I'm surprised more of you aren't up in GD

[Terran]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=378242

Y'all should get out more. ;-)

[Cappurr]

1. Thats because....

that topic belongs in Justic/Public Safety.

[Terran]

4. I'm glad it started in GD

and got some exposure there. The vast majority of DU'ers never set foot in this forum--I never did until I was assigned to moderate it. It's good to hear some opinions from people who would not ordinarily venture an opinion on the subject, and would not have if the topic hadn't been posted there.

Dirk

[Wonk]

2. Plenty of the gun dungeon regulars are already all over that thread.

I agree with Cappurr. That thread belongs down here instead of up there. That's what this forum is for.

[jody]

3. The initial post in the thread you cited has nothing to discuss.

Even misguided people have a right to express opinions and idiots have a right to listen.

The facts are clear that in the US, citizens have the inalienable right to defend self and property and bearing arms is the most effective and efficient way to exercise that right.

It is also clear that the arms used for self defense are the same arms used by the militia to defend the state, e.g. M-16 rifle and M-9 pistol. Whether citizens have lost their courage to fight for freedom is another question, but "We the People" have the tools for the job if that becomes necessary.

[Terran]

5. That thread poses the question, "Are guns a defense against tyranny?"

How is that "misguided," Jody? It's a legitimate question. I've seen many pro-RKBA people in this forum cite the defense against tyranny as one their reasons for owning guns.

I think the question assumes even greater legitimacy considering how many people seem to feel that the First Amendment, and not the Second, is the greater defense against tyranny.

You assume the discussion ends at your interpretation of the Second Amendment. A lot of people don't agree with you, and they are not idiots or misgiuded.

[Paladin]

6. Well Said, Dirk

n/t

[jody]

7. The poster stated an opinion "It's almost a mantra among Second Amendment

enthusiasts that the right to bear arms protects our citizens from tyranny." That's not a question, that's a personal opinion.

I've never heard nor read a pro-RKBA proponent say "the right to bear arms protects our citizens from tyranny" in context to mean that RKBA exclusively protects us against tyranny.

The founders recognized that our form of government derived all authority and power from "We the People". Moreover, they wisely protected the individual or minority against the tyranny of a simple majority by acknowledging that each individual had certain inalienable rights and government could never legitimately infringe upon those rights. The role of government was in fact to guard and protect those rights.

The founders also believed if our government ever ceased to function as the people intended, it was the right of the people to change that government, first by ballot and if necessary by force. That's why the founders were against a standing army on our soil.

The right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state was included in the majority of our state constitutions, but a right is no good without the courage to use that right. That's true for RKBA, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc.

It is courage to do what is right and making sure that we have the tools to do the job that protects us against tyranny.

[Terran]

8. Oh come now

The poster wrote (in the other thread which is now in Justice, btw):

Right to Bear Arms - Protection Against Tyranny?

It's almost a mantra among Second Amendment enthusiasts that the right to bear arms protects our citizens from tyranny. Unfortunately, this principle doesn't seem to hold universally. In Iraq, where everybody and his uncle walks around with a Kalashnikov, those people haven't known freedom for decades.

At a wedding ceremony, for example, the guests celebrate the union of bride and groom by firing automatic rifles in the air. It's hard to imagine that happening anywhere in the United States. But the Iraqis go from one tyrant to the next.

Do guns bring freedom? Or is that just a saying?

I see the same question asked twice there, so I'm not sure why you're saying that this is just an opinion stated without asking a question. The sentence with the word "mantra" in it is indeed an observation by the poster, and one that I think is hard to deny--it appears to be your mantra, based on your reply above:

...they wisely protected the individual or minority against the tyranny of a simple majority by acknowledging that each individual had certain inalienable rights and government could never legitimately infringe upon those rights.

In a sense, you have backed up my own point that many, many people these days feel there is something wrong with the way the Second Amendment has allowed the US to be overrun with gun violence compared to other advanced Western nations:

The founders also believed if our government ever ceased to function as the people intended, it was the right of the people to change that government, first by ballot and if necessary by force.

You believe that the Second Amendment, as an aspect of our government, works well. But many people disagree, and I think most people didn't intend for there to be so much gun violence in our country.

The US has a problem with gun violence, the worst of any civilized nation; and I feel that many pro-RKBA people hide behind the screen of the Second Amendment as if it were immune to change, and ignore the reality of our problem with violence. As you say, the founders believed if our government ceased to function as the people intended...

