has anyone here cheering the gun decision ever read the constitution?

[stevebreeze]

I seriously doubt it. Quick without scrolling down what else does the constitution say about arms and where?

Don't know do you? Here is a primer.

The NRA any many who subscribe to the second amendment leave off the first half of this amendment.
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
To start with the constitution more to say about arms and militias then the second amendment.
The relevant part of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
From this we can see that the Founding Fathers did not have in mind a handful of extremists in the woods of Michigan with AK47’s but rather a Militia organized and controlled by the state.
If you are to have any hope of understanding it in it’s original form you of course have to look at the entirety of it, but also it needs to be looked at in the context of where it comes from.



The Articles of Confederation
VI.
……………..No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
The Second amendment in relation to the Articles of Confederation seems to be putting the states right to keep arms back into force of law, NOT any personal right.


I honestly don’t know how any reasonable person can read the founding documents of this country and conclude we have an inherent right to be as heavily armed as we please. I am of the opinion that the NRA has not brought Second Amendment case before the court in the past because they can not win based on the facts. It would take a misreading by an ideologically biased court to find in the favor of a personal right to keep arms. Clearly they think they have found such a biased court. They may well be correct.

[pt22]

1. that same fucking court...threw out sodomy laws.

Judicial activism to the nth degree.

[FreeState]

20. That was not the same court - there are two new members now n/t

[pt22]

61. That is true but Roberts would take the same position as Rehnquist and

Alito which would still be a 5-4 decision.

[Winterblues]

58. You think there should be sodomy laws?

Why would you think this to be judicial activism?

[pt22]

62. No, of course not; I thought the sarcasm was implicit. I was just pointing out how we love to hate

the SC when they do something we don't like but will praise them when a decision is right. (Lawrence vs. Texas was most definitely right) :-)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

64. There is a sarcasm emoticon under the smilies lookup table. Or you can easily

do it by typing a colon, then without a space type in sarascm, then without a space again type in another colon. It is less confusing as we can only read you and not hear your tone of voice. :)

:hi:

[pt22]

65. Thank you, I was aware of that; evidently I overestimated the ability of some readers

to discern it without clues. :hi: :P

[FreeState]

66. Unfortunately or fortunately, there is no IQ test to post on DU :) n/t

[muntrv]

2. I often ask if the NRA leadership reads other amendments besides the 2nd?

[stevebreeze]

3. and then only the second half

kind of like defining the what the meaning of the word is is.

[osperto]

4. Why don't YOU read it?

I will quote Prof. Volokh on the prefatory phrase...

from "The Commonplace Second Amendment" by Prof. Eugene Volokh.

"The Second Amendment, unusually for constitutional provisions, contains a statement of purpose as well as a guarantee of a right to bear arms." 1 This unusual attribute, some argue, is reason for courts to interpret the Second Amendment quite differently than they interpret other constitutional provisions -- perhaps to the point of reading it as having virtually no effect on government action. 2


My modest discovery 3 is that the Second Amendment is actually not unusual at all: Many contemporaneous state constitutional provisions are structured similarly. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution, its first, provides

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 4
Compare this to the Second Amendment's
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. 5
The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution says
In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . . 6
The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution -- followed closely by the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution -- says
The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever. 7
I list dozens more such provisions in the Appendix.

These provisions, I believe, shed some light on the interpretation of the Second Amendment:

They show that the Second Amendment should be seen as fairly commonplace, rather than strikingly odd.
They rebut the claim that a right expires when courts conclude that the justification given for the right is no longer valid or is no longer served by the right.
They show that operative clauses are often both broader and narrower than their justification clauses, thus casting doubt on the argument that the right exists only when (in the courts' judgment) it furthers the goals identified in the justification clause. 8
They point to how the two clauses might be read together, without disregarding either.

The provisions also suggest two things about interpretation more generally. First, they remind us that the U.S. Constitution is just one of the at least fifty-one American constitutions in force today, and one of the dozens of constitutions that existed during the Framing era. 9 The legal academy's understandable focus on federal matters can blind us to some important details.


