Second Amendment rights.

[Contumacious]

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that contect.

OK, when will my right to DEFEND MY LIFE will harm you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

You can defend your life without having unlimited access to military grade hardware sir. Stop being facetious.

OK, your life is being threatened by individuals carrying "military grade hardware" . In that case you would:

1- Use your power of persuasion to disarm them

2- attempt to use your long pink fingernails to scratch their faces

3- Kiss your ass goodbye

.

 

[Spoonman]

Scalia's an idiot. And my opinion stands..the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect...and dangerous. But of course..I don't sit on the SCOTUS..

You also don't have a sound argument to support your position.
That, far more so than you not sitting on the SCotUS, is what makes you wrong.

Oh sure I do. Over 40,000 Americans die of gunshot wounds each year. And before you go with "they do in car accidents as well", well cars are made to provide transportation..and it could be argued that these were the result of being used incorrectly or accidents whereas guns have one purpose...to kill...and using one that causes injury or death, is using one the exact way it was meant to be used.

That and the Constitution was constucting a loose, decentrialized, ground force that could be called on an as needed basis.

What backs that up?

Well the second amendment which clearly outlines that sevice to the nation was clearly part of what owning a gun was all about..it doesn't mandate it..and thats the little toe hold the gun lobby goons have..and it's been a huge one.

The other parts the idea that this is why you guys have it all wrong is that part of the powers of congress is to call forth an army from the militia. And that any such ground forces is to be financed for no longer then 2 years..at which point a vote is held to consider re-financing. There is no such mandate on the navy..which is permanently financed.

So the whole idea that the second amendment was card blanche to people who wanted guns is ridiculous and dangerous.

how many die in car accidents? are we banning cars? and cars aren't even a second amendment right

 

[TheBrain]

OK, when will my right to DEFEND MY LIFE will harm you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

You can defend your life without having unlimited access to military grade hardware sir. Stop being facetious.

OK, your life is being threatened by individuals carrying "military grade hardware" . In that case you would:

1- Use your power of persuasion to disarm them

2- attempt to use your long pink fingernails to scratch their faces

3- Kiss your ass goodbye

.

I have oh , let's see - at last count (2) fully automatic rifles, (8) semi automatic rifles, (5) bolt action rifles, (4) shotguns, (11) semi automatic pistols, and (5) revolvers.

And about 8,000 rounds of ammo plus enough supplies for another couple thousand rounds.

I take my 2nd Amendment rights, VERY seriously. Seriously enough to realize they have limits for a reason.

 

[Contumacious]

You can defend your life without having unlimited access to military grade hardware sir. Stop being facetious.

OK, your life is being threatened by individuals carrying "military grade hardware" . In that case you would:

1- Use your power of persuasion to disarm them

2- attempt to use your long pink fingernails to scratch their faces

3- Kiss your ass goodbye

.

I have oh , let's see - at last count (2) fully automatic rifles, (8) semi automatic rifles, (5) bolt action rifles, (4) shotguns, (11) semi automatic pistols, and (5) revolvers.

And about 8,000 rounds of ammo plus enough supplies for another couple thousand rounds.

I take my 2nd Amendment rights, VERY seriously. Seriously enough to realize they have limits for a reason.

Limits?

Provide linkage to statements made by Jefferson, Madison or Henry in which they identified those "limits"

.

 

[TheBrain]

OK, your life is being threatened by individuals carrying "military grade hardware" . In that case you would:

1- Use your power of persuasion to disarm them

2- attempt to use your long pink fingernails to scratch their faces

3- Kiss your ass goodbye

.

I have oh , let's see - at last count (2) fully automatic rifles, (8) semi automatic rifles, (5) bolt action rifles, (4) shotguns, (11) semi automatic pistols, and (5) revolvers.

And about 8,000 rounds of ammo plus enough supplies for another couple thousand rounds.

I take my 2nd Amendment rights, VERY seriously. Seriously enough to realize they have limits for a reason.

Limits?

Provide linkage to statements made by Jefferson, Madison or Henry in which they identified those "limits"

.