[jody]

9. I don't rely upon the Second Amendment for the right to keep and bear

arms when exercising an inalienable right to defend self and property. That right was acknowledged by sovereign people before a Constitution and a Bill of Rights were even discussed.

You say "You believe that the Second Amendment, as an aspect of our government, works well. But many people disagree, and I think most people didn't intend for there to be so much gun violence in our country."

No, I believe that the states had it right from the very beginning before a Second Amendment existed.

As to people linking guns to violence, the current thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=10714&mesg_id=10774&page= contains several replies stating that anti-RKBA proponents have never said guns cause or were primary factors in suicides or homicides. I'm sorry, but they can't have it both ways. Either firearms are a causal factor in suicides and homicides or they are a casual factor.

I don't know how to reduce homicides associated with firearms, but no one has suggested a new law that will reduce homicides. Preventing law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms while leaving criminals and police armed is unacceptable to me and there I stand.

[iverglas]

13. if jody is going to put words in people's mouths

then it's time she started naming the people in whose mouths she is putting them.

"... several replies stating that anti-RKBA proponents have never said guns cause or were primary factors in suicides or homicides. I'm sorry, but they can't have it both ways. Either firearms are a causal factor in suicides and homicides or they are a casual factor."

(What the fuck is a "casual factor"? Can you not attempt to speak standard English of some sort?)

Assertion: people say that they have never said that firearms cause or are primary factors in suicides or homicides.

Beep. False.

I don't recall anyone stating that they never said that. Quotation, in quotation marks, please.

Assertion: someone who says that firearms are a causal factor in suicides and homicides can't have it both ways.

Question: who says that firearms are a causal factor in suicides and homicides?

Why does jody insist on using this equivocal phrasing?

People say that firearms are **A** CAUSAL FACTOR IN **SOME** SUICIDES AND HOMICIDES.

People say that firearms are **A** CAUSAL FACTOR IN **THE PHENOMENON OF** SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE.

Why can't jody acknowledge what people say? Why does she persistently phrase her representation of what people say in such a way that her meaning cannot be deduced? Is the intention to trick people into thinking she has said something that she can say she hasn't said? I have to say that this is what it looks like to me. She is saying something that is subject to interpretation, whose meaning is not discernable on the face of it, and attributing that statement to someone else. Why??

NO ONE says that "firearms are a causal factor in ALL suicides and homicides".

In suicides and homicides in which firearms are used to cause death, a firearm IS **A** causal factor in the suicide or homicide. Exactly as a knife would be a causal factor, if the suicide or homicide were committed using a knife. Have you never heard the expression "cause of death", jody? If "cause of death" were "loss of 75% of the blood in the body" resulting from a wound caused by a bullet, can you seriously say, with a straight face, that a firearm was not **A** CAUSAL FACTOR in the death???


Now, as a matter of fact, I DID say that firearms were "primary causes" in SOME suicides and SOME homicides -- precisely because SOME suicides and SOME homicides are committed ON IMPULSE, and in those situations access to the firearm is indeed A PRIMARY CAUSE of the death. A sine qua non, the thing without which nothing would have happened -- and that claim simply is not subject to dispute by anybody who KNOWS the first bloody thing about the REALITY of suicide and homicide incidents in the real world, rather than whatever goes on in his/her little fantasy world.

Firearms ARE **A** causal factor in firearm suicides and firearm homicides, and ARE **A** causal factor in the phenomenon of suicide and the phenomenon of homicide.

Indeed, nobody has said "guns cause or were primary factors in suicides or homicides" -- and NOBODY HAS DENIED SAYING that firearms are *a* causal factor in some suicides and homicides and in the phenomenon of suicide and the phenomenon of homicide.

And I can't believe that this rote repetition of the formula you have come up with out of your own whole cloth, rather than of what anyone actually has said, is something you do for no reason.

So why don't you just give up this desperate battle you're engaged in with that pet straw fella of yours, and address what is actually said by those you are so bitterly trying to discredit?

.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

10. No ONE right

The Right to Arms, the Right to Speach, the Right to Assemble, the right to be Secure in your Person and your Possessions, etc, ...

... are equally essential and connected.

Limit one, you limit them all.

Destroy one you destroy them all.

Anyone that claims that one is 'more important' or a 'greater defense' doesnt know what they are talking about.

