General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJustice Stevens Scolds NRA & Suggests: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment
For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”
When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.
.................
Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
.............
,,,,,,,,,,,,the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?hpid=z6
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)They would have worded it that way.
Why not ask them what their intent was?
WovenGems
(776 posts)Given when the second was written I have no doubt the good justice is correct about this.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I am on the Presidents and the Democratic platform side that it is an individual right that can be limited with due process as has been affirmed by many court rulings.
WovenGems
(776 posts)The second is about the "Militia" and since we have a regular standing Army the second amendment is moot.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The 2nd Am is about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The militia "preamble" constitutes one rationale for protecting that right.
The wording rather clearly indicates that the Framers considered that right to be antecedent to the amendment itself, that it was pre-existing. The context of their writings strongly suggests that they considered all such human rights to be inherent. They considered the right to "keep and bear arms" to be among these rights (although I suspect that this was something that preceded logically from the more basic right to self defense).
Both the context of their other writings and basic linguistics support this interpretation, IMO.
shanemcg
(80 posts)Only nobles and knights could wear swords and many times commoners were forbade the use of weapons and had to fight and defend themselves with their farming tools.
The second is about every person's right to defend themselves and their rights.
Response to WovenGems (Reply #19)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The question is whether the right applies outside of the context of serving in a militia. Yes, you are free to stand with Scalia and the rest of the right-wingers on this -- most likely you also think that corporations are people and money is free speech -- but at the end of the day, this is just another piece of right-wing judicial revisionism, re-interpreting the constitution to suit the GOP's political agenda.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)Overall it was a decently popular decision.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Likely most of the very same people. Sometimes the majority is wrong.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)when it comes to creation v evolution- evolution has scientific evidence behind it while creation doesn't
but when it comes to individual vs collective 2A- there is evidence on both sides.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 12, 2014, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)
is 30k+ gun deaths a year. The US is actually number one at something.
EX500rider
(10,842 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)when compared to the countries in most of Europe and Asia we do lead the world. Places like Iraq and Somolia shouldn't enter into the discussion.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The site of one third of all the world's murders?
EX500rider
(10,842 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Some people hear a dog whistle when the word civilized is used.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The "would-be" bit is important as they are noticeably ineffectual at
actual politics. It must be said, however, that they do a fine job of
reassuring themselves of their superiority over "those people".
Let us not begrudge them that small bit of comfort...
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)bossy: which 3/4 americans agree with ... Overall it was a decently popular decision
The 70% general support today for the individual rkba interpretation reflects modern day thought, the 70% statistic has no bearing upon what the founding fathers intended, because the jury pool has either been tainted or is incompetent to render a proper verdict.
Americans today cannot be considered a proper jury for deciding that, for most of them cannot even recite the 2nd amendment properly, nor say who wrote it or when, nor know of it outside of the jingle 'right to bear arms' which has been so influenced by rightwing progun propaganda that what the majority thinks is an either or mentality - either you have the right to bear arms or, if you accept the militia version, you don't have the right to bear arms, cause you aren't in any militia. That's how perverted it's become & that's how the gun lobby keeps up it's propagunda.
The heller & McDonald decisions were 5-4 split decisions based on political thought, the 1939 miller decision was unanimous 8-0 (one recusal), the miller decision being pro militia rkba.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Miller was dead and nobody presented an opposing case. Miller is meaningless.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)on your assumption
hack89
(39,171 posts)I stand with them.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm pretty sure that Obama is intelligent enough to understand that Heller is a radical piece of right-wing judicial activism, but he also understands that politically it would be unwise to criticize it. He's speaking as a politician, not as a constitutional scholar.
hack89
(39,171 posts)well, actually, I still do.
As for AWBs, I agree with the president that they are perfectly constitutional. Ineffective feel good security theater, but still perfectly constitutional.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, I think the president is a man of principle, and also a pragmatist as a politician.
I'm not naive enough to expect him to candidly speak his mind at all times. With regard to guns, he did speak quite candidly one time, explaining that gun politics is a lot about bitter people clinging to guns out of resentment due to deteriorating economic conditions. He was right, but it wasn't a good idea to say that while running for office.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I support all proposed gun control legislation with two exceptions - AWBs and registration.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like me, you agree with some of what he says, and disagree with other things. It's just that you disagree from the right, and I disagree from the left.
hack89
(39,171 posts)lets remember who is arguing for the most restrictive interpretation of the Bill of Rights. The 2A is the only part of the BOR where reducing citizen's rights is considered progressive.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For example, "expanding" the first amendment to include money as free speech, or to treat corporations of people, is anything but progressive. Likewise, twisting an amendment which was designed to protect state militias from the federal government into giving federal judges the ability to prevent states from keeping their people safe from gun violence is as far from progressive as you can get. Which is why only right-wing justices agree with you on this.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Do you also oppose the registration and license requirements of cars?
People abuse cars. People die.
People abuse guns. People die.
Society sees cars as necessary to regulate and monitor.
Society sees guns as "a fundamental right"? I beg to differ...
At a bare minimum, there should be gun owner insurance requirements. If I have to maintain liability insurance in order to drive a car, then I see no burden to a gun owner having to carry gun liability insurance to maintain legal ownership and use of a firearm.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You do not need a license or registration to keep and drive a car on private property. Same for guns.
You do need a license to drive on public roads. You need to a license to carry a gun in public - they are called concealed carry permits.
The constitution calls the right to keep and bear arms. If society disagrees then society can change the constitution. Civil right are not determined by popular vote.
Insurance would be dirt cheap - I pay a pittance every year. Remember that insurance companies will not cover criminal acts. Of course criminals will purchase insurance.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)licensed and insured as long as they are used on private property. Insurance would be very cheap as criminal acts would not be covered anyway.
I would agree that for a small fee I should be able to get a license with no background check, purchase any type of weapon, that would be recognized in all 50 states and I could renew by internet with no problem.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)At which point you either forfeit the weapon or you go to jail.
I have no interest in collecting people's guns or preventing them from owning them, only from bringing them into areas that are NOT private property....like malls, churches, schools, daycare centers and such. (And I know these acts are already illegal in many places...they just are not enforced to the letter of the law and the sentences are obviously not deterring the behavior...but I do not believe that is de facto justification for the idea that law-abiding people need their guns since only criminals would have them anyway....good, let the criminals have the guns and then prosecute THEM and make room in the jails by ending the pointless war on drugs!)
If I drive my car on any state roads without a license and insurance, I will be ticketed and fined. I will eventually also be imprisoned if I refuse to pay the fines or curtail my driving unlicensed and uninsured on public roads. As long as you say you are willing to do the same with your guns - and that you will not be outraged at the incarceration of people who do not leave their unlicensed and uninsured guns at home, then we have no quibble.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)it, tie it in a sack, and throw it in the deepest part of the ocean.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Are you sure you want to go there?
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)tolkien90
(25 posts)Yeah, let's make it harder for poor people, the same group of people that are statistically more likely to be victims of violent crime, to defend themselves.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Disturbing reply:
Yeah, let's make it harder for poor people, the same group of people that are statistically more likely to be victims of violent crime, to defend themselves.
The fact that poor people are increasingly likely to be pushed into either areas of high concentration of crime or into desperation for money for any number of other reasons (especially people turning to the profit machine of illicit drug sales as their way to escape being essentially unemployable in the first place because of a total lack of education and/or skills) could not POSSIBLY have a correlation to their likelihood of dying in violent crime. (Sarcasm is implied here, in case it was not clear...)
I am sorry that I do not agree with the ill-conceived and oft-quoted maxim that the "only a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun". To wit, the recent knife attacks at a Pennsylvania high school SHOULD have awakened people to the fact that as horrific as THAT attack was in nature and in execution, had that troubled teen had access to a gun instead of knives, the incident could have ended up a Sandy Hook redux, instead of a newscycle foot note (because random stabbings that maim but fail to kill lack enough gore for the sick and depraved media in this excuse for a free press we are left with).
The answer to violent crime is not now, nor has it ever been, MORE guns or more ready access to buying them. The ridiculous idea of self-defense with a gun as a legitimate reason to own a weapon is not supported by reality, certainly not statistically anyway where the ownership of a gun makes the chances of a family member dying from a gunshot exponentially higher...but then again, neither is our tax code, our education system or our national use of military force designed to make sense, so I guess its understandable that a modicum of confusion would exist...
First off, when did I ever say anything contrary to the first bit?
Poor people are statistically more likely to be victims of violent crime due to facts like that.
As for the part about the stabbing, you do realize that (as of 2011 at least) knives are more than five times more likely to be used in a murder than any type of rifle, right?
There are plenty of times when guns are used and people don't die, crazy as it may sound. Look at the mother's day shooting (19 injured). As disturbing as it is to think about, this kid was able to stab twenty something people, most of them in the torso I believe. If he was able to stab twenty people, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that he could have stabbed them in more vital areas (such as the neck and above) and it would have been a more fatal event. Thankfully, that wasn't the case.
I never said the answer to violent crime is more guns, personally. What I am saying, though, is that you simply cannot prove that more guns = more crime. There's a whole lot more to it than that.