The same thing could of course be said about the every other right we have, all of which have practical limits even thought the COTUS says otherwise.

and anyway, telling you there are limits on what you can own is NOT the same thing as preventing you from owning firearms. What if the government defined firearm as " any six shot revolver pistol" and all other weapons as something else and then told you there you go, own all the firearms you want? You'd have a hard time getting that tossed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh sure I do. Over 40,000 Americans die of gunshot wounds each year. And before you go with "they do in car accidents as well", well cars are made to provide transportation..and it could be argued that these were the result of being used incorrectly or accidents whereas guns have one purpose...to kill...and using one that causes injury or death, is using one the exact way it was meant to be used.

That’s not constitutionally relevant – that a right may be abused is no justification to preempt or restrict that right. This is the same as assuming someone scheduled to make a speech in a crowded theater is going to yell ‘Fire!,’ and to prevent that authorities restrict the speaker from entering the theater at all. Again, no one would tolerate that, but that’s exactly what’s being proposed with regard to Second Amendment rights.

That and the Constitution was constucting a loose, decentrialized, ground force that could be called on an as needed basis.

What backs that up?

Well the second amendment which clearly outlines that sevice to the nation was clearly part of what owning a gun was all about..it doesn't mandate it..and thats the little toe hold the gun lobby goons have..and it's been a huge one.

The other parts the idea that this is why you guys have it all wrong is that part of the powers of congress is to call forth an army from the militia. And that any such ground forces is to be financed for no longer then 2 years..at which point a vote is held to consider re-financing. There is no such mandate on the navy..which is permanently financed.

So the whole idea that the second amendment was card blanche to people who wanted guns is ridiculous and dangerous.

Until such time as Heller/McDonald is overruled or vacated by an amendment to the Constitution, this does not comport to current case law on the issue.

Limits?

Provide linkage to statements made by Jefferson, Madison or Henry in which they identified those "limits"

As the majority noted in Heller, there are limits with regard to those convicted of a crime or judged mentally ill – remember also that the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means:

[W]hile the case limited the court's power in one sense, it greatly enhanced it in another by ultimately establishing the court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Just as important, it emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Supreme Court is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution. As a result of this court ruling, the Supreme Court became an equal partner in the government.

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Landmark Decisions

 

[Ringel05]

None.

You do know that the Continental Army was disbanded after the revolution. Right?

Oh wait.

No, the:

That's it. Pure and simple.

revisionist part.

For petes sake..isn't that a little anal? Of course I don't really believe it's "pure and simple". As with any legal document...unless it's pages and pages of intricate legalize that covers every single detail and possible event..there's going to be lots and lots of "interpretation".

Interpretation? Whatever.

 

[FA_Q2]

Own anything you want but if you misuse it, break the law, allow someone else to get it and do something wrong you pay the price and it should be very high. I have owned guns for over 60 years and not one of them has ever been in the wrong hands or committed a crime. We may well need to defend ourselves some day while we are waiting on 911 to show up.

Be prepared

So Bill Gates should be able to purchase a tank if he wishes? Let's use some common sense.

The funny part of that is that not only should he be allowed but that he IS allowed.
Army Tanks For Sale

Granted, there are restrictions such as the main guns are disabled but you CAN buy a tank. Anyone remember the fiasco that happened in LA with a tank. Actually, it happened TWICE. The reality is that large hardware like bazookas and tanks are not generally used in crime and mayhem for a reason; its ineffective. A bazooka is not going to help you rob a bank unless you are looking to kill yourself in the process and a tank might make a good getaway vehicle if it was not so damned easy to spot on the road. Sure, there needs to be limitations on the scope of hardware that you can have but those limitation need to be quite loose as the real threat diminishes very much with most weapons.

That said, I would not want to see bazookas in the hands if the average Joe because the police would have no way to deal with it. Barring weapons on that scale, I cannot think of much else I would want to see regulated.

Scalia's an idiot. And my opinion stands..the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect...and dangerous. But of course..I don't sit on the SCOTUS..

You also don't have a sound argument to support your position.
That, far more so than you not sitting on the SCotUS, is what makes you wrong.

Oh sure I do. Over 40,000 Americans die of gunshot wounds each year. And before you go with "they do in car accidents as well", well cars are made to provide transportation..and it could be argued that these were the result of being used incorrectly or accidents whereas guns have one purpose...to kill...and using one that causes injury or death, is using one the exact way it was meant to be used.