[Terran]

11. Are you a constitutional scholar?

No? Then this is just your opinion.

Limit one, you limit them all.

Destroy one you destroy them all.

Anyone that claims that one is 'more important' or a 'greater defense' doesnt know what they are talking about.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

12. As a matter of fact

Sure I am. An Amateur one.

And even if I were a professional 'Constitutional Scholar', that would still be my opinion.

And I am pretty confident in my opinion that anyone that claims that one freedom is 'more important' or a 'greater defense' doesnt know what they are talking about.

If you limit the right to Speak and do nothing to limit arms, you limit the ability of the people to communicate and in essence limit their ability to use those arms. Or to spread the news of their grievances.

IF you limit the arms of the people, you limit the force of their voice. And a voice without the force (and the will to use that force) behind it can be ignored.

The same with all the others.

If limits are placed on one right or one freedom, then all the others are limited.

Failure to recognize that each 'right' and each 'freedom' needs the others in order to flourish is one of the most dangerous things that is wrong with the planet these days.

[iverglas]

15. what nonsense

"If limits are placed on one right or one freedom, then all the others are limited."


As if it didn't depend on what "set" of freedoms you were starting with in the first place.

You really do believe that yours came down from the mountain engraved in stone, don't you?

A true constitutional scholar would know that your set of freedoms is just one among many possible, and that there are others that contain both more and less than yours and that function at least as well when put into practise.

Not to mention that your paradigm in fact completely excludes the concept of rights, although you appear to give lip service to some small set of them. Your paradigm is based on a very primitive concept of the nature of human beings and human life.

Educate yourself if you like; a little human rights scholarship:

http://www.journal.law.mcgill.ca/arts/453gonth.pdf
google cached html version

http://web.uichr.org/resources/eb/index.shtml
especially http://web.uichr.org/resources/eb/weston4.shtml

"IF you limit the arms of the people, you limit the force of their voice. And a voice without the force (and the will to use that force) behind it can be ignored."

Well, it's pretty hard to spread the news of grievances without printing newspapers ... and nobody can read the newspapers unless trucks deliver them to the newstand ... so there must be an inalienable right to own and drive a truck. And plainly no one's right to drive a truck can be interfered with by demanding that drivers be licensed or trucks registered and insured.

"Failure to recognize that each 'right' and each 'freedom' needs the others in order to flourish is one of the most dangerous things that is wrong with the planet these days."

Actually, I'd say that failure to recognize that the ability to exercise any right or freedom depends on access to adequate food to stay alive, and on adequate security against other people's use of force, is a great deal more dangerous. I'd even say that this is bloody obvious. And I'd say that anyone who advocates force as a solution to either of those problems isn't really concerned about solving them.

That's very jolly blank verse you've written there, but I like this better:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, ...

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, preamble

Freedom of speech without food to keep one's self alive is not "human life", since absence of food means death. Food without the ability to live as one chooses is not "human life", since absence of freedom means a less than "human" life.

Relying on force to guarantee either the food to eat or the freedom to speak is short-sighted and foolish. The goodwill of ourselves and others is the only real guarantee of anyone's freedom and security; no capacity for force will ever be a guarantee against loss to superior force, whether on the individual or on the national or international level ... and any use of force will entail a loss of both freedom and security.

"IF you limit the arms of the people, you limit the force of their voice."

If you limit the capacity for force, you enhance the opportunities for the exercise of freedoms.


I'd take all this silliness more seriously if I saw anyone in the US using force to exercise freedom of speech. What I see them doing is using force to injure and kill other people. Such lofty ideals, such a debased reality. Such little reason to take the silliness seriously.

.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

16. Yes it is isnt it?

And I am glad you realize it.

Now if only you would stop posting it.

[DoNotRefill]

17. So much horseshit....

"Well, it's pretty hard to spread the news of grievances without printing newspapers ... and nobody can read the newspapers unless trucks deliver them to the newstand ... so there must be an inalienable right to own and drive a truck."

Please post a link to the specific post where ANYBODY claimed there was an inalienable right to own and drive a truck.

[iverglas]

18. can I offer you a candle?

I often think that I could set a forest ablaze and the light still would not penetrate.

Here is what was said, that I was responding to. (You can tell when I'm responding to something. I QUOTE IT.)

IF you limit the arms of the people, you limit the force of their voice. And a voice without the force (and the will to use that force) behind it can be ignored.