Also, I do hope you realize that even the DOJ said that guns are used defensively at least as often as they are used offensively (illegally). Some studies have shown the number to be much higher than that. So, I'd say you're the one who's out of touch with reality. What's so ridiculous about self-defense? Are there no violent crimes these days? Victims of armed robbery or assault are less likely to be injured when they carry guns.
As for that statistic about family members, it's BS. There's more to it than this, but there was never a causal relationship shown.
Either way, it's pretty easy to see how your suggestion for mandatory firearm liability insurance is discrimatory and makes it harder for poor people to defend themselves.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I suppose that you were all for DOMA and DADT up until 2012 as well, because those were Democratic party policies? NAFTA as well?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)As the court said in Cruikshank, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
If it pre-dates the Bill of Rights, how can the Bill of Rights be a limit?
If I say, "I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- does that mean that stores only sell soda, or that I'm only going to buy soda?
{Reason}, {Statement}
DanTex
(20,709 posts)In the case of the 2A, the protection extends only to gun ownership in the context of militia service. Until Heller, that is.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Here, let me help- here's the preamble:
Who's being limited by the BoR?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What matters is that the rights that the BoR protects are limited. And, like I said, in the case of 2A, the limit is that the protection only applies to bearing arms in the context of militia service.
If you interpret this limitation to fall under what you describe as "the BoR limits rights" then the answer to your silly question is yes. And if you don't, then the answer is no.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)However, I'm asking if the Bill of Rights sets those limits.
Keep mums if the answer is too uncomfortable.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, the rights are limited. In the case of the 2A, the limit is set out in BoR itself, as it applies to state militias and not more broadly. If you want to discuss other amendments, we can do that too.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Now, if as you claim, the BoR sets a limit, what did the right look like before the BoR?
Cause, you know.. rights pre-date the constitution:
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
Was the right unlimited before the BoR?
And why would the framers of the BoR include a preamble that reads as a direct limitation on Government if they intended a limit on the people? Out of what whole cloth does it spring?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For example, many forms of human society practice infanticide, which means that the right to murder one's own children also "pre-dates" the constitution. Of course, the BoR says nothing about this "pre-existing" right, in the same way that it says nothing about the right to bear arms outside of the context of a militia.
Whether these right "existed" beforehand or not -- or what it even means for a right to "exist" -- is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the BoR does not protect any right to bear arms outside of a militia, which means that the government can pass laws restricting that right without being in violation of 2A.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You can argue that it's wrong, and feel free to lobby for change, but don't then fall back on endorsing it when it suits you.
And if, as you seem to think, that rights don't exist except as what the government grants, how do you feel about all the rights that have been derived from the ninth and tenth?
How do you feel about Roe? Same philosophical angle?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like I said, the BoR protects some rights. Whether or not they "exist", in some abstract sense, before, during, or after the signing of the BoR is entirely irrelevant. What matters is what rights are actually protected by the BoR. And the second amendment protects the right to bear arms in the context of a militia. It doesn't protect any other rights, pre-existing or otherwise.
I feel great about the rights that have been derived from parts of the BoR, and I feel great about Roe v Wade. If you want to define more clearly what it means for a right to "exist", then I might be able to answer your question about whether a right can "exist" outside of government grants.
You can use the right to infanticide as an example. Does that exist? Did it ever? How does a right start "existing"? Once a right "exists" does it go on existing forever, or can it "die"? Can rights "exist" in specific geographic locations, or does a right either "exist" everywhere or nowhere?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I was only following your premise to it's logical conclusion.
But thanks for admitting that you want to have your cake and eat it too.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Probably because if you tried to define it, then whatever argument you are trying to hide behind those vague assertions would disappear once exposed to any kind of concreteness.
I have no idea what you mean by "my premise". The premise that I'm aware of is that the second amendment applies to state militias and nothing more. Anything beyond that is words you are trying to put in my mouth. And I certainly don't know what cake I'm trying to have and also eat. What?
I am, though, genuinely curious about where you are going with your abstract "existence" of rights thing. Who knows, maybe there's actually something to it. But your refusal to even attempt to given an explanation doesn't make that very likely.
I'll repeat my questions from last post, maybe you'll give them a shot this time. The concept of the metaphysical "existence" of rights was introduced to this discussion by you, I don't think it's unfair for me to ask you to clarify.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If the issue is irrelevant, why debate them?
If rights don't pre-date the governments set up to protect them, you know- "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"- then rights mean whatever you want them to, and only exist as long as the government "grants" them.
I think you need to take a remedial class on the enlightenment. It's not my job to educate you on the philosophical underpinnings of our system of government.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm afraid you are the one who is severely in need in a basic survey of political philosophy. You are trying to use concepts that you can't even define! No wonder your conclusions are so nonsensical.
The reason to debate rights protected by the constitution because they affect the way we live. They affects our society. If you want to introduce some extra metaphysical baggage, then I'm sorry, but you are going to have to provide some definitions. The concept of a constitutionally protected right doesn't require more abstraction in order to have meaning.
And really, I'm not averse to some notion of natural rights, but if you are going to introduce the preposterous suggestion that owning a gun is or should be considered one of those natural rights and thus is implicitly protected by the 2A, then, yes, I am going to ask you to elaborate. And I think by now we both know very well that you are not able to do so, and that your talk of the "existence" of rights is a thin veneer that serves no purpose except to cloak your baseless argument in a layer of murkiness.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I suggest you start with "Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government" by Locke.
I mean, seriously, anyone who could say, "The whole issue of rights "pre-dating" the constitution is pretty silly." -- obviously has little clue.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm starting to understand why you don't want to get into specifics. I get it, really. Given your difficulty handling reason and abstraction, I think that hiding behind name dropping and vague generalities is probably your best strategy.
I do feel a bit embarrassed for you. Caught talking about concepts that can't even define, much less comprehend.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Now run along and play. 
Those of us who actually studied the enlightenment have things to discuss.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And if you ever want to have an actual philosophical discussion beyond just dropping buzzwords, let me know.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)He's reflecting his fustration with the difference between what he wants the law to be and what it is. I'm going to assume he thinks either that private citizens shouldn't own guns, that it is a privilege not a right, or that he thinks that it is a right but that the firepower of guns available should be sharply curtailed. By "curtailed" I mean that only long guns are legal (rifles and shotguns), and that the types of operating systems and magazine limits should be sharply limited. Either no semi-auto guns, limiting people to bolt, pump, lever, muzzleloading, and break-open guns; or no repeating guns at all which would limit people to muzzleloading and break-open guns.
Military and law-enforcement personnel, as agents of a government, do not need either a permit nor a specific enumerated right to be armed when in service of a government. It's part of the special privileges bestowed up on them, along with arrest powers, using physical violence to subdue suspects, etc.
The government has a monopoly on the use of force, and its designated agents are the repositories of that monopoly. The various forces can decide specifically what kind of equipment its agents carry, but there is broad discretion.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)stg81
(351 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts) TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)The 2nd and 3rd Amendments go hand in hand, and are here because WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FUCKING STANDING ARMY. Really, any other position is either ignorance or willful misconstruction.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)So the 2nd is obsolete.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that is why every court so far has affirmed it as still in effect. That logic works so well.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I guess President Obama and the Democratic party are also owned by the NRA
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)They got all Washington by the nuts with their fear-mongering NRA scorecard thing.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)why even mention the word militia in the first place?
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Revising the 2A or properly interpreting it to eliminate any notion of some pretend "right?"
former9thward
(31,997 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)all their genuine rights at the whim of a shooter.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)In any event, bullets are not speech just like unlimited gobs of money is not speech.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)A free moral conscience is not the only human right.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)every rape and murder where the victim would have preferred to be armed but was disarmed by your laws.
BTW -- have the number of gun crimes increased or decreased since McDonald?
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Poor man felt compelled to have a gun to protect himself from others with guns.
Guns as solutions to guns.
Sigh.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Good luck.
BTW -- How many times did Mr. McDonald threaten you with his guns?
Loudly
(2,436 posts)came from the same place as the guns he felt threatened by.
Funny how that works.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)That's why strict gun control from sea to shining sea is the way to go.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)Are they sneaking into idealic Chicago to do crimes?
Loudly
(2,436 posts)former9thward
(31,997 posts)Or what factors they used but to say Chicago is safe is beyond ridiculous.
Chicago is three times as deadly as NYC and twice as violent as LA
http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-muckrakers/2010/06/chicago-is-three-times-as-deadly-as-nyc-and-twice-as-violent-as-la/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Strict gun laws are no doubt part of the reason that NYC's homicide rate is so much lower than places like New Orleans and St Louis.
Part of the problem, of course is that effective gun control is undermined by weak laws in neighboring states. If you really want evidence of the dramatic effectiveness of gun control, look to Western Europe, where gun laws are pretty uniformly much stricter than in the US, and the result is a much lower homicide rate.
tolkien90
(25 posts)And New Hampshire is a state with particularly lax gun laws.
Care to explain? Because going by your logic, this is simply impossible.