Second, these provisions help show the value of testing interpretive proposals against a politically mixed range of texts. On a topic as incendiary as gun control, it's obviously tempting for people to reach an interpretation based largely on their policy desires. If we want to be honest interpreters, a broad set of test cases for our interpretive method is a good tool for checking our political biases.

[VermeerLives]

5. The Constitution

"From this we can see that the Founding Fathers did not have in mind a handful of extremists in the woods of Michigan with AK47’s but rather a Militia organized and controlled by the state."

No, they probably didn't. Instead, they had in mind the average citizen and their belief in the inherent human right to self defense. Do you believe in self defense? Do you believe a man or woman has the right to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm while waiting for the police to arrive? If so, how?

"Freedom of choice includes the right to choose to prevail in a violent encounter."

"You can't beat a woman who shoots."

[pt22]

7. If you stick around, you'll see that a lot of posters here do NOT believe in self-defense.

They hate the government but think only the government should have the right to bear arms. If that sounds like fucknuttery, well, it is.
:eyes:

[Wcross]

37. fucknuttery! LOL but you did hit the nail on the head!

They are full of fucknuttery.

[stevebreeze]

11. by that logic we must all arm ourselves to the teeth

Lets all have a person arms race. You have a hand gun I get to purchase an M1 tank. Taht'll work.

[Jackeen]

74. Quite legal to own tanks.

Under current law, if you live in the right State. I've a friend in the next town over (I'm in Kentucky right now) who owns four fully operational M5 Stuart tanks. Only problem is he's de-facto limited to armor-piercing rounds as high explosive ones would qualify as destructive devices so each round would have a $200 tax slapped on it under the NFA.

Which brings you to your hypothetical of an M1 tank. Assuming that the armour becomes declassified and the vehicle made available for purchase (M-60s and T-72s are in private hands, the previous generation of tank and unclassified), the problem becomes simply one of cost. You'll be paying a few thousands of dollars for the tank itself, and about $300 per mile of operation. Not counting the cost of the ammunition. On the other hand, when a round costs over $2,000 per shot, the $200 surcharge per HEAT round is pretty minimal and still likely cheaper than sabots.

[aquart]

13. Fantastic! Now women can legally shoot their husbands?

"He was going to beat me" will now prevent those ridiculous long sentences handed down to women who refuse to take it anymore?

Pull the other one. No woman is protected by this ruling.

On edit: The likelihood is that her husband will now have a gun in the house and shoot her instead of hit her. Or play fun games like Russian Roulette with the gun in her mouth for happy hours on end.

[Mojorabbit]

48. You must be joking

As a woman gun owner nothing like this would happen in my house. We have a boatload of guns most of which are mine and my husband also hunts but we do not abuse eachother. If there is abuse in a house, fists are the most common weapons I would bet.
I defended myself once from a man with a butcher knife in my own kitchen.
I am a woman who is a crack shot and fully able to defend herself if needed.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

6. In the Bill of Rights

every right even the 10th, deals with the rights of the individual. It is ambiguous in it's wording, not so much that it can not be interpretted as an individual one.

[Selatius]

8. "Well-regulated" is why I don't think people should own firearms unless they...

could demonstrate that they are proficient in the handling and discharge of such devices in a safe manner, as well as the proper storage of the weapon and ammunition in a safe manner.

If you cannot handle a gun or store it properly, you have no business near a gun, not just for your sake but the sake of your neighbors, your wife, and your kids. Many kids have died needlessly because their parents improperly stored their handguns, and their kids got to them.

Also, in terms of the colonial militias, Switzerland's national defense mechanism bares more resemblance to the colonial militias of the old days compared to the current US military, which bares more resemblance to the Prussian model of national defense (or national war).

