendment could be abolished by another ammendment someday.

And were that the case, I would still be able to walk around heeled in Arizona. This is because Arizona law allows me the right to keep and bear arms independent of the Federal government.

A nice thought Anthony, but tell that to the people who legally grow medicinal marijuana in states which have deemed it legal, only to be raided by the FED Nazis.

Quote:
However, if they decide that states or municipalities can't ban guns, then your rights would be protected no matter where you are in this country. This is the result I am hoping for.

Let us hope that sanity wins out over idiocy and soccer-momism. I'd be curious to know what would happen to Americans if their gun rights were entirely stripped from them and China and Russia decided to send over a billion people to roll us over.

It's not only our own corrupt Government we need to consider when making such brash decisions. As much as I despise them, there are others whos potential I fear much more.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:50 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Fret not, Six String. We still have naval and air superiority. It would be very difficult to float enough bodies over here to mount a successful invasion while we sink transports wholesale.

I'm more worried about local threats.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:20 PM

That's a mixed bag for me though. I feel that we would be able to decrease our millitary (and tax expendatures) if we weren't spread out out all over the world now, and I feel that we would be able to rid ourselves of half the pig fat in our police force if our rights as property owners and gun owners were respected as well.

Gun ownership allows us to protect ourselves from possible threats from external forces such as China and Russia. Any sleeper cells already in America would think a whole lot more if they knew we were able to protect ourselves during an attack, rather than have a police force come after the fact to scrape up the bones. A police force would think twice about kicking down your door if you had an NRA sticker on the door. And, most importantly, the government has no fear of citizens which have no way of defending themselves. Every single instance of genocide which has taken place on this planet by a government on its people in history has been preceeded with a period of time where the citizens were disarmed.

I'm sure you already knew all of that though Anthony. I'm just saying that being able to trust that our overbloated Government and millitary might will defend us when we are unable to do so for ourselves doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The burden is on you and rue, to show that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons. A contention you’ll likely find very difficult to demonstrate, I expect.

It would be difficult, but given that I never said or implied that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons I fail to see how the burden would be on me to prove it.

If you would read my posts you would see that I said that US citizens do have the right to legally own weapons. In fact I said that US citizens have the right to legally own anything provided that the ownership of that thing is not prohibited by law. As the ownership of weapons, in general, is not prohibited by law of course it is legal for US citizens to own them. (Obviously the ownership of certain weapons, ICBMs for example, is prohibited and thus it is not legal for US citizens to own those.)

What I said is that the fact certain US citizens own weapons does not prove the courts have or have not interpreted the second amendment in a certain way. The truth is that if the second amendment were repealed, right now as I type, that would not make ownership of any weapon it is currently legal to own illegal. (It is possible that at some date after the repeal currently legal weapons could be outlawed, but it is equally possible that the legality of weapons would remain the same.)

The second amendment is a protection, courts interpreting it doesn't apply to a given case would result in, at most, a lack of protection. Nothing more, nothing less. Lack of protection, on its own, doesn't make ANYTHING illegal.

If rue is right, and I'm not saying rue is right, it would not mean that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons. I'm honestly not sure where you came up with that (unless you've been having private communications with rue and therefore know things about what is going on that I don't.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
...the 2nd ammendment could be abolished by another ammendment someday.

And were that the case, I would still be able to walk around heeled in Arizona. This is because Arizona law allows me the right to keep and bear arms independent of the Federal government.

A nice thought Anthony, but tell that to the people who legally grow medicinal marijuana in states which have deemed it legal, only to be raided by the FED Nazis.

The point that certain people, yourself included, seem to be missing is that there is a difference between a lack of protection and a prohibition.

The people who are raided by feds are not raided because there is a lack of federal protection for marijuana growing. They are raided because growing marijuana is explicitly prohibited.

If the second amendment were repealed that wouldn't make bearing arms illegal, in theory it might make it easier to to make bearing arms illegal but in practice you still have nearly half of the populous armed, even more of them asserting that being able to be armed is a good thing, all of the arguments put forth in the defense of armament over the life of this nation and a powerful gun lobby standing in the way of such a ban. It wouldn't make guns illegal and thus the situation would not be comparable to marijuana growing.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'd be curious to know what would happen to Americans if their gun rights were entirely stripped from them and China and Russia decided to send over a billion people to roll us over.