You can't just state correlation = causation when you like the outcome.
By the way, New Hampshire has a homicide rate lower than many European countries.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)Better to compare the availability of guns in the USA versus Canada and the resulting homicide rates: 4.8 versus 1.6.
The only European countries higher than the US are ex Soviet Bloc countries like Latvia and Ukraine, with Russia even higher at 9.7.
Iceland: 0.3. Switzerland (with lots of rifles but strong laws) 0.7. Spain 0.8, Denmark 0.8, Germany (very populous) 0.9, Sweden 1.0, Poland 1.1, France 1.1, UK 1.2.
tolkien90
(25 posts)Even when both countries had virtually no restrictions on firearm ownership.
For 2011 at least, several states had lower homicide rates than the UK.
So what if it's not a dense metropolis? If you're saying that's what makes NYC's murder rate higher, I'm glad you can agree there are other factors at play here (believe it or not, there's a lot more to violence than guns).
Iceland has the fifteenth highest rate of private gun ownership in the world, for what it's worth.
As for Switzerland (4th in private gun ownership), is this the one you're referring to with such strict laws?
[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
By the way, I do believe those three former Soviet countries all have particularly strict gun laws.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)Free speach for corporations.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Unless you prefer throwing out the entire notion of linguistic analysis and contextual interpretation of historical text. Which you probably do, since it suits your controller agenda...
Loudly
(2,436 posts)People are getting killed for your linguistic analysis and contextual interpretation.
Wholesale destruction of genuine rights is the result, at the whim of shooters all around us.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm no less certain you're incorrect.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)If they did, of what use were such rights?
And why did both of them need to lose all of their genuine rights for the sake of the pretend "right" which you persist in trying to promote?
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/255002351.html
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Gosh, how convincing... 
Protip: I've seen this line of "reasoning" from you in the gungeon. It wasn't remotely convincing there, either. Don't waste your time.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)All of them equally amusing.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Response to Loudly (Reply #187)
tolkien90 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bazinga
(331 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)Here. This is for you. Did these people have rights?
http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/1-man-dead-in-quadruple-shooting/25455546
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)1791-era guns ... is what the Amendment refers to. No?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)And are you planning to take up arms against the government?
Because that was the 2A's purpose.
Obsolete for all time since Appomattox.
De facto repealed.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)So that gives me hope for the future.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)only anything that was available in 1791. Back to the printing press and yelling from the street corners. Please pack up your computer.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Above you suggest that if the gents who wrote it intended for it to only be militias, they would have worded that way. That statement is an example of historical literalism in Constitutional interpretation. What they said is what they meant - full stop.
Now you are suggesting that the Constitution is open to interpretation; written in such a way as to accommodate future changes in society. That is an example of modernism (instrumentalism).
They really couldn't be much further apart as perspectives of interpretation. How do you perceive the Constitution?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)as they have said the second is an individual right that can be limited.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)I don't think your first post in this thread indicates your perspective - but you've answered my question.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Thanks
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)Maybe Amendments should be re-visited ... when relevant variables change so drastically.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Never was that much in the Constitution about specific individual rights-- the framers lived with slavery, indentured servitude, women and non-landowners with no voting or property rights...
But they were going to give everybody gun rights?
marble falls
(57,080 posts)former9thward
(31,997 posts)It is missing the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was revolutionary in terms of what existed in world governments at the time. In fact it still is compared with present day world governments.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)former9thward: The Bill of Rights was revolutionary in terms of what existed in world governments at the time.
The 1791 bill of rights was both a limitation on congress & a declaration of individual rights.
.. the 2nd amendment limited congress from interfering with or disarming state's militias, as well as granting people, or rather white males 17-45, the individual right to belong to a militia.
.. had the founding fathers intended for an unfettered individual right to keep & bear arms then they would simply have written:
--- The right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.
But they didn't.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)As the SCOTUS said in Cruikshank, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
Rights pre-date the constitution. You know, that whole, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," bit.
Go back to your enlightenment philosophy and study Locke, Rousseau, etc.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)xdigger: The BoR "grants" no rights .... As the SCOTUS said in Cruikshank, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
Go back to your enlightenment philosophy and study Locke, Rousseau, etc.
I'll refer to wm rawle, cited by scalia in heller, to trump you, & note that I had said it was a declaration of individual rights, not that it granted individual rights.
Wm Rawle, A View of the Constitution, ~1825/rev 1829
CHAPTER X. OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
THE restrictions on the powers of congress contained in the original text are few. The gen..
http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm
Go back to your comic books.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Was that you, in the post above, or did someone mug you for your keyboard and type that out over your protests?
marble falls
(57,080 posts)very important to me. I was cognoscent of it especially as I waived them to come under the USCMJ. I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution even as my protections under it were abridged and waived albeit voluntarily.
I believe in gun ownership. But I also believe in rule of law and keeping order under the constraints of the Bill of Rights: equal access, no prior restraints, due process.
The Bill of Rights is an organic document. Parts of it are redefined every single year in Oct. I agree with the poster's point: the framers were not as specific as we like to think, and is not specific on the 2nd either. Justice Stevens five words make sense and would make the 2nd clearer. I don't think our right to own derives from the 2nd. I think it was an effort to keep the military from becoming a tool of any particular political force or a tool for government to go after any particular set of citizens.
We require the Federal government to maintain peace and to protect and administer the the people's will.
I was a believer of unlimited ownership of any sort of firearm. Events in the last 10 years or so have made my position evolve. While murder and murder with firearms have decreased steadily over the last thirty years, mass shootings and shooting of family members by people who have restraining orders and histories of violence have increased markedly. I don't think that the Framers had in mind that my right to own trumps the right of victims to the pursuit of life and happiness.
I also don't think you uninformed snark amounts to beans.
Response to marble falls (Reply #96)
Post removed
marble falls
(57,080 posts)former9thward
(31,997 posts)marble falls
(57,080 posts)you'd never say anything like that to my face, but you will anonymously. Shame on you.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)I have no problem with that.
marble falls
(57,080 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)On Sat Apr 12, 2014, 11:21 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Well, since you are self identifying with mass shooters I see why you have your view.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4812165
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
He's insulting in that I am not an "mass murderer" self identifying, and the post specifically was written to start argument and not continue the discussion. Surely this is the type of abuse the rules here are meant to stop.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 12, 2014, 11:31 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: A completely ad-hominem attack that is not factually based in terms of what the person attacked wrote. I would hope just about all DUers would see this post as something beyond what we would consider community standards. If the vote isn't 7-0 or 6-1 to hide, it's shameful.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Did not sound like an insult of not being a "mass murderer". It does not appear to be specifically written to start an argument but a legitimate answer to a post. Sorry if the alerter doesn't like what's been said. Doesn't reach the level of abuse. Sorry if that gets someone's panties in a bunch, but just because they don't like the response, does not mean it's inappropriate (or wrong).
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: insulting? This post does not break rules. I say debate your point. DU is a discussion board after all.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)same with indentured servants, who paid for their passage by working for a fixed time in virtual slavery. Slaves, however, were not considered fully human at the time, so who knows what rights they could assume under modern 2A thinking.
Note that the Bill of Rights was passed while everyone had Shay's Rebellion in very recent memory, and the Whiskey Rebellion was going on. These, and other local flareups, had to affect their thinking, but historians are still arguing over it all.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)You had a plantation owner overseeing a large number of slaves. If the slaves decided to rebel, then a militia of private citizens with guns could be mustered quickly to put down the rebellion.
--more--
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Seems pretty weak sauce.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)From Mother Jones--
Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.
This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.
--more--
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment
From "TruthOut"--
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
--more--
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Also from "TruthOut"--
"In this situation," Henry said to Madison, "I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone."
So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.
His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "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 <emphasis mine>: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State <emphasis mine>, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.
I don't know: why did the North pass a "state version?" Because it didn't matter to the North that the original wording was changed from "country" to "State?" Because "State" had more muscle to slave-states than a "country" that might end slavery? I don't know.
But the sad fact remains that the 2A wasn't about defending oneself from a tyrannical government, as much as the gunnutz today want us to believe.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)[div class='excerpt']Pennsylvania 1790: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Vermont 1777: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."
Kentucky 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
Did it make sense for these states to pass their version of the second amendment (in some cases *before* the federal version) if it was about 'slaves'?
Bogus's claims have been soundly refuted by other scholars in lengthy papers, but the simplest refutation is the northern states' own documents.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)as I said, historians are still arguing about all the details and while a lot was written back then, we don't have all of the speeches and arguments made on the side.
Would've been great if they had video back then. Even steno machines would have helped. Or shorthand.
Anyway, that could have been one of many reasons for militias. I think they were also anticipating state border conflicts like later happened with Kansas and its neighbors. And Indian wars. And brigandry on those lonely country roads.