Even if the 2nd Amendment pertained only to collective ownership of guns in the form of community militias, the simple fact of the matter is that at the time of the passing of the Bill of Rights, a great many of the population owned firearms to hunt for food, not to use them in a regulated militia.

It would have been foolhardy for the Founders to confiscate those guns without a civil war, so I hardly doubt they intended that possession of firearms applied only in terms of a community militia.

[stevebreeze]

14. did I advocate confiscating guns?

I am a firm believer in hand gun control but I would not advocate taking anyones guns and never have. The NRA claims that anyone who wants responsible guns laws wants to take away people guns. they are lier's. Who is advocating the taking of guns? please point out the extremest you are afraid of? Because these people are straw-men set up the the arms manufactures lobbying group otherwise known as the NRA.

[Selatius]

15. Nope, but the 2nd Amendment likely didn't abolish private ownership of guns.

That was my point.

[stevebreeze]

16. who is advocating abolishing the private ownership of all weapons? Not I.

[Selatius]

19. That's missing the point of what I said.

What I am saying is that likely the intent of the Founders was both collective and individual ownership of guns not just to protect the nation from external invasion, such as calamitous War of 1812, but also from a tyrannical government that the Founders themselves had to take up guns to overthrow. Then there were more practical concerns of the day, such as the use of firearms for things like food.

The point I am getting at is that I believe the 2nd Amendment also covers the individual right to bear arms as well as the collective right to bear arms, but it also bears responsibility on apart of the individual to be properly trained in all aspects of the firearm for his own safety and those around him and that the government may pass laws to achieve those aims in accordance with "well-regulated." If he cannot demonstrate even that, there is no reason why he should be allowed to have a firearm.

[readmoreoften]

39. I agree. My feeling is no restrictions, but there needs to be free classes.

It has to be understood that there are some areas of the US where there is no gun culture. There are also urban cities with massive global influxes who don't even know what the 2nd amendment is. There should be simple training on use and storage for everyone who needs it.

[jeepnstein]

59. Rights are Rights. Who gets to choose which ones you exercise?

Do you have to attend mandatory classes to exercise Free Speech? Do you have to prove literacy to vote? How about a class before you choose a church? Sorry, as good an idea as mandatory training might be, it just isn't going to fly. Mandatory government training before you exercise a Constitutional Right is just a bad idea.

It's against the law to shoot someone else except for very specific circumstances. Just owning a gun isn't a crime but hurting someone with it certainly can be.

[Selatius]

71. I see your point, but curse words won't kill you the same as a man who accidentally fired his gun.

Ultimately, it boils down to the definition of "well-regulated." I think that means you must demonstrate competence with a firearm before being able to own one. Your right to a firearm should not mean that the lives of others are put in jeopardy because of issues of incompetence. Then it is the rights of others that are at stake, mainly their right to live.

[jeepnstein]

77. I wish I could agree with you.

I have to say that your perception that somehow the State must grant it's permission before you are able to exercise a constitutional right is well intentioned but not acceptable. There are millions upon millions of lawful gun owners in the country. The accidental killings I've seen usually are rooted in someone being drunk or drugged and messing around with a gun, that just has fail all over it. I can recall one case where a parent didn't properly secure a rifle and maybe a few hunting accidents where poor handling skills were involved. The bulk of lawful owners are quite safety minded.

If the State can compel you to prove competence to exercise the Second Amendment there's no reason they can't require the same for the First.

It's my prediction that after things settle down this won't be as big of a deal as we are making it out to be. Maybe if gun safety were a compulsory topic that every citizen, armed or not, had to master then much of the fear would be dispelled.

[Thothmes]

91. Senators Feinstein and Schumer for a couple of examples.

They both have called for outright ban on hand guns.

[Irreverend IX]

9. Have you read the US Code?

Because it explains exactly who the militia is.


10 USC Sec. 311


TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA


Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Every able-bodied male (and this should be expanded to include every female, too) is a member of the militia. The founders never intended for the US to have a standing military, but rather for individual citizens to take up arms in defense of the country. The 2A clearly protects an individual right to arms.