That and the Constitution was constucting a loose, decentrialized, ground force that could be called on an as needed basis.

What backs that up?

Well the second amendment which clearly outlines that sevice to the nation was clearly part of what owning a gun was all about..it doesn't mandate it..and thats the little toe hold the gun lobby goons have..and it's been a huge one.

The other parts the idea that this is why you guys have it all wrong is that part of the powers of congress is to call forth an army from the militia. And that any such ground forces is to be financed for no longer then 2 years..at which point a vote is held to consider re-financing. There is no such mandate on the navy..which is permanently financed.

So the whole idea that the second amendment was card blanche to people who wanted guns is ridiculous and dangerous.

Fully one quarter of all children’s deaths are from drowning. Pools claim over 3000 people per year. Are we to ban those? Not ONE SCOTUS decision supports you. There are direct statements that have been quoted here from the framers that completely disagree with your stance. You are purposely ignoring parts of the wording in order t make it fit what you want it to. The wording is not confusing. It is rather straightforward if you would simply accept it. Certain regulations may be necessary but that does not negate the fact that the constitution acknowledge an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Whatever the reasoning behind it, whether or not it is outdated and whatever dangers it presents is a complete straw man here. The right exists. If you want it changed then you are going to need to get an amendment. Anything less is a smack in the face of the constitution itself. This is not to mention that there is no other place in the constitution that rights are outlined as a ‘group’ right and not an individual one. Rights are individual OR they are a state right. What other right can you name that is a ‘group’ right and not an individual right? Why are you framing the constitution in that light when it is clearly not built on that premise.

 

[Ringel05]

I believe the original intent of the amendment was self-defense against a government gone astray rather than individual self-defense. Therefore hand guns are fairly meaningless in this context, no?

No. The 2nd includes self defense, community defense and Defense from oppressive Government. Do not forget that when the 2nd was written we used militias for everything. There were few if any actual police forces communities used militia for defense.

No clause in the constitution exists that provides for a "Defense" against a domestic government.

I challenge you to find it.

In fact..in this very thread..I posted quite the opposite.

Obviously the word "intent" has no value in your assessment which is interesting considering the near violent debates that have and continue to occur over many aspects of the amendments.
It's also obvious you have never delved into the founders "intent" which are plainly written out in the Federalist Papers as well as numerous personal writings and minutes of meetings and debates carried out before and after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[TheBrain]

No. The 2nd includes self defense, community defense and Defense from oppressive Government. Do not forget that when the 2nd was written we used militias for everything. There were few if any actual police forces communities used militia for defense.

No clause in the constitution exists that provides for a "Defense" against a domestic government.

I challenge you to find it.

In fact..in this very thread..I posted quite the opposite.

Obviously the word "intent" has no value in your assessment which is interesting considering the near violent debates that have and continue to occur over many aspects of the amendments.
It's also obvious you have never delved into the founders "intent" which are plainly written out in the Federalist Papers as well as numerous personal writings and minutes of meetings and debates carried out before and after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That particular argument is a non starter anyway. 200 plus years of precedent of reading the 2nd as providing individuals the right to bear arms will NEVER be reversed.

 

[FA_Q2]

No. The 2nd includes self defense, community defense and Defense from oppressive Government. Do not forget that when the 2nd was written we used militias for everything. There were few if any actual police forces communities used militia for defense.

No clause in the constitution exists that provides for a "Defense" against a domestic government.

I challenge you to find it.

In fact..in this very thread..I posted quite the opposite.

Obviously the word "intent" has no value in your assessment which is interesting considering the near violent debates that have and continue to occur over many aspects of the amendments.
It's also obvious you have never delved into the founders "intent" which are plainly written out in the Federalist Papers as well as numerous personal writings and minutes of meetings and debates carried out before and after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Even better is that his ENTIRE argument is steeped in intent as NOWHERE does it define the right to bear arms as within a militia. That is all argument of intent simply because militias are mentioned within the same amendment as their existence is related.

 

[Sallow]

No clause in the constitution exists that provides for a "Defense" against a domestic government.

I challenge you to find it.

In fact..in this very thread..I posted quite the opposite.