Here is what my response was -- as magnificently quoted by you:

Well, it's pretty hard to spread the news of grievances without printing newspapers ... and nobody can read the newspapers unless trucks deliver them to the newstand ... so there must be an inalienable right to own and drive a truck.

Now, for the gold star -- who can tell what the connection is??

Person 1 says that Condition X must be present in order to exercise Freedom A.

Person 2 says that Condition Y must be present in order to exercise Freedom A.


In order to guarantee the exercise of freedom of speech, Person 1 says, people must be armed.

In order to guarantee the exercise of freedom of speech, Person 2 says, people must have trucks.


And you ask ...


"Please post a link to the specific post where ANYBODY claimed there was an inalienable right to own and drive a truck."

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???


Where did *I* say that ANYONE said ANY SUCH THING? Why would you make such a totally bizarre demand???


Someone DID say that in order to effectively exercise freedom of speech, people must be armed.

MY POINT was that there are a gazillion things that people must be or have or do in order to effectively exercise freedom of speech.

Trucks, and driving trucks, is one of those things. Newspapers cannot be delivered without trucks. A functioning press is an essential condition for the exercise of free speech. THEREFORE trucks are an essential prerequisite for the exercise of free speech.

MY POINT, of fucking course, was that free speech may be exercised in the absence of trucks, even though it might be nice to have trucks. Free speech may also be exercised in the absence of guns.

MY POINT was that there is NO SIMILARITY between the right to free speech and the "right" to possess firearms.

NO MORE THAN there is any similarity between the right to free speech and the "right" to possess trucks.

The right to free speech exists completely independently of any "right" to possess firearms. Anyone who wishes to exercise that right may need a whole slew of things to succeed in doing it, but those things are NOT "rights" in themselves simply because they are handy for exercising free speech.

In point of fucking fact, what is needed in order to exercise free speech most fully and effectively is PEACE. And EQUAL ACCESS to opportunities for free speech. And JUSTICE so that interferences with the exercise of it may be enjoined and redressed.

And FOOD, and SHELTER, and an EDUCATION. And hell, TRUCKS, and printing presses, and internet connections ...

I want the right to food and shelter and an education so that I am capable of speech at all, and to a justice system that enforces and protects my right to free speech, according to the rules that the society of which I am a member decide must be followed in order to protect my right to free speech from anyone who would interfere in it. I want equal access to opportunities for free speech and to the minimum conditions that must be present in order for it to be exercised (like food, shelter ...).

I do NOT want the "right" to possess the means to use violence to enforce my own notion of my right to free speech, and I do not want anyone else to have, on the pretext of protecting my free speech, the "right" to possess the means to use violence for any purpose that might take his/her fancy.

Placing the means to use violence for any reason under the control of anyone who has NO legitimate claim to be entitled to use violence does NOT protect my freedom, it jeopardizes it. What protects my freedom is the goodwill and honesty of my fellow citizens, NOT their bullets.

I am quite sure that you have no more clue what I'm talking about now then you did when you made your bizarre demand, but you can't say I didn't try. Maybe if you exert an ounce of actual effort yourself, instead of picking five or ten of my words out of context and demanding that I explain why I said something I didn't say, you'll get a glimmering of an idea of what my point is.

[DoNotRefill]

22. Relax.

getting your boxers in a knot will do you no good.

There's a fundamental difference between your so-called "right to have trucks" supposedly inherent in the First Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. I've read the Constitution and the Amendments over and over again, and have never seen a reference to a right to keep and drive trucks. I have seen a clear reference to the right to keep and bear arms.

"Placing the means to use violence for any reason under the control of anyone who has NO legitimate claim to be entitled to use violence does NOT protect my freedom, it jeopardizes it."

How can you prevent violence? Even if there were no guns, there would still be huge amounts of violence, since most violence today doesn't involve guns. I suppose you could go around chopping the arms off of all newborns.... ;-)

[MrBenchley]

27. Evidently you haven't....

"I have seen a clear reference to the right to keep and bear arms."
And yet you keep skipping over the "well regulated militia".....

[DoNotRefill]

29. "People", benchley...."People"....

not States..."People"....

[MrBenchley]

30. A collective term.....

Now go snivel about it to someone who's dumb enough to believe NRA propaganda....