[TahitiNut]

18. That's just another one of those "inconvenient" facts.

:shrug:

It's like trying to remind folks that, at the time the Constitution was written, government itself possessed comparably few weapons ... and NONE were not more in the possession of private individuals. None. Large or small, ALL weapons of the day were far more common in private possession than government possession.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Hence, the reason for the 2nd ammendment

:)

[stevebreeze]

36. From the articles of confederation

"shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage"

clearly then it is your opinion that they felt it ok to store everyones private arms in a public storage?

[Obamanaut]

10. I didn't notice a provision for an Air Force, but we have one. I

suppose things change over time.

[slackmaster]

12. You forgot the Ninth Amendment

From this we can see that the Founding Fathers did not have in mind a handful of extremists in the woods of Michigan with AK47’s but rather a Militia organized and controlled by the state.

The militia consists of the entire populace. Although largely in disuse, there is still a vestige of the Constitutional obligation for the government to organize, arm, and discipline it.

Presenting the Civilian Marksmanship Program:

http://www.odcmp.com/

I have an M1 Garand rifle and two cases of ammunition that I bought from the CMP. I've never participated in a formal match, but tens of thousands of people do every year.

[stevebreeze]

21. The militia consists of the entire population?

Where is that in the constitution?

[Selatius]

22. Might be in Nabeshin's post citing the US Code. nt

[stevebreeze]

23. the US code is not the constitution

[Selatius]

25. It's apart of the US Constitution now, as it has been instituted within the Constitution.

I hope you are not trying to construct an argument that says the Founders didn't leave room for changes by you automatically disqualifying anything legitimately passed into law after the last Constitutional Convention. All laws passed by Congress derive their power ultimately from the governing document, except those the Supreme Court finds unconstitutional.

That part of the US Code outlining what is a militia is almost as old as the nation itself!

[stevebreeze]

34. the founder allowed for amendments to the Constitution

not the inclusion into the constitution of any odd thing some people want to include into it.

Don't you find it curious that the USSC has never found the second amendment to be a personal right until today?

[MicaelS]

55. Curious?

Don't you find it curious that the USSC has never found the second amendment to be a personal right until today?

Don't you find it curious that SCOTUS never found any reproductive freedoms until Roe? Same twisted logic. Precedents are not set until such time as a powerful enough case that will clearly illuminate something in the Constitution.

[FreeState]

26. And it only allows women in the National Guard - so no hand guns for women then ?!?!

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.

Non citizen if they want to become a citizen? WHoo... thats a little iffy in this day and age IMO.

Also what about males over 45?

[slackmaster]

27. That part would probably not withstand a Constitutional challenge

Feel free to file suit against Congress.

[FreeState]

28. Ill have to wait until Im 45 cause Im male n/t

[FreeState]

29. Ill have to wait until Im 45 cause Im male n/t

[slackmaster]

24. It's not defined in the Constitution because at the time everybody knew what it was

It is discussed in Federalist Papers 3, 4, 28, 29, and 46.

It got defined in the US Code later.

It's also defined in my state's Military and Veterans Code. Most states have similar statutes.

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the
State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[ThoughtCriminal]

33. Defined in Article 1 - section 8 (see below)

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[slackmaster]

40. That, like the current US Code, defines two parts to the militia

That which is employed by the government, and everyone else.

[ThoughtCriminal]

42. Nope

It does not define two parts of the militia. It:
1) Gives Congress the power to call it forth
2) Gives Congress the power to arm, train and regulate it.

Here is the exact text:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[slackmaster]

43. "...such Part of them as may be employed..." implies there is another Part

That is not employed. I believe that is why the US Code defines the unorganized militia.

[bbinacan]

17. Yes. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. Yes, and I understood it, too... perhaps *you* didn't?

Someone has already posted the definition of a 'militia' here, but here's something from your OP. Perhaps you should try to read and understand it...