We would fight. With stolen guns if possible, with other means if not.
We would fight using improvised explosives, we would fight using Molotov cocktails, we would fight with whatever was at hand be it hunting bows or rocks. If we had nothing that could kill the enemy at a distance we would lure them in close and use farming implements if we had to.
If it came down to it we would fight tooth and nail.

No one likes to be invaded or occupied, in this respect Americans are the same as everyone else, so if we were invaded the result would be the same whether or not we had guns. We would fight.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The burden is on you and rue, to show that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons. A contention you’ll likely find very difficult to demonstrate, I expect.
It would be difficult, but given that I never said or implied that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons I fail to see how the burden would be on me to prove it.

You’re whole argument is just sophism. I’m trying to figure out what your point is. You’re right that in the absence of a Constitutional right to own weapons, the law could still allow the ownership of weapons, but so what? That’s purely hypothetical - the fact remains that there is a Constitutional right to own weapons. So until that right is repealed through an Amendment to the Constitution, then I don’t see what baring your argument has. So what is your point?

And rue is still wrong. The courts have not ruled, nor can they, that there is no right to own weapons. The Second Amendment is pretty explicit in that the people have the right to own weapons. Now details like what exactly “arms” means or what “keep and bear” means have been subject to discussion in the Congress and the courts for a very long time, but while both have been curtailed considerably, there is not enough degree of freedom to eliminate the right all together, which is what rue is claiming.

In US v. Miller the courts ruled that Saw-off shotguns could be regulated because they were not used by the US military and therefore not a weapon that would qualify as used by a “well regulated Militia.” Something of a strange ruling, considering that prior to that ruling it had been basically accepted that automatic weapons and artillery, which were unquestionably military, could be regulated. This kind of nonsense goes back and forth in the Second Amendment debate, and the result has been considerable regulation, but at no point was the right to “keep and bear Arms” ever been dismissed by the court.

To this day, I can go out and legally buy and own an automatic weapon, because even though such weapons are considerably regulated, they are not, nor can they be under the Constitution, banned.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 11:11 AM

My point was that you said, "Practically everyone in my family legally owns and carries weapons. None of us are in any kind of militia, regulated or otherwise. So obviously, you’ve misinterpreted the court rulings," and that isn't right.

It does not obviously follow that rue interpreted the court rulings because if rue were right the members of your family would still be able to legally own and carry weapons.

That is the whole of my point. I realize it isn't much of a point but I've always felt that in any disagreement, and I feel that you and rue were having a disagreement just as we are now, it helps to make sure people don't stray from the truth.

On the one hand if rue is wrong that would mean that the members of your family would be able to legally own and carry weapons without being part of a militia. On the other hand if rue is right the members of your family would still be able to legally own and carry weapons without being part of a militia.

Since the members of your family would legally be allowed to own and carry weapons without being part of a militia regardless of whether or not rue misinterpreted the court rulings, the fact that they do just that does not make it obvious that rue misinterpreted the court rulings.

It doesn't matter what the courts have ruled, it does not matter whether or not rue misinterpreted the rulings or not, the statement, "So obviously, you’ve misinterpreted the court rulings," does not logically follow from, "Practically everyone in my family legally owns and carries weapons. None of us are in any kind of militia, regulated or otherwise."

Like I said before, it is a little tiny bit of nitpicking. Some people might say at this point, "If I knew this would happen I wouldn't have said anything," but I can't honestly say that. What you said wasn't true -your conclusion does not follow from your premise at all, certainly not obviously- and you shouldn't have said it in the first place. I assumed, and still assume, that you didn't realize what you said was false which is why I pointed out the error. I had thought that when it was pointed out you would simply choose a better example to illustrate your point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I have to agree with our Cynic. It is possible, for instance, that the 2nd ammendment could be abolished by another ammendment someday.

And were that the case, I would still be able to walk around heeled in Arizona. This is because Arizona law allows me the right to keep and bear arms independent of the Federal government.

Keep in mind also that the 2nd ammendment has historically not prevented states or cities from enacting severe gun-control legislation and enforcement. (Some of which I believe violate the 2nd ammendment protections.)

Very soon, the Supreme Court will be deciding on one such law in D.C. Even if they decide that states or municipalities can ban guns, that doesn't mean your state or municipality will do so.

However, if they decide that states or municipalities can't ban guns, then your rights would be protected no matter where you are in this country. This is the result I am hoping for.