[DoNotRefill]

31. Oh really?

then please explain the clear differentiation between the two groups "states" and "people" found in Amendments 9 and 10. Isn't "State" indicative of a collective right? If that's the case, why use two collective terms right after each other?

Also explain how "people" is a collective right as used in Amendment 4.
If "people" is a collective term, then doesn't the 4th Amendment apply collectively and NOT to individuals?

I'm telling you MrBenchley, you've completely changed my imterpretation of the Fourth Amendment!!! (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

32. Hand us a HUGE laugh

"If "people" is a collective term, then doesn't the 4th Amendment apply collectively and NOT to individuals?"

Hallooooooo.......yup. That's how it is the cops can't just start searching houses in a neighborhood.....or grabbing people at random....

It's amazing how unthinking the RKBA crowd is....

[DoNotRefill]

35. You seem unable to understand...

that the Fourth Amendment "right of the people" has been consistently interpreted to mean an individual,and NOT a collective right. If "the right of the people" is an individual right in the 4th Amendment, then if you're being consistent, doesn't it include an individual right in the Second Amendment? After all, both are speaking of the same thing in identical language...the "right of the people".


If, on the other hand, the language "the right of the people" denotes a collective right, well, then, the 4th amendment is useless for individuals.

You can't have it both ways without being a total hypocrite.

[MrBenchley]

37. Peddle it to someone dumb enough to believe it

Amazing what utter rubbish the RKBA crowd will swallow.

[Superfly]

39. Happy to...

"This is after all, Democratic Underground.....lots of people here care...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=11556#11615

You are such a GD hypocrite.

[Liberal Classic]

36. Collective as a distinct entity from its individuals?

When you read "the right of the people" you interpret that as being collective in the sense that the collective is a separate and distinct entity from the individuals which comprise it.

I understand that this is your interpretation, but I believe that you are mistaken. When you read "WE THE PEOPLE" Thomas Jefferson was not writing about the collective as distinct from the individuals. He meant "The People" as in the body of enfranchized citizens of a state, or the members of a community, the mass of people. The collective distinct from the individual do not have rights -- we, the people, have rights. That means you and me.

You mean definition 3b below:

Main Entry: 1col·lec·tive
Pronunciation: k&-'lek-tiv
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or
whole <flock is a collective word>
2 a : formed by collecting : AGGREGATED b of a fruit : MULTIPLE
3 a : of, relating to, or being a group of individuals b : involving all members
of a group as distinct from its individuals
4 : marked by similarity among or with the members of a group
5 : collectivized or characterized by collectivism
6 : shared or assumed by all members of the group <collective
responsibility>
- col·lec·tive·ly adverb

[MrBenchley]

38. Sez you.

[Liberal Classic]

40. Stunning rebuttal :)

What evidence do you have to support your claim that the framers of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson for the preamble, or other framers who proposed the bill of rights, when they used the words "We The People" are meaning specifically Webster's definition #3b -- collective as distinct from individual -- instead of any other of the definitions of 'people' or 'collective'?

It seems clear to me that when the preamble or various bills speak of the people, they mean the common sense defintion of persons plural. People, you and me. Everybody. People have rights. Not the collective as a distinct entity apart of the individuals which comprise it.

Take for example the declaration of independence:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have
connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws
of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.

Here's Webster's definition of 'people':

Main Entry: 1peo·ple
Pronunciation: 'pE-p&l
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural people
Etymology: Middle English peple, from Old French peuple, from Latin
populus
Date: 13th century
1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a
common interest
2 plural : HUMAN BEINGS, PERSONS -- often used in compounds instead
of persons <salespeople>
3 plural : the members of a family or kinship
4 plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class
<disputes between the people and the nobles> -- often used by
Communists to distinguish Communists from other people
5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture,
tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language,
institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized
group
6 : lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation
7 : the body of enfranchised citizens of a state
- peo·ple·less /-p&(l)-l&s/ adjective

When Jefferson writes "one people" does he mean the body of enfranchised citizens of a state, or does he mean human beings making up a group? More inportantly, when Jefferson refers to people does he mean denotation #3b the collective as distinct from individual?

Suggesting that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means specifically the right of the collective distinct from its members to bear arms? The right of the government or the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed?

What sense does this make taken in the context of the bill of rights?

It doesn't make much sense, because the bill of rights was meant to appease the anti-federalists with specifically enshrined rights that the government could not take away from the people.