"To start with the constitution more to say about arms and militias then the second amendment.
The relevant part of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Now, as you *should* be able to plainly see, a militia is all able bodied males between the ages of 17 & 45... and the part that I bolded for you shows that the States were charged with governing them if they were called up by the Government to defend the Country, otherwise, 2A says "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". Period. The Second Amendment is an *individual right* that shall not be infringed....


Ghost

[JackRiddler]

31. The language of the second part is definitive...

the first is merely a clause citing a justification.

In no way does the full text imply you can only carry arms when you are acting as part of the militia.

In fact, it could just as easily be interpreted as follows:

"Although a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the state, the right of any old fool to pack if he likes is not abridged."

I hate guns. I think they're stupid in a modern context. They obviously end far many more lives, innocent ones, than they protect. The gun nuts have this insane idea that they will always draw faster and shoot straighter than criminals, or that they can take down a future tyranny by force of arms (against the US Army - hilarious). The militia nuts who think they're rebels will be the first to be willingly recruited into a fascist state-organized paramilitary force, if that time were ever to come. I live in New York and I don't want anyone here carrying a gun.

But I'm afraid the constitutional question is cut and dried. The Second Amendment says everyone can pack.

[Trillo]

81. I believe there's another aspect to the second amendment--

If I may rewrite your rewrite to make my point: "Although a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the State, if the right of the people to bear arms is abridged, then the State is no longer free."

Of course the founders were a little more subtle about it.

Regardless, I hope I don't see the day when everyone must pack to walk down the street. I don't want to carry a gun around, but it's nice to know that if it's needed, the right exists.

Whether we would want to be alive in that world is another matter entirely, more a philosophical problem than practical. We all tend to do what we must, whether we like it or not. Got a job

[JackRiddler]

84. I think your rewrite pretty much captures exactly what is meant.

And it makes perfect sense in 1787.

In 2008, not really. Arms against the modern state are guaranteed to only strengthen its tyranny, as we have seen over and over. Non-violent resistance is only way to a revolution against tyranny in the modern context. You win the hearts and minds of the state's far superior forces under arms, or you don't. But bearing guns as a political resistance is fantasy. I'm sure it's possible for bearing arms to save an individual from state force (or criminal threats) on a smaller scale. But this is the exception. Far many more of the honest gun-bearing people end up shooting themselves or their friends, intentionally or otherwise, or use their guns as little more than an inadvertant means to commit suicide by cop, or fail to draw first. Easily available guns have bloodied this nation.

Nevertheless, if you screw with any part of the Bill of Rights, the rest will go. So if I want the rest, I have to accept the Second friggin' Amendment.

[ThoughtCriminal]

32. Article 1 - Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
.
.
.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


---

That does not sound like any self appointed individual or mob with guns.

Corrected section

[slackmaster]

41. But it does distinguish between the part that is employed in the service of the US

And everyone else.

That does not sound like any self appointed individual or mob with guns.

Did anyone here say it meant that?

[ThoughtCriminal]

44. Where does it distinguish annother part?

Is there an invisible clause between clause 16 and section 9?

[slackmaster]

45. If in discussing an object, group, etc., a person mentions a "part" of same,

Then clearly the whole of that object, group, etc. must have something else to it besides that part.

Is English your native language BTW?

[ThoughtCriminal]

50. Both are parts of the same militia

and are regulated by Congress. There is no part that is not regulated.

Congress call forth the militia. Not A militia.

The states can train and appoint officers to the discipline prescribed by Congress

And "unorganized militia" is not mentioned in the Constitution at all - only a "well regulated" one.

[slackmaster]

51. But the unorganized militias exist both in federal law and most state codes

Including mine. The people serve as a reserve force for emergencies.

I don't see what kind of point you are trying to make.

[ThoughtCriminal]

52. The point is that militias are regulated.

And Congress has the authority to regulate them.