Obviously the word "intent" has no value in your assessment which is interesting considering the near violent debates that have and continue to occur over many aspects of the amendments.
It's also obvious you have never delved into the founders "intent" which are plainly written out in the Federalist Papers as well as numerous personal writings and minutes of meetings and debates carried out before and after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Even better is that his ENTIRE argument is steeped in intent as NOWHERE does it define the right to bear arms as within a militia. That is all argument of intent simply because militias are mentioned within the same amendment as their existence is related.

To some extent..that's a valid point. It was intent. And there's precedence for it, in that, the colonies had a law requiring men to be armed and in a militia. They tamped down that requirement in the Constition but the intent is strong and reinforced by some the other things I posted in this thread. However, that was and is much more clear then some "coded" thing that people had the "right" to rebel against the government. In fact, it's explicitly in the Constitution that the Federal government can use force to suppress insurrection and suspend habeas. And this was illustrated very strongly by both the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War.

 

[FA_Q2]

Obviously the word "intent" has no value in your assessment which is interesting considering the near violent debates that have and continue to occur over many aspects of the amendments.
It's also obvious you have never delved into the founders "intent" which are plainly written out in the Federalist Papers as well as numerous personal writings and minutes of meetings and debates carried out before and after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Even better is that his ENTIRE argument is steeped in intent as NOWHERE does it define the right to bear arms as within a militia. That is all argument of intent simply because militias are mentioned within the same amendment as their existence is related.

To some extent..that's a valid point. It was intent. And there's precedence for it, in that, the colonies had a law requiring men to be armed and in a militia. They tamped down that requirement in the Constition but the intent is strong and reinforced by some the other things I posted in this thread. However, that was and is much more clear then some "coded" thing that people had the "right" to rebel against the government. In fact, it's explicitly in the Constitution that the Federal government can use force to suppress insurrection and suspend habeas. And this was illustrated very strongly by both the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War.

Of course it can’t be written into the constitution that you have a lawful right to rebel as that is inherently against the law. However, the intent was that the people would have the ABILITY because if you are to take that away then there is no possible check should the government run away. Being armed is the second most powerful block to a totalitarian slide, trumped only by speech. All totalitarian governments aim to control speech and then weapons as, without those, the government can do whatever it pleases. There are writings that place the intent right where the SCOTUS placed it and it was clearly the intent of the second in the first place. That is why it has stood for so long. There are a few quoted in this very thread that pointed this out to you. Just because the militia went away does not meant that the inherent right is abolished. In many cases the original intent has to make do with modern realities as well. A good example is the 14th and the recent move by the republicans to simply brush the amendment aside because anchor babies were not possible at that time due to the open citizenship requirements. They used the argument that the intent was not to create a situation where people could circumvent law and get away with it and they are quite right. That does not give them a pass on ignoring the amendment though. I have a feeling that you feel that way about the 14th but for some reason you can flip on the second. That is not an option. Don’t like the txt and meaning of an amendment then there is ONLY ONE WAY to deal with that. That is to ratify another amendment, PERIOD.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So why equate it with freedom of speech?.

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.

Not quite sure I understand what you're saying.
Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are fundamentally different.
The first amendment ensures the right to use speech, symbols, the written word.
The second amendment allows one to possess or carry weapons. It in no way allows unfettered use of those weapons.

The 2nd also guarantees the use of those weapons, else the weapons would be useless.

The first does not ensure the unfettered use of the written/spoken word, just as the 2nd does not ensure the unfettered use of the weapons it protects. The restrictions on the first are based on the harm the use of words causes others; any restrictions on the 2nd need be judged in the same way.

The 1st does not protect falsely yelling fire in a theater. The 2nd does not protect firing a gun straight up into the air while within city limits. The reason for both is the same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think the issue here is one of scale. Most people seem to look at it from their own perspective and think well I only want to own a machine gun, or well I only want to own this or that. Well, not everyone would limit themselves to JUST a machine gun. I think we all know that if the Court decreed that no limitations actually meant NO limitations that some fool would be out trying to buy a nuclear weapon.

The limit on weapons is handled by the test laid out in US v Miller.
Synopsis: nukes are not protected.

US v Miller is a flawed case There was no defense because neither defense council or defendants could afford the travel. The court decided on evidence presented and bought the government's lie that short barreled shotguns were not military weapons, when in truth they were part of out arsenal.