--Anthony

While I agree that the 2nd Amendment has not kept the liberal courts and politicians from imposing "severe gun-control legislation...Some of which... violate the 2nd amendment protections". What makes you think that the States rights given in the 10th Amendment wont just be ignored by the courts/politicians just like they have ignored the intent of the 2nd Amendment. All to often in the past the Interstate Commerce Clause has been sited by courts/politicians to justify the usurpation of States rights to impose Federal will on the States. Absent the 2nd Amendment the courts/politician will have free reign to bust down your door an seize your weapons. As much as I would like to believe that other parts of the Bill of Rights give us some protection, absent the 1st & 2nd Amendments I believe this country will not survive long.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 12:43 PM

Normally when someone goes this deep in nitpicks its often because they're beating around the bush about something. If that’s not the case then okay. But rue’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is still wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 1:27 PM

No, no deeper meaning.

It's kind of hard to explain why I care about a relatively minor nitpick when I'm not even trying to argue either side, but basically I've learned to appreciate the importance of getting the little things right after seeing several disputes explode as a result of people getting little things wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 2:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think we could all use a reminder on honest debate technique and logic. Keep up the patrol, brother.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Like I said before, it is a little tiny bit of nitpicking. Some people might say at this point, "If I knew this would happen I wouldn't have said anything," but I can't honestly say that. What you said wasn't true -your conclusion does not follow from your premise at all, certainly not obviously- and you shouldn't have said it in the first place. I assumed, and still assume, that you didn't realize what you said was false which is why I pointed out the error. I had thought that when it was pointed out you would simply choose a better example to illustrate your point.

I appreciated this post very much actually. Not because of who you were saying it against, but just the premise of the post itself. There are very many of us in here who tend to do that, from degrees varying from purely unintentional to thinking that they're being real sly in their manipulation. I can think of one person in particular with whom you can never possibly win an argument because are so good at this they can get you talk you in a frustrating loop and manipulate the converstaion without ever disproving your point and then throw out the dreaded words "strawman" or "ad hominem attack".

Way to keep it on point. I think I'm bookmarking this thread now.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:41 AM

CITIZEN

And there's another poster on this forum who can't come up with a logical argument so relies on lying about other people and what they're saying, and can't quite grasp why calling people names doesn't win the debate. They also seem to confuse said lying and insults as a 'point'.

That person then blames other people for their behaviour. Some people are just sophists, don't understand the basics of logic, but are completely too far up themselves to grow as a person.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 3:49 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Figured I need to educate some of you on what the REAL state of the law is, and get some of that fictional stuff out'a your collective ... heads ... :

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

(Lower courts have recently said) "Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." — U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 7:31 PM

These are just idiotic rulings handed out by liberal judges on low levels. They hardly can be claimed to be solid proof of your personal interpretation of the second ammendment.

Besides... if you were ever able to successfully pass laws baning handgun ownership in this country, you better be ready to fund the insane expansion of prisons in this country. The amount of previously law abiding citizens who would be breaking the law would outnumber the current amount of law breaking citizens in this country. I'm surely not going to give up my firearm. You'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 4:56 AM

The fact that the courts have temporarily decided to ignore the intent of 2nd Amendment has lead many States to pass gun ban preemption laws. These laws prevent County and City Governments from passing any gun law that is more restrictive than the State law. Everyone should find out if their State has such a law and if you don't write your State Senators an Congressman and ask why not.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 9:24 AM

FLETCH2

Well the one time you could argue that it REALLY mattered --- the Civil war where some states were opposing the Federal government -- the Feds did confiscate personal arms and it was considered "legal." So in practice no matter how you interpret the Constitution you are allowed guns just as along as the government allows you to have them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 9:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

6-ix

"liberal judges on low levels"

Dude, the first cite was the US Supreme Court - in 1936. Not sure how that qualifies as 'low level' or 'liberal'.

The second cite was about how the US Supreme Court has refused to revisit the question over the last 81 years Again, that doesn't qualify as either 'low level' or 'liberal'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 1:31 AM

Rue's understanding of the court cases seems limited to forcing his own ideology from the law, so I'm not sure why he thinks he can educate anyone on the subject.