[slackmaster]

56. Please direct me to the federal and state laws that regulate the unorganized militia(s)

:rofl:

[jeepnstein]

60. I'm well-regulated, how 'bout you?

Well Regulated means that members of the militia should be reasonably expected to show up for service with arms that are appropriate for their intended use. A well regulated soldier is one who has basic load-out of personal gear. These days that would mean a 5.56 Nato rifle, you know the one everyone is so afraid of because it causes insanity for all who even so much as gaze at one?

Heller pretty much answers the "well regulated" argument. It's the law of the land now, just like some others that I don't personally find pleasing but am bound to honor and defend. We can't just pick and choose the laws we wish to obey.

J.

[Vickers]

38. I've read it, and *defended* it.

I still carry the copy I received in Basic Training.




And you?

:shrug:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

46. so...tell me why only the 2nd amendment would

restrict rights of the People where the other nine in the BOR are there to preserve rights??? hmmmm...

sP

[Recursion]

47. Who said anything about "as heavily armed as we please"?

Even Scalito said this ruling doesn't affect the nearly 80-year-old ban* on civilian ownership of machineguns, for instance. It just said that the US government (or in this case its delegate, the city of Washington) can't outright and absolutely ban the ownership of handguns without infringing on a fundamental civil right. Note that DC's rather ambiguous Constitutional status is a large part of this case.

* yes, I know it's not exactly a ban and it is possible in certain circumstances and with a lot of red tape for a civilian to own a machine gun. But almost none do.

[jeepnstein]

57. NFA would be more popular if...

The NFA was really a sensible answer to a sticky problem. It's administration today isn't really that big of a deal. More folks would take advantage of it more today if a Ban hadn't been instituted on new manufacture in 1986. Lots of people take advantage of NFA to own short barreled rifles, silencers, and stuff defined as "Any Other Weapon". That 1986 ban is likely unconstitutional but don't look for anyone to challenge it any time soon because it could have unintended consequences.

NFA weapons almost never turn up at a crime scene. The folks that have that stuff legally are really not a problem for law enforcement.

[Major Hogwash]

49. Not only that, but they ignored addressing a more salient point of that case.

Concerning the right of the citizens of a state to limit the possession of those guns.

I think that as communities become more crowded this will have to be addressed by Congress, once and for all time.

The Constitution was written clear back in the late 1700's and many of the comments made in it are outdated and have been addressed by Congress already including the ending of slavery in this country, the recognition of native Indians as human beings (not savages), and allowing women to vote.

[ileus]

53. wow...you should argue this in front of the SC. it's time to ditch the 2ed.

[Zynx]

82. This is a pretty damn weak argument. Believe me, they heard better.

[-..__...]

54. Isn't odd that the anti-RKBA zealots conveniently ignore...

the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" part of the 2ndA?

You know... those same pesky people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments.

[Justpat]

63. And in light of the way our government is headed with the

help of both parties - how long do you think it will be before the general
population realizes it needs to be armed to protect itself from its own government?

I was anti gun for decades until now. Now I consider it a sign of good sense
to have some protection from the would be kings now running our country.

[LeftyMom]

67. Trying to argue with the gungeonites is a waste of time.

They're :crazy:

[Dimensio0]

68. Do you have any rational commentary to offer

or is the sum total of your position based upon ad hominem?

[Edweird]

89. What the gun-grabbers/haters lack in facts, they make up for with insults and lies.

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. This guy thought that it was a good decision:

But what does he know? It's not like he used to teach constitutional law or anything.

[Recursion]

70. He said earlier this year the amendment "seems to recognize...

...an individual right to own a firearm" which can be more or less regulated depending on the circumstances, but cannot be wholesale withdrawn.

Which, basically, is what Scalia said.

[Freddie Stubbs]

79. Perhaps Scalia based his opinion on Obama's statement

[Recursion]

80. Would that he did more often... nt

[kiranon]

72. Terrible decision that will have dreadful consequences.

The Supremes in the majority should be required to live in Washington, D.C. and see how this ruling works in real life. Hopefully, reasonable restrictions will pass future constitutional muster.