Lots of reasons for raising a militia if you live in a place with no real military or police force.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I tell my friends elsewhere in the country that if it weren't for the Border Wars and Charlie Parker, no one would hear about Kansas City!*
________
*[font size="1"]Just a little joke, folks, just a little joke...haha...haha...ha?[font size="2"]
UTUSN
(70,686 posts)
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)3/5ths of a human doesn't exactly rise to the idea that PEOPLE and/or CITIZENS of the US have some sort of God given right to guns & bullets. HELL, it was ILLEGAL for us to READ in most of the south. So, your comment makes as much sense as a mud window. The constitution applied to us as much as it applied to LIVESTOCK. Remember what happened to NAT TURNER and friends when they got ahold of Guns and Sharp knives? So, um NO, 2A MAKES NO SENSE.....AT ALL!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The slave states wanted slaves to count towards the distribution of representation in Congress but obviously they would never allow the slaves to vote. That would give the slave owning states a legislative advantage. The abolitionists argued them down to 3/5 which paved the way for their movement to gain hold.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
However, and without surprise, the slave states didn't want slaves to count when assessing taxes. The slave owners were rather selective and unprincipled.
However, the presence / absence / origin of the 3/5 Compromise notwithstanding, the point remains: armed people are not slaves.
Igel
(35,300 posts)People are like that.
If it was clearly understood in 1937, 1938, and 1939, then the SCOTUS decision wouldn't have been an issue. The lowest court would have looked at the case and said, "Clearly it is the case that ..." and it would have been solved. The appeals could would have looked at the case and said, "Nothing to decide here. Let it stand." If the initial court had goofed, the appeals court would have corrected it.
SCOTUS would possibly have looked at the case as filed and said, "Nothing to look at here, let the clear understanding of the 2nd amendment as expressed by _______ court stand."
Not a lot about the 2nd amendment before then. Not a lot of regulations that would have triggered a lawsuit. Not a lot of court cases before the ones that went to SCOTUS then. They set the "more than 200 years" of opinion 140 years into that "more than 200 years."
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Bad news, the President himself has stated that the 2nd Amendment is a INDIVIDUAL right and while the Heller decision was 5-4, EIGHT of the judges agreed that the 2nd Amendment was an Individual right, they only disagreed on where the line was drawn.
See Breyer's dissent around page 115: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Of the Bill of Rights, the first 9 amendments of the Consititution apply to the people of the United States, with the 10th Amendment stating "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)The individual right is basically irrelevant, the question is whether it applies to gun ownership outside of militia service. And the answer is no, unless you are a right-wing justice.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)So is free speech. But that is limited by libel laws, and if you're going to hold a demonstration, you usually have to apply for a permit since you'll be obstructing traffic, most likely. Those laws are local.
Same here. All Stevens is saying is that there is no absolute right in the 2nd; it is left to local law to regulate. The NRA notion that any regulation is an infringement on the 2nd is not supported.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Not even the NRA argues that there should be NO restriction on who can buy a firearm. The argument is over where the line should be drawn. If you have committed a felony, certain violent misdemeanors related to domestic abuse or ruled mentally incompetent by a judge, it is against the law across the country for you to won a gun. Some states have added additional crimes to the above.
Washington DC prevented ANYONE from buying or owning a handgun unless they had owned that handgun prior to 1975. That is the law that the Supreme Court struck down in Heller vs Washington DC and rightfully so.
McDonald vs Chicago extended that to all 50 states.
And you need to re-read Stevens dissent, he was the only one who stated that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the "militia"
hack89
(39,171 posts)he has no problems with AWBs for example. The only explicit gun right defined in Heller is that you can own a handgun for self defense.
The reason we don't have the gun laws many gun control advocates want is because of political reasons, not legal.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)One rejected the notion outright and the other three concluded the "individual right" only applied to specific military purposes with no limitations on government restrictions on private use of firearms.
So sure, three of the justices said the "individual right" applies to keeping a gun in your home for military purposes which is completely irrelevant to modern times. Why gun proliferates insist on repeating this as if it means anything suggests they either didn't comprehend the dissent, or they are simply parroting out NRA/ALEC talking points.
From your own link:
Pretty much says all you need to know about the dissent.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)"In interpreting and applying this Amendment,I take as a starting point the following four propositions,based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1)
The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting)."
Page 116, the bold is mine
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Might want to work on your reading comprehension of exactly what I wrote the next time you attempt to contradict me.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)to be quite clear that they felt the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Pretending I contradicted this point and proceeding to argue on that basis amounts to nothing more than strawman gibberish.
Had you bothered to make it past the first paragraph surely your superior comprehension skills would have derived these relevant points:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm
So are you going to concede that Stevens said the government actually can take precious away, or are you going to continue to parrot out NRA/ALEC talking points? If the latter is the case please let me know as I would just as soon get those directly from the original source (not that I have any interest in that either).
Just sayin'
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Stevens can say anything he likes, but until he gets 4 more Justices to go along, his dissenting opinion is not the law.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But thanks for the lesson on jurisprudence, Captain Obvious.
However, don't forget that there were 3 other justices' names on that dissent which means he's actually only one away from that and given that Scalia is only about one donut short of a massive coronary this certainly seems well within the realm of possibility. Much to your chagrin I think once the political makeup of the court inevitably swings the other way there's going to be a lot of shitty Scalia opinions either completely reversed or rendered mostly irrelevant. As far as this decision goes, Stevens well written dissent is going to help tremendously toward that end.
Cheers!
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but gun control is a loser for the Democratic Party outside of certain major cities and I don't see your little fantasy coming true.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Brilliant!
Just so you know, I don't harbor any fantasies about guns. That seems to be more indicative of those who cling a little too closely to their precious. Not sayin' you, but you know, just sayin'
Cheers!
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but gun control will cost the Democratic party seats in districts they might have won, both at the state level and at the national level. According to Bill Clinton, one of the smarter politicians to come along in quite some time, it was one of the contributors to the Republicans taking back the House in 1994. It resulted in a sitting Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, being defeated, the first time that had happened since 1862.
You may not harbor fantasies about guns, but you do harbor fantasies about what you think is going to happen at the Supreme Court in the future
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Personally I'd rather be on the right side of history. YMMV.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I know all the NRA propaganda goes on and on about the "individual right" thing. But the central question is not whether the right is individual, it is whether the right holds outside of the context of a militia. On that question, the court is split 5-4 with only right-wingers supporting the revisionist view.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)lurkso: while the Heller decision was 5-4, EIGHT of the judges agreed that the 2nd Amendment was an Individual right, they only disagreed on where the line was drawn.
This is baloney lurkso, the decision was 5-4 and the 4 liberal justice's opinions were that being a militia or militia centric right.
I believe this is what you are citing (pg115) and you are dead wrong in your analysis, dead wrong, for justice breyer was NOT contending he believed in the individual rkba, just that it was one of the 4 different modern day interpretations:
justice breyer: In interpreting and applying this Amendment,I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1)The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred... ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(2)As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(3)The Amendment “must be interpreted and appliedwith that end in view.” Miller
(4)The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to govt regulation.
Breyer is only saying that the above 4 interpretations are what exist today, as being possible modern day thought on the 2ndA, & that the entire court agrees they are modern day thought, but to single out the first proposition & contend that 'the entire court' agrees to that interpretation is false.
Several pro gun posters have tried to pull the same trick which lurksoften is doing in his post, but he & they are wrong, & I wish they'd stop trying to hoodwink people with this misinterpretation & manipulation of what breyer actually said & wrote.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)they totally change it, from an individual right to a restriction. If it had been intended as a restriction perhaps we would refer to the BOR as the "Bill of Rights and One Restriction."
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Kinda hard to get a restriction on people from that preamble.
marshall
(6,665 posts)He's saying the way it was interpreted for 200 years should be the guiding force in how it is currently interpreted. But how many progressive changes would not have taken place if the court kept this rule?
He would be better served to choose an argument that does not have to be selectively applied to reach his overall goals. That is the essence of hypocrisy, or at least it gives that appearance. And in the world of politics and government what appears to be so to people is as important as what is so.
Then he would have very little of an argument. The best arguments for the collective rights theory of the second amendment came from mainly from the pre-civil war.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)the way that Scalia and company did. This is evidence by the fact that the only justices on board with the decision were right-wingers. Caving to pressure from the right-wing gun lobby to completely re-interpret a constitutional amendment is very far from progressive.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)You can't claim some parts can be re-interpreted and others cant. Either you can re-interpret all of it or none of it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Just because you are re-interpreting an amendment doesn't automatically mean that it is "progressive". Taking an amendment that was designed to stop the federal government from disarming state militias, and re-interpreting to allow federal judges to prevent states from keeping their people safe from gun violence is about as far from a "progressive" re-interpretation as you can get.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)but it isn't true- no matter how many times you say it. Just a quick glance at the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Early_commentary will show you it's untrue.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)he explains it pretty clearly. Even as recently as say 30 years ago, nobody even considered that 2A applied outside of militias.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)this wikipedia article is a better source...and not even close to the best sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Early_commentary
Steven's could preach all he wants that it is a creation of the modern right wing- but it doens't change the fact that there were court cases in the 19th century supporting the individual rights view or that there was commentary from the pre-civil war era supporting than individual rights view.