We can go around and around on this point and ultimately gain nothing but a special dislike for each other. If you want to argue for the regulation of arms in today's world, that is all well and good. Approached politely you may find that I agree with you on some points.

However, to maintain that the original intent of the framers of the constitution when writing the second amendment was not to recognize the average citizen's right to own firearms, then you arguing a lost cause. The body of writing surrounding the framers unequivocally contradicts this viewpoint.

[MrBenchley]

42. All that was needed

Now go peddle this rubbish to the loonies at highroadrage.com....they might fall for it.

[jody]

33. You might want to browse this SCOTUS decision

ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947)

QUOTE
The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government and its provisions were inapplicable to similar actions done by the states.
UNQUOTE

[Lefty48197]

44. If you say things that 'some people' disagree with

then they'll put you on ignore. yip yip chihuahua alert. yellow dog yellow dog. Heh heh. Reminds me of the Bill Clinton photo Linda Tripp kept on her desk to try and fool people.

[DoNotRefill]

14. would you care to define "constitutional scholar"?

Depending on your definition, I may well be.

[Terran]

19. ok

Someone with an advanced law degree who specializes in constitutional law and has published scholarly articles on the subject in scholarly and/or professional journals.

An amateur interest in constitutional law would not, in my book, make you a "scholar," unless you were a person of very exceptional intellect.

Dirk

[jody]

20. I assume Laurence Tribe would qualify and he believes RKBA is

a state issue. If he is correct, then my use of Pennsylvania and other states with RKBA in their Bill of Rights would support completely the pro-RKBA position. SCOTUS would then have to decide whether RKBA was covered by the 14th Amendment along with other rights.

See "Liberals Have Second Thoughts on the Second Amendment"

[MrBenchley]

25. More Republican propaganda

Craig Thomas? Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight.......

"In a divorce proceeding, Timothy Joe Emerson was issued what's been called a "y'all be civil" restraining order -- routine in Texas divorce cases. Unknown to him, one provision barred him from possessing a gun. When he took his 9mm Beretta out of a desk drawer during an argument with his wife, he was charged with violation of a federal gun control law. 
U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings ruled that the order violated Mr. Emerson's Second Amendment rights."

http://thomas.senate.gov/html/article4.html

Wow, "y'all be civil while I pull my gun...."

Amazing what steaming pantloads the RKBA crowd try to peddle here......

[wyldwolf]

21. I guess that eliminates most folks here!

I tend to agree with REAL Constitutional Scholars if they meet your requirements - which I agree with.

And I find amatuers who disagree with them sad.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

34. AHHH, that explains it

Are you saying that you prefer others to do your thinking for you?

[DoNotRefill]

23. What about profession?

Does being in the legal field help? I know there are a disproportionate number of J.D.s out there among the pro-gunners on this board...

[Terran]

24. How about me?

I used to be a paralegal and an investigator. Does that qualify me?

I dunno man, it depends on the individual, of course. I don't put all *that* much stock in a JD because it just means you waded through about twice as much legal education as I did. I think anyone can find and read the caselaw on Amend II, but understanding the nuances involved in how the Bill of Rights works, to me that takes someone how has lived and breathed that stuff for years on end, not a trial lawyer or a guy who schleps wills and contracts for a living (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Dirk

[jody]

26. I agree, and even the so called "constitutional scholars" seem confused.

Those who shout that SCOTUS has already made a precedent decision on the Second Amendment ignore the following which suggests that for three "real constitutional scholars", the issue of an individual RKBA is not settled.

New view on arms rights angers liberals

QUOTE
WASHINGTON - Publication of the first volume of a revised edition of a legal treatise would not ordinarily make news.

But even before it began arriving at law schools last week, Laurence Tribe's 'American Constitutional Law' was causing a stir.

Tribe , a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978, the right to bear arms earns Tribe's respect in the latest version.

Tribe , well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as ''wholly irrelevant.' ' Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that ''the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.' '

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, ''admittedly of uncertain scope,' ' to ''possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes.' '
UNQUOTE


PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES

Justice Thomas, concurring.
QUOTE
The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or "abridging the freedom of speech." The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: " 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." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. 1 If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. 2 As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries 1890, p. 746 (1833).
UNQUOTE

Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation (1997)

Text, pp. 42-43:
QUOTE
No, the reality of the matter is that, general speaking, devotees of The Living Constitution do not seek to facilitate social change but to prevent it.