The test laid out in Miller, however, is valid - had a defense been present and had it been able to show that these weapons were part of the arsenal, the decision, apparently, would have been that the weapons were protected by the 2nd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.

Correct.
Imagine if you will being required to wait three days before you’re allowed to give a speech, or being required to take a speech class before giving your speech, or being allowed to give only one speech per month.

Or wait three days for an abortion, or only one abortion per year.

The above sound insane, are a clear violation of the First Amendment, and wouldn't be tolerated by anyone – yet those very restrictions are currently in place for many Americans with regard to Second Amendment rights.

Further evidence that certain people only care about rights they like.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Scalia's an idiot. And my opinion stands..the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect...and dangerous. But of course..I don't sit on the SCOTUS..

You also don't have a sound argument to support your position.
That, far more so than you not sitting on the SCotUS, is what makes you wrong.

Oh sure I do. Over 40,000 Americans die of gunshot wounds each year

How does that in any way shape of form relate to the soundness of the argument laid out by the SCotUS, that the amendment proctets a right of the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia?

Well the second amendment which clearly outlines that sevice to the nation was clearly part of what owning a gun was all about

Your logic fails.
The right to arms is larger than, and thus encompasses more than, simple militia service.
The right to arms, in toto, was protected, not just the right to arms in relationship to the militia.
Unles you can cite evidence that the intent was to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual right, you haven't a leg to stand on.

The other parts the idea that this is why you guys have it all wrong is that part of the powers of congress is to call forth an army from the militia.

1: How does anyone have that wrong?
2: So what?

And that any such ground forces is to be financed for no longer then 2 years..at which point a vote is held to consider re-financing. There is no such mandate on the navy..which is permanently financed.

See above.

So the whole idea that the second amendment was card blanche to people who wanted guns is ridiculous and dangerous.

Not according to anything you have presented here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

OK, when will my right to DEFEND MY LIFE harm you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I am not sure how your question follows from what I said. Help me out here.

I carry firearms in order to defend my life.

Yes.... and...?

 

[Contumacious]

I am not sure how your question follows from what I said. Help me out here.

I carry firearms in order to defend my life.

Yes.... and...?

Alzheimer's sufferer?

#125 (permalink)

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.
__________________

 

[Ringel05]

Obviously the word "intent" has no value in your assessment which is interesting considering the near violent debates that have and continue to occur over many aspects of the amendments.
It's also obvious you have never delved into the founders "intent" which are plainly written out in the Federalist Papers as well as numerous personal writings and minutes of meetings and debates carried out before and after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Even better is that his ENTIRE argument is steeped in intent as NOWHERE does it define the right to bear arms as within a militia. That is all argument of intent simply because militias are mentioned within the same amendment as their existence is related.

To some extent..that's a valid point. It was intent. And there's precedence for it, in that, the colonies had a law requiring men to be armed and in a militia. They tamped down that requirement in the Constition but the intent is strong and reinforced by some the other things I posted in this thread. However, that was and is much more clear then some "coded" thing that people had the "right" to rebel against the government. In fact, it's explicitly in the Constitution that the Federal government can use force to suppress insurrection and suspend habeas. And this was illustrated very strongly by both the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War.

Jefferson, among others, firmly believed and stated in writing that the armed citizenry must be ready to defend itself against any government (including our own) if that government becomes tyrannical. So far that really hasn't happened, not in the sense he understood it (in my humble opinion). The members of the whiskey rebellion and the southern states saw it differently but then again the only true insurrection was by the whiskey rebellion cabal, the secession of the southern states was deemed lawful by said states because of the implied intent granted to all states prior to ratification of the Constitution. Implied intent because most of the states would not sign unless this was understood and agreed upon.
Take a look at Madison, who presumably knew something about the constitutional theory of the American Founding, was horrified by the idea that the coordinate sovereignty retained by the States, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, implied the power of nullification, interposition, or secession and he was not alone.
So technically the Civil War was not truly a war against insurrection because of implied consent as viewed by at least half the nation. It wasn't until after the war that said consent was unequivocally removed even from Texas which had written consent they had demanded prior to joining the union in 1845.