On edit: It's like the creationists claiming the earth is only 6000 y/o...they can scream it all they want but then how do you explain our carbon dating records? The only way you can is you actually dismiss them. But then again, religion doesn't have to be logical so you can dismiss arguments for any reason you want to.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, I'm sure there were some people 200 years ago that wanted the 2A interpreted in the same way as modern conservatives. But the prevailing consensus opinion, until very recently, was that it wasn't applicable outside of militia service. And this is also in line with the historical fact that what 2A was designed for was to protect state militias from being disarmed by the federal government. The colonists were wary of standing armies.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)how many citations does steven's article have? Why no mention of Judge Cooley? Why no mention of the Nunn v Georgia case?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But, like I said, the fact that some random people along the way happened to voice an opinion similar to Scalia's doesn't change the fact that the broad consensus view, up until this recent right-wing revisionism, was that 2A was restricted to militias.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)Up until 1939 there was no broad consensus. It wasn't until after the Miller case that a "consensus" was created- and even that is under question by many scholars. There was a belief that lower courts read too much into Miller. Remember, there was a strange setting behind the case and the decision was extremely short compared to the majority of supreme court cases.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And there's not any substantive challenge to that view until Heller. This is why, when conservative legal activists started pushing the revised 2A interpretation, even a conservative justice Warren Burger described the whole push as a fraud. The Heller view of 2A got pushed from fringe right-wing into the mainstream.
The Stevens dissent, as opposed to the WaPo article, goes into more of the history, if you're interested.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that explicitly define the right to bear arms as an individual right with no mention of militias?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First of all, state constitutions have no power over the federal government, so obviously a state constitution wouldn't be a good place to put in an amendment trying to prevent the federal government from disarming a state militia.
hack89
(39,171 posts)which makes it very clear exactly what they felt about the individual right to bear arms. It is hard to imagine they deliberately wrote the Federal Constitution to be in direct conflict with the state constitutions. Considering at the time they viewed state powers before federal powers, it is hard to imagine they would give the Federal government the power to undermine the civil liberties of the citizens of their state.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That because some of the same people were involved in drafting two documents that they must mean the same thing? Even though they actually say different things?
I mean, if the framers wanted to protect the right to bear arms outside of the context of a militia, they could have done it. But that wasn't the point at all. The point was to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias. The fact that some states decided to put in a stronger protection, and the fact that some of the people working on state constitutions also worked on the federal bill of rights is irrelevant.
hack89
(39,171 posts)If Stevens had his way, which would take precedence in your mind? Could the Federal government impose laws that conflict with the individual right to bear arms?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)bear arms outside of militia service. If there is some state that has a general right to bear arms not connected to militias in its constitution, then presumably that state's government has to abide by that state's constitution. AFAIK, the Federal Government isn't bound by state constitutions.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you are saying that the founders enshrined in their state constitutions an individual right to bear arms but also enshrined in the federal constitution exactly the opposite.
The simpler explanation is that they meant what they said when they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 12, 2014, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)
state constitutions and the federal constitution. After all, if something appears in a state's bill of rights, why doesn't it also appear in the federal bill of rights?
The answer is that they serve different purposes, and were written and voted on by different people -- even though some people were involved in both processes. The concern that motivated 2A was protecting state militias. If the delegates at the (say) Virginia constitutional convention decided they wanted a stronger protection on gun ownership, so be it. If the delegates at the (say) New Jersey constitutional convention decided differently, then so be it too. But one thing that remains clear is that the framers of the bill of rights decided not to elevate gun ownership outside of the context of militia service to a constitutionally protected right.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)bossy: there was commentary from the pre-civil war era supporting than individual rights view.
I checked the wiki link & what you contend is laughable, & merely rightwing spin, for most all of those quotes supposedly supporting an individual rkba are cherry picked from authors really in support of the militia centric interpretation:
Justice Story (supreme court early 1800's): The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and {referring to his above paragraph} the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.
Story's concern was that the militia system would disintegrate, & 'thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by' the 2nd amendment. Geez, can't you read?
Then you have: Timothy Farrar In 1867, --- anything written after the civil war has no reliable bearing on what transpired in 1791 for the 2ndA had become schismatic by then, by 1830 actually.
Tucker early 1800, citing blackstone: In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game
English game laws did not disarm poachers or 'the people', generally landed gentry did as they reinterpreted the English bor 1689. This type of disarmament, the period lasted only about 30 years in the early 1700's.
In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary (on 2ndA):
Yeah boy, tench coxe was a firearm salesman, pointing out that every man should have a gun, & wow, I betcha had monthly sales too, 'Buy a musket from me during july & get a free pound of powder!'
on Wm Rawle: In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause (2ndA), which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power..
here it is in context, gee, look what's on rawle's mind: In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of govt. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state govt is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You all do know what a corollary is, dontcha? it's something which is derived from a HIGHER LAW OR PRINCIPLE. Ergo, accd'g to rawle, the right to keep & bear arms is derived from the need for a well reg'd militia. Duh.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)and some reinterpretations are progressive, and some of them are not.
marshall
(6,665 posts)Sometimes it can be very effective to take the other side's stance to argue your point. Ted Olson did it when he argued that supporting same sex marriage was in line with conservative ideals.
But you have to be ready to apply that argument in all cases, or risk looking like a hypocrite.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You're arguing that being in favor of the original interpretation of 2A is necessarily conservative. There is no basis for this argument. Being progressive doesn't mean automatically re-interpreting constitutional amendments willy nilly. There is such a thing as right-wing judicial activism, and the re-interpretation of 2A is a prime example.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)I don't get it. That way of looking at the 2A makes it a useless- in fact it's illogical. A militia is defined as a body of armed men- so having arms would be a pre-requisite to forming a militia. there is no way that anyone could bring up a challenge under that amendment. Why would any thinking person put something like this into the constitution?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It protects the rights of states to have militias, protecting them from attempts from the federal government to disarm them. It never had anything to do with civilian gun ownership outside of a military context, until the recent bit of right-wing judicial activism.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)he is not saying that it protects the rights of states to form militias- he's saying that it protects the right to have a weapon while in militia service. There not the same thing. One is like saying "You have a right to have antibiotics when you are sick" and the is like saying "you have a right to have antibiotics when you are on antibiotics"
on edit: if what you say is true...how do you explain this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia
DanTex
(20,709 posts)government. Which is exactly what the second amendment was always about, until the last few years or right-wing revisionism.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't think anyone's ever accused Georgia of being the most progressive place on earth....
bossy22
(3,547 posts)which seems to be something you keep dancing around. I'm not arguing that there isn't evidence for a collective rights interpretation of the amendment- there surely is- but there is also significant evidence for an individual rights interpretation as well.
On edit: if it is your personal belief that the amendment protects only collective rights- fine. That is your right. But don't categorically dismiss the opposite view while claiming the intellectual high ground. That is exactly what the creationists you criticize do
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not claiming that Scalia is the first person to ever think of the non-militia interpretation of 2A.
What I am saying is that, until this recent right-wing revisionism, the broad and basically unchallenged consensus was that 2A was about militias. The fact that a few random people along the way voiced the non-militia interpretation doesn't change that.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)There was no real military at the time the Constitution was written and after they had just finished fighting a revolutionary war they depended on citizen militias to defend the nation. The second ammendment does not mention hunting, it does not mention self defense, it does not mention target shooting, it only mentions the militia. The reason it focuses on the militia is the fact that the militia was the only means they had for defending the nation from attack at that time, it had nothing to do with any of the things that individuals use guns for today.
Times have changed and the second amendment is outdated, it certainly is a very illogical amendment these days.
Paladin
(28,254 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)For hundreds of years it was plainly obvious that the second amendment protected state militias from being disarmed by the federal government, and the whole civilian right to own a gun thing is a very recent form or right-wing revisionism.
But given the right-wingers that are in charge of the court, there are a bunch of "clarifications" that would help out, including
--corporations are not people
--money is not free speech
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Another 2A furball. 
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)faction to muscle aside the TOS when it comes to negative posts. Frankly, if the powers that be want to open GD to gun discussions again, I'll go with that; as it is, the controllers control GD and use the TOS when it suits the doctrines & ideologies of anti-gun outlooks. If you can work in "children" somehow, some way, you'll get an anti post in GD. This instant OP doesn't even have that, so most anything anti will get a pass, even if the timeline is as old as Windows XP.
That's near as I can figure it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Or for that matter, they don't seem to care for the "DU is for Democrats" rule either, or at least appreciate the fact that there's a whole forum for them where this rule is effectively waived.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Join me in support of bringing full-blown gun discussions back to GD. How about it, Dan? Fair and open debate -- you for it, or not?
Or maybe you like the present "controlled show," to borrow from Malcolm X.
Funny, I thought mt description of GD regarding TOS and the dead-letter rule against gun discussions was accurate. Don't you agree with my points? Maybe that's why the dead-letter rule against whining doesn't apply.
You like to control stuff. Especially debate. I'm used to that.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Dan I am sure is not, unless only one side is allowed to post.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)A former liberal SCOTUS justice pointing out how the second amendment has been re-interpreted by the right wing, and what could be done to fix that. Evidently your view of what constitutes a significant story, and that of the general DU population are different. And so you choose to violate the TOS and whine about it.
I personally don't see why the admins put up with all the gun trollery in the first place. But keeping it in the gungeon, while allowing the occasional significant gun story in GD seems to be the compromise they've reached. Fair enough.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)No body is whining about DU as a whole, just pointing out how the SOP is not being followed in GD. I agree there is a whole forum for gun discussions. It is called General Discussion. Although some points of view do seem to get a pass on the rules than the other side. I think most firearms owners would have no problem and have stated it many time to update the SOP to allow gun discussions in GD as it already is being done now. We have no problem with open discussion unlike the other side that requires a safe haven that only a few posters are now allowed to participate in their private echo chamber. It always amazes me that people on your side of the discussion must resort to name calling and penis references while talking to fellow DU posters, why is that? It is also amazing to me that if you own a firearm you can not be considered a Democrat.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Whining about the fact that gungeoneers and the rest of DU have different opinions about the significance of a former liberal SCOTUS justice pointing out that the right-wing has reinterpreted the second amendment to suit a political agenda. As evidenced by the large number of recs, the general DU population thinks this is an important and worthy OP. I don't see the problem.
If you want to be able to post NRA talking points willy nilly, then go over to FreeRepublic. Or else stay in the gungeon, where the admins have de facto waived the "DU is for Democrats" rule just to placate a few gun fanatics. A lot of DUers understandably ignore the gungeon because of all the right-wing trolls in there. I imagine that they are happy that the occasional significant gun story, like this one, gets posted in GD.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)to these mythical NRA talking points
PLEASE just ONE link, I am waiting patiently for you to do this.
(I really think it is any point you disagree with)
Sorry but I feel fine commenting and discussing any OP posted anywhere on DU since I am a Democrat but I know since I own a few firearms in your misguided view I can not possibly be one. I like open discussion unlike some here that require a safe haven. I have not seen anybody complaining about different opinions. Now the standard of "big news" seems to be 130 Recs on a story. That is one sided as you now as there is no unrec option anymore. I find it funny when a poll goes the wrong way for your side it goes away but life is never fair and I understand that.
and last but not least I respectfully ask one more time
Please post a link to these "NRA talking points" you are always referencing.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Beyond that, that this OP is full of gungeoneers pushing hard for the Scalia interpretation of the constitution, which, as Stevens and Burger point out, is the product of a concerted NRA/right-wing effort to push a political agenda through the courts.
Yes, 130 recs is enough evidence that this is a worthy OP. It means that a lot of DUers found this important and informative. And it is important: a former liberal SCOTUS justice discussing how the bill of rights has been distorted for political ends.
I guess you disagree. If so, there's something you can do about it: alert. But instead you choose to whine.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You stated "NRA talking points" You just linked to a post from inside DU.
I wanted to see this list so I know what they are
I will just take it there is no list of NRA talking points as you will not produce them.
here are some "talking points" that are out there for you sir. These are real
About Background Checks
About Military-Style Assault Weapons
About High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines
How to rebut common pro-gun arguments
Sources for more detailed talking points
A PDF copy of Voicing Our Values—To Curtail Gun Violence
Our most important advice: (1) Lay out the problem in very simple terms—most Americans have no idea how easy our laws make it for dangerous people to buy handguns and assault weapons; (2) Don’t let pro-gun advocates sidetrack the debate into “straw man” arguments, obscure “facts,” or a focus on the technical properties of guns—about 90 percent of their arguments are actually designed to change the subject so you need to insist on a debate that is relevant to the legislation at hand; and (3) Generally:
Don’t say . . .
Don't Say . . .
Gun control
Stricter gun laws
You oppose the 2nd Amendment
Say ....
Preventing gun violence
Stronger gun laws
Support for the 2nd Amendment goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Why . . .
People have negative reactions to “gun control” and “stricter” laws, and they feel positive about the 2nd Amendment. Also, average voters have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association (NRA). You are welcome to criticize the NRA when speaking to the progressive base, but it won’t help you persuade swing voters. That’s why these talking points don’t include anti-NRA language. If the situation requires you to attack the NRA, then condemn “NRA lobbyists” or the “NRA’s out-of-touch leaders.” Do not attack average NRA members or local NRA leaders; that language doesn’t work.
http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/gun_messaging
Do not need to alert as I feel fine discussing this in GD. I do not have to resort to name calling and penis jokes to have a civil discussion.
I would ask the hosts and Skinner to modify the SOP to allow all threads involving guns ans one side has a pass on that know.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That makes sense, since your alert would go nowhere, as this OP is not in violation of the TOS, as evidenced by the overwhelming interest from DUers.
Oh, and if you want to go to the NRA website and look for their "master list" of talking points, you are free to. I'm pretty familiar with most of them from our own DU gun trolls.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Want to make sure I get them right for you
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Between the NRA talking points and the whining about DU, you are quite a versatile gungeoneer.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)just any discussion that you disagree with. That is fine and I fully understand that.
I will ask you very politely to stop with the name calling.
I think we all can have a civil discussion here on DU without having to sink to that level, do you agree?
And you sir are very good at using the talking points I have supplied to state your side of the argument.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like I said, I've read enough gungeoneer posts to be very familiar with the main NRA talking points. And when I see a supposed Democrat repeating them, I am going to call them what they are.
In the same way that if a supposed Democrat starts talking about "job creators" or "makers versus takers", I don't need to hack into some super secret GOP master list to know that those are right-wing talking points.
But if you really want to find a master list, knock yourself out.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)How do you know they are "main NRA talking points"? I have looked and have been unable to find this list you mention. I will keep looking.
I just see points that you disagree with and that is OK, we all can disagree.
I do not point out all of the "Bloomberg talking points" when I disagree with one of the statements put out by someone on the other side.
So know I am not a real Democrat, OK. I prefer to have a big tent and that includes owners of firearms that want real enforcement to cut down on gun deaths to those that want total gun confiscation. many good ideas have been floated on DU by firearms owners towards gun safety.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's really not that complicated.
I have no idea whether you are a Democrat, "real" or otherwise. You post mainly about guns, and your views on guns are identical to most conservative Republicans, and, in this OP for example, you criticize a few elected Democrats and liberal supreme court justices, while supporting the judicial wisdom of the likes of Scalia. Beyond that, you are just a name on an internet forum.
As far as the gungeon generally goes, it's hardly a secret that there are a lot of outright right-wing trolls there. A fun game is to go back a few months and see how many people posting there have since been banned. And that only counts the trolls that don't have enough self-control to avoid crossing the line.
I know about this because I used post in the gungeon and argue with the gun trolls a while back. It was fun, but it grew old -- same NRA talking points repeated over and over. So I stopped when I realized that there wasn't any sort of rational or intellectual basis to the gun mania, mainly just paranoia and a right-wing/libertarian ideology. But I did learn a lot about the whole pro-gun way of thinking.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)No wonder I can not find it. Yes I disagree with some Democratic issues as I am sure you do like President Obama and 2nd amendment and individual rights, Same with the Democratic platform. That is the great thing about Democrats we are not in lockstep like the other party. Some of us out here on the DU are not one item voters.
I have seen many times fellow DU gun owners put forth good ideas for gun safety and ignored.
How about a gun license requirement that is stepped to the type of firearm. Pay for the license and background check and a training requirement and be able to purchase any type of covered weapon. For more you could get a full auto endorsement. Must not be to expensive to cause constitutional issues. Just like a drivers license have a CCW endorsement and have it legal in all 50 states.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, a lot of people on DU disagree with the Democratic platform on certain things. What's peculiar is that most people here disagree on the left (e.g. they want single payer, get tougher on Wall Street etc.), whereas gungeoneers disagree from the right (e.g. opposing the AWB, attacking elected Democrats who support gun control), and do so using the same language as the NRA/GOP (becuz freedom!). A great example is during the Fast and Furious "scandal", where the gungeon was pretty much in full agreement with Darrell Issa that this was some kind of anti-gun conspiracy. And there were no shortage of posts from places like Washington Times and Fox News supporting that point of view.
I notice that you keep ignoring the fact that the gungeon is crawling with right-wing trolls. Even if there are some actual Democrats in there, they don't seem to have too much disagreement or problem with the outright right-wingers. In fact, right up to the point where the right-wingers get banned, the "pro-gun Democrats" are pretty much in lock-step agreement with the trolls.
So you'll understand if I'm pretty skeptical of the gungeon. Particularly when the "solutions" they propose generally involve more and easier access to guns (for example, you, proposing national CCW reciprocity as a "good idea for gun safety" .
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)so a national standard or a patchwork of CCW regulations safer. Some require rigorous training some none. I would prefer more rigorous training requirements and the ability if I decide to carry in Oklahoma and go to Ohio that I would not have to know every town county, and state law to ensure I am legal just like I can do for a divers license.
I have never see an argument on the AWB about freedom, maybe you have. All of the posts I have seen are about the stupidity of banning by cosmetic features. NY did and now you have these non assault weapons available.
http://www.northwoods-firearms.com/product185.html
There is a worry that some Democrats who support gun control will actually lose us seats that we can not afford to lose. See Colorado. I will have to research the fast and furious comments you say were posted to see if what you said is true or not. If what you say is true I disagree with those comments.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I really like it here. One of the great things is that NYC is actually remarkably safe given the enormous population density. And very strict gun laws are part of what allows this to occur. So I don't have any interest in weakening NYC's gun laws so that anyone who wants can walk down Broadway with a loaded weapon. And most New Yorkers agree with me. That's the problem with national CCW -- it forces guns into areas where the people don't want them.
As far as Democrats losing seats because of gun control, you are talking about one special election involving state senators. On the other hand, you have the Virginia governer's race, where McAuliffe ran as an unapologetic gun control advocate, and won.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it is shall issue and the well connected are able to carry. You also need to think about the areas west of you like where I am in Oklahoma. Thousands of miles of open range, feral hogs and other dangerous animals. This is a big country and as much as I would like one standard I do not think that may be a possibility if we have to go by your standard in NYC. I will be interested to see how the rest of NY state votes in 14 and 16 as there is a lot of people out of the city that do not agree with some of those gun control measures that have been pushed through. Do you think former cops should be except from NY SAFE act? Did you know police were in violation of the NY SAFE act as it was pushed so fast nobody proofread it and it had to be amended to exempt them. McAuliffe won and that is a good thing, lets see if he can get anything done from what he ran on. It will be interesting to see if any others win because that seems to be more of an outlier not to mention the libertarian candidate took 7% of the vote. If he was not there it would have been very possible the Cucinelli would have won. State office can be a very big issue and we lost 2 and a 3rd resigned that was going to lose. I think if we legalize pot, it will go a long way to stop some of the gang issues.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)More information from the experts:
Brady Campaign on background checks, on military-style assault weapons, and on high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns on a variety of gun measures and "Demand A Plan."
Center for American Progress on “Changing the Conversation: Preventing Violence, Not Gun Control”
Message Matters one-pagers on guns.
For an excellent book by Dennis Henigan about how to debate the NRA, read Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/sources_for_more_detailed_talking_points
Sorry have not found the NRA ones yet
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If it's a gun thread with anti-2nd-Amendment connotations, it's hunky-dory.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts) appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Apparently, five words have been added to the GD SOP. It now reads, "No posts about... guns except anti-Second Amendment screeds."
Damn you Constitutional and GD SOP revisionists and your sneaky five-word insertions! Damn you all...
In all seriousness, the Anti-2A'ers are so deficient in logic, I don't particularly care where in particular they post. But it's unfortunate that these kind of anti-Second Amendment screeds are anywhere on DU - they make Democrats as a whole seem much less supportive of rights and the Constitution than most of us are.
-app
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Two distinct phrases with two distinct meanings.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is fairly clear.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)"A well regulated militia..."?? Just decoration?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)well regulated in the 18th century meant well equipped.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)to have meaning. You cannot just pretend it doesn't exist. And, whether the word "regulated" meant 'regulated' in the sense of the word today or "well-equipped" doesn't change the fact thathe entire right to bear arms is dependent upon being in a militia. The fact that a Supreme Court characterized by such legal gymnastics such as deciding that Florida's votes for President don't count or that corporations are people or that $$$$ = free speech has also decided out of nowhere to claim an individual RTBA isn't terribly persuasive.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Jgarrick
(521 posts)(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Please tell me where and how the 'unorganized militia' functions today.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It is the underpinning for any conscription that may occur in the future
If you don't like it, work to have it changed or repealed. Personally,
I think the ageist and sexist language is subect to challenge and should
be changed.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)just like registering for the draft is today.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)since he called the 2nd Amendment an individual right. So did 8 of the 9 justices that heard the Heller case, only Justice Stevens felt the 2nd Amendment only applied to the militia.
I find the views and statements by the President and 8 Supreme Justices are far more persuasive then you.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)in marriage between members of the same sex. He is far, far from consistent in many of his pronouncements. As for the present USSCt, if their lack of respect for stare decisis and open desire to impose an ideological cast on our laws (see the previous examples I gave you) doesn't trouble you about the quality of their decision-making I don't know what would.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)the event that they are needed.
I thought the meaning of the first phrase was even more obvious than the second when considering the historical context.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)And it will be for many years to come. Enjoy.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)
intheflow
(28,463 posts)would just all join their state militia and we'd become an even more militarized society than we already are.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Putting all the legalese aside for a second....you really think our founding fathers....who revolved against the government and fought a revolution, would find it acceptable for the federal government to become powerful enough to take away people's guns?
Are you nuts? You truly believe that's the intent of the 2nd amendment? Did our founders have any idea of the type of weapons available today? Absolutely not. However, the 2nd amendment's intent, as it is written, was never meant to provide a means for the government to put restrictions on the people. The Bill of Rights are laws that handcuff the GOVERNMENT...not the people. Every one of those amendments puts restrictions on the government!
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
-Alan Dershowitz
What our founders have to say about this...
“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
-Alexander Hamilton
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
-James Madison
Author of the 2nd amendment
If you don't like the amendment...fine. CHANGE IT THROUGH THE PROCESS THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS. Don't pull this fucking bullshit about trying to change this immensely important document by twisting the intent and interpretation all because you personally don't like it.
marble falls
(57,080 posts)SevenSixtyTwo
(255 posts)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.
Hopefully the free people of the United States of American will never have to assemble as a militia to combat a tyrannical government but, the right of the free people to keep and bear arms is plainly spelled out in the Constitution of the United States.
It's a crying fuckin' shame we have to choose between the 1st and 2nd Amendment every four and six years.
eridani
(51,907 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)
gtar100
(4,192 posts)When children don't play well with others and abuse their toys, consequences should ensue or those kids grow up to be bullies and grown up brats, aka assholes. The level of gun violence in this country is an indication that all is not well and that too many gun owners are not playing well together and are abusing their guns. But because of this religious-like belief in the freedom to own guns, all efforts to curtail the violence are resisted and stopped. The adults cannot stop the children who are misbehaving.
There are many, many responsible gun owners but enough irresponsible ones to make this a serious, serious problem. The NRA seems to be to gun owners what Fox News is to journalism. They spread misinformation and lies to get people all worked up over the fear of losing the right to own guns when that is the least likely outcome of any proposed legislation. Their solutions to gun violence are no better suited to curtail violence than Paul Ryan's budget proposals are for stimulating the economy. People are dying while we're waiting for real solutions.
None of the calls for additional regulation would be necessary if everyone would just play nice together. Now ask yourself how likely that is and then I would ask gun owners, what are you going to do about it. So far the answer to that has been a big, fat 'nothing'.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)If, on the other hand, the goal is to just generate a (very) few posts attacking those who defend the RKBA, it should be posted in Castle Bansalot.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I mean, isn't it enough that DU is willing to host an entire forum for right-wing gun trolls?
Jgarrick
(521 posts)I mean, isn't it enough that DU is willing to host an entire forum (Castle Bansalot) for those unwilling to tolerate debate? There's already a proper forum for discussion of guns, and it's not GD.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's really bizarre. Judging by recs, this OP seems pretty popular with mainstream DUers, despite obviously not being so popular with the gun trolls. Apparently most DUers think this is a big enough story to merit a GD thread. And this upsets you why?
Jgarrick
(521 posts)I'm hardly "upset", but I am annoyed by the hypocrisy of allowing anti-RKBA threads in GD but not pro-RKBA ones.
Now answer mine, if you would be so kind.
Why is it that advocates of civilian disarmament get so upset when asked to follow the rules in GD?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's hardly unexpected that threads supporting progressive policies like gun control will be more popular than threads supporting Scalia. But like I said, the right-wingers have a whole forum where they can worship Scalia all day long.
I don't know any advocates of civilian disarmament. And I also don't think this thread violates the GD rules, as I think it is a big enough story to merit an OP. Apparently most DUers agree with me.
BTW: "upset" and "annoyed" are pretty close to synonymous.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It is the hypocrisy that is annoying.
Some of the ones ignoring the SOP here are the same ones so strict with their SOP that that group of bansalot is slow enough to be a dead echo chamber with no discussion allowed.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)enlighten us
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There are plenty of gun nuts complaining about this OP, but there's no real way of knowing if the OP was alerted, or by who.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)double standard that is held by some, I am more than sure none have alerted on the OP.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Response to kpete (Original post)
rrneck This message was self-deleted by its author.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
(This is the first line of the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, with "eighteenth" changed to "second."
I seriously doubt the Framers of the Constitution intended for Everyman to own this:
or this:
If the Second was repealed, a new gun law that does three important things could be written: enable the law-abiding to own and use guns with a sporting purpose like shotguns, revolvers, .45-caliber pistols and bolt-action rifles, keep criminals from getting guns, and keep guns whose main legitimate purpose is infantry combat out of the hands of people who aren't in the infantry.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)..with you. I'd also point out that private individuals owned cannon-equipped warships at
the time the Constitiution was ratified. No move was made to disarm them
One should always be careful to ensure that what one believes is actually true...