There are, I must admit, a few exceptions to that— a few instances in which, historically, greater flexibility has been the result of the process. But those exceptions serve only to refute another argument of the proponents of an evolving Constitution, that evolution will always be in the direction of greater personal liberty. (They consider that a great advantage, for reasons that I do not entirely understand. All government represents a balance between individual freedom and social order, and it is not true that every alteration of that balance in the direction of greater individual freedom is necessarily good.) But in any case, the record of history refutes the proportion that the evolving Constitution will invariably enlarge individual rights. The most obvious refutation is the modern Courts' limitation of the constitutional protections afforded to property. The provision prohibiting impairment of the obligation of contracts, for example has been gutted. (See Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934)) I am sure that We the People agree with that development; we value property rights less than the Founders did. So also, we value the right to bear arms less than did the Founders (who thought the right to self-defense to be absolutely fundamental), and there will be few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard. But this just shows that the Founders were right when they feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights, We may like the abridgment of property rights and like the elimination of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not reductions of rights.

Text, pp. 136-7:
Of course under Professor Tribe's methodology not all provisions of the Constitution are aspirational— not all are, as he says, "generative of constitutional principles broader or deeper than their specific terms might at first suggest." (The "right to bear arms," I suspect, is limited to musketry in the National Guard.) 13

Note 13: Professor Tribe regards the Second Amendment's prologue ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to security of a free State") as a textual obstacle to my interpretation of the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual's right to bear arms for self- defense. This reading of the text has several flaws: It assumes that "Militia" refers to a "select group of citizen-soldier," Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms (1994), rather than, as the Virginia Bill of Rights of June 1776 defined it, "the body of the people, trained to arms," see id, at 148. (This was also the conception of "militia" entertained by James Madison, who, in arguing that it would provide a ready defense of liberty against the standing army that the proposed Constitution allowed, described the militia as "amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands." The Federalist No. 46 at 322, (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961.) The latter meaning makes the prologue of the Second Amendment commensurate with the categorical guarantee that follows ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"); the former produces a guarantee that goes far beyond its stated purpose— rather like saying "police officers being necessary to law and order, the right of the people to carry handguns shall not be infringed." It would also be strange to find in the midst of a catalogue of rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated "Militia." Dispassionate scholarship suggest quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that. In addition to the excellent study by Ms. Malcolm (who is not a member of the Michigan Militia, but an Englishwoman), see William Van Alstyne , "The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms," 43 Duke L.J. 1236 (1994). It is very likely that modern Americans no longer look contemptuously, as Madison did, upon the governments of Europe that "are afraid to trust the people with arms," The Federalist No. 46 ; and the traveling Constitution that Professor Tribe espouses will probably give effect to that new sentiment by effectively eliminate the Second Amendment. But there is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states,.
UNQUOTE

[DoNotRefill]

28. I'd say it depends

on the education you have, the experience you have, and the amount of time and effort you spend in maintaining and expanding your knowedge base. This doesn't necessarily mean you must go through CLE.

Formal education is good to provide the necessary foundation.

I can only think of five people I'd call top flight Second Amendment Constitutional Law scholars. They are (in no particular order) Jeffries, Polsby, Lund, Volokh, and Halbrook. There are lots more regular generalized Constitutional Law scholars like Tribe et al, but as with everything, specialization does indeed lend additional credibility. Polsby, Lund, and Volokh are all almost exclusively academics but sometimes participate in litigation, normally in the form of Amicus briefs. Jeffries is pretty much exclusively a trial lawyer (concentrating on constitutional issues), while Halbrook is both a heavily published academic and a trial lawyer.

BTW, all five of them subscribe to the individual rights model.

[Liberal Classic]

41. Actually, I think we need them all

The 2nd amendment alone only means that I have the right to own a rifle or knife. That won't preserve anything by its lonesome. We need as well as the 4th amendment to help prevent fishing expiditions, the 5th to help prevent self incriminations, even the often forgotten 3rd amendment to prevent the government from simply having police occupy private residences as they do in so many dictatorships.

What good does a gun do me when the government can secretly tap our phones, secretly search my house, use anonymous informants against me, or worse paid stoolies, coerse a confession, prevent me from staging a protest, prevent me from publishing my side of the story, on and on.

We really need all of the Bill of Rights.

[Lefty48197]

43. Translation:

If you disagree with me, then I'll shoot you.