First rue misinterprets the only Supreme Court ruling on the issue, by claiming that the ruling distinguished between the collectivist and individualist camps, when in reality the court only stated that sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons and therefore were not protected under the Second Amendment. In other words, the Miller Case ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the people (meaning individual) to keep and bare arms as long as those arms could reasonably be concluded to be used for military purposes. (At least two other people in this thread have already pointed this out.) An odd ruling to be sure, since automatic weapons had just been regulated by legislation, but the court found that the meaning of militia was a service of male citizens who upon being called to service (as a militia) were expected to provide for themselves weapons in common use. In other words, USA v. Miller distinctly asserts that the meaning of the Second Amendment was to provide the right of individuals to keep and bare arms so that when a militia was deemed necessary to be called this militia would be armed.

Second, Rue then cherry picks a couple of lower court rulings, which have been all over the board on this issue. In fact, an appeals court in DC just recently ruled (as in 2007) right the opposite of what rue would have you believe.

The legal merits of the controversy concern the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which provides, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The court noted that there are "two camps" in the debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. "Collective rights theorists" maintain that the Amendment secures the power of state governments to preserve and arm militias. The other camp, "individual rights theorists," maintains that the Amendment protects a right of individuals to possess arms for private use, such as self defense. The court readily admitted that the phrase "bear arms" could be read to have a military connotation, but only if it is viewed in isolation. Since "the people" and "keep" have individual and private meanings, the court concluded that "the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8128

Now regardless of what one actually believes that the law should saw, any honest person with a native understanding of English, could not claim that the way the Second Amendment is worded could possible mean that the "People" don't have a right to "keep and bare" weapons. So while some lower courts have found rue's particular view in the law, it is not logically there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:08 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I've said my piece and don't intend to add to it, but this bit leaps out here.

"the court only stated that sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons.."

How in the world did they come to THAT conclusion ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1897
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_shotguns_history.php

Hell, the good ole sawed-off has been used by armies as far back as the civil war (a favorite of confederate cavalry, in fact) and if you ever saw the movie Aliens, potentially the future, too.

Hicks "I like to keep this handy.. for close encounters"
*Ker-CHACK*
Frost "I heard that."

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 2:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

finn: rue misinterprets the only Supreme Court ruling on the issue, by claiming that the ruling distinguished between the collectivist and individualist camps, when in reality the court only stated that sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons ..." However, the distinction between collectivist and individual is cearly made within the ruling, a FACT finn has clearly avoided.
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (militia) the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end (militia) in view." The sentences are inverted, so in straight form it reads: since the second amendment was written to make militias possible and effective it must be interpreted with that goal in mind.

Swing and a miss, strike one.

finn: Rue then cherry picks a couple of lower court rulings, which have been all over the board on this issue. The Supreme Court considered the Second Amendment as recently as 1983 when it let stand a lower court ruling (Quillici v. Morton Grove) which held "Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia."
Previous to that "In the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Lewis, the Court came close to stating that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, in a footnote written by Justice Harry Blackmun. "

Swing and a miss, strike two.

finn: So while some lower courts have found rue's particular view in the law, it is not logically there.
Mortom Grove v Illinois pretty much nailed that one into the ground.

Swing and a miss, strike three.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
finn: rue misinterprets the only Supreme Court ruling on the issue, by claiming that the ruling distinguished between the collectivist and individualist camps, when in reality the court only stated that sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons ..." However, the distinction between collectivist and individual is cearly made within the ruling, a FACT finn has clearly avoided.
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (militia) the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end (militia) in view." The sentences are inverted, so in straight form it reads: since the second amendment was written to make militias possible and effective it must be interpreted with that goal in mind.

Swing and a miss, strike one.

I was the first person in this thread to point out that the ruling regulated sawed-off shotguns because they were deemed not to be usable as a military weapon. In fact, I pointed this out a couple of time. God, you’re dumb.
BUT the fact that the Miller case distinguishes between certain weapons appropriate to a militia and certain not, in no way distinguishes between the collectivist and individualist theories. In fact, the Miller case defines a militia as being a temporary body of soldiers who are required to provide their own weapons. So if the Second Amendment, as interpreted by USA v. Miller, held that there was no right to individual ownership of weapons how then is this militia supposed to arm itself? Magic?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
finn: Rue then cherry picks a couple of lower court rulings, which have been all over the board on this issue. The Supreme Court considered the Second Amendment as recently as 1983 when it let stand a lower court ruling (Quillici v. Morton Grove) which held "Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia."

So the a well organized militia that is necessary to the preservation of a free state is central to the Second Amendment. Great. You’ve managed to point out the obvious, but you still haven’t managed to understand it.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Previous to that "In the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Lewis, the Court came close to stating that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, in a footnote written by Justice Harry Blackmun. "

Swing and a miss, strike two.

Hahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!! Hahahahahahah!

Oh wait!

Hahahahahahahahah!

If rue can’t find what he wants in the law he claims the law almost said what he wanted to hear and that’s good enough for him - which pretty much proves that his interpretation of the Second Amendment is driven completely by an ideological desire to manipulate it into what he want’s it to say, not what it does say.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
finn: So while some lower courts have found rue's particular view in the law, it is not logically there.
Mortom Grove v Illinois pretty much nailed that one into the ground.

Swing and a miss, strike three.

Still ignoring cases that don’t fit your view, I see. It must be a very neat and simple world you live in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I've said my piece and don't intend to add to it, but this bit leaps out here.

"the court only stated that sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons.."

How in the world did they come to THAT conclusion ?

Yes, well, as I said, it’s an odd ruling. But it has to be understood in context. And at the time, the standard issue for the US army was the M1 Garand. Obviously, any kind of weapon could and probably was used in some fashion, but the principle and standard weapon of the US army was a small caliber semi-automatic rifle, not a shotgun. And the idea behind the ruling was the same as that behind the 1934 NFA, which basically interpreted the militia described in the Second Amendment as not being required to be armed with anything other then the standard issue for the US army. That ruling works in 1936, but today the standard issue is an automatic assault rifle, which were expressly regulated by the NFA, and today have been all but banned for private civilian use. So the Miller case is bit dated and needs to be re-examined, which I think is coming around the corner, with this 2007 ruling. When the Supreme Court does re-examine it, the conclusion they will come to is probably the one in practice today, which is to strike a compromise between the need for a well-regulated militia and the need for safety from high-powered weapons on the street. They will likely acknowledge, that the Second Amendment clearly states that right and necessity of individual ownership of weapons, but that a militia need not necessarily be as armed as the standing army, which is probably not what the Founding Fathers had in mind, but it’s possible they never conceived of the day when machine guns could pump out 3000 supersonic highly-accurate armor-piercing rounds a minute.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 7:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

Instead of reading just the right-wing spin, from - say - the Cato Inst, try reading the rulings. They are very clear, in context, that the ONLY reason to own a weapon is to make a militia possible. After the initial Supreme Court ruling, repeated rulings by lower courts - that have been reviewed BY THE SUPREME COURT and let stand - have been ever more explicit. No militia = no weapons. In other words, there is no individual right - absent a militia - to own a gun.

So, go back to warming the bench, son. When you've worked on your game and are ready to play better, come back.

BTW - have you never wondered the Brady Act was never challenged on gun control per se ? Maybe you need to think about it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 10:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn feels certain things very deeply and holds them to be true, but until he can disengage reaction/emotions from thought... or at least understand that he's feeling something not thinking it...

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

BTW - have you never wondered the Brady Act was never challenged on gun control per se ? Maybe you need to think about it.

Both sides of this issue have been afraid to take this issue to the Supreme court again. It has been reported that the Brady anti-gun group has tried to get DC not to pursue DC v Heller because their afraid they'll lose this time around.

"Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, has suggested to D.C. that it modify its gun laws rather than appeal to the Supreme Court. Helmke has written that if the Supreme Court upholds the Circuit court ruling, it 'could lead to all current and proposed firearms laws being called into question.' "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn feels certain things very deeply and holds them to be true, but until he can disengage reaction/emotions from thought... or at least understand that he's feeling something not thinking it...

This coming from you in response to Rue can only be answered with a quote from the dispassionate Finn "Hahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!! Hahahahahahah".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 1:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn and I have been discussing issues far longer than you've been on the board. It's an opinion that I've come to after long consideration. Finn's approach is to try distill the essence of his beliefs, not to explore where they break down or contradict other beliefs. My style is to approach a question from different directions, or to toss a definition into in different contexts.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 1:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh, BTW Kirkules, the issue has been taken up by the Supreme Court. The argument made by the Circuit Court was that guns were available before the Constitution and therefore that fact should have precedence over the actual text of the Constitution. I guess we'll see how conservative v constitutional this Supreme Court is. Given their unprecedented and clearly illegal intervention in the Florida vote-counting and other sundry misdeeds I'm guessing they're more partisan than lawful.

***************************************************************
And as I think about it, I suspect you're in that category was well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 11:23 PM