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)The Second Amendment is the best example of my argument that you can't run a 21st Century country on verbatim readings of 18th Century laws. If you were to borrow Mr. Peabody's way-back machine and haul a bundle of newspapers to James Madison before the Constitutional Convention convened, would he have looked at the news of Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the two Fort Hood shootings, etc., etc., etc., then looked at the size of the army we have standing, and still written an unfetterable right to guns into the Constitution?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Good thing is is not in there now, I guess they got it right.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Many recognize the individual right to bear arms. All you have done is left the states with the leeway to do as they please. Don't you think many will actually liberalize the gun laws instead of passing the strict laws you desire?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)The notion that changing a few words in the 2A will allow them to write these wonder laws is common here. They don't appreciate that nothing is stopping Congress from passing those laws now - it is political and cultural issue not a legal one.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)"Fantasyland"
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Congress is the way it is because of gerrymandering and everybody knows it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because it is not the 2A standing in your way. My only point.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Get the problem, now?
hack89
(39,171 posts)If they thought passing draconian gun control laws will get them reelected then they would be passing those laws. They are not acting out of respect to some legal principle - even Scalia says that guns can be regulated. For example - no AWB has ever been ruled unconstitutional.
If the 2A was to disappear tomorrow it would not make a difference because Congress is paying attention to the voters not some abstract legal principle.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)They are supporting what they think will get them reelected. Most have determined that strict gun control is not that important to voters and it is therefore not worth the risk of alienating a large segment of voters.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)In CT, you won't get far with a pro-gun (as you describe it) agenda.
My larger point is that your "large segment of voters" is shrinking if you look at it from voter trends. We have more urban and non-white and also more women voters because of demographics.
You have to worry about that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It was the Democrat controlled Senate that stopped the passing of gun control laws. Specifically Dems up for reelection in Red States. In an institution led by a Dem from a red state.
That is why absolute numbers are meaningless - it comes down to those 100 senators. And there are more pro-gun states than pro-gun control states.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)demographics nationwide. And those are the states that the Dem senators were uncertain of. Sure, as long as REpublicans (and I don't know why you are supporting their side here) "fix" congressional districts because of gerrymandering, we will have the same old, same old. But the demographic reality LOOMS...
What are you going to do then?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Only two per state remember.
Those two senators in Wyoming have the same number of votes as the two senators from California.
Popular vote is irrelevant when it comes to the Senate.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)have a greater demographic spread. Wyoming is charming to you of course but it is still just Wyoming. How long do you think your demographic is going to last?
hack89
(39,171 posts)So you can perhaps understand my skepticism.
What does it say about your movement when all you have left is some future hope hanging from the slender thread of one or two demographic studies? I suspect both you and I will be dead before the promised day ever arrives. I am certain I will be enjoying my sport for many years to come.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)enjoying it. Remind me, why are you here anyway?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Everyone of my congressmen is a Dem. I live in the bluest of states. And I am still not worried about you and you anti-gun friends.
My example of Wyoming was to make the point that two senators from the least populous state have just as much power as the two senators of the most populous anti-gun state. I am not surprised you were able to twist that into a personal attack.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)GOP senators who stand athwart from Democrats on most issues. I was surmising it was heartfelt by you. You seem to interpret that as a "personal attack" but they are your words, used in your argument, so I have to assume you own them.
hack89
(39,171 posts)So of course I would mention both sides of the issue. You need to understand why your demographic argument is not as strong as you wish.
I understand that to you there is no such thing as a pro-gun Dem but really, does every thing have to be personal?
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)another day, but that is inherent in the issue itself. Such a situation as exists in Wyoming is directly opposed to the Progressive agenda. You seem to celebrate it. I don't. If that's too personal, well...
hack89
(39,171 posts)We always reach that point where we end up talking past each other. See you on some future thread - I am off to the range with my son.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)less white and rural, more better educated, for starters. And more women voting as well.
So, we'll see, won't we...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)seems to be going quite well for the RKBA side, not so well for others. Always nice to have RW billionaire on your side to fund "grass roots" organizations. Still supporting Yee out in CA?
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fbi-california-state-sen-leland-yee-arrested
Another on your side making a fool of himself
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)looking at some of the recent developments on demographics for gun supporters right here on DU, unless they produce more white, rural folks and suppress more votes of less white urban voters (which I presume you do NOT support or you wouldn't be on DU) plus persuade more women to love guns...uh...I just don't see it in your future...perhaps you have some demographic data that gives you hope for a brighter future...
hack89
(39,171 posts)Jgarrick
(521 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Unless, umm, wait... 
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
Rafale
(291 posts)It just seems odd for any self-professed liberal to have an interest in taking away the rights of anyone. I thought taking away the rights of others was solely under the preview of the so-called Tea Party. Guess not. What a mess. I remember a time when Constitution changes were about expanding the rights of all, not taking them away. Reminds me of the Handmaid's Tale: "First we had freedom to. Now we have freedom from."
DanTex
(20,709 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)But I think he's off to a good start.
Rafale
(291 posts)Are funny.
nikto
(3,284 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)and there is no chance it will be changed to include that language change.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Police and military members, as agents of the government, don't need extra permission to carry arms. The government GIVES them guns. And ammo.
They simply don't want private citizens owning guns.
Reter
(2,188 posts)So he thinks it was necessary to make a whole Amendment just for the military to be able to use guns? Can he please explain?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)At the time, the colonists, based in part on their experience with the British army, didn't like the idea of a standing army, preferring militias instead. The second amendment was put in order to protect state militias.
Reter
(2,188 posts)If we ever get a rouge governor, can't his state militia (National Guard) be overtaken by the federal government? I heard that it can, but I could have heard wrong.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The thing is, the military structure of the US has changed so much that the second amendment is basically irrelevant, at least in it's original meaning. We now have a big standing army, which serves our security needs, rather than state militias.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)A drink for every NRA talking point.
Sorry, I cannot take part...stopped drinking, but this one would've got me f*$#ed up!!!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I have never seen the list so I could tell when to take a drink. Can you kindly post a link?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Any defense of firearm ownership is an NRA talking point and means you're a vicious right wing biggot who clings to their guns because their penis is small because this is a Democratic board, and Democrats are against guns... Or some weird pretzel logic like that.
My favorite argument is that the 2A trumps one's right to life. The 2A gives you a right to own a gun. Murder is still illegal. The 2A is NOT the right to murder. Those that push that agenda are transparent, and in the minority. A very vocal minority, which gives the Republicans plenty of talking points about those "libruls that want to take your guns".
sofa king
(10,857 posts)This has probably already been pointed out by now, but "the militia" consists of all American citizens capable of fighting, and all of us are currently "serving" in that emergency reserve capacity. This is why conscription is allowed, though not currently used.
Furthermore, in actual danger the definition of the militia has expanded even further. That's because once the militia is assembled and shipped out, the only people left to defend at home are the old men and boys, so they become the militia.
There have already been decisions which have folded women and minorities into the definition of "the militia," so few adults are excepted now and we're always one PR stunt away from a levee en masse which would include high school kids and retirement home dwellers.
So adding those five words won't change a thing. It won't change anything UNLESS we attack the definition of "well regulated" at the same time.
That can be done. For example, all I ever had to do to complete my "service" was fill out a postcard when I turned 18. My status with the selective service is not checked when I go to purchase a gun in my state. I've never been subjected to basic training, drill, maneuvers, or weapon handling and training courses. That's hardly a Department of Defense level of, uh, regulation.
So it is possible to begin curbing the proliferation of weapons, but only by forcing all citizens to take an active role in national defense--which, in theory, we are required to do as necessary. Perhaps it is necessary now.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)from pushing their "guns-4-all" agenda. They will come up with some exceptions and alternative interpretations to ensure we keep this country flooded with guns.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Pretending that Miller is anything but completely flawed is simply a lie. What other SCOTUS decision is stood on with such vigilance that didn't have 2 sides presenting their case? Miller was dead and the only side of the case heard was that of the federal government. Furthermore the statement, "could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.” is inaccurate, the standard set by Miller was "in common use for lawful purposes". If the firearm in question is found to be "in common use for lawful purposes" there can be no federal registration of that firearm, if it is found not to be "in common use for lawful purposes" it doesn't mean it can be banned by the federal government, only that it can be required to be registered at the federal level, 'NFA registration'. Sawn off shotguns are not illegal, they simply must be registered.
Revisionism is what this is...If the intent was what is being stated, the amendment would read, 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", that isn't the intent. ..the founders knew that every empire eventually became corrupt and the only way to keep that from happening as easily was with an armed populace.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)THE PECULIAR STORY OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Justice Stevens doesn't get to push his "enlightened" views on us unilaterally.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it is anti-gun so of course it will get a pass from the hosts as far as being in violation of the SOP. I ask again of the hosts of this forum to just go ahead and adjust the SOP so this one sided enforcement can end.
I was actually shocked when you locked but not shocked at all when it was unlocked.