[Jackeen]

73. Are you implying that DC's situation can get much worse?

It's not exactly the lowest-crime rate city in the country. Other places that have re-legalised handguns have not had any problem, for example Ireland which had its ban which had been in effect for 30 years thrown out by the courts a few years ago.

[tritsofme]

75. Yes, I bet all the criminal elements of society will now flock to legitimate gun dealers

and register their gangland handguns.

Maybe in your world?

[Recursion]

88. Yeah... there might be... you know.... gun violence

I don't see a realistic case for DC's gun violence getting much higher. And that's from someone who lived there for several years.

[pipoman]

76. Oh the straw be a'flyin

I honestly don’t know how any reasonable person can read the founding documents of this country and conclude we have an inherent right to be as heavily armed as we please.

The NRA doesn't advocate this (and no I'm not a member), nor does any of the pro-2nd Dems or thugs I know or have read. Please link up to someone advocating "an inherent right to be as heavily armed as we please".

[Edweird]

78. "it needs to be looked at in the context of where it comes from" okie dokie, how 'bout

Thomas Jefferson, you know the guy that actually WROTE what you're quoting?

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." - Thomas Jefferson

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... such laws serve rather to encourage than to prevent homocides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. ('Commonplace Book' 1775)


"I honestly don’t know how any reasonable person can read the founding documents of this country and conclude we have an inherent right to be as heavily armed as we please."

That's because it doesn't fit your agenda.
It's clear what they intended. You just don't like it.

Edited to add:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” - Thomas Jefferson

[SoCalDem]

83. The problem lies in the fact that we did not/do not regularly

"edit" the constitution.. The framers should have realized that time would change, and that the document itself should have been regularly "gone over" for updates..

When it was written, people would have had a gun..and traps..or they would not have eaten...so the generic term for "firearm","gun", "weapon" is as much of an issue as the whole militia thing.

A single shot musket used for hunting would have also been necessary to have around in case those pesky British had decided to return.. It probably made sense back then to have the men keep their weapons at home where they needed them for hunting anyway..but to be prepared to show up for militia duty if needed..


Over time, the term "gun" has morphed into something they could never have imagined, in their wildest dreams, but like the Bible, the terminology and words used are easily interpreted to mean whatever the interpreter wants them to mean...

Back then "gentlemen" would have had their dueling pistols & the militia-men and every adult man who could afford one, would have had a single shot rifle..so THOSE were about the only "guns" that the constitution really meant (if you want to get specific).. There were no others available..

[Jackeen]

85. That is a very slippery argument.

In the 18th Century, when you wanted to voice your opinion, you could only reach people who were within word of mouth distance, or perhaps out of a rudimentary printing and distribution system. The term 'speech' has morphed well outside of shouting range, to include world-wide immediate satellite transmissions and the Internet. Capabilities which were likely beyond the imagination of the framers. By your argument, freedom of speech does not apply to modern transmission media, yet that clearly does not apply.

[SoCalDem]

87. Not at all.. MY "suggestion" was for a regular "going over" ..specifically to INCLUDE/UPDATE

new things.. The fact that it does NOT, is what causes all the uneasiness/lawsuits to challenge/misinterpretations..

and one more thing about free speech..ask the people who are corraled into "free speech" zones ...blocks away from a protest..or people who lose their jobs due to their "free speech"...ask them if they were able to exercise their free speech as they interpret the document.

[Thothmes]

92. Back then"gentlemen"

excercised their right of free speech throught either ink printed words on paper or soap boxes. It was not excercised over the air waves, or throught electonic medias. So do you also think that as far as free speech went "There were not others available"?

[TexasObserver]

86. Read it. Know its history. Know its evolution.

The basic right is one given to individuals, and given to them to protect them from the federal government they feared would try to run their lives.

[penguin7]

90. How come so many gun owners commit suicide,

if guns can only be purchased by the mentally